Next Article in Journal
Chalcone Derivatives: Role in Anticancer Therapy
Next Article in Special Issue
Functional Implications of the Dynamic Regulation of EpCAM during Epithelial-to-Mesenchymal Transition
Previous Article in Journal
Secretory System Components as Potential Prophylactic Targets for Bacterial Pathogens
Previous Article in Special Issue
Epithelial to Mesenchymal Transition History: From Embryonic Development to Cancers
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Biomolecules
Volume 11
Issue 6
10.3390/biom11060893
biomolecules-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Overview of Evidence-Based Chemotherapy for Oral Cancer: Focus on Drug Resistance Related to the Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition

by
Jingjing Sha
†,
Yunpeng Bai
†,
Huy Xuan Ngo
,
Tatsuo Okui
and
Takahiro Kanno
*
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Shimane University Faculty of Medicine, 89-1 Enya-Cho, Izumo, Shimane 693-8501, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Authors contributed equally to the work and should be regarded as co-first authors.
Biomolecules 2021, 11(6), 893; https://doi.org/10.3390/biom11060893
Submission received: 17 May 2021 / Revised: 12 June 2021 / Accepted: 13 June 2021 / Published: 16 June 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue EMT and Cancer)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The increasing incidence of resistance to chemotherapeutic agents has become a major issue in the treatment of oral cancer (OC). Epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) has attracted a great deal of attention in recent years with regard to its relation to the mechanism of chemotherapy drug resistance. EMT-activating transcription factors (EMT-ATFs), such as Snail, TWIST, and ZEB, can activate several different molecular pathways, e.g., PI3K/AKT, NF-κB, and TGF-β. In contrast, the activated oncological signal pathways provide reciprocal feedback that affects the expression of EMT-ATFs, resulting in a peritumoral extracellular environment conducive to cancer cell survival and evasion of the immune system, leading to resistance to multiple chemotherapeutic agents. We present an overview of evidence-based chemotherapy for OC treatment based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Chemotherapy Order Templates. We focus on the molecular pathways involved in drug resistance related to the EMT and highlight the signal pathways and transcription factors that may be important for EMT-regulated drug resistance. Rapid progress in antitumor regimens, together with the application of powerful techniques such as high-throughput screening and microRNA technology, will facilitate the development of therapeutic strategies to augment chemotherapy.

1. Introduction

As the second leading cause of death globally, cancer still represents a major public health challenge. The latest epidemiological analysis of the incidence of cancer in the USA indicated that 4950 people are diagnosed with cancer every day, with an annual incidence of 1,806,590 [1]. Although not common in developed countries, oral cancer (OC), a type of head and neck cancer (HNC), is still the sixth leading type of cancer in the world, with an estimated incidence of 275,000 cases per year [2]. Two-thirds of OC patients reside in developing countries. There is huge geographic variation in the incidence of OC, with an approximately 20-fold difference between the countries with the lowest and highest rates [3]. In high-risk countries, such as India and Sri Lanka, OC is the main cancer in men and accounts for up to 25% of all new cases of cancer in these countries. However, OC accounts for only 1–3% of all malignancies in countries with low incidence rates, such as the UK [4].
Martinez reported that recurrent and metastatic HNC, especially head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), are frequently seen in daily clinical practice. Between 20% and 40% of patients with stage I/II disease, and more than 70% of patients with stage III/IV disease at first diagnosis treated with curative intent, will show recurrence [5]. As the main pathological type of OC, oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) accounts for at least 90% of all of these malignancies [6].
A report by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicated that 36% of patients with OSCC have localized disease, while 43% have locoregional spread and 9% present with distant metastasis at the initial diagnosis [7]. Overall, locoregional recurrence is very common and leads to death in 40–60% of these patients, whereas less than 20% of patients die because of distant metastasis [5]. Frustratingly, the overall five-year survival rates for OC are around 50–60% even after decades of development of cancer treatments [8].
Regardless of diagnostic methods, numerous therapeutic strategies can be applied for OSCC treatment. Chemotherapy is the first-line treatment for various types of cancer, including OSCC [9]. However, the development of chemoresistance represents a challenge in chemotherapy [10]. Previous studies have shown that frequent application of high-dose chemotherapeutic agents has led to the emergence of chemoresistance, where overcoming this issue has become a major goal for researchers around the world.
Cancer cells have been shown to switch between molecular pathways and mechanisms to ensure their proliferation, invasiveness, and resistance to chemotherapeutic agents [11]. During this process, invading cancer cells acquire mesenchymal features, while losing cell polarity and intercellular tight junctions. This transition from epithelial to mesenchymal cells is designated as the epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) [12]. The EMT was first identified in the 1970s as a feature of embryogenesis and wound healing, but its underlying mechanisms have since been studied extensively and used to explain carcinogenesis and tumor invasiveness [13]. The main characteristic of EMT during tumor metastasis is the loss of the adherent junction protein E-cadherin. A number of transcription factors participate in the regulation of E-cadherin, but only a few directly mediate its expression [14]. These EMT-activating transcription factors (EMT-ATFs), which include the Snail, TWIST, and ZEB families, bind specifically to the promoter of E-cadherin through E-boxes and inhibit its transcription [15], and thus play pivotal roles in the dynamic regulation of EMT, tumor metastasis, and resistance to chemotherapy agents [16].
Here, we refer to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Chemotherapy Order Templates, especially with regard to OSCC/HNSCC [17]. We discuss the role of EMT in the emergence of resistance to the seven conventional chemotherapeutic agents shown in Table 1, which are the most widely used drugs for advanced and recurrent OSSC/HNSCC. This review provides valuable information regarding resistance to chemotherapy in OSCC and should therefore facilitate the development of solutions to this growing problem in cancer treatment.

2. Antimetabolites

2.1. Methotrexate

Methotrexate, formerly known as amethopterin, is an antifolate that belongs to a class of drugs known as antimetabolites [18]. As chemotherapy agents and immune suppressants, these drugs work by reducing or stopping the growth of cancer cells and inhibiting the immune system [19].
Administration of methotrexate as a single agent is the standard treatment for advanced, recurrent, and metastatic HNSCC [20,21]. Methotrexate is one of the most commonly used chemotherapeutic agents for palliative care in patients with recurrent HNSCC and shows response rate of 8–50%. This agent is also the standard used for comparison with many other drugs in phase III trials [22].
The target of methotrexate is dihydrofolate reductase (DHFR), an enzyme involved in tetrahydrofolate synthesis. The affinity of methotrexate to DHFR is about 1000 times greater than that of folate, allowing it to competitively inhibit the activity of the enzyme [23,24].
The conversion of dihydrofolate to the active tetrahydrofolate is catalyzed by DHFR. Folic acid is essential for biosynthesis of the pyrimidine nucleoside, thymidine, which is required for DNA synthesis [24]. Folate is also necessary for the synthesis of compounds based on purines and pyrimidines. Therefore, competitive inhibition of DHFR by methotrexate can suppress the synthesis of folate-based chemical compounds and inhibit the synthesis of DNA, RNA, thymidylates, and proteins [23].
During the process of EMT, epithelial cells are transformed into cells with mesenchymal, migratory, and invasive characteristics, and these converted cells have the properties of stem cells [25]. The EMT-AFTs, such as Snail, TWIST, and ZEB1, work by binding to E-boxes in the promoter, thereby inhibiting the expression of E-cadherin [26]. Several complex signaling pathways, including TGF-β and PI3K/AKT, etc., participate in regulating the expression and activity of these transcription factors (Figure 1) [27].
Biomolecules 11 00893 g001 550
Figure 1. Binding of EMT-AFTs, such as Snail, TWIST, and ZEB1, to E-boxes in the promoter suppresses E-cadherin gene expression, which is the hallmark of EMT. The cells then acquire mesenchymal features and migration capability, and even the stem-cell-like features of the so-called cancer stem cells (CSCs). Moreover, several complex signaling pathways, such as the PI3K/AKT pathway, TGF-β pathway, Notch pathway, etc., participate in regulating the expression of EMT-AFTs, forming a feedforward loop that promotes the EMT process [26,27].
Figure 1. Binding of EMT-AFTs, such as Snail, TWIST, and ZEB1, to E-boxes in the promoter suppresses E-cadherin gene expression, which is the hallmark of EMT. The cells then acquire mesenchymal features and migration capability, and even the stem-cell-like features of the so-called cancer stem cells (CSCs). Moreover, several complex signaling pathways, such as the PI3K/AKT pathway, TGF-β pathway, Notch pathway, etc., participate in regulating the expression of EMT-AFTs, forming a feedforward loop that promotes the EMT process [26,27].
Biomolecules 11 00893 g001
In an in vitro study, methotrexate induced the expression of E-cadherin in the human-derived colon cell line, SW620, and the human-derived skin cell line, SK-MEL-28 [28]. Huang et al. [29] showed that methotrexate downregulated HDAC/EZH2, which is required for methylation of histone H3 on lysine 27, thereby leading to upregulation of E-cadherin. Activation of the EMT also leads to methotrexate resistance. Consistent with earlier molecular analyses, overexpression of Golgi membrane protein 1 (GOLM1) was shown to induce activation of the EMT pathway via upregulation of MMP13, eventually leading to drug resistance [30]. Upregulation of MMP13 protein expression is strongly correlated with lymph node metastasis in OSCC. High levels of MMP13 mRNA and protein expression were shown to be related to a poor prognosis of OSCC [31].
The overexpression of S-phase kinase-associated protein 2 (Skp2) is another factor closely associated with methotrexate resistance and EMT [32]. Ding et al. [33] reported that the expression of Skp2 was markedly elevated in methotrexate-resistant osteosarcoma (OS) cells. In addition, methotrexate-resistant OS cells with a stable Skp2 knockdown genotype showed a less obvious spindle-type shape, as well as lower migratory and invasive capabilities. The sensitivity of resistant OS cells to methotrexate treatment was also improved by knockdown of Skp2 gene expression. These results suggested that depletion or silencing of Skp2 probably suppresses the EMT and restores the sensitivity of cancer cells to methotrexate and is therefore a potential therapeutic target [34].
The multiple factors involved in the resistance of cancer cells to methotrexate also participate in complex extracellular signal pathways, e.g., GOLM1 is a positive regulator of the PI3K/AKT pathway, and the PI3K inhibitor BKM120 abrogates the function of GOLM1 during the oncogenic process [35]. Skp2 has been reported to show crosstalk with several signaling pathways, such as the estrogen receptor pathway [36] and Notch signaling pathway [37]. Skp2 is also a component of the phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN)/PI3K pathway and is indispensable for the regulation of p27 and cell proliferation in carcinoma [38]. These observations suggest that the restoration of sensitivity to chemotherapeutic agents may be much more complicated than initially thought. On the other hand, accumulating knowledge about different cellular pathways also provides new insights to overcome drug resistance by utilizing combinations of drugs that target several receptors and pathways simultaneously.

2.2. 5-Fluorouracil

5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) is another antimetabolite used as the first-line chemotherapeutic agent in the treatment of various cancers. The primary target of 5-FU is the pyrimidine thymidine, which is required for replication of DNA. Disturbing the activity of thymidylate synthase leads to cell cycle arrest and apoptosis in cancer cells [39,40,41]. However, recent studies showed very low response rates (10–15%) to 5-FU in certain advanced carcinomas, such as chemoresistant colorectal cancer [42].
In humans, RNA binding protein, fox-1 homolog 3 (RBFOX3) is a protein-coding gene consisting of 15 exons located on chromosome 17 [43]. MicroRNAs (miRNAs)—short noncoding RNAs that regulate vital biological mechanisms, including differentiation, proliferation, and apoptosis [44,45,46]—are generated via two-step cleavage of primary microRNAs (pri-miRNAs) [47]. Previous studies showed that RBFOX3 can bind to these pri-miRNAs, and thus regulate microprocessor complex recruitment [48]. Liu et al. [49] also reported that RBFOX3 knockdown enhanced the sensitivity to 5-FU and inhibition of cell proliferation, migration, and invasion, both in vitro and in vivo, through targeting the PI3K/AKT pathway.
In another in vivo study [50], EMT-suppressive miRNAs were evaluated in two strains of 5-FU-resistant cells (HCT116-5-FUR and SW480-5-FUR; both human-derived colon cell lines) and susceptible parental cell lines. The levels of miR-34a, miR-200c, and miR-429 expression were markedly decreased in HCT116-5FUR and SW480-5FUR cells compared to the parental cell lines. Accompanying the variations in miRNAs, the level of ZEB1 protein was increased and E-cadherin was lost in these cells.
These observations indicated that the mesenchymal phenotype was gained during the development of 5-FU chemoresistance, suggesting that it may be possible to develop novel therapeutic strategies based on EMT-suppressive miRNAs, such as miR-34a, miR200c, and miR-429.
Zhang et al. [51] demonstrated that treatment of HCT1116-5FUR cells with a combination of curcumin and 5-FU upregulated the expression of EMT-suppressive miRNAs, such as miR-101, miR-141, miR-200b, miR-200c, and miR-429, thus improving drug sensitivity. They also reported that overexpression of miR-200c in HCT116-5FUR cells resulted in increased E-cadherin expression and downregulation of ZEB1, indicating suppression of the EMT.
A member of the zinc-finger E-box binding homeobox family, ZEB1, was deemed to be a key transcription factor in carcinogenesis [52]. ZEB1 binds to the promoter of E-cadherin and suppresses its transcription [53,54]. These observations demonstrated that ZEB1 plays a critical role in inducing and promoting EMT progression, therefore causing chemoresistance.
Similar to ZEB1, Snail has also been shown to play a major role in 5-FU-induced EMT in low- to advanced-grade malignant cancer cells [55]. Previous studies also showed that small interfering RNA (siRNA)-mediated knockdown of ZEB1 and Snail expression can markedly increase the sensitivity of cancer cells to chemotherapy [56].
The ATP-binding cassette (ABC) membrane transporter has been shown to participate in multidrug resistance [55]. During this process, 5′ AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) acts as an acellular energy sensor that, when activated, can increase the cellular AMP/ATP ratio, thus affecting drug resistance and inducing apoptosis of cancer cells [57].
Metformin, a well-known clinical activator of AMPK, was also found to induce HO-1 and the endogenous antioxidant, thioredoxin, thus inhibiting reactive oxygen species (ROS) production and suppressing the EMT induced by TGF-β pathway [58]. Other AMPK activators, such as AICAR, show the same effects as metformin. Increased expression of another target gene, HES1, was also demonstrated to accompany upregulation of ABC. Sun et al. [59] reported that higher levels of HES1 expression were associated with a higher recurrence rate and poorer prognosis after 5-FU-based chemotherapy in stage II colorectal cancer patients.
These observations suggest that further understanding EMT-suppressive miRNAs and the ABC family may lead to new breakthroughs for ameliorating chemoresistance to 5-FU.

2.3. Capecitabine

The use of capecitabine (Xeloda; N4-pentyloxycarbonyl-5′-deoxy-5-fluorocytidine) for treating HNC was first reported in 2002 [60]. Capecitabine is an oral fluoropyrimidine prodrug efficiently absorbed in the gastrointestinal tract; this is followed by a series of enzymatic conversions, with 5-FU being the final product in hepatic, extrahepatic, and malignant tissue [9]. Thus, both capecitabine and 5-FU have a largely identical molecular mechanism of action as first-line chemotherapeutic agents [61,62]. There is still some controversy regarding the clinical application of these two agents, although most authors agree that they can be used interchangeably (Table 2) [63].
It is noteworthy that capecitabine treatment induces approximately 2.9-fold higher 5-FU concentrations in malignant than nonmalignant tissue [64]. Moreover, oral administration offers the obvious advantage of convenience for patients in comparison to intravenous infusion of 5-FU [65]. In addition, capecitabine given orally demonstrates in a consistent higher ratio of tissue-to-plasma 5-FU concentration than 5-FU administered intravenously [66].
In preclinical evaluations, the antitumor and toxicity profiles of capecitabine were consistently superior to those of 5-FU [67]. Interestingly, previous exposure to cisplatin–5-FU combination chemotherapy did not seem to induce irreversible resistance to further cisplatin–capecitabine treatment. A similar observation was made in patients treated during a phase I trial of a combination of capecitabine and oxaliplatin [68]. The mechanism of drug resistance to capecitabine remains unclear. Research has mostly been concerned with 5-FU and been used to represent the drug resistance to capecitabine. However, further studies to determine whether capecitabine is truly pharmacologically identical to 5-FU are warranted.
Table
Table 2. Comparison of 5-FU- and capecitabine-based chemotherapeutic treatments.
Table 2. Comparison of 5-FU- and capecitabine-based chemotherapeutic treatments.
ReferenceOutcomes5-FUCapecitabinep-Value
Administration Intravenous administrationOral administration
Toxicity (Grade III/IV)[69]Diarrhea12.7%16.6%0.001
[70]Diarrhea
Stomatitis
Hand-foot syndrome		58.2%
61.6%
6.2%		47.7%
24.3%
53.5%		<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
[71]Acute adverse effects28.21%26.82%>0.05
[72]Stomatitis
Hand-foot syndrome		16%
1%		3%
18%		<0.0001
<0.0001
Tumor Response[73]Overall response rate17%26%<0.0002
[71]Complete pathological response rate15.48%19.53%0.04
[72]Overall response rate11.6%25%0.005
Survival[74]Overall survival
(median survival in months)		12.1 M13.2 M0.33
[75]Overall survival
(median survival in months)		12.8 M12.9 M0.05
[71]Three-year disease-free survival (rate)75.72%76.67%0.05
[72]Overall survival
(median survival in months)		13.3 M12.5 M0.05
According to the integrated analysis of Cassidy and Hoff et al. [70,72], capecitabine-based chemotherapy has a better safety profile than 5-FU-based regimens, with significantly lower incidence rates of grade III/IV chemotoxicity, such as diarrhea and stomatitis. However, the incidence of hand-foot syndrome was significantly higher with capecitabine-based treatment in comparison to 5-FU-based treatment, M: months.

3. Platinum-Based Agents

3.1. Cisplatin

Cisplatin is one of the most commonly used platinum-based chemotherapeutic agents and has shown efficacy in the treatment of various types of cancer, including breast cancer [76], lung cancer [77], and HNC [78,79]. The mode of utilization of cisplatin has undergone changes a number of times since it was first discovered in 1978 [80,81]. The development of cisplatin resistance by cancer cells has become an intractable problem worldwide.
Numerous strategies have been developed to increase the sensitivity of cancer cells to cisplatin treatment [82]. Propofol in combination with cisplatin was shown to suppress autophagy by downregulating the MALAT1/miR-30e/ATG5 axis and sensitizing gastric cancer cells to cisplatin [83].
Chemotherapy with cisplatin is associated with increased migration of classically activated macrophages, along with secretion of chemokine ligands 20 and 6 (CCL20 and CCL6, respectively) [84]. CCL20 recruits T cells to maintain the immunosuppressive environment and ensure cancer progression [85,86,87], while CCL6 can induce cancer cell migration and invasion [88]. The CCL20/CCL6 axis is activated by chemotherapy with cisplatin, leading to increased cancer cell migration and EMT-based resistance [84].
Cisplatin can increase EMT-AFTs to enhance the migration capability of tumor cells and reduce sensitivity to antitumor drugs. This cisplatin-induced EMT was considered to be unrelated to drug concentration and exposure period [89]. Ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM), a key member of the PI3K family, is involved in the DNA damage response and can be activated by endogenous and exogenous factors, such as ROS and irradiation, consequently triggering cell cycle checkpoint signaling, DNA repair, or apoptosis [90,91]. Another tumor suppressor factor, Schlafen 11 (SLFN11), was also suggested to participate in drug resistance/sensitivity, and both ATM upregulation and SLFN11 downregulation can activate EMT to stimulate resistance of tumor cells to cisplatin-based chemotherapy [92,93]. Some groups have also suggested that cisplatin causes EMT by activating the oncogenic NF-κB signaling pathway [94].
No single factor can induce complex drug resistance, but a number of diverse mechanisms are involved. Further understanding of the molecular signaling pathways underlying the resistance to antitumor drugs caused by EMT may facilitate the development of methods to increase the efficacy of chemotherapy treatment.

3.2. Carboplatin

Carboplatin is another platinum-based antineoplastic agent that works by interfering with DNA replication [95].
Both European and American guidelines recommend “platinum-doublet” regimens consisting of the combination of a platinum agent (cisplatin or carboplatin) with a second active drug for first-line treatment of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [96,97,98]. Carboplatin has also been used to treat a number of cancers in addition to NSCLC, including HNSCC, brain cancer, and neuroblastoma [99].
A series of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) showed that such platinum-doublet chemotherapy can improve both survival and quality of life (QoL) compared to best supportive care alone.
Although both carboplatin and cisplatin are platinum-based chemotherapeutic agents, their toxicity profiles are different (Table 3) [100]. Therefore, the preferred combination in this setting is still a matter of some debate.
Vanadium has been shown to be involved in several cellular pathways, and to possess antitumor potential [101]. A previous study showed that vanadium treatment upregulated E-cadherin and downregulated the expression of N-cadherin, which is a vital mesenchymal marker in human lung cancer, through the TGF-β pathway by activating Smad signaling [101]. Vanadium can suppress the expression of phospho-Smad2 and Smad2/3 nuclear translocation, which are induced by activation of the TGF-β pathway (Figure 2). The level of apoptosis of lung cancer cells was markedly increased by combined carboplatin and vanadium ex vivo treatment, but not by either agent alone [102]. With combination treatment, the percentage of cells in the G0/G1 phase was dramatically increased, while those in the S and G2/M phases were significantly decreased.
Table
Table 3. Comparison of cisplatin- and carboplatin-based chemotherapeutic treatments.
Table 3. Comparison of cisplatin- and carboplatin-based chemotherapeutic treatments.
ReferenceOutcomesCisplatinCarboplatinp-Value
Administration Intravenous administrationIntravenous administration
Toxicity (Grade III/IV)[103]Neutropenia
Diarrhea
Stomatitis		60.0%
1.9%
0.7%		51.5%
1.5%
0.0%		NC
NC
NC
[104]Nephrotoxicity
Neurotoxicity		37%
33%		8%
4%		0.03
0.02
[105]Nausea/Vomiting
Neutropenia		17.7%
0.0%		5.6%
1.1		0.0129
>0.05
Tumor Response[103]Objective response rate49.3%48.5%>0.05
[104]Overall clinical response rate71%41%0.04
[106]Objective response rate33.75%27.125%0.001
[107]Objective response rate57.03%42.19%0.02
[105]Objective response rate35.6%23.6%0.05
Survival[103]Overall survival
(median survival in months)		12.87 M10 M0.05
[106]Overall survival
(median survival in months)		9.2 M8.4 M0.05
[105]Overall survival
(median survival in months)		8.75 M8 M0.05
Previous comprehensive systematic reviews [103,104,105,106,107] indicated that treatment with these two platinum-based agents had similar therapeutic efficacy in terms of the survival rates but their safety profile and tumor response differed. NC: not compared in the article, M: months.
In addition to induction of the EMT by the TGF-β pathway, Notch is also considered to be a critical signaling pathway in the development of the EMT [108]. In mammals, the Notch family consists of four transmembrane receptors (Notch 1–4) and five ligands (Jagged1, Jagged2, and Delta-like ligands [Dll] 1, 3, and 4) [109]. The Notch pathway is activated when the cells come into contact with each other by binding of the Notch ligands onto the transmembrane receptors of neighboring cells. Once the Notch cascade has started, a series of proteolytic cleavages are initiated, including S3 cleavage mediated by the γ-secretase complex, leading to the release and nuclear translocation of the Notch intracellular domain (NICD) [110,111]. The NICD is able to convert the DNA binding protein CBF1/Su(H)/Lag-1 from a repressor to an activator of transcription, thus causing carcinogenesis [112,113]. Earlier studies also showed that overexpression of NICD3 (active form of Notch3) attenuates the expression of E-cadherin while increasing the expression of Snail, Slug, and smooth muscle α-actin (αSMA). Gupta et al. [109] reported that activation of Notch3 rendered cells more resistant to carboplatin-induced toxicity, based on their ex vivo study in which the human-derived ovarian cancer cell line OVCA429/NICD3 showed higher viability than control OVCA429/Vector cells on treatment with carboplatin. Furthermore, the carboplatin-induced cleavage of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) and caspase-3 was also reduced by activation of Notch3.
Taken together, these studies indicate that the combination of an inhibitor of TGF-β or Notch activation with carboplatin is more effective than either agent alone for attenuating tumor formation and metastasis.

4. Plant Alkaloids

4.1. Paclitaxel

Paclitaxel was first isolated from the bark of the Pacific yew as a chemotherapeutic agent in 1963 [114]. By targeting the microtubule cytoskeleton, paclitaxel interferes with mitotic spindle assembly, chromosome segregation, and cell division [115]. However, resistance to paclitaxel has become a common and intractable problem [116]. Paclitaxel resistance was suggested to be related to the acquisition of the mesenchymal phenotype by cancer cells during chemotherapy [117]. Park et al. [118] reported that once human breast cancer cells gain resistance to paclitaxel, they also transition to a more spindle-shaped morphology and the levels of the mesenchymal cell markers, vimentin and fibronectin, increased 2.5- and 1.5-fold, respectively.
The EMT is not only caused by chemotherapy with paclitaxel but is also induced by carcinoma-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) [119]. These CAFs induce the EMT of cancer cells via the IL-6/JAK2/STAT3 pathway by increasing the expression of the apoptosis-suppressing protein, Bcl-2, thus conferring apoptosis resistance and reducing the expression of the proapoptotic proteins, Bax and caspase-3 [120]. Finally, cancer cells develop EMT features leading to paclitaxel resistance.
Multivariate analysis showed that interstitial IL-6 expression was a critical and independent factor associated with paclitaxel resistance [121]. A retrospective study with a large sample size also revealed a similar outcome, in that patients with lower IL-6 expression showed a higher rate of sensitivity to chemotherapy than those with a higher level of IL-6 expression (69.3% and 48.1%, respectively) [122]. Although the reason is still unclear, Osuala et al. [123] confirmed that CAFs are the major source of IL-6 secretion. Based on this finding, suppression of interstitial IL-6 expression may reverse paclitaxel resistance.
Cathepsin L (CTSL) is a cysteine protease that has been reported to be associated with tumor development, recurrence, and metastasis [124,125,126]. Han et al. [127] developed a mouse model of CTSL overexpression; the expression of CTSL protein was significantly increased with paclitaxel treatment. Moreover, upregulation of CTSL enhanced the tolerance of breast cancer cells to paclitaxel in vivo. Zheng et al. [128] also reported that CTSL inhibition stabilized and enhanced the availability of cytoplasmic and nuclear protein drug targets. CTSL acts as an upstream regulator of NF-κB activation [129], and NF-κB has been shown to bind to the human Snail promoter in the region from −194 to −78 bp, and to upregulate its transcription [130].
As mentioned in the section on methotrexate, there is emerging evidence that Skp2 contributes to the resistance to paclitaxel [131]. Skp2 exerts its oncogenic functions via degradation of its ubiquitination targets, such as E-cadherin [132]. Moreover, high Skp2 expression level is associated with tumor recurrence [133], especially in tumor metastases to lymph nodes [134].
Variation of E-cadherin is associated with the migration capability of cells, with downregulation of E-cadherin enhancing mesenchymal traits in response to paclitaxel treatment [135]. TGF-β signaling was shown to be significantly increased based on detection of the phosphorylation of Smad2 and Smad3 in vivo and ex vivo when the cancer cells gained the mesenchymal phenotype after paclitaxel treatment (Figure 2) [136]. Notably, when Snail was inhibited by blocking TGF-β signaling, the sensitivity of cancer cells to paclitaxel also improved [137].
The evidence outlined above suggests that inhibiting NF-κB and TGF-β signaling, especially the activity of Snail, is vital for resensitization of cancer cells to paclitaxel therapy.
Biomolecules 11 00893 g002 550
Figure 2. A diagram of the NF-κB (canonical), PI3K/AKT, and TGF-β pathways. NF-κB is shown in the figure as a heterodimer consisting of p65 and p50 subunits. In the canonical pathway, NF-κB is bound and inhibited by IκBα proteins. Binding of proinflammatory cytokines, such as TNF-α, to specific transmembrane receptors activates the IKKβ protein, which phosphorylates IκBα and leads to its ubiquitination and, finally, to proteasomal degradation. In this process, ROS interact with NF-κB in various ways, such as by activating IKKβ or IκBα phosphorylation. The active NF-κB complex translocates to the nucleus. For optimal activation of the transcription of NF-κB for certain target genes, interaction with CBP or p300 is required [137,138]. PI3K consists of two domains, p110 and p85, but its activation requires adapter molecules, such as IRS1. Following activation and phosphorylation of the tyrosine kinase receptor (TKR) by growth factors, TKR will recruit PI3K, finally activating AKT by recruiting phosphoinositide-dependent kinase-1 (PDK1) to the kinase domain of AKT. AKT can subsequently affect downstream factors and activate mTORC1, thereby activating the entire pathway and regulating cell growth and apoptosis. AKT can also be activated by p38, which is controlled by the TGF-β pathway. Activated AKT inhibits IκBα and miR-200, while triggering IKKβ protein to further affect cell immunity, apoptosis, and proliferation [139]. In the TGF-β pathway, members of the TGF-β superfamily, such as TGF-β1, bind to the transmembrane receptor (TGF-β-R), resulting in phosphorylation of the cytoplasmic signaling molecules Smad2 and Smad3. The activated Smad2/3 bind to the signaling transducer, Smad4, and this newly formed complex translocates to the nucleus [140]. There is a great deal of crosstalk between these signaling pathways, and the translocation process can also be inhibited by peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ (PPAR-γ), PTEN, or caspase-3. However, once the functions of the suppressors are inhibited, transcription factors, such as ZEB, vimentin, etc., will be activated and secreted into the extracellular environment, eventually leading to conversion of the microenvironment. p: phosphorylation, u: ubiquitination.
Figure 2. A diagram of the NF-κB (canonical), PI3K/AKT, and TGF-β pathways. NF-κB is shown in the figure as a heterodimer consisting of p65 and p50 subunits. In the canonical pathway, NF-κB is bound and inhibited by IκBα proteins. Binding of proinflammatory cytokines, such as TNF-α, to specific transmembrane receptors activates the IKKβ protein, which phosphorylates IκBα and leads to its ubiquitination and, finally, to proteasomal degradation. In this process, ROS interact with NF-κB in various ways, such as by activating IKKβ or IκBα phosphorylation. The active NF-κB complex translocates to the nucleus. For optimal activation of the transcription of NF-κB for certain target genes, interaction with CBP or p300 is required [137,138]. PI3K consists of two domains, p110 and p85, but its activation requires adapter molecules, such as IRS1. Following activation and phosphorylation of the tyrosine kinase receptor (TKR) by growth factors, TKR will recruit PI3K, finally activating AKT by recruiting phosphoinositide-dependent kinase-1 (PDK1) to the kinase domain of AKT. AKT can subsequently affect downstream factors and activate mTORC1, thereby activating the entire pathway and regulating cell growth and apoptosis. AKT can also be activated by p38, which is controlled by the TGF-β pathway. Activated AKT inhibits IκBα and miR-200, while triggering IKKβ protein to further affect cell immunity, apoptosis, and proliferation [139]. In the TGF-β pathway, members of the TGF-β superfamily, such as TGF-β1, bind to the transmembrane receptor (TGF-β-R), resulting in phosphorylation of the cytoplasmic signaling molecules Smad2 and Smad3. The activated Smad2/3 bind to the signaling transducer, Smad4, and this newly formed complex translocates to the nucleus [140]. There is a great deal of crosstalk between these signaling pathways, and the translocation process can also be inhibited by peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ (PPAR-γ), PTEN, or caspase-3. However, once the functions of the suppressors are inhibited, transcription factors, such as ZEB, vimentin, etc., will be activated and secreted into the extracellular environment, eventually leading to conversion of the microenvironment. p: phosphorylation, u: ubiquitination.
Biomolecules 11 00893 g002

4.2. Docetaxel

Docetaxel is another representative taxane drug similar to paclitaxel. Their structures and mechanisms of action are largely the same, but they differ in several other aspects, such as tubulin polymer generation. In an ex vivo study, docetaxel also tended to be more potent in different cell lines; docetaxel is considered to be a schedule-independent drug, while paclitaxel is not [141,142]. Riou et al. [143] reported that docetaxel was 1.3–12-fold more effective than paclitaxel after 90 h of exposure, which may have been due to the higher affinity of docetaxel for microtubules.
Several factors have been shown to be associated with docetaxel resistance, including the expression of isoforms of β-tubulin, drug efflux pumps, and activation of survival factors (i.e., PI3K/AKT, mTORC) [144,145,146,147].
A gene expression analysis study showed that genes involved in the NF-κB pathway (NF-κB1, REL, RELA), androgen receptor (AR), and EMT-related genes (ZEB1, vimentin, and TGF-β-R3) were overexpressed in docetaxel-treated tumors [148]. The metastasis suppressor gene NDRG1 [149], adhesion molecule EPCAM [150], and negative regulator of ZEB1, ST14 [151], were shown to be decreased in treated tumors. Docetaxel-resistant prostate cancer cells show decreased expression of E-cadherin and CTNNB1 (epithelial markers), and increased expression of vimentin, TWIST1, and ZEB1. They also show stem-cell-like transcriptional features, including upregulated expression of CD44 and loss of CD24 [148].
Marín-Aguilera transfected ZEB1 siRNA into DU-145R and PC-3R cell lines (human-derived prostate cell lines) to interfere with the expression of ZEB1 [148], and reported that the transfected cells exhibited significantly increased sensitivity to docetaxel treatment. Moreover, the apoptosis induced by docetaxel was more pronounced in transfected cells, and the expression of CD44 was decreased after transfection. CD44 and CD147 can enhance metastatic capacity and chemoresistance, potentially via activation of the PI3K and MAPK pathways [152]. These observations indicated a link between EMT and a stem cell-like phenotype.
Treatment with docetaxel was also shown to upregulate the expression of cytokines, such as IL-6, via the NF-κB pathway [153]. Moreover, increased nuclear NF-κB was associated with a shorter time to clinical relapse [154]. The levels of miR-200c and miR-205, two miRNAs generally considered to regulate the epithelial phenotype, were also reduced in docetaxel-resistant prostate cancer cell lines.

5. Discussion

In this review, we discussed the involvement of EMT in the development of resistance to several chemotherapeutic agents (Figure 3). These agents were listed by the NCCN as effective antitumor regimens that affect the viability of multiple types of tumor cells. Unfortunately, however, recent studies have demonstrated the potential of cancer cells, including OSCC cells, to develop resistance to various chemotherapeutic agents [10,11]. The EMT process is one of the most important mechanisms associated with resistance to chemotherapy.
Currently, the most common methods of overcoming such resistance in clinical settings involve the application of antitumor drugs along with chemotherapeutic agents [51,107]. The development of an effective regimen for activation of chemosensitivity relies on determining the complex molecular signaling pathways and mechanisms by which tumor cells develop drug resistance. Extensive studies of EMT and chemotherapy have explored numerous diverse targets for chemoresistance/chemosensitivity [12,19].
Many stimuli, including TGF-β, Shh, Wnt, inflammatory cytokines, and hypoxia, as well as oncogenes such as ErbB2 and mutant p53, may participate in EMT during carcinogenesis [155,156]. In addition to these stimuli, triggering and maintaining the EMT process requires cooperation between several pathways via autocrine signaling loops (Figure 2) [155].
Deregulation of E-cadherin is a vital initial event in the EMT. On the one hand, a decline of E-cadherin disrupts the close junctions between epithelial cells, leading to migration and invasion of the cells. On the other hand, loss of E-cadherin reinforces the EMT via upregulated expression of Snail, TWIST, ZEB1, etc. Downregulation of E-cadherin and upregulation of those ATFs result in a canonical feedforward loop (Figure 1) [157]. In this feedforward loop, the primary tumor cells secrete various cytokines and proteases, which help the tumor cells to create a peritumoral extracellular environment [158]. In turn, the stromal cells are also activated to release factors that strengthen the EMT in primary tumor cells, and foster cell survival and evasion of the immune system, which influences the tumor microenvironment [159,160]. EMT is necessary for tumor cells, because invasion requires the mesenchymal phenotype and a lack of tight junctions. A great deal of research has focused on the TGF-β signaling pathway, as it is assumed to play an important role in the transformation from the epithelial to mesenchymal cell phenotype [161,162].
In addition to gaining mesenchymal characteristics, cancer cells are also endowed with some stem-cell-like features during the EMT process via gene reprogramming [163,164]. Therefore, in addition to the TGF-β pathway, many other signals that participate in normal stem cell homeostasis are also involved in the EMT and seem to induce the generation and maintenance of CSCs.
The EMT-ATFs, including members of the Snail family, play important roles in repressing the expression of E-cadherin. The Snail family members Snail1, Snail2, and Snail3 can all repress genes involved in conferring epithelial characteristics through interactions with Smad2/3/Smad4 [165]. The binding of AKT1 to the E-cadherin promoter is decreased by Snail overexpression, triggering the activation of AKT2, a repressor that has the opposite effect to AKT1 [166]. The Snail proteins are induced by several pathways, including the TGF-β [167], Notch [168], TNF-α [169], hypoxia [170], and Wnt pathways [171].
TWIST is another very important family of transcription factors; this family includes TWIST1 and TWIST2, which share a basic/helix-loop-helix domain [172]. The binding of TWIST to E-boxes in the promoter regions of target genes, such as N-cadherin and AKT2, results in activation of their expression and inhibition of E-cadherin expression [173]. The TWIST factors, as well as inflammatory cytokine receptors, are upregulated by the activated EMT [174,175]. EGF and IL-6 induce TWIST1 via activation of the JAK/STAT signaling pathway and form a negative feedback loop with TWIST1 and TWIST2 [176,177,178].
The ZEB family, comprised of ZEB1 and ZEB2, can trigger EMT by repressing epithelial biomarkers and activating mesenchymal biomarkers [179,180]. Although ZEB1 and ZEB2 are distinct from each other, they have overlapping effects [181]. Activation of the TGF-β pathway induces both ZEB proteins, which in turn modulate the TGF-β pathway in different ways; ZEB1 acts synergistically with receptor-regulated Smads, while ZEB2 has a suppressive effect [179,181].
Many studies have focused on the roles of miRNAs in each step of cancer progression. A number of miRNAs have been shown to interact with the transcripts of numerous target genes involved in the EMT process, therefore regulating the migration and invasiveness of cancer cells [182]. Studies have demonstrated the interactions between EMT-AFTs and several miRNAs, including miR-218, miR-200b, miR-146b, miR-338-3p, miR-363, miR-139-5p, etc. [183,184]. ZEB suppresses miR-183, miR-203, and miR-205, which have similar functions to miR-200, deregulating the expression of stemness factors such as Bmi1 and Sox2 [185,186]. The miR-9, was also shown to downregulate the expression of Snail, thus inhibiting the proliferation and invasion of melanoma cells [187]. Snail1/2 and ZEB1 transcriptionally repress miR-34a/b/c to form a double-negative feedback loop, further promoting the expression of stem cell-related factors such as Bmi1, CD44, and CD133 [188]. The miR-200 family (including miR-200a/b/c, miR-141, miR-429, etc.) maintain the epithelial characteristics and prevent EMT by suppressing ZEB1, as well as Snail and TWIST [189,190,191]. Interestingly, only a few miRNAs were shown to be related to the TWIST factors. The miRNAs miR-29b, miR-214, and miR-580 were shown to inhibit the expression of TWIST; however, it is not clear whether the downregulation of TWIST1 was caused by the inhibition of Snail [192]. On the other hand, TWIST1 was shown to indirectly affect the expression of miR-10b, miR-199a, and miR-214 by binding to E-boxes in their promoters [193,194].
The manipulation of miRNA expression may represent a means of inhibiting EMT-mediated resistance to chemotherapy agents. Compared to the permanent impact of mutations and deletions, the expression of miRNAs and EMT-ATFs can be dynamically regulated, making them attractive targets for personalized oncological treatment [195]. As chemotherapy usually targets a single oncogenic signal and is therefore inevitably associated with the development of resistance or recurrence, multiple simultaneous approaches to various pathways and cancer cell traits may yield better results [196]. It is necessary to gain a better understanding of the EMT and its ATFs, along with the accumulation of more information about their upstream regulatory networks and mechanisms of action.
Finally, it should be noted that most studies performed to date were based on in vitro and in vivo experiments; there is a paucity of data from clinical trials. Therefore, a great deal of work is still necessary to establish reliable strategies for inhibiting the EMT, and the mechanisms by which it induces resistance to chemotherapy. Nevertheless, the results reported to date suggest the potential of studies of the EMT process to facilitate the development of novel and precisely targeted therapeutic approaches to cancer.

6. Future Perspectives

Extensive studies have provided a comprehensive understanding of the molecular pathways and ATFs involved in the EMT of OSCC/HNSCC. These insights have suggested the potential benefits of anti-EMT therapies.
Metformin, vanadium, etc., were shown to suppress markers of mesenchymal differentiation, such as vimentin and N-cadherin, while inducing the expression of E-cadherin. Previous in vivo studies showed that combining chemotherapy agents improved drug sensitivity and reduced the expression of E-cadherin, thus suppressing the EMT [51,58,107].
High-throughput screening systems have also been developed for identifying anti-EMT drugs. In a pilot screen using a novel three-dimensional high-throughput screening system for a test of 1330 compounds, Arai et al. [197] identified nine compounds that were above the thresholds and two of those compounds, the TGF-β-R1 inhibitor SB-525334 and CDK2 inhibitor SU9516, acted as inhibitors of EMT in lung cancer cell lines. Similarly, Germain et al. [198] identified a chemical probe, ML245, through high-throughput screening that restrained CSCs progression by regulating the expression of proapoptotic/mitochondrial maintenance factors and DNA-modifying enzymes.
Recent studies have focused on RNA interference by miRNAs [199]. Many have proposed their use as new therapeutic agents due to their ability to interfere with the EMT and downregulate specific regulators of mesenchymal differentiation. For example, miR-186 targeting of the 3′-UTR of Skp2 led to reduced Skp2 expression, p27 upregulation and cell proliferation [200]. Furthermore, miRNAs implicated in lipid metabolism (i.e., miR-10 and miR-130 a/b) modulate PPAR-γ expression; thus, this class of miRNAs could improve drug efficacy and safety [201,202,203]. Exogenous expression of miRNA-203 in colorectal cancer promotes chemoresistance by targeting ATM [204]; however, overexpression of miR-1915 sensitized these cells to multiple drugs by targeting the 3′-UTR of Bcl-2 mRNA [205]. While miRNA-based treatments show high promise, they are limited due the need for precise delivery systems and control of the immune response [206].
Unlike sarcomas and hematopoietic malignancies, OSCCs are characterized by high tumor mutational burden (TMB) and are often recognized as “nonself” by T-cells [207]. To evade immunodetection, epithelial cells must undergo phenotypic changes, likely through the EMT process. Thus, a deep understanding of the EMT mechanism is important for effective OSCC drug design. Hodges et al. [208] reported a higher frequency of STK11 or KEAP1 mutations in epithelial versus mesenchymal lung adenocarcinomas, implying that mesenchymal tumors have fewer neoantigen mutations; this may limit T-cell recognition and therapeutic efficacy. On the other hand, a positive correlation between TMB and TGF-β pathway activation, a predominant driver of the EMT, has been reported [209,210,211]. We suspect that the EMT plays a fundamental role in altering the tumor microenvironment, especially in high TMB cancers like OSCC. We hypothesize that OSCC patients will benefit from immune checkpoint blockade therapy. Previous studies have relied on static measurements of biomarkers of the EMT process. This approach does not completely reflect reality since the EMT is dynamic and reversible [212]. Progressive changes to gene and protein expression may also promote the mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET) and subsequent tumor growth and spread. Support for this hypothesis comes from the observed downregulation of E-cadherin expression during carcinogenesis [213]. While the precise role of the MET in cancer progression is unclear, it does complicate the interpretation of classic EMT biomarkers, such as E-cadherin, Snail, and vimentin. Overall, improved methods are needed to understand the dynamics of gene and protein expression in this context. Serial tumor biopsies and identification of new EMT-specific biomarkers not expressed by stroma cells would address these limitations.
A great deal of progress has been made in understanding the EMT over the last several decades. It is anticipated that combined administration of antitumor drugs with chemotherapeutic agents, together with the development of innovative high-throughput screening and miRNA technology to acquire specific inhibitors targeting multiple pathways and ATFs, will translate into new clinical treatments for cancer, including OSCC/HNSCC, in the near future.

7. Conclusions

The EMT can promote resistance of cancer cells to a range of chemotherapeutic agents. Several signaling pathways and EMT-AFTs have been shown to play vital roles in this process. Further extensive studies of the complex pathways involved in the EMT and drug resistance, combined with innovative techniques such as high-throughput screening and miRNA-based technologies, will facilitate the development of precise strategies for the treatment of OSCC/HNSCC and other types of cancer.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.K., T.O., Y.B., J.S.; funding acquisition, T.K.; investigation, J.S., Y.B.; methodology, J.S., Y.B., H.X.N., T.O. and T.K.; supervision, T.K.; visualization, T.K., T.O., J.S. and Y.B.; writing–original draft, Y.B., J.S.; writing–review & editing, Y.B., J.S., H.X.N., T.O. and T.K. The contribution of Y.B. and J.S. to this study work is the same and should be regarded as co-first authors. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study did not receive any specific funding support; all financial resources were from the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Shimane University Faculty of Medicine.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data have been illustrated in the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

References

  1. Ashrafizadeh, M.; Zarrabi, A.; Hushmandi, K.; Kalantari, M.; Mohammadinejad, R.; Javaheri, T.; Sethi, G. Association of the Epithelial–Mesenchymal Transition (EMT) with cisplatin resistance. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 4002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Warnakulasuriya, S. Living with oral cancer: Epidemiology with particular reference to prevalence and life-style changes that influence survival. Oral Oncol. 2010, 46, 407–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Muwonge, R.; Ramadas, K.; Sankila, R.; Thara, S.; Thomas, G.; Vinoda, J.; Sankaranarayanan, R. Role of tobacco smoking, chewing and alcohol drinking in the risk of oral cancer in Trivandrum, India: A nested case-control design using incident cancer cases. Oral Oncol. 2008, 44, 446–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Gupta, N.; Gupta, R.; Acharya, A.K.; Patthi, B.; Goud, V.; Reddy, S.; Garg, A.; Singla, A. Changing trends in oral cancer—A global scenario. Nepal J. Epidemiol. 2017, 6, 613–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Martinez-Trufero, J.; Isla, D.; Adansa, J.C.; Irigoyen, A.; Hitt, R.; Gil-Arnaiz, I.; Lambea, J.; Lecumberri, M.J.; Cruz, J.J. Phase II study of capecitabine as palliative treatment for patients with recurrent and metastatic squamous head and neck cancer after previous platinum-based treatment. Br. J. Cancer 2010, 102, 1687–1691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Binmadi, N.O.; Basile, J.R. Perineural invasion in oral squamous cell carcinoma: A discussion of significance and review of the literature. Oral Oncol. 2011, 47, 1005–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Kohn, W.G.; Malvitz, D.M.; Park, B.Z. Preventing and controlling oral and pharyngeal cancer; recommendations from a National Strategic Planning Conference. MMWR Recomm. Rep. 1998, 47, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  8. Vokes, E.E.; Weichselbaum, R.R.; Lippman, S.M.; Hong, W.K. Head and neck cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 1993, 328, 184–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Pivot, X.; Chamorey, E.; Guardiola, E.; Magné, N.; Thyss, A.; Otto, J.; Giroux, B.; Mouri, Z.; Schneider, M.; Milano, G. Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of the association of capecitabine-cisplatin in head and neck cancer patients. Ann. Oncol. 2003, 14, 1578–1586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Minami, K.; Ueda, N.; Ishimoto, K.; Tsujiuchi, T. Lysophosphatidic Acid Receptor-2 (LPA2)-mediated signaling enhances chemoresistance in melanoma cells treated with anticancer drugs. Mol. Cell. Biochem. 2020, 469, 89–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zhang, Z.; Qiu, N.; Yin, J.; Zhang, J.; Liu, H.; Guo, W.; Liu, M.; Liu, T.; Chen, D.; Luo, K.; et al. SRGN crosstalks with YAP to maintain chemoresistance and stemness in breast cancer cells by modulating HDAC2 expression. Theranostics 2020, 10, 4290–4307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Son, H.; Moon, A. Epithelial-Mesenchymal transition and cell invasion. Toxicol. Res. 2010, 26, 245–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Haensel, D.; Dai, X. Epithelial-to-Mesenchymal transition in cutaneous wound healing: Where we are and where we are heading. Dev. Dyn. 2018, 247, 473–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Loh, C.Y.; Chai, J.; Tang, T.; Wong, W.; Sethi, G.; Shanmugam, M.; Chong, P.; Looi, C. The E-Cadherin and N-Cadherin switch in epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition: Signaling, therapeutic implications, and challenges. Cells 2019, 8, 1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Garg, M. Epithelial-Mesenchymal transition-activating transcription factors-multifunctional regulators in cancer. World J. Stem Cells 2013, 5, 188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sun, T.; Qin, Y.; Zhong, W. Epithelial-Mesenchymal transition and its regulation in tumor metastasis. In Tumor Metastasis; Xu, K., Ed.; InTechOpen: Rijeka, Croatia, 2016; pp. 217–231. ISBN 978-953-51-2630-0. [Google Scholar]
  17. Fulcher, C.D.; Haigentz, M.; Ow, T.J. The education committee of the American Head and Neck Society (AHNS) AHNS Series: Do you know your guidelines? Principles of Treatment for locally advanced or unresectable head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck 2018, 40, 676–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Koźmiński, P.; Halik, P.K.; Chesori, R.; Gniazdowska, E. Overview of dual-acting drug methotrexate in different neurological diseases, autoimmune pathologies and cancers. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 3483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kawami, M.; Harabayashi, R.; Miyamoto, M.; Harada, R.; Yumoto, R.; Takano, M. Methotrexate-Induced epithelial–mesenchymal transition in the alveolar epithelial cell line A549. Lung 2016, 194, 923–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Kushwaha, V.S.; Gupta, S.; Husain, N.; Khan, H.; Negi, M.; Jamal, N.; Ghatak, A. Gefitinib, methotrexate and methotrexate plus 5-fluorouracil as palliative treatment in recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Biol. Ther. 2015, 16, 346–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Purcell, W.T.; Ettinger, D.S. Novel antifolate drugs. Curr. Oncol. Rep. 2003, 5, 114–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Tortochaux, J.; Tao, Y.; Tournay, E.; Lapeyre, M.; Lesaunier, F.; Bardet, E.; Janot, F.; Lusinchi, A.; Benhamou, E.; Bontemps, P.; et al. Randomized phase III trial (GORTEC 98-03) comparing re-irradiation plus chemotherapy versus methotrexate in patients with recurrent or a second primary head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, treated with a palliative intent. Radiother. Oncol. 2011, 100, 70–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Rajagopalan, P.T.R.; Zhang, Z.; McCourt, L.; Dwyer, M.; Benkovic, S.J.; Hammes, G.G. Interaction of dihydrofolate reductase with methotrexate: Ensemble and single-molecule kinetics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002, 99, 13481–13486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Goodsell, D.S. The molecular perspective: Methotrexate. Oncologist 1999, 4, 340–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Harner-Foreman, N.; Vadakekolathu, J.; Laversin, S.A.; Mathieu, M.G.; Reeder, S.; Pockley, A.G.; Rees, R.C.; Boocock, D.J. A novel spontaneous model of Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition (EMT) using a primary prostate cancer derived cell line demonstrating distinct stem-like characteristics. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 40633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Kang, Y.; Massagué, J. Epithelial-Mesenchymal transitions: Twist in development and metastasis. Cell 2004, 118, 277–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Serrano-Gomez, S.J.; Maziveyi, M.; Alahari, S.K. Regulation of epithelial-mesenchymal transition through epigenetic and post-translational modifications. Mol. Cancer 2016, 15, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Hirano, T.; Satow, R.; Kato, A.; Tamura, M.; Murayama, Y.; Saya, H.; Kojima, H.; Nagano, T.; Okabe, T.; Fukami, K. Identification of novel small compounds that restore E-Cadherin expression and inhibit tumor cell motility and invasiveness. Biochem. Pharmacol. 2013, 86, 1419–1429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Huang, W.Y.; Yang, P.M.; Chang, Y.F.; Marquez, V.E.; Chen, C.C. Methotrexate induces apoptosis through P53/P21-dependent pathway and increases E-Cadherin expression through downregulation of HDAC/EZH2. Biochem. Pharmacol. 2011, 81, 510–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Li, R.M.; Chu, R.; Yu, Y.; Song, W.Y. Down-Expression of GOLM1 enhances the chemo-sensitivity of cervical cancer to methotrexate through modulation of the MMP13/EMT axis. Am. J. Cancer Res. 2018, 8, 964. [Google Scholar]
  31. Vincent-Chong, V.K.; Salahshourifar, I.; Karen-Ng, L.P.; Siow, M.Y.; Kallarakkal, T.G.; Ramanathan, A.; Yang, Y.H.; Khor, G.H.; Rahman, Z.A.A.; Ismail, S.M.; et al. Overexpression of MMP13 is associated with clinical outcomes and poor prognosis in oral squamous cell carcinoma. Sci. World J. 2014, 2014, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Gao, J.; Wang, G.; Wu, J.; Zuo, Y.; Zhang, J.; Chen, J. Arsenic trioxide inhibits Skp2 expression to increase chemosensitivity to gemcitabine in pancreatic cancer cells. Am. J. Transl. Res. 2019, 11, 991–997. [Google Scholar]
  33. Ding, L.; Li, R.; Han, X.; Zhou, Y.; Zhang, H.; Cui, Y.; Wang, W.; Bai, J. Inhibition of Skp2 suppresses the proliferation and invasion of osteosarcoma cells. Oncol. Rep. 2017, 38, 933–940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Ding, L.; Wang, C.; Cui, Y.; Han, X.; Zhou, Y.; Bai, J.; Li, R. S-Phase kinase-associated protein 2 is involved in epithelial-mesenchymal transition in methotrexate-resistant osteosarcoma cells. Int. J. Oncol. 2018, 52, 1841–1852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Yan, G.; Ru, Y.; Wu, K.; Yan, F.; Wang, Q.; Wang, J.; Pan, T.; Zhang, M.; Han, H.; Li, X.; et al. GOLM1 promotes prostate cancer progression through activating PI3K-AKT-mTOR signaling. Prostate 2018, 78, 166–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wang, Z.; Gao, D.; Fukushima, H.; Inuzuka, H.; Liu, P.; Wan, L.; Sarkar, F.H.; Wei, W. Skp2: A novel potential therapeutic target for prostate cancer. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Rev. Cancer 2012, 1825, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Wang, Z.; Fukushima, H.; Inuzuka, H.; Wan, L.; Liu, P.; Gao, D.; Sarkar, F.H.; Wei, W. Skp2 is a promising therapeutic target in breast cancer. Front. Oncol. 2012, 1, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Mamillapalli, R.; Gavrilova, N.; Mihaylova, V.T.; Tsvetkov, L.M.; Wu, H.; Zhang, H.; Sun, H. PTEN regulates the ubiquitin-dependent degradation of the CDK inhibitor P27KIP1 through the ubiquitin E3 ligase SCFSKP2. Curr. Biol. 2001, 11, 263–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Sakabe, T.; Tsuchiya, H.; Kanki, K.; Azumi, J.; Gonda, K.; Mizuta, Y.; Yamada, D.; Wada, H.; Shomori, K.; Nagano, H.; et al. Identification of the genes chemosensitizing hepatocellular carcinoma cells to interferon-α/5-fluorouracil and their clinical significance. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e56197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Wang, W.; Liu, W.B.; Huang, D.B.; Jia, W.; Ji, C.S.; Hu, B. Targeting PCDH20 gene by MicroRNA-122 confers 5-FU resistance in hepatic carcinoma. Am. J. Cancer Res. 2016, 6, 1681. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  41. Gao, S. Chemoembolization alone vs combined chemoembolization and hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy in inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma patients. World J. Gastroenterol. 2015, 21, 10443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Johnston, P.G.; Kaye, S. Capecitabine: A novel agent for the treatment of solid tumors. Anti Cancer Drugs 2001, 12, 639–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Duan, W.; Zhang, Y.P.; Hou, Z.; Huang, C.; Zhu, H.; Zhang, C.Q.; Yin, Q. Novel insights into NeuN: From neuronal marker to splicing regulator. Mol. Neurobiol. 2016, 53, 1637–1647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Liu, J.; Huang, Y.; Wang, H.; Wu, D. MiR-106a-5p promotes 5-FU resistance and the metastasis of colorectal cancer by targeting TGFβR2. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Pathol. 2018, 11, 5622–5634. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  45. Pourhanifeh, M.H.; Mahjoubin-Tehran, M.; Shafiee, A.; Hajighadimi, S.; Moradizarmehri, S.; Mirzaei, H.; Asemi, Z. MicroRNAs and exosomes: Small molecules with big actions in multiple myeloma pathogenesis. Int. Union Biochem. Mol. Biol. Life 2020, 72, 314–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Naeli, P.; Yousefi, F.; Ghasemi, Y.; Savardashtaki, A.; Mirzaei, H. The role of MicroRNAs in lung cancer: Implications for diagnosis and therapy. Curr. Mol. Med. 2020, 20, 90–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Creugny, A.; Fender, A.; Pfeffer, S. Regulation of primary MicroRNA processing. FEBS Lett. 2018, 592, 1980–1996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Beezhold, K.J.; Castranova, V.; Chen, F. Microprocessor of MicroRNAs: Regulation and potential for therapeutic intervention. Mol. Cancer 2010, 9, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Liu, T.; Wu, X.; Li, Y.; Lu, W.; Zheng, F.; Zhang, C.; Long, Q.; Qiu, H.; Li, Y.; Ge, Q.; et al. RBFOX3 regulates the chemosensitivity of cancer cells to 5-Fluorouracil via the PI3K/AKT, EMT and Cytochrome-C/Caspase pathways. Cell Physiol. Biochem. 2018, 46, 1365–1380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Toden, S.; Okugawa, Y.; Jascur, T.; Wodarz, D.; Komarova, N.L.; Buhrmann, C.; Shakibaei, M.; Boland, C.R.; Goel, A. Curcumin mediates chemosensitization to 5-Fluorouracil through MiRNA-induced suppression of epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition in chemoresistant colorectal cancer. Carcinogenesis 2015, 36, 355–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  51. Zhang, P.; Lai, Z.L.; Chen, H.F.; Zhang, M.; Wang, A.; Jia, T.; Sun, W.Q.; Zhu, X.M.; Chen, X.F.; Zhao, Z.; et al. Curcumin synergizes with 5-Fluorouracil by impairing AMPK/ULK1-dependent autophagy, AKT activity and enhancing apoptosis in colon cancer cells with tumor growth inhibition in xenograft mice. J. Exp. Clin. Cancer Res. 2017, 36, 190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. Wong, T.S.; Gao, W.; Chan, J.Y.W. Transcription regulation of E-Cadherin by zinc finger E-box binding homeobox proteins in solid tumors. Biomed. Res. Int. 2014, 2014, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wu, W.S.; Heinrichs, S.; Xu, D.; Garrison, S.P.; Zambetti, G.P.; Adams, J.M.; Look, A.T. Slug antagonizes P53-mediated apoptosis of hematopoietic progenitors by repressing puma. Cell 2005, 123, 641–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Mejlvang, J.; Kriajevska, M.; Vandewalle, C.; Chernova, T.; Sayan, A.E.; Berx, G.; Mellon, J.K.; Tulchinsky, E. Direct repression of cyclin D1 by SIP1 attenuates cell cycle progression in cells undergoing an epithelial mesenchymal transition. Mol. Biol. Cell 2007, 18, 4615–4624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Zhang, W.; Feng, M.; Zheng, G.; Chen, Y.; Wang, X.; Pen, B.; Yin, J.; Yu, Y.; He, Z. Chemoresistance to 5-Fluorouracil induces epithelial–mesenchymal transition via up-regulation of snail in MCF7 human breast cancer cells. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2012, 417, 679–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Nakamura, R.; Ishii, H.; Endo, K.; Hotta, A.; Fujii, E.; Miyazawa, K.; Saitoh, M. Reciprocal expression of slug and snail in human oral cancer cells. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0199442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Ke, R.; Xu, Q.; Li, C.; Luo, L.; Huang, D. Mechanisms of AMPK in the maintenance of ATP balance during energy metabolism: AMPK and ATP balance. Cell Biol. Int. 2018, 42, 384–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Lee, J.H.; Kim, J.H.; Kim, J.S.; Chang, J.W.; Kim, S.B.; Park, J.S.; Lee, S.K. AMP-Activated protein kinase inhibits TGF-β-, angiotensin II-, aldosterone-, high glucose-, and albumin-induced epithelial-mesenchymal transition. Am. J. Physiol. Renal Physiol. 2013, 304, F686–F697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Sun, L.; Ke, J.; He, Z.; Chen, Z.; Huang, Q.; Ai, W.; Wang, G.; Wei, Y.; Zou, X.; Zhang, S.; et al. HES1 promotes colorectal cancer cell resistance to 5-Fu by inducing of EMT and ABC transporter proteins. J. Cancer 2017, 8, 2802–2808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Iqbal, H.; Pan, Q. Capecitabine for treating head and neck cancer. Expert Opin. Investig. Drugs 2016, 25, 851–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. O’Shaughnessy, J.A.; Kaufmann, M.; Siedentopf, F.; Dalivoust, P.; Debled, M.; Robert, N.J.; Harbeck, N. Capecitabine monotherapy: Review of Studies in first-line HER-2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Oncologist 2012, 17, 476–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  62. Ghaemmaghami, F.; Behtash, N.; Yarandi, F.; Moosavi, A.; Modares, M.; Toogeh, G.; Khanafshar, N. First-Line chemotherapy with 5-FU and platinum for advanced and recurrent cancer of the cervix: A phase II study. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2003, 23, 422–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Aguado, C. Should capecitabine replace 5-Fluorouracil in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer? World J. Gastroenterol. 2014, 20, 6092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Schüller, J.; Cassidy, J.; Dumont, E.; Roos, B.; Banken, L.; Mori, K.; Reigner, B.; Utoh, M.; Weidekamm, E.; Durston, S. Preferential activation of capecitabine in tumor following oral administration to colorectal cancer patients. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 2000, 45, 291–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Ho, D.H.; Pazdur, R.; Covington, W.; Brown, N.; Huo, Y.Y.; Lassere, Y.; Kuritani, J. Comparison of 5-Fluorouracil pharmacokinetics in patients receiving continuous 5-Fluorouracil infusion and oral uracil plus N1-(2′-Tetrahydrofuryl)-5-Fluorouracil. Clin. Cancer Res. 1998, 4, 2085. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  66. Ishikawa, T.; Utoh, M.; Sawada, N.; Nishida, M.; Fukase, Y.; Sekiguchi, F.; Ishitsuka, H. Tumor selective delivery of 5-Fluorouracil by capecitabine, a new oral fluoropyrimidine carbamate, in human cancer xenografts. Biochem. Pharmacol. 1998, 55, 1091–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Ishikawa, T.; Sekiguchi, F.; Fukase, Y.; Sawada, N.; Ishitsuka, H. Positive correlation between the efficacy of capecitabine and doxifluridine and the ratio of thymidine phosphorylase to dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase activities in tumors in human cancer xenografts. Cancer Res. 1998, 58, 685–690. [Google Scholar]
  68. Díaz-Rubio, E.; Evans, T.R.J.; Tabernero, J.; Cassidy, J.; Sastre, J.; Eatock, M.; Bisset, D.; Regueiro, P.; Baselga, J. Capecitabine (Xeloda®) in combination with oxaliplatin: A phase I, dose-escalation study in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors. Ann. Oncol. 2002, 13, 558–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Iacovelli, R.; Pietrantonio, F.; Palazzo, A.; Maggi, C.; Ricchini, F.; de Braud, F.; Bartolomeo, M.D. Incidence and relative risk of grade 3 and 4 diarrhoea in patients treated with capecitabine or 5-Fluorouracil: A meta-analysis of published trials. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2014, 78, 1228–1237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Cassidy, J.; Twelves, C.; Van Cutsem, E.; Hoff, P.; Bajetta, E.; Boyer, M.; Bugat, R.; Burger, U.; Garin, A.; Graeven, U.; et al. First-Line oral capecitabine therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: A favorable safety profile compared with Intravenous5-fluorouracil/leucovorin. Ann. Oncol. 2002, 13, 566–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Zhu, J.; Zeng, W.; Ge, L.; Yang, X.; Wang, Q.; Wang, H. Capecitabine versus 5-Fluorouracil in neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy of locally advanced rectal cancer: A meta-analysis. Medicine 2019, 98, e15241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Hoff, P.M.; Ansari, R.; Batist, G.; Cox, J.; Kocha, W.; Kuperminc, M.; Maroun, J.; Walde, D.; Weaver, C.; Harrison, E.; et al. Comparison of oral capecitabine versus intravenous fluorouracil plus leucovorin as first-line treatment in 605 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: Results of a randomized phase III study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2001, 19, 2282–2292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Cutsem, E.V.; Hoff, P.M.; Harper, P.; Bukowski, R.M.; Cunningham, D.; Dufour, P.; Graeven, U.; Lokich, J.; Madajewicz, S.; Maroun, J.A.; et al. Oral capecitabine vs intravenous 5-Fluorouracil and leucovorin: Integrated efficacy data and novel analyses from two large, randomised, phase III trials. Br. J. Cancer 2004, 90, 1190–1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Cutsem, E.V.; Twelves, C.; Cassidy, J.; Allman, D.; Bajetta, E.; Boyer, M.; Bugat, R.; Findlay, M.; Frings, S.; Jahn, M.; et al. Oral capecitabine compared with intravenous fluorouracil plus leucovorin in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: Results of a large phase III study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2001, 19, 4097–4106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Twelves, C. Capecitabine as first-line treatment in colorectal cancer: Pooled data from two large, phase III trials. Eur. J. Cancer 2002, 38, 15–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Balog, J.Á.; Hackler, L., Jr.; Kovács, A.K.; Neuperger, P.; Alföldi, R.; Nagy, L.I.; Puskás, L.G.; Szebeni, G.J. Single cell mass cytometry revealed the immunomodulatory effect of cisplatin via downregulation of splenic CD44+, IL-17A+ MDSCs and promotion of circulating IFN-Γ+ myeloid cells in the 4T1 metastatic breast cancer model. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 21, 170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  77. Wu, Z.; Gong, Q.; Yu, Y.; Zhu, J.; Li, W. Knockdown of Circ-ABCB10 promotes sensitivity of lung cancer cells to cisplatin via MiR-556-3p/AK4 axis. BMC Pulm. Med. 2020, 20, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  78. Zang, H.; Qian, G.; Arbiser, J.; Owonikoko, T.K.; Ramalingam, S.S.; Fan, S.; Sun, S. Overcoming acquired resistance of EGFR-mutant NSCLC cells to the third generation EGFR inhibitor, osimertinib, with the natural product honokiol. Mol. Oncol. 2020, 14, 882–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Bostan, M.; Petrică-Matei, G.; Ion, G.; Radu, N.; Mihăilă, M.; Hainăroşie, R.; Braşoveanu, L.; Roman, V.; Constantin, C.; Neagu, M. Cisplatin effect on head and neck squamous cell carcinoma cells is modulated by ERK1/2 protein kinases. Exp. Ther. Med. 2019, 18, 5041–5051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Achkar, I.W.; Abdulrahman, N.; Al-Sulaiti, H.; Joseph, J.M.; Uddin, S.; Mraiche, F. Cisplatin based therapy: The role of the mitogen activated protein kinase signaling pathway. J. Transl. Med. 2018, 16, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Fadejeva, I.; Olschewski, H.; Hrzenjak, A. MicroRNAs as regulators of cisplatin-resistance in non-small cell lung carcinomas. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 115754–115773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Sun, C.Y.; Zhang, Q.Y.; Zheng, G.J.; Feng, B. Phytochemicals: Current strategy to sensitize cancer cells to cisplatin. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2019, 110, 518–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Zhang, Y.F.; Li, C.S.; Zhou, Y.; Lu, X.H. Propofol facilitates cisplatin sensitivity via LncRNA MALAT1/MiR-30e/ATG5 axis through suppressing autophagy in gastric cancer. Life Sci. 2020, 244, 117280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Liu, W.; Wang, W.; Wang, X.; Xu, C.; Zhang, N.; Di, W. Cisplatin-Stimulated macrophages promote ovarian cancer migration via the CCL20-CCR6 axis. Cancer Lett. 2020, 472, 59–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Chen, K.J.; Lin, S.Z.; Zhou, L.; Xie, H.Y.; Zhou, W.H.; Taki-Eldin, A.; Zheng, S.S. Selective recruitment of regulatory T cell through CCR6-CCL20 in hepatocellular carcinoma fosters tumor progression and predicts poor prognosis. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e24671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Kryczek, I.; Lin, Y.; Nagarsheth, N.; Peng, D.; Zhao, L.; Zhao, E.; Vatan, L.; Szeliga, W.; Dou, Y.; Owens, S.; et al. IL-22+CD4+ T cells promote colorectal cancer stemness via STAT3 transcription factor activation and induction of the methyltransferase DOT1L. Immunity 2014, 40, 772–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Walch-Rückheim, B.; Mavrova, R.; Henning, M.; Vicinus, B.; Kim, Y.J.; Bohle, R.M.; Juhasz-Böss, I.; Solomayer, E.F.; Smola, S. Stromal fibroblasts induce CCL20 through IL6/C/EBPβ to support the recruitment of Th17 cells during cervical cancer progression. Cancer Res. 2015, 75, 5248–5259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Ranasinghe, R.; Eri, R. Modulation of the CCR6-CCL20 axis: A potential therapeutic target in inflammation and cancer. Medicina 2018, 54, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  89. Liu, Y.Q.; Zhang, G.A.; Zhang, B.C.; Wang, Y.; Liu, Z.; Jiao, Y.L.; Liu, N.; Zhao, Y.R. Short low concentration cisplatin treatment leads to an epithelial mesenchymal transition-like response in DU145 prostate cancer cells. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2015, 16, 1025–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Bernstein, J.L.; WECARE Study Collaborative Group; Concannon, P. ATM, radiation, and the risk of second primary breast cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 2017, 93, 1121–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Nanda, N.; Roberts, N.J. ATM serine/threonine kinase and its role in pancreatic risk. Genes 2020, 11, 108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  92. Murai, J.; Thomas, A.; Miettinen, M.; Pommier, Y. Schlafen 11 (SLFN11), a restriction factor for replicative stress induced by DNA-targeting anti-cancer therapies. Pharmacol. Ther. 2019, 201, 94–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Stewart, C.A.; Tong, P.; Cardnell, R.J.; Sen, T.; Li, L.; Gay, C.M.; Masrorpour, F.; Fan, Y.; Bara, R.O.; Feng, Y.; et al. Dynamic variations in Epithelial-to-Mesenchymal Transition (EMT), ATM, and SLFN11 govern response to PARP inhibitors and cisplatin in small cell lung cancer. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 28575–28587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  94. Miow, Q.H.; Tan, T.Z.; Ye, J.; Lau, J.A.; Yokomizo, T.; Thiery, J.P.; Mori, S. Epithelial-Mesenchymal status renders differential responses to cisplatin in ovarian cancer. Oncogene 2015, 34, 1899–1907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Apps, M.G.; Choi, E.H.Y.; Wheate, N.J. The state-of-play and future of platinum drugs. Endocr. Relat. Cancer 2015, 22, R219–R233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Peters, S.; Adjei, A.A.; Gridelli, C.; Reck, M.; Kerr, K.; Felip, E. Metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann. Oncol. 2012, 23, vii56–vii64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Ettinger, D.S.; Akerley, W.; Borghaei, H.; Chang, A.C.; Cheney, R.T.; Chirieac, L.R.; D’Amico, T.A.; Demmy, T.L.; Govindan, R.; Grannis, F.W., Jr.; et al. Non-Small cell lung cancer, version 2.2013. J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw. 2013, 11, 645–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Azzoli, C.G.; Temin, S.; Aliff, T.; Baker, S.; Brahmer, J.; Johnson, D.H.; Laskin, J.L.; Masters, G.; Milton, D.; Nordquist, L.; et al. 2011 focused update of 2009 American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update on chemotherapy for stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2011, 29, 3825–3831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  99. Dasari, S.; Bernard Tchounwou, P. Cisplatin in cancer therapy: Molecular mechanisms of action. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 2014, 740, 364–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  100. Santana-Davila, R.; Szabo, A.; Arce-Lara, C.; Williams, C.D.; Kelley, M.J.; Whittle, J. Cisplatin versus carboplatin-based regimens for the treatment of patients with metastatic lung cancer. An analysis of veterans health administration data. J. Thorac. Oncol. 2014, 9, 702–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Kowalski, S.; Wyrzykowski, D.; Inkielewicz-Stępniak, I. Molecular and cellular mechanisms of cytotoxic activity of vanadium compounds against cancer cells. Molecules 2020, 25, 1757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Petanidis, S.; Kioseoglou, E.; Domvri, K.; Zarogoulidis, P.; Carthy, J.M.; Anestakis, D.; Moustakas, A.; Salifoglou, A. In Vitro and Ex Vivo Vanadium Antitumor Activity in (TGF-β)-Induced EMT. Synergistic Activity with Carboplatin and Correlation with Tumor Metastasis in Cancer Patients. Int. J. Biochem. Cell. Biol. 2016, 74, 121–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Lorusso, D.; Petrelli, F.; Coinu, A.; Raspagliesi, F.; Barni, S. A Systematic Review Comparing Cisplatin and Carboplatin plus Paclitaxel-Based Chemotherapy for Recurrent or Metastatic Cervical Cancer. Gynecol. Oncol. 2014, 133, 117–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Petrioli, R.; Frediani, B.; Manganelli, A.; Barbanti, G.; Capua, B.D.; Lauretis, A.D.; Salvestrini, F.; Mondillo, S.; Francini, G. Comparison between a cisplatin-containing regimen and a carboplatin-containing regimen for recurrent or metastatic bladder cancer patients: A randomized phase II study. Cancer 1996, 77, 344–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Zatloukal, P.; Petruželka, L.; Zemanová, M.; Kolek, V.; Skřičková, J.; Pešek, M.; Fojtů, H.; Grygárková, I.; Sixtová, D.; Roubec, J.; et al. Gemcitabine plus cisplatin vs. gemcitabine plus carboplatin in stage IIIb and IV non-small cell lung cancer: A phase III randomized trial. Lung Cancer 2003, 41, 321–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Hotta, K.; Matsuo, K.; Ueoka, H.; Kiura, K.; Tabata, M.; Tanimoto, M. Meta-Analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing cisplatin to carboplatin in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2004, 22, 3852–3859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Galsky, M.D.; Chen, G.J.; Oh, W.K.; Bellmunt, J.; Roth, B.J.; Petrioli, R.; Dogliotti, L.; Dreicer, R.; Sonpavde, G. Comparative effectiveness of cisplatin-based and carboplatin-based chemotherapy for treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma. Ann. Oncol. 2012, 23, 406–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Wang, Z.; Li, Y.; Kong, D.; Sarkar, F.H. The role of notch signaling pathway in epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) during development and tumor aggressiveness. Curr. Drug Targets 2010, 11, 745–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Gupta, N.; Xu, Z.; El-Sehemy, A.; Steed, H.; Fu, Y. Notch3 induces epithelial-mesenchymal transition and attenuates carboplatin-induced apoptosis in ovarian cancer cells. Gynecol. Oncol. 2013, 130, 200–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Artavanis-Tsakonas, S. Notch signaling: Cell fate control and signal integration in development. Science 1999, 284, 770–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  111. Iso, T.; Hamamori, Y.; Kedes, L. Notch signaling in vascular development. Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol. 2003, 23, 543–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  112. Nam, Y.; Sliz, P.; Song, L.; Aster, J.C.; Blacklow, S.C. Structural basis for cooperativity in recruitment of MAML coactivators to notch transcription complexes. Cell 2006, 124, 973–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  113. Wu, L.; Sun, T.; Kobayashi, K.; Gao, P.; Griffin, J.D. Identification of a family of mastermind-like transcriptional coactivators for mammalian notch receptors. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2002, 22, 7688–7700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  114. Rowinsky, E.K.; Donehower, R.C. Paclitaxel (Taxol). N. Engl. J. Med. 1995, 332, 1004–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Serpico, A.F.; Visconti, R.; Grieco, D. Exploiting immune-dependent effects of microtubule-targeting agents to improve efficacy and tolerability of cancer treatment. Cell Death Dis. 2020, 11, 361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Ramanathan, B.; Jan, K.Y.; Chen, C.H.; Hour, T.C.; Yu, H.J.; Pu, Y.S. Resistance to paclitaxel is proportional to cellular total antioxidant capacity. Cancer Res. 2005, 65, 8455–8460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  117. Kajiyama, H.; Shibata, K.; Terauchi, M.; Yamashita, M.; Ino, K.; Nawa, A.; Kikkawa, F. Chemoresistance to paclitaxel induces epithelial-mesenchymal transition and enhances metastatic potential for epithelial ovarian carcinoma cells. Int. J. Oncol. 2007, 31, 277–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  118. Park, S.Y.; Kim, M.J.; Park, S.A.; Kim, J.S.; Min, K.N.; Kim, D.K.; Lim, W.; Nam, J.S.; Sheen, Y.Y. Combinatorial TGF-β attenuation with paclitaxel inhibits the epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition and breast cancer stem-like cells. Oncotarget 2015, 6, 37526–37543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  119. Goulet, C.R.; Champagne, A.; Bernard, G.; Vandal, D.; Chabaud, S.; Pouliot, F.; Bolduc, S. Cancer-Associated fibroblasts induce epithelial-mesenchymal transition of bladder cancer cells through paracrine IL-6 signalling. BMC Cancer 2019, 19, 137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  120. Ding, X.; Ji, J.; Jiang, J.; Cai, Q.; Wang, C.; Shi, M.; Yu, Y.; Zhu, Z.; Zhang, J. HGF-Mediated crosstalk between cancer-associated fibroblasts and MET-unamplified gastric cancer cells activates coordinated tumorigenesis and metastasis. Cell Death Dis. 2018, 9, 867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Rincon, M.; Broadwater, G.; Harris, L.; Crocker, A.; Weaver, D.; Dressler, L.; Berry, D.; Sutton, L.; Michaelson, R.; Messino, M.; et al. Interleukin-6, multidrug resistance protein-1 expression and response to paclitaxel in women with metastatic breast cancer: Results of cancer and leukemia group B trial 159806. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2006, 100, 301–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Wang, L.; Zhang, F.; Cui, J.; Chen, L.; Chen, Y.; Liu, B. CAFs enhance paclitaxel resistance by inducing EMT through the IL-6/JAK2/STAT3 pathway. Oncol. Rep. 2018, 39, 2081–2090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  123. Osuala, K.O.; Sameni, M.; Shah, S.; Aggarwal, N.; Simonait, M.L.; Franco, O.E.; Hong, Y.; Hayward, S.W.; Behbod, F.; Mattingly, R.R.; et al. IL-6 signaling between ductal carcinoma in situ cells and carcinoma-associated fibroblasts mediates tumor cell growth and migration. BMC Cancer 2015, 15, 584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  124. Zhang, Q.; Han, M.; Wang, W.; Song, Y.; Chen, G.; Wang, Z.; Liang, Z. Downregulation of Cathepsin L suppresses cancer invasion and migration by inhibiting transforming growth factor-β-mediated epithelial-mesenchymal transition. Oncol. Rep. 2015, 33, 1851–1859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Tyagi, C.; Grover, S.; Dhanjal, J.; Goyal, S.; Goyal, M.; Grover, A. Mechanistic insights into mode of action of novel natural Cathepsin L inhibitors. BMC Genom. 2013, 14, S10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  126. Tholen, M.; Wolanski, J.; Stolze, B.; Chiabudini, M.; Gajda, M.; Bronsert, P.; Stickeler, E.; Rospert, S.; Reinheckel, T. Stress-Resistant translation of Cathepsin L MRNA in breast cancer progression. J. Biol. Chem. 2015, 290, 15758–15769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  127. Han, M.; Zhao, Y.; Tan, C.; Xiong, Y.; Wang, W.; Wu, F.; Fei, Y.; Wang, L.; Liang, Z. Cathepsin L upregulation-induced EMT phenotype is associated with the acquisition of cisplatin or paclitaxel resistance in A549 Cells. Acta Pharmacol. Sin. 2016, 37, 1606–1622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Zheng, X.; Chu, F.; Chou, P.M.; Gallati, C.; Dier, U.; Mirkin, B.L.; Mousa, S.A.; Rebbaa, A. Cathepsin L inhibition suppresses drug resistance in vitro and in vivo: A putative mechanism. Am. J. Physiol. Cell Physiol. 2009, 296, C65–C74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Yang, N.; Wang, P.; Wang, W.; Song, Y.; Liang, Z. Inhibition of Cathepsin L sensitizes human glioma cells to ionizing radiation in vitro through NF-ΚB signaling pathway. Acta Pharmacol. Sin. 2015, 36, 400–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  130. Barberà, M.J.; Puig, I.; Domínguez, D.; Julien-Grille, S.; Guaita-Esteruelas, S.; Peiró, S.; Baulida, J.; Francí, C.; Dedhar, S.; Larue, L.; et al. Regulation of snail transcription during epithelial to mesenchymal transition of tumor cells. Oncogene 2004, 23, 7345–7354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  131. Yang, Q.; Huang, J.; Wu, Q.; Cai, Y.; Zhu, L.; Lu, X.; Chen, S.; Chen, C.; Wang, Z. Acquisition of epithelial–mesenchymal transition is associated with Skp2 expression in paclitaxel-resistant breast cancer cells. Br. J. Cancer 2014, 110, 1958–1967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  132. Inuzuka, H.; Gao, D.; Finley, L.W.S.; Yang, W.; Wan, L.; Fukushima, H.; Chin, Y.R.; Zhai, B.; Shaik, S.; Lau, A.W.; et al. Acetylation-Dependent regulation of Skp2 function. Cell 2012, 150, 179–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  133. Einama, T.; Kagata, Y.; Tsuda, H.; Morita, D.; Ogata, S.; Ueda, S.; Takigawa, T.; Kawarabayashi, N.; Fukatsu, K.; Sugiura, Y.; et al. High-Level Skp2 expression in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Correlation with the extent of lymph node metastasis, higher histological grade, and poorer patient outcome. Pancreas 2006, 21, 542–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  134. Zheng, W.; Zheng, J.; Ma, R.; Meng, F.; Ni, C. Relationship between levels of Skp2 and P27 in breast carcinomas and possible role of Skp2 as targeted therapy. Steroids 2005, 70, 770–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Dia, V.P.; Pangloli, P. Epithelial-to-Mesenchymal transition in paclitaxel-resistant ovarian cancer cells is downregulated by luteolin. J. Cell Physiol. 2017, 232, 391–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Zhang, D.; Sun, L.; Xian, W.; Liu, F.; Ling, G.; Xiao, L.; Liu, Y.; Peng, Y.; Haruna, Y.; Kanwar, Y.S. Low-Dose paclitaxel ameliorates renal fibrosis in rat UUO model by inhibition of TGF-β/Smad activity. Lab. Investig. 2010, 90, 436–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  137. Adli, M.; Merkhofer, E.; Cogswell, P.; Baldwin, A.S. IKKα and IKKβ each function to regulate NF-ΚB activation in the TNF-induced/canonical pathway. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e9428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  138. Mukherjee, S.P.; Behar, M.; Birnbaum, H.A.; Hoffmann, A.; Wright, P.E.; Ghosh, G. Analysis of the RelA: CBP/P300 interaction reveals its involvement in NF-ΚB-driven transcription. PLoS Biol. 2013, 11, e1001647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  139. Abeyrathna, P.; Su, Y. The critical role of akt in cardiovascular function. Vasc. Pharmacol. 2015, 74, 38–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  140. Horbelt, D.; Denkis, A.; Knaus, P. A portrait of transforming growth factor β superfamily signalling: Background matters. Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 2012, 44, 469–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Verweij, J.; Clavelf, M.; Chevalier, B. Paclitaxel (Taxol™) and Docetaxel (Taxotere™): Not simply two of a kind. Ann. Oncol. 1994, 5, 495–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Sparreboom, A.; van Tellingen, O.; Nooijen, W.J.; Beijnen, J.H. Preclinical pharmacokinetics of paclitaxel and docetaxel. AntiCancer Drugs 1998, 9, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Riou, J.F.; Naudin, A.; Lavelle, F. Effects of taxotere on murine and human tumor cell lines. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 1992, 187, 164–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Ploussard, G.; Terry, S.; Maillé, P.; Allory, Y.; Sirab, N.; Kheuang, L.; Soyeux, P.; Nicolaiew, N.; Coppolani, E.; Paule, B.; et al. Class III β-Tubulin expression predicts prostate tumor aggressiveness and patient response to docetaxel-based chemotherapy. Cancer Res. 2010, 70, 9253–9264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  145. Fojo, T.; Menefee, M. Mechanisms of multidrug resistance: The potential role of microtubule-stabilizing agents. Ann. Oncol. 2007, 18, v3–v8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Darshan, M.S.; Loftus, M.S.; Thadani-Mulero, M.; Levy, B.P.; Escuin, D.; Zhou, X.K.; Gjyrezi, A.; Chanel-Vos, C.; Shen, R.; Tagawa, S.T.; et al. Taxane-Induced blockade to nuclear accumulation of the androgen receptor predicts clinical responses in metastatic prostate cancer. Cancer Res. 2011, 71, 6019–6029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  147. Guertin, D.A.; Sabatini, D.M. Defining the role of MTOR in cancer. Cancer Cell 2007, 12, 9–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  148. Marín-Aguilera, M.; Codony-Servat, J.; Reig, Ò.; Lozano, J.J.; Fernández, P.L.; Pereira, M.V.; Jiménez, N.; Donovan, M.; Puig, P.; Mengual, L.; et al. Epithelial-to-Mesenchymal transition mediates docetaxel resistance and high risk of relapse in prostate cancer. Mol. Cancer Ther. 2014, 13, 1270–1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  149. Sun, J.; Zhang, D.; Bae, D.H.; Sahni, S.; Jansson, P.; Zheng, Y.; Zhao, Q.; Yue, F.; Zheng, M.; Kovacevic, Z.; et al. Metastasis suppressor, NDRG1, mediates its activity through signaling pathways and molecular motors. Carcinogenesis 2013, 34, 1943–1954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  150. Yae, T.; Tsuchihashi, K.; Ishimoto, T.; Motohara, T.; Yoshikawa, M.; Yoshida, G.J.; Wada, T.; Masuko, T.; Mogushi, K.; Tanaka, H.; et al. Alternative splicing of CD44 MRNA by ESRP1 enhances lung colonization of metastatic cancer cell. Nat. Commun. 2012, 3, 883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  151. Gemmill, R.M.; Roche, J.; Potiron, V.A.; Nasarre, P.; Mitas, M.; Coldren, C.D.; Helfrich, B.A.; Garrett-Mayer, E.; Bunn, P.A.; Drabkin, H.A. ZEB1-Responsive genes in non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Lett. 2011, 300, 66–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  152. Hao, J.; Madigan, M.C.; Khatri, A.; Power, C.A.; Hung, T.T.; Beretov, J.; Chang, L.; Xiao, W.; Cozzi, P.J.; Graham, P.H.; et al. In vitro and in vivo prostate cancer metastasis and chemoresistance can be modulated by expression of either CD44 or CD147. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e40716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  153. Tawara, K.; Oxford, J.T.; Jorcyk, C.L. Clinical significance of interleukin (IL)-6 in cancer metastasis to bone: Potential of anti-IL-6 therapies. Cancer Manag. Res. 2011, 3, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Domingo-Domenech, J.; Mellado, B.; Ferrer, B.; Truan, D.; Codony-Servat, J.; Sauleda, S.; Alcover, J.; Campo, E.; Gascon, P.; Rovira, A.; et al. Activation of nuclear factor-ΚB in human prostate carcinogenesis and association to biochemical relapse. Br. J. Cancer 2005, 93, 1285–1294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  155. Lamouille, S.; Xu, J.; Derynck, R. Molecular mechanisms of epithelial-mesenchymal transition. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2014, 15, 178–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  156. Thiery, J.P.; Acloque, H.; Huang, R.Y.J.; Nieto, M.A. Epithelial-Mesenchymal transitions in development and disease. Cell 2009, 139, 871–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Onder, T.T.; Gupta, P.B.; Mani, S.A.; Yang, J.; Lander, E.S.; Weinberg, R.A. Loss of E-Cadherin promotes metastasis via multiple downstream transcriptional pathways. Cancer Res. 2008, 68, 3645–3654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  158. Opdenakker, G.; Van Damme, J. Cytokines and proteases in invasive processes: Molecular similarities between inflammation and cancer. Cytokine 1992, 4, 251–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Liu, X.; Fan, D. The Epithelial-Mesenchymal transition and cancer stem cells: Functional and mechanistic links. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2015, 21, 1279–1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Hanahan, D.; Weinberg, R.A. Hallmarks of cancer: The next generation. Cell 2011, 144, 646–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  161. Miyazono, K. Transforming growth factor-β signaling in epithelial-mesenchymal transition and progression of cancer. Proc. Jpn. Acad. Ser. B 2009, 85, 314–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  162. Wendt, M.K.; Allington, T.M.; Schiemann, W.P. Mechanisms of the epithelial–mesenchymal transition by TGF-β. Future Oncol. 2009, 5, 1145–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  163. Winkler, J.; Abisoye-Ogunniyan, A.; Metcalf, K.J.; Werb, Z. Concepts of extracellular matrix remodelling in tumour progression and metastasis. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 5120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  164. Sánchez-Tilló, E.; Liu, Y.; de Barrios, O.; Siles, L.; Fanlo, L.; Cuatrecasas, M.; Darling, D.S.; Dean, D.C.; Castells, A.; Postigo, A. EMT-Activating transcription factors in cancer: Beyond EMT and tumor invasiveness. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2012, 69, 3429–3456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  165. Vincent, T.; Neve, E.P.A.; Johnson, J.R.; Kukalev, A.; Rojo, F.; Albanell, J.; Pietras, K.; Virtanen, I.; Philipson, L.; Leopold, P.L.; et al. A SNAIL1–SMAD3/4 transcriptional repressor complex promotes TGF-β mediated epithelial-mesenchymal transition. Nat. Cell Biol. 2009, 11, 943–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  166. Villagrasa, P.; Díaz, V.M.; Viñas-Castells, R.; Peiró, S.; Del Valle-Pérez, B.; Dave, N.; Rodríguez-Asiain, A.; Casal, J.I.; Lizcano, J.M.; Duñach, M.; et al. Akt2 Interacts with Snail1 in the E-Cadherin promoter. Oncogene 2012, 31, 4022–4033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  167. Zhang, J.; Tian, X.J.; Xing, J. Signal transduction pathways of EMT induced by TGF-β, SHH, and WNT and their crosstalks. J. Clin. Med. 2016, 5, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  168. Frías, A.; Lambies, G.; Viñas-Castells, R.; Martínez-Guillamon, C.; Dave, N.; García de Herreros, A.; Díaz, V.M. A switch in akt isoforms is required for notch-induced Snail1 expression and protection from cell death. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2016, 36, 923–940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  169. Wang, H.; Wang, H.S.; Zhou, B.H.; Li, C.L.; Zhang, F.; Wang, X.F.; Zhang, G.; Bu, X.Z.; Cai, S.H.; Du, J. Epithelial–Mesenchymal transition (EMT) induced by TNF-α requires AKT/GSK-3β-mediated stabilization of snail in colorectal cancer. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e56664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Viñas-Castells, R.; Beltran, M.; Valls, G.; Gómez, I.; García, J.M.; Montserrat-Sentís, B.; Baulida, J.; Bonilla, F.; de Herreros, A.G.; Díaz, V.M. The hypoxia-controlled FBXL14 ubiquitin ligase targets Snail1 for proteasome degradation. J. Biol. Chem. 2010, 285, 3794–3805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  171. Bai, Y.; Sha, J.; Kanno, T. The role of carcinogenesis-related biomarkers in the Wnt pathway and their effects on epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT) in oral squamous cell carcinoma. Cancers 2020, 12, 555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  172. Qin, Q.; Xu, Y.; He, T.; Qin, C.; Xu, J. Normal and disease-related biological functions of Twist1 and underlying molecular mechanisms. Cell Res. 2012, 22, 90–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  173. Hui, L.; Zhang, S.; Dong, X.; Tian, D.; Cui, Z.; Qiu, X. Prognostic significance of twist and N-Cadherin expression in NSCLC. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e62171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  174. Franco, H.L.; Casasnovas, J.; Rodriguez-Medina, J.R.; Cadilla, C.L. Redundant or separate entities?—Roles of Twist1 and Twist2 as molecular switches during gene transcription. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011, 39, 1177–1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  175. Suarez-Carmona, M.; Lesage, J.; Cataldo, D.; Gilles, C. EMT and Inflammation: Inseparable Actors of Cancer Progression. Mol. Oncol. 2017, 11, 805–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Kim, M.S.; Lee, W.S.; Jeong, J.; Kim, S.J.; Jin, W. Induction of metastatic potential by TrkB via activation of IL6/JAK2/STAT3 and PI3K/AKT signaling in breast cancer. Oncotarget 2015, 6, 40158–40171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  177. Lo, H.W.; Hsu, S.C.; Xia, W.; Cao, X.; Shih, J.Y.; Wei, Y.; Abbruzzese, J.L.; Hortobagyi, G.N.; Hung, M.C. Epidermal growth factor receptor cooperates with signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 to induce epithelial-mesenchymal transition in cancer cells via up-regulation of Twist gene expression. Cancer Res. 2007, 67, 9066–9076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  178. Cheng, G.Z.; Zhang, W.; Sun, M.; Wang, Q.; Coppola, D.; Mansour, M.; Xu, L.; Costanzo, C.; Cheng, J.Q.; Wang, L.H. Twist is transcriptionally induced by activation of STAT3 and mediates STAT3 oncogenic function. J. Biol. Chem. 2008, 283, 14665–14673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  179. Gheldof, A.; Hulpiau, P.; van Roy, F.; De Craene, B.; Berx, G. Evolutionary functional analysis and molecular regulation of the ZEB transcription factors. Cell Mol. Life Sci. 2012, 69, 2527–2541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Sánchez-Tilló, E.; Siles, L.; de Barrios, O.; Cuatrecasas, M.; Vaquero, E.C.; Castells, A.; Postigo, A. Expanding roles of ZEB factors in tumorigenesis and tumor progression. Am. J. Cancer Res. 2011, 1, 897–912. [Google Scholar]
  181. Postigo, A.A.; Dean, D.C. Differential expression and function of members of the Zfh-1 family of zinc finger/homeodomain repressors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2000, 97, 6391–6396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  182. Baranwal, S.; Alahari, S.K. MiRNA control of tumor cell invasion and metastasis. Int. J. Cancer. 2010, 126, 1283–1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  183. Zare, A.; Ahadi, A.; Larki, P.; Omrani, M.D.; Zali, M.R.; Alamdari, N.M.; Ghaedi, H. The clinical significance of MiR-335, MiR-124, MiR-218 and MiR-484 downregulation in gastric cancer. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2018, 45, 1587–1595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  184. Leite, K.R.M.; Sousa-Canavez, J.M.; Reis, S.T.; Tomiyama, A.H.; Camara-Lopes, L.H.; Sañudo, A.; Antunes, A.A.; Srougi, M. Change in expression of MiR-Let7c, MiR-100, and MiR-218 from high grade localized prostate cancer to metastasis. Urol. Oncol. 2011, 29, 265–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Wellner, U.; Schubert, J.; Burk, U.C.; Schmalhofer, O.; Zhu, F.; Sonntag, A.; Waldvogel, B.; Vannier, C.; Darling, D.; zur Hausen, A.; et al. The EMT-activator ZEB1 promotes tumorigenicity by repressing stemness-inhibiting MicroRNAs. Nat. Cell Biol. 2009, 11, 1487–1495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  186. Shimono, Y.; Zabala, M.; Cho, R.W.; Lobo, N.; Dalerba, P.; Qian, D.; Diehn, M.; Liu, H.; Panula, S.P.; Chiao, E.; et al. Downregulation of MiRNA-200c links breast cancer stem cells with normal stem cells. Cell 2009, 138, 592–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  187. Liu, S.; Kumar, S.M.; Lu, H.; Liu, A.; Yang, R.; Pushparajan, A.; Guo, W.; Xu, X. MicroRNA-9 up-regulates E-Cadherin through inhibition of NF-ΚB1-Snail1 pathway in melanoma: MiR-9 inhibits melanoma progression. J. Pathol. 2012, 226, 61–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  188. Siemens, H.; Jackstadt, R.; Hünten, S.; Kaller, M.; Menssen, A.; Götz, U.; Hermeking, H. MiR-34 and Snail form a double-negative feedback loop to regulate epithelial-mesenchymal transitions. Cell Cycle 2011, 10, 4256–4271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  189. Brabletz, S.; Brabletz, T. The ZEB/MiR-200 feedback loop—A motor of cellular plasticity in development and cancer? EMBO Rep. 2010, 11, 670–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  190. Park, S.M.; Gaur, A.B.; Lengyel, E.; Peter, M.E. The MiR-200 family determines the epithelial phenotype of cancer cells by targeting the E-Cadherin repressors ZEB1 and ZEB2. Genes Dev. 2008, 22, 894–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  191. Gregory, P.A.; Bert, A.G.; Paterson, E.L.; Barry, S.C.; Tsykin, A.; Farshid, G.; Vadas, M.A.; Khew-Goodall, Y.; Goodall, G.J. The MiR-200 family and MiR-205 regulate epithelial to mesenchymal transition by targeting ZEB1 and SIP1. Nat. Cell Biol. 2008, 10, 593–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  192. Ru, P.; Steele, R.; Newhall, P.; Phillips, N.J.; Toth, K.; Ray, R.B. MiRNA-29b suppresses prostate cancer metastasis by regulating epithelial-mesenchymal transition signaling. Mol. Cancer Ther. 2012, 11, 1166–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  193. Lee, Y.B.; Bantounas, I.; Lee, D.Y.; Phylactou, L.; Caldwell, M.A.; Uney, J.B. Twist-1 regulates the MiR-199a/214 cluster during development. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009, 37, 123–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  194. Li, B.; Han, Q.; Zhu, Y.; Yu, Y.; Wang, J.; Jiang, X. Down-Regulation of MiR-214 contributes to intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma metastasis by targeting twist: MiR-214 regulates ICC metastasis. FEBS J. 2012, 279, 2393–2398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Dong, B.; Li, S.; Zhu, S.; Yi, M.; Luo, S.; Wu, K. MiRNA-Mediated EMT and CSCs in cancer chemoresistance. Exp. Hematol. Oncol. 2021, 10, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Housman, G.; Byler, S.; Heerboth, S.; Lapinska, K.; Longacre, M.; Snyder, N.; Sarkar, S. Drug resistance in cancer: An overview. Cancers 2014, 6, 1769–1792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  197. Arai, K.; Eguchi, T.; Rahman, M.M.; Sakamoto, R.; Masuda, N.; Nakatsura, T.; Calderwood, S.K.; Kozaki, K.; Itoh, M. A novel high-throughput 3D screening system for EMT inhibitors: A pilot screening discovered the EMT inhibitory activity of CDK2 inhibitor SU9516. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0162394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  198. Germain, A.R.; Carmody, L.C.; Morgan, B.; Fernandez, C.; Forbeck, E.; Lewis, T.A.; Nag, P.P.; Ting, A.; VerPlank, L.; Feng, Y.; et al. Identification of a selective small molecule inhibitor of breast cancer stem cells. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2012, 22, 3571–3574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Shah, M.Y.; Calin, G.A. MicroRNAs as therapeutic targets in human cancers. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. RNA 2014, 5, 537–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  200. He, Z.; Chen, L.; Wang, Q.; Yin, C.; Hu, J.; Hu, X.; Fei, F.; Tang, J. MicroRNA-186 targets SKP2 to induce P27 Kip1-mediated pituitary tumor cell cycle deregulation and modulate cell proliferation. Korean J. Physiol. Pharmacol. 2019, 23, 171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  201. Wu, K.; Hu, Y.; Yan, K.; Qi, Y.; Zhang, C.; Zhu, D.; Liu, D.; Zhao, S. MicroRNA-10b confers cisplatin resistance by activating AKT/MTOR/P70S6K signaling via targeting PPARγ in esophageal cancer. J. Cell. Physiol. 2020, 235, 1247–1258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  202. Pakravan, G.; Foroughmand, A.M.; Peymani, M.; Ghaedi, K.; Hashemi, M.-S.; Hajjari, M.; Nasr-Esfahani, M.H. Downregulation of MiR-130a, antagonized doxorubicin-induced cardiotoxicity via increasing the PPAR γ expression in MESCs-derived cardiac cells. Cell Death Dis. 2018, 9, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  203. Pan, S.; Cui, Y.; Dong, X.; Zhang, T.; Xing, H. MicroRNA-130b attenuates dexamethasone-induced increase of lipid accumulation in porcine preadipocytes by suppressing PPAR-γ expression. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 87928–87943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  204. Li, T.; Gao, F.; Zhang, X.-P. MiR-203 enhances chemosensitivity to 5-Fluorouracil by targeting thymidylate synthase in colorectal cancer. Oncol. Rep. 2015, 33, 607–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  205. Xu, K.; Liang, X.; Cui, D.; Wu, Y.; Shi, W.; Liu, J. MiR-1915 inhibits Bcl-2 to modulate multidrug resistance by increasing drug-sensitivity in human colorectal carcinoma cells. Mol. Carcinog. 2013, 52, 70–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  206. Smith, B.; Bhowmick, N. Role of EMT in metastasis and therapy resistance. J. Clin. Med. 2016, 5, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  207. Lawrence, M.S.; Stojanov, P.; Polak, P.; Kryukov, G.V.; Cibulskis, K.; Sivachenko, A.; Carter, S.L.; Stewart, C.; Mermel, C.H.; Roberts, S.A.; et al. Mutational heterogeneity in cancer and the search for new cancer-associated genes. Nature 2013, 499, 214–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  208. Hodges, T.R.; Ott, M.; Xiu, J.; Gatalica, Z.; Swensen, J.; Zhou, S.; Huse, J.T.; de Groot, J.; Li, S.; Overwijk, W.W.; et al. Mutational burden, immune checkpoint expression, and mismatch repair in glioma: Implications for immune checkpoint immunotherapy. Neuro Oncol. 2017, 19, 1047–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  209. Wang, L.; Saci, A.; Szabo, P.M.; Chasalow, S.D.; Castillo-Martin, M.; Domingo-Domenech, J.; Siefker-Radtke, A.; Sharma, P.; Sfakianos, J.P.; Gong, Y.; et al. EMT- and stroma-related gene expression and resistance to PD-1 blockade in urothelial cancer. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 3503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Yang, B.; Bai, J.; Shi, R.; Shao, X.; Yang, Y.; Jin, Y.; Che, X.; Zhang, Y.; Qu, X.; Liu, Y.; et al. TGFB2 serves as a link between epithelial-mesenchymal transition and tumor mutation burden in gastric cancer. Int. Immunopharmacol. 2020, 84, 106532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Ramesh, V.; Brabletz, T.; Ceppi, P. Targeting EMT in cancer with repurposed metabolic inhibitors. Trends Cancer 2020, 6, 942–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Terry, S.; Savagner, P.; Ortiz-Cuaran, S.; Mahjoubi, L.; Saintigny, P.; Thiery, J.-P.; Chouaib, S. New insights into the role of EMT in tumor immune escape. Mol. Oncol. 2017, 11, 824–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  213. Liu, X.; Huang, H.; Remmers, N.; Hollingsworth, M.A. Loss of E-Cadherin and epithelial to mesenchymal transition is not required for cell motility in tissues or for metastasis. Tissue Barriers 2014, 2, e969112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Biomolecules 11 00893 g003 550
Figure 3. Variation of intra/extracellular factors during the EMT process. These expression changes underlie chemotherapeutic drug resistance. +: up-regulation, -: down-regulation.
Figure 3. Variation of intra/extracellular factors during the EMT process. These expression changes underlie chemotherapeutic drug resistance. +: up-regulation, -: down-regulation.
Biomolecules 11 00893 g003
Table
Table 1. Classification of various chemotherapeutic agents.
Table 1. Classification of various chemotherapeutic agents.
CategoriesAgents
AntimetabolitesMethotrexate
5-Fluorouracil
Capecitabine
Platinum-based agentsCisplatin
Carboplatin
Plant alkaloidsPaclitaxel
Docetaxel
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sha, J.; Bai, Y.; Ngo, H.X.; Okui, T.; Kanno, T. Overview of Evidence-Based Chemotherapy for Oral Cancer: Focus on Drug Resistance Related to the Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition. Biomolecules 2021, 11, 893. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom11060893

AMA Style

Sha J, Bai Y, Ngo HX, Okui T, Kanno T. Overview of Evidence-Based Chemotherapy for Oral Cancer: Focus on Drug Resistance Related to the Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition. Biomolecules. 2021; 11(6):893. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom11060893

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sha, Jingjing, Yunpeng Bai, Huy Xuan Ngo, Tatsuo Okui, and Takahiro Kanno. 2021. "Overview of Evidence-Based Chemotherapy for Oral Cancer: Focus on Drug Resistance Related to the Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition" Biomolecules 11, no. 6: 893. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom11060893

APA Style

Sha, J., Bai, Y., Ngo, H. X., Okui, T., & Kanno, T. (2021). Overview of Evidence-Based Chemotherapy for Oral Cancer: Focus on Drug Resistance Related to the Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition. Biomolecules, 11(6), 893. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom11060893

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop