In tumor cells growing under hypoxia, inhibiting glycolysis with 2-deoxy-D-glucose (2-DG) leads to cell death, whereas under normoxic conditions cells similarly treated survive. Surprisingly, here we find that 2-DG is toxic in select tumor cell lines growing under normal oxygen tension. In contrast, a more potent glycolytic inhibitor, 2-fluorodeoxy-D-glucose, shows little or no toxicity in these cell types, indicating that a mechanism other than inhibition of glycolysis is responsible for their sensitivity to 2-DG under normoxia. A clue to this other mechanism comes from previous studies in which it was shown that 2-DG interferes with viral N-linked glycosylation and is reversible by exogenous addition of mannose. Similarly, we find that 2-DG interferes with N-linked glycosylation more potently in the tumor cell types that are sensitive to 2-DG under normoxia, which can be reversed by exogenous mannose. Additionally, 2-DG induces an unfolded protein response, including up-regulation of GADD153 (C/ EBP-homologous protein), an unfolded protein responsespecific mediator of apoptosis, more effectively in 2-DGsensitive cells. We conclude that 2-DG seems to be toxic in select tumor cell types growing under normoxia by inhibition of N-linked glycosylation and not by glycolysis.

The dependence of hypoxic tumor cells on glycolysis as their main means of producing ATP provides a selective target for agents that block this pathway, such as 2-deoxy-D-glucose (2-DG) and 2-fluoro-deoxy-D-glucose (2-FDG). Moreover, it was demonstrated that 2-FDG is a more potent glycolytic inhibitor with greater cytotoxic activity than 2-DG. This activity correlates with the closer structural similarity of 2-FDG to glucose than 2-DG, which makes it a better inhibitor of hexokinase, the first enzyme in the glycolytic pathway. In contrast, because of its structural similarity to mannose, 2-DG is known to be more effective than 2-FDG in interfering with N-linked glycosylation. Recently, it was reported that 2-DG, at a relatively low dose, is toxic to certain tumor cells, even under aerobic conditions, whereas 2-FDG is not. These results indicate that the toxic effects of 2-DG in selected tumor cells under aerobic conditions is through inhibition of glycosylation rather than glycolysis. The intention of this minireview is to discuss the effects and potential clinical impact of 2-DG and 2-FDG as antitumor agents and to clarify the differential mechanisms by which these two glucose analogues produce toxicity in tumor cells growing under anaerobic or aerobic conditions.

Overall, these results indicate that cells growing under anaerobic conditions respond with greater sensitivity to the effects of 2-DG on cell cycle inhibition and cell death than those growing under aerobic conditions. This supports our contention that glycolytic inhibitors added to standard chemotherapeutic protocols should increase treatment efficacy by selectively killing the slow-growing cells, which are found in the hypoxic portions of solid tumors, while sparing most of the normal cells that are also slow-growing but are living under aerobic conditions.