Objectives This review highlights both the physicochemical characteristics of the nanocarriers (NCs) and the physiological features of tumour microenvironment (TME) to outline what strategies undertaken to deliver the molecules of interest specifically to certain lesions. This review discusses these properties describing the convenient choice between passive and active targeting mechanisms with details, illustrated with examples of targeting agents up to preclinical research or clinical advances. Key findings Targeted delivery approaches for anticancers have shown a steep rise over the past few decades. Though many successful preclinical trials, only few passive targeted nanocarriers are approved for clinical use and none of the active targeted nanoparticles. Herein, we review the principles and for both processes and the correlation with the tumour microenvironment. We also focus on the limitation and advantages of each systems regarding laboratory and industrial scale. Summary The current literature discusses how the NCs and the enhanced permeation and retention effect impact the passive targeting. Whereas the active targeting relies on the ligand‐receptor binding, which improves selective accumulation to targeted sites and thus discriminates between the diseased and healthy tissues. The latter could be achieved by targeting the endothelial cells, tumour cells, the acidic environment of cancers and nucleus.

Epigenetic silencing of tumor suppressor genes (TSGs) through DNA methylation and histone changes is a main hallmark of cancer. Ubiquitin-like with PHD and RING Finger domains 1 (UHRF1) is a potent oncogene overexpressed in various solid and haematological tumors and its high expression levels are associated with decreased expression of several TSGs including p16 INK4A, BRCA1, PPARG and KiSS1. Using its several functional domains, UHRF1 creates a strong coordinated dialogue between DNA methylation and histone post-translation modification changes causing the epigenetic silencing of TSGs which allows cancer cells to escape apoptosis. To ensure the silencing of TSGs during cell division, UHRF1 recruits several enzymes including histone deacetylase 1 (HDAC1), DNA methyltransferase 1 (DNMT1) and histone lysine methyltransferases G9a and Suv39H1 to the right place at the right moment. Several in vitro and in vivo works have reported the direct implication of the epigenetic player UHRF1 in tumorigenesis through the repression of TSGs expression and suggested UHRF1 as a promising target for cancer treatment. This review describes the molecular mechanisms underlying UHRF1 regulation in cancer and discusses its importance as a therapeutic target to induce the reactivation of TSGs and subsequent apoptosis.

No abstract

Light-responsive biologically active compounds offer the possibility to study the dynamics of biological processes. Phototriggers and photoswitches have been designed, providing the capability to rapidly cause the initiation of wide range of dynamic biological phenomena. We will discuss, in this article, recent developments in the field of light-triggered chemical tools, specially how two-photon excitation, "caged" fluorophores, and the photoregulation of protein activities in combination with time-resolved x-ray techniques should break new grounds in the understanding of dynamic biological processes.

Down-regulation of UHRF1 (Ubiquitin-like containing PHD and Ring Finger 1) in Jurkat cells, induced by natural anticancer compounds such as thymoquinone, allows re-expression of tumor suppressor genes such as p73 and p16INK4A. In order to decipher the mechanisms of UHRF1 down-regulation, we investigated the kinetic of expression of HAUSP (herpes virus-associated ubiquitin-specific protease), UHRF1, cleaved caspase-3 and p73 in Jurkat cells treated with thymoquinone. We found that thymoquinone induced degradation of UHRF1, correlated with a sharp decrease in HAUSP and an increase in cleaved caspase-3 and p73. UHRF1 concomitantly underwent a rapid ubiquitination in response to thymoquinone and this effect was not observed in the cells expressing mutant UHRF1 RING domain, suggesting that UHRF1 commits an auto-ubiquitination through its RING domain in response to thymoquinone treatment. Exposure of cells to Z-DEVD, an inhibitor of caspase-3 markedly reduced the thymoquinone-induced down-regulation of UHRF1, while proteosomal inhibitor MG132 had no such effect. The present findings indicate that thymoquinone induces in cancer cells a fast UHRF1 auto-ubiquitination through its RING domain associated with HAUSP down-regulation. They further suggest that thymoquinone-induced UHRF1 auto-ubiquitination followed by its degradation is a key event in inducing apoptosis through a proteasome-independent mechanism.

Protein kinases have emerged as the most important class of targets in oncology drug discovery because of their major roles in regulating cellular growth and survival. At least, 11 kinase inhibitors have received FDA approval to be used as cancer treatments, and there are continuous efforts to bring more candidates from laboratory benches to the clinic. Although many protein kinase inhibitors directly interact with the ATP binding site, other can alter the kinase conformation to prevent productive ATP binding. Herein we discuss the different mechanisms of action of kinase inhibitors and provide classification of the inhibitors according to their binding sites. Some of these are allosteric inhibitors, ATP competitive inhibitors, protein substrate competitive inhibitors, and covalent bond forming inhibitors. This review provides a broad overview of the relation between mechanism of action and the issues of target selectivity and resistance. Special attention was given to the kinase inhibitors currently in clinical trials.

The treatment of cancer presents a clinical challenge both in human and veterinary medicine. Chemotherapy protocols require the use of toxic drugs that are not always specific, do not selectively target cancerous cells thus resulting in many side effects. A recent therapeutic approach takes advantage of the altered acidity of the tumour microenvironment by using proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) to block the hydrogen transport out of the cell. The alteration of the extracellular pH kills tumour cells, reverses drug resistance, and reduces cancer metastasis. Human clinical trials have prompted to consider this as a viable and safe option for the treatment of cancer in companion animals. Preliminary animal studies suggest that the same positive outcome could be achievable. The purpose of this review is to support investigations into the use of PPIs for cancer treatment cancer in companion animals by considering the evidence available in both human and veterinary medicine.

A note on versions:The version presented here may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher's version. Please see the repository url above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription.