Cancer: fundamentals behind pH targeting and the double-edged approach

Abstract

The highly regulated pH of cells and the less-regulated pH of the surrounding extracellular matrix (ECM) is the result of a delicate balance between metabolic processes and proton production, proton transportation, chemical buffering, and vascular removal of waste products. Malignant cells show a pronounced increase in metabolic processes where the 10- to 15-fold rise in glucose consumption is only the tip of the iceberg. Aerobic glycolysis (Warburg effect) is one of the hallmarks of cancer metabolism that implies excessive production of protons, which if stayed inside the cells would result in fatal intracellular acidosis (maintaining a strict acid–base balance is essential for the survival of eukaryotic cells). Malignant cells solve this problem by increasing mechanisms of proton transportation which expel the excess acidity. This allows cancer cells to keep a normal intracellular pH, or even overshooting this mechanism permits a slightly alkaline intracellular tendency. The proton excess expelled from malignant cells accumulates in the ECM, where chronic hypoxia and relative lack of enough blood vessels impede adequate proton clearance, thus creating an acidic microenvironment. This microenvironment is quite heterogeneous due to the tumor’s metabolic heterogeneity and variable degrees of hypoxia inside the tumor mass. The acidic environment (plus other necessary cellular modifications) stimulates migration and invasion and finally intravasation of malignant cells which eventually may result in metastasis. Targeting tumor pH may go in two directions: 1) increasing extracellular pH which should result in less migration, invasion, and metastasis; and 2) decreasing intracellular pH which may result in acidic stress and apoptosis. Both objectives seem achievable at the present state of the art with repurposed drugs. This hypothesis analyzes the altered pH of tumors and its implications for progression and metastasis and also possible repurposed drug combinations targeting this vulnerable side of cancer development. It also analyzes the double-edged approach, which consists in pharmacologically increasing intracellular proton production and simultaneously decreasing proton extrusion creating intracellular acidity, acid stress, and eventual apoptosis.

Advances in Magnetic Nanoparticles for Biomedical Applications

“…As an adjuvant alternative, thermotherapy has been traditionally used to kill tumor cells in two different ways: on the one hand by hyperthermia, in which the temperature of a local region or the whole body is increased up to 41–45 °C by ultrasounds, microwaves, or radiofrequency radiation; on the other hand, by thermal ablation, in which a temperature above 45 °C is applied to the diseased area of interest that destroys the tissue . Both methods are based on the more thermosensitive character of the cancer cells compared to the healthy ones, due to its high glycolytic activity and consequent lower pH . However, these conventional technologies resulted to be very aggressive and suffer from low penetration depths and limited targeting.…”

Altered Iron Metabolism and Impact in Cancer Biology, Metastasis, and Immunology

“…While a single genetic mutation, amplification or deletion is insufficient to cause metastasis, the accumulation of ROS through Fenton reactions can stimulate widespread modifications to DNA, proteins and lipids which promotes a more aggressive tumor phenotype. ROS induce metabolic rewiring in cancer cells toward glycolysis, a feature described as the "Warburg effect, " however, the byproducts of this process increase intracellular acidity and in response, protons are exported into the extracellular space creating an acidic microenvironment (4). The acidic environment breaks down the extracellular matrix (ECM), promotes neo-vascularization, suppresses T cell activity and induces migration and invasion (4).…”

Cancer with low cathepsin D levels is susceptible to vacuolar (H+)‐ATPase inhibition

“…Indeed, several studies have shown antitumor effects of V-ATPase inhibitors in preclinical tests. (15)(16)(17)(18) However, their clinical use as anticancer drugs has not been realized, possibly owing to the high toxicity of these inhibitors in humans, as discussed by Koltai et al (19) Therefore, in cancers that are highly susceptible to V-ATPase inhibition, this may be a useful new cancer therapeutic option. We considered that V-ATPase inhibitors may be beneficial in certain patients, and the identification of markers for patient selection may increase the probability of clinical success.…”