Non-metabolic role of alpha-enolase in virus replication

Vadlamani, Satya; Karmakar, Ruma; Kumar, Alok; Rajala, Maitreyi S.

doi:10.1007/s11033-022-08067-9

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 84 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…ENO1 (also known as α-enolase or phosphopyruvate hydratase) is a ubiquitous glycolytic enzyme with variable expression in response to stress, metabolic and pathologic states of a cell [ 7 ]. Despite playing a main role in energy production through anaerobic glycolysis, ENO1 has also been found to shuttle between various cellular compartments and be involved in numerous non-metabolic activities, including cell division, tRNA transport, cytoskeleton organisation, and mitochondrial membrane stability [ 8 ]. It is overexpressed in many cancers, and in solid tumours, high cellular ENO1 protein and/or mRNA expression has been linked with poor prognosis for lung [ 9 ], breast [ 10 ], pancreatic [ 11 ], and hepatocellular [ 12 ] carcinomas.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

High Expression of ENO1 and Low Levels of Circulating Anti-ENO1 Autoantibodies in Patients with Myelodysplastic Neoplasms and Acute Myeloid Leukaemia

Lincz,

Theron,

Barry

et al. 2024

Cancers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In solid tumours, high expression of the glycolytic enzyme, α-enolase (ENO1), predicts for poor patient overall survival (OS), and circulating autoantibodies to ENO1 correlate positively with diagnosis and negatively with advanced disease. Although ENO1 is one of the most highly expressed genes in acute myeloid leukaemia (AML), its potential role as a biomarker in AML or its precursor, myelodysplastic neoplasms (MDS), has not been investigated. A meta-analysis of nine AML online datasets (n = 1419 patients) revealed that high ENO1 expression predicts for poor OS (HR = 1.22, 95% CI: 1.10–1.34, p < 0.001). Additionally, when compared to AML in remission (n = 5), ENO1 protein detected by immunohistochemistry was significantly higher at diagnosis in bone marrow from both AML (n = 5, p < 0.01) and MDS patients (n = 12, p < 0.05), and did not correlate with percentage of blasts (r = 0.28, p = 0.21). AML patients (n = 34) had lower circulating levels of ENO1 autoantibodies detected by ELISA compared to 26 MDS and 18 controls (p = 0.003). However, there was no difference in OS between AML patients with high vs. low levels of anti-ENO1 autoantibodies (p = 0.77). BM immunostaining for ENO1 and patient monitoring of anti-ENO1 autoantibody levels may be useful biomarkers for MDS and AML.

show abstract