Direct Endoplasmic Reticulum Targeting by the Selective Alkylphospholipid Analog and Antitumor Ether Lipid Edelfosine as a Therapeutic Approach in Pancreatic Cancer.

1. The Pancreas

The pancreas is a very blood-rich, soft, and spongy glandular organ of both the digestive and endocrine systems that plays an essential role in turning the food we eat into fuel for our body’s cells. Etymologically, the origin of the word pancreas comes from the Greek πανκρέας (pankreas), meaning “all flesh” (παν, “all”; κρέας, “flesh”), apparently being named in this way for its meaty appearance. The pancreas serves as two types of gland—namely, a digestive exocrine gland (excreting a number of enzymes required to break down the proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates in food), and a hormone-generating endocrine gland (producing the blood sugar regulators insulin and glucagon). The pancreas should produce the above enzymes and hormones in the proper quantities and at the right time to digest and control the food we eat, and these functions of the pancreas are vital to the body’s survival. The pancreas is a flat and oblong-shaped gland, of about 15–25 cm (6–10 inches) long, extended horizontally across the back of the upper abdomen, and sits tucked behind the stomach [ 1 ] ( Figure 1 a). The pancreas can be divided in four major regions [ 1 ] ( Figure 1 b): head (the widest part of the pancreas, being located on the right side of the abdomen, at the juncture where the stomach meets the duodenum, and wrapped by the C shape of the duodenum); neck; body; and tail (the thin part of the pancreas on the left side of the abdomen, in close vicinity to the spleen).

2. Pancreatic Cancer

Approximately 65–75% of all pancreatic cancers occur within the head and neck of the pancreas, whereas ~15–25% occur in the body and tail; the remaining lesions diffusely involve the whole gland. Nevertheless, people with tumors in the body or tail of the pancreas have lower survival rates than those with cancer in the head or neck of the pancreas, independently of the presentation stage and extent of the disease [ 2 , 3 ].

The pancreas is the largest exocrine gland in the body, and is a unique gland that has both exocrine and endocrine functions [ 4 ]. The pancreas consists of 85–95% exocrine tissue (acinar and duct tissue), which secretes digestive enzymes into the duodenum, and less than 5% endocrine tissue (islets of Langerhans), which secretes hormones into the bloodstream [ 4 , 5 ] ( Figure 1 b). The exocrine pancreas comprises acinar, ductal, and centroacinar cells [ 6 ], which form the exocrine glands and ducts, producing enzymes that are secreted into the duodenum ( Figure 1 a,b). Ductal cells form an intricate network of small tubes (ducts), by which the acinar-cell-secreted enzymes (e.g., proteases, amylases, lipases) flow into the main pancreatic duct. The latter then joins the common bile duct (carrying bile from the liver and the gallbladder through the pancreas) to form the ampulla of Vater, through which the bile and pancreatic juices enter the duodenum to break down proteins, carbohydrates, and fats ( Figure 1 a,b). Most tumors affecting the exocrine gland are called adenocarcinomas. The vast majority of pancreatic cancers (~90–95%) initiate in the ducts of the pancreas, leading to the name of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) for the most common malignancy of the pancreas. Pancreatic acinar cells can undergo transdifferentiation to ductal-like cells (acinar-to-ductal metaplasia) during pancreatitis, and this might precede progression towards PDAC [ 7 , 8 ].

The endocrine pancreas consists of small islands containing endocrine cells (islets of Langerhans), which produce and release hormones (e.g., insulin and glucagon) into the bloodstream [ 6 ], thus controlling blood glucose levels ( Figure 1 b). A small percentage (1–2%) of all pancreatic cancers correspond to pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNETs or PNETs)—a diverse group of rare neoplasms previously referred to as islet cell tumors or pancreatic endocrine tumors, which have a slow and indolent growth [ 9 ]. PanNETs affect the secretion of pancreatic hormones and, therefore, they are commonly named after each specific hormone (gastrinoma, insulinoma, somatostatinoma, VIPoma, and glucagonoma, affecting cells producing gastrin, insulin, somatostatin, VIP, and glucagon, respectively) [ 10 , 11 , 12 ]. PanNET patients have a better prognosis than PDAC patients, with an overall median survival from diagnosis of 4.1 years for patients with PanNETs, whereas the median survival is less than 1 year for patients with PDAC [ 13 ].

The pancreas is located deep in the abdomen, with the head of the pancreas on the right side of the abdomen nestled in the C-loop of the duodenum, and the body and tail of the pancreas extending to the left side of the body behind the stomach. Due to this location, most pancreatic tumors are difficult to detect manually by pressing on the abdomen. Patients rarely display symptoms until an advanced stage of the disease, when the tumor interferes with the function of the pancreas or other nearby organs, such as the stomach, duodenum, liver, or gallbladder. Thus, by the time pancreatic tumors are detected, they are usually fairly large and metastatic—too late for surgical removal.

PDACs are indolent, difficult to treat tumors with one of the direst prognoses of any type of cancer ( Figure 2 ), showing a rapid progress from diagnosis to death. Complete surgical resection remains the only potential curative treatment, but only 10–20% of pancreatic tumors are resectable at the time of presentation [ 14 ]. Unfortunately, the 5-year survival rate for patients with resectable PDAC remains rather low (15–20%) after surgical resection, likely as a result of metastatic disease or local recurrence [ 14 ].

PDAC shows an overall 5-year survival rate of 5–9%, depending on the specific stage of the disease when it is diagnosed [ 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ]. From 2014–2018, the 5-year survival for PDAC barely increased, from 6% to 9% [ 19 ], which indicates that there is an urgent need to improve the survival rate.

To date, pancreatic cancer shows a dismal prognosis, with a mortality-to-incidence ratio of 0.94 ( Figure 2 )—this type of cancer accounting for almost as many deaths as cases ( Figure 2 ). The incidence and mortality rates for PDAC are nearly equivalent ( Figure 2 ), with the highest incidence rates in Europe, North America, and Australia/New Zealand—all of them belonging to the highest Human Development Index (HDI) countries [ 20 , 21 , 22 ]. Pancreatic cancer incidence is 4–5-fold higher in countries with elevated HDI [ 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 ]. There is a positive and significant correlation between incidence and mortality of pancreatic cancer and HDI, suggesting an association with socioeconomic development [ 24 , 25 , 26 ]. There is also a positive correlation between HDI and obesity—a major factor contributing to diabetes mellitus type 2 [ 27 ]. Obesity and diabetes are recognized risk factors for the development of pancreatic cancer [ 28 , 29 ], and the spread of obesity and diabetes worldwide could forewarn an increase in the incidence of pancreatic cancer [ 29 ].

Currently, pancreatic cancer is the seventh leading cause of global cancer deaths, and is the most lethal of the common malignancies [ 22 , 30 ]. When colon and rectal cancers are grouped together as colorectal cancer, and all patients with distinct hematological cancers are pooled together, pancreatic cancer ranks as the eighth leading cause of cancer death ( Figure 2 ), with an estimated 466,000 deaths in 2020 worldwide [ 30 ].

Pancreatic cancer is a leading determinant of global cancer mortality, and it has been continuously rising in incidence in recent years. Pancreatic cancer is projected to become the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the European Union—after lung and colorectal cancers—by 2025 [ 31 ], and the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States by 2030 [ 32 ].

3. Differences in Mutated Genes between PDAC and PanNET

Although both tumor types are still incurable, the better prognosis of PanNET as compared to that of PDAC could be related to differences between their respective genetic profiles. More than 90% of PDAC cases at all grades carry mutated KRAS alleles [ 33 ], and none of the most frequently mutated genes in PDAC ( KRAS , CDKN2A , TP53, SMAD4 ) are currently druggable [ 34 ]. Conversely, KRAS mutation is usually absent in PanNETs, which show ~60% fewer genes mutated per tumor than PADCs. The genes most commonly mutated in PDACs are barely faulty in PanNETs, and vice versa [ 35 ]. The most commonly mutated genes in PanNETs include MEN1 , DAXX , ATRX , and mTOR [ 35 , 36 ].

4. Pancreatic Cancer Stages

Four different stages of pancreatic cancer have been defined, so as to describe the extent of the cancer’s spread and classify patients for treatment and clinical trials, namely:

Stage 0: No spread;

Stage I: Local growth. Tumor size is <2 cm (stage IA) or between 2–4 cm (stage IB);

Stage II: Local spread. Tumor is >4 cm, but limited to the pancreas; locally spread or spread to nearby lymph nodes. No spread to distant sites;

Stage III: Wider spread, including nearby blood vessels or nerves. No metastasis to distant sites;

Stage IV: Spread to distant organs.

Pancreatic cancer usually metastasizes to one or more organs and tissues located near the pancreas, such as the liver (leading to liver failure), as well as to various anatomical locations in the abdomen. PDAC patients are usually diagnosed at stage III or IV and, therefore, it has a very poor prognosis, with a usual 5-year survival of less than 8% [ 34 ]. Based on the above disease stages, pancreatic cancer can be considered to be either resectable (cancer has not spread and can be removable) or unresectable (cancer is locally advanced and has spread into major blood vessels, or it is already metastatic and has spread to other organs). Approximately 10–20% of pancreatic cancers could be considered resectable at diagnosis [ 37 , 38 , 39 ]. Currently, surgical resection remains the only curative treatment for pancreatic cancer, or option to achieve long-term survival. However, disappointingly, only modest improvements in survival have been accomplished [ 37 , 38 , 40 ]. Surgical resection improves survival, especially if accompanied with neoadjuvant therapy, but no cure is attained. Unfortunately, most of the patients with localized pancreatic cancer who undergo surgery will develop metastatic disease, regardless of whether or not they also undergo neoadjuvant therapy [ 41 ]. This suggests that surgery is not sufficient for a cure, and micrometastases, although clinically undetectable, are apparently present at the time of diagnosis [ 41 ]. Because it is difficult to diagnose pancreatic cancer at early stages, 80–90% of patients have unresectable tumors due to the advanced stage at diagnosis [ 19 ]. Patients undergoing resection usually develop recurrent tumors (69–75% of patients relapse within 2 years, and 80–90% relapse within 5 years) [ 42 ]. Lee et al. [ 39 ] found that the median survival was significantly longer with neoadjuvant therapy plus surgery (24 months), compared to surgery without neoadjuvant therapy (16 months) or palliative care (7 months). Christians et al. [ 43 ] found a median survival of 44.9 months in patients who completed neoadjuvant therapy plus surgery, compared with 8.1 months for the patients who were not resected. Cucchetti et al. [ 44 ] estimated that the mean entire lifespan for pancreatic cancer was 1.4 years, with surgical patients reaching a higher post-diagnostic lifespan (3.5 years) than non-surgical older individuals (0.8 years). Although surgical tumor resection remains the best option to improve survival, the increase in life expectancy is highly dependent on the patient’s age and adjuvant treatments in resected patients [ 45 ].

On the other hand, the current chemotherapeutic regimen available is limited and often ineffective [ 46 , 47 ], especially for PDAC, which is mostly diagnosed at stage III or IV. Early detection may be the key to reducing mortality, and may be supported by patients’ screening and prevention regimens [ 19 ].

5. Current Therapy against Pancreatic Cancer Is Ineffective

Pancreatic cancer is an intractable malignancy and, as stated above, PDAC (accounting for over 90% of all cases of pancreatic) remains an incurable cancer, with its 5-year survival remaining dismally poor at ~5–9% [ 19 , 34 , 48 ], and the 1-year survival rate at less than 20% [ 49 ]. Outcomes have not improved substantially over the past four decades, and patients with locally advanced disease have a median survival of 6–10 months, while for those with metastatic disease it is only 3–6 months [ 19 , 48 ]. Several reasons lead to this grim prognosis [ 19 , 50 , 51 ] ( Figure 3 ): (a) the lack of visible and distinctive symptoms and reliable biomarkers for early diagnosis; (b) aggressive metastatic spread; (c) the proportion of patients (around 50%) who show metastatic disease at diagnosis; (d) poor response to treatment, showing intrinsic and acquired chemoresistance; (e) tumor heterogeneity and plasticity facilitating resistance to cancer therapy; and (f) the progression of disease being accompanied by accumulating genetic alterations and aberrations in signaling pathways that likely make the tumor more aggressive and drug resistant.

Thus far, PDAC is considered to be the epitome of a treatment-resistant malignancy, likely driven by the thus-far “undruggable” KRAS oncoprotein [ 52 , 53 ]. At the time of diagnosis, ~10–20% of patients have resectable disease (stage I or II), ~35% have locally advanced pancreatic cancer (stage III), and ~50% have metastatic disease (stage IV) [ 54 ]. For a long time, the standard treatment for pancreatic cancer was restricted to the use of gemcitabine, with very limited benefit, and a modest survival improvement of a few months (3–6 months) [ 55 , 56 , 57 ].

A remarkable characteristic of pancreatic cancer is that the tumor microenvironment (tumor stroma) occupies up to 70–80% of the entire tumor mass, whereas tumor cells account for less than 20% of the total volume [ 58 ]. This leads to a strong degree of desmoplasia, which constitutes a fundamental pathological feature of pancreatic cancer ( Figure 3 ). Desmoplasia is the result of a dramatic increase in the proliferation of cancer-associated fibroblasts/myofibroblasts and activated pancreatic stellate cells, resulting in increased deposition of extracellular matrix components. This high concentration of extracellular matrix molecules leads to a lack of tumor tissue elasticity and a concomitant increase in tumor interstitial fluid pressure which, in turn, leads to a decreased rate of perfusion of therapeutic agents and, consequently, reduced efficacy of chemotherapy [ 59 ] ( Figure 3 ). Thus, this abundant, dense desmoplastic stroma is a major issue in pancreatic cancer chemotherapy, because antitumor drugs are considered to have difficulties penetrating this physical barrier, causing drug resistance [ 60 ]. The desmoplastic stroma of pancreatic cancer, mainly characterized by a dense extracellular matrix and abundant fibroblasts and inflammatory cells, is composed of several types of cells (e.g., fibroblasts, stellate cells, immune cells, and pericytes) and acellular components (e.g., fibrin, collagen, hyaluronic acid, fibronectin, growth factors, and cytokines), which lead to a tumor microenvironment characterized by low pH, hypoxia, and high tumor interstitial fluid pressure [ 61 ].

Treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer relies on chemotherapeutic regimens, with FOLFIRINOX (folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan and oxaliplatin) and nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel, Abraxane) plus gemcitabine as first-line therapies, and combinations of gemcitabine plus cisplatin and temsirolimus plus bevacizumab as second-line treatments, but the survival outcomes remain poor in all cases [ 53 , 62 ]. Thus, the development of novel and more effective treatments is urgently needed. Unfortunately, phase III clinical trials in PDAC show a very high failure rate (87%) [ 63 ], suggesting an insufficient robustness in the preclinical studies.

Since 1997, gemcitabine has been the standard first-line treatment for patients with a good Karnofsky performance status [ 64 ], but the response has been rather modest, with a median survival rate of a few months and a 1-year overall survival of ~18% [ 64 ]. The combination of gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (Abraxane) slightly improved the response in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer [ 65 , 66 ], leading to (a) a median overall survival of 8.5 months in the nab-paclitaxel–gemcitabine group vs. 6.7 months in the gemcitabine group, and (b) a survival rate of 35% in the nab-paclitaxel–gemcitabine group vs. 22% in the gemcitabine group at 1 year, and 9% vs. 4% at 2 years [ 65 ]. However, single-agent gemcitabine and its combinations have failed to meet expectations, prolonging life expectancy only moderately. In addition, the rather modest positive response to the Abraxane–gemcitabine therapy was accompanied by a considerable increase in the occurrence of adverse events, including grade ≥ 3 neutropenia (38% in the nab-paclitaxel–gemcitabine group vs. 27% in the gemcitabine group), febrile neutropenia (3% vs. 1%), thrombocytopenia (13% vs. 9%), fatigue (17% vs. 7%), and neuropathy (17% vs. 1%) [ 65 ]. Thus, the positive response of this combination, although rather modest, was accompanied by an increase in adverse effects [ 51 , 65 , 67 ]. Interestingly, recent data suggest that the nab-paclitaxel–gemcitabine treatment-induced neutropenia is associated with longer survival in metastatic pancreatic cancer patients [ 68 ].

Despite important achievements having been accomplished in the screening and treatment of other types of cancer, PDAC therapy has not significantly improved outcomes in recent decades. Gemcitabine and its combinations have failed to provide substantial survival benefits. The use of multidrug therapies (Abraxane and FOLFIRINOX) has only moderately improved patient outcomes. The efficacy of these dug combinations still remains low, and their use is linked to adverse effects [ 51 ]. Treatment with FOLFIRINOX achieved better efficacy parameters than gemcitabine, including overall survival (11.1 vs. 6.8 months) and 1-year survival rate (48.4% vs. 20.6%) [ 69 ], and led to a reduction in deterioration of quality of life when compared to gemcitabine-treated patients [ 70 ]. However, disappointingly, the toxicity profile of FOLFIRINOX treatment has tempered enthusiasm for its use, being associated mainly with neutropenia (grade 3 and 4), febrile neutropenia, and diarrhea [ 69 , 71 ]. FOLFIRINOX is considered to be a first-line option for advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer, although its use is mainly constrained to patients under 75 years of age with a good performance status, due to its considerable toxicity [ 51 ]. Because of the high toxicity profile of most of the chemotherapeutic treatments against pancreatic cancer, patients’ Karnofsky performance status is one of the most important factors to take into account when starting drug treatment. Thus, learning how to manage the toxicity of these pharmacological treatments, or to reduce treatment toxicity, may improve their feasibility [ 51 ]. Several modified FOLFIRINOX treatments have been tested to decrease adverse events while providing survival benefits [ 72 , 73 , 74 ], but results have so far been rather modest.

A number of strategies to target specific oncogenes and related molecules, signaling pathways, growth factor receptors, angiogenesis, tumor–stroma interactions, and pancreatic stellate cells are being developed but, thus far, most of these targeted therapies have produced unsatisfactory results [ 51 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 ].

Tumor heterogeneity and plasticity are two common major obstacles in the treatment of pancreatic cancer, and disease progression is accompanied by accumulating morphological and genetic alterations, affecting cell proliferation, survival, and invasion [ 34 , 79 , 80 , 81 ]. As previously mentioned, activating mutations in KRAS constitutes a hallmark in the deadly and highly metastatic PDAC, occurring in 90–95% cases [ 82 , 83 , 84 ]. KRAS signals mainly through two signaling pathways—namely, the so-called RAF (rapidly accelerated fibrosarcoma)→MEK (MAPK/ERK kinase)→MAPK (mitogen-activated protein kinase)/ERK (extracellular signal-regulated kinase), and PI3K (phosphoinositide-3-kinase)→AKT→mTOR (mammalian target of rapamycin) signaling routes, which show extensive crosstalk [ 85 ]. Inhibition of the RAF→MEK→ERK signaling pathway in PDAC cells elicited autophagy as an adaptive and survival response. This might explain the lack of clinical benefit of MEK1/2 inhibitors (e.g., trametinib, pimasertib) in PDAC patients [ 86 , 87 ]. Xenografts in immunodeficient mice of human pancreatic cancer cell lines (MIA PaCa-2, BxPC-3), or tumor tissue from PDAC patients, were resistant to single-agent trametinib (MEK inhibitor) or chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine (autophagy inhibitor), but were sensitive to the combination of both inhibitors [ 88 ]. The combination of trametinib plus hydroxychloroquine yielded a partial disease response in a patient with metastatic PDAC refractory to standard-of-care therapies, including neoadjuvant modified FOLFIRINOX (mFOLFIRINOX), adjuvant gemcitabine/capecitabine, and palliative gemcitabine/Abraxane/cisplatin [ 88 ]. In this regard, the inhibition of autophagy (using chloroquine, or other genetic or pharmacologic inhibitors) potentiated the ability of ERK inhibitors to mediate antitumor activity in KRAS-driven PDAC [ 89 ]. Thus, inhibition of the ERK signaling pathway drives PDAC cells to be acutely dependent on autophagy, hence becoming highly sensitive to autophagy inhibitors. A number of different processes are also able to induce a high dependence of tumor cells on autophagy, thus providing new targets/drugs to be combined with autophagy inhibitors in pancreatic cancer treatment [ 85 ].

6. Aging and Pancreas

Aging is accompanied by several changes in pancreatic structure and function [ 90 , 91 ]. Pancreatic volume reaches its maximum (~78.85 cm 3 ) in the third decade of life, and then pancreatic volume decreases with advancing age, reaching ~57.35 cm 3 at the age of 70–80 years [ 90 , 92 ], while its hardness is increased [ 93 ], and the pancreatic ductal structure is dilated and shows a tendency to enlargement with advancing age [ 90 , 94 ]. An increased fibrosis around the acini, islets, and extracellular matrix is observed along with an apparent fatty infiltration [ 91 , 95 , 96 ]. At the ultrastructural level, several changes are observed with age, including mitochondrial swelling, vacuolization, and increased lipid droplets, lysosomes, and autophagosomes [ 91 ]. Downregulated islet cell function and decreased pancreatic exocrine function have been found in the elderly [ 90 , 91 ]. This inadequate pancreatic enzyme secretion, as a result of degenerative processes and gland damage, could lead to increased dyspeptic symptoms in the elderly. Thus, 5% of people older than 70 years and 10% older than 80 years show pancreatic exocrine insufficiency [ 97 ]. On the other hand, some age-related changes are consistent with a mild form of chronic pancreatitis called “senile pancreatitis”, which is often silent and very mild [ 90 , 97 ].

Considering, as stated above, that aging is frequently accompanied, to a variable degree, by a degeneration in pancreatic structure and function, and the increase in life expectancy, this could explain why the incidence rate of pancreatic cancer increases with age, and is estimated to increase in the coming years [ 19 ]. Pancreatic cancer rarely occurs before the age of 40 years, and is typically a disease of the elderly (≥70 years of age) [ 98 ], with the highest incidence peak occurring between 60 and 80 years of age [ 99 ]. Survival is negatively correlated with age at diagnosis, and patients aged <40 years diagnosed at an early stage have the best survival rate [ 100 ].

7. Endoplasmic Reticulum and Pancreas

Pancreatic acinar cells comprise about 80–90% of the pancreas, are highly specialized for the synthesis of digestive synthesis and secretion [ 101 ], and thereby have a highly developed, large, and abundant ER to meet the daily needs for protein synthesis. Their main function is to synthesize and secrete the hydrolytic enzymes that empty into the duodenum for the digestion of food, and they have the highest protein synthesis capacity in adult human tissues [ 102 ]. The pancreatic islets or islets of Langerhans make up just over 2% of the pancreatic tissue, and contain the endocrine (hormone-producing) cells of the pancreas with a well-developed ER, including glucagon-producing α-cells, insulin-producing β-cells (60–80% of the islet cell population), somatostatin-producing δ-cells, pancreatic-polypeptide-producing F (or PP)-cells, and ghrelin-producing ε-cells [ 103 , 104 ]. Thus, a hallmark of pancreatic cells is their highly developed ER, due to a high hormone and enzyme synthesis and secretion function [ 105 ].

8. ER Stress and Cancer Resistance

The ER is the main site of protein and lipid synthesis, membrane biogenesis, and cellular calcium storage, and any disturbance in ER homeostasis—including an imbalance between demand and capacity for protein synthesis and folding—leads to ER stress [ 106 ].

A number of circumstances favor the onset of an ER stress response in cancer cells, including a rapid cell proliferation leading to a protein build-up, inhibition of protein glycosylation, imbalance of ER calcium levels, as well as localized depletion of oxygen, nutrients, and glucose in the tumor microenvironment, which could be related to cancer chemoresistance [ 107 ]. This ER stress condition, characterized by the accumulation of misfolded proteins inside the ER lumen, triggers the unfolded protein response (UPR) [ 106 , 107 ], which is controlled by three ER transmembrane stress sensors—namely, inositol-requiring enzyme 1 (IRE1) [ 108 ], protein kinase RNA (PKR)-like ER kinase (PERK) [ 109 ], and activating transcription factor 6 (ATF6) [ 110 ]—with the main aim being to restore the ER’s physiological activity. This UPR signal transduction is fundamentally a pro-survival process, although sustained or protracted ER stress may result in cell death [ 106 ]. This reflects the critical importance of the timing of the process, and this is particularly evident in the case of an ER stress response, which is pro-survival in a short-term response, while it turns into a deadly response in a protracted or persistent response.

An ER stress response also plays a role in the PDAC-specific adaptive immune response, selecting quiescent, single disseminated cancer cells, which are resistant to immune elimination, thus enabling cancer PDAC cells to escape immunity and facilitate metastasis [ 111 ].

Sustained ER stress is induced in chronic pancreatitis [ 112 ], and pancreatic tumors tend to show high basal levels of ER stress [ 107 ]. Furthermore, autophagy seems to play an essential role in PDAC survival and progression, likely providing fuel to pancreatic cancer cells in their nutrient-deprived environment [ 113 ]. In this regard, ER stress could lead to an increase in autophagy to keep cells alive in nutrient-deprived media [ 114 ]. ER stress response can also induce dormancy in PDAC [ 115 ] which, if conveniently modulated, could provide a potential treatment for the emergence of distant metastasis and prolong patient survival [ 116 ].

9. ER Stress and Antitumor Drugs

A number of antitumor drugs have been reported to act through an ER stress response in different human cancers, including bortezomib (also known as Velcade or PS-341) [ 117 , 118 ], cisplatin [ 119 ], cannabinoids [ 120 ], and a wide number of plant-derived natural compounds, such as curcumin, resveratrol, green tea polyphenols, tocotrienols, and garcinia derivatives [ 121 ]. Bortezomib is a selective and potent inhibitor of the 26S proteasome, and proteasome inhibition can promote an accumulation of misfolded proteins in the cell, leading to ER stress [ 117 ]. Bortezomib promotes apoptosis triggered by classic ER stress inducers (such as tunicamycin—an inhibitor of protein glycosylation—and thapsigargin—an inhibitor of sarco/endoplasmic reticulum Ca 2+ -ATPases) via a c-Jun NH 2 -terminal kinase (JNK)-dependent mechanism [ 122 ]. The combined use of bortezomib plus cisplatin induced JNK activation and apoptosis in orthotopic pancreatic tumors, leading to a reduction in tumor burden [ 122 ]. Bortezomib sensitized pancreatic cancer cells to ER-stress-induced apoptosis, interacted with cisplatin to increase ER dilation, and strongly enhanced the anticancer activity of cisplatin [ 122 ].

However, in the long term, the development of bortezomib resistance seems to be generated through induction of the UPR pathway, associated with ER stress, as an adaptive cellular program to cope with protein misfolding stress in both hematological and solid cancers [ 123 , 124 ]. Thus, ER-stress-induced activation of the UPR represents a mechanism of protein quality control in the ER and cytoprotection [ 125 , 126 ]. However, unresolved and persistent ER stress leads to cell death by apoptosis [ 127 , 128 ]. Figure 4 shows schematically the major processes and signaling routes involved in the induction of apoptosis mediated by an ER stress response, based on previously reported studies [ 114 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 ]. In response to ER stress, the mammalian UPR is initiated by three ER-resident transmembrane protein sensors: namely, IRE1, ATF6, and PERK. The ER chaperone GRP78 (78-kDa glucose-regulated protein) (also known as BiP: binding immunoglobulin protein) is a master regulator of ER homeostasis, facilitating the folding and assembly of nascent polypeptides, preventing protein misfolding and aggregation, targeting misfolded proteins for proteasome degradation, and controlling the initiation of the various arms of the UPR, acting as a repressor of UPR stress sensors through direct binding to them [ 133 , 137 , 138 ] ( Figure 4 ). IRE1 becomes active when monomers oligomerize into dimers or higher order structures, leading to transautophosphorylation and downstream signaling through the TRAF2→ASK1→JNK pathway, which could promote apoptosis, as shown in Figure 4 . Under ER stress, PERK also oligomerizes into dimers, leading to transautophosphorylation and downstream signaling through the eIF2α→ATF4→CHOP pathway. The hyperactivation of PERK upregulates CHOP which, in turn, inhibits the expression of antiapoptotic Bcl-2 members, whereas it enhances the expression of proapoptotic Bcl-2 members, such as Bim [ 136 , 139 ] ( Figure 4 ). Under ER stress, ATF6, after dissociating from GRP78, translocates to the Golgi, where it is cleaved by the proteases S1P and S2P, thereby liberating the N-terminal cytosolic fragment of ATF6 that causes upregulation of a number of UPR genes and other genes that could affect cell fate [ 128 , 136 ] ( Figure 4 ).

In addition, the integral protein of the ER B-cell receptor-associated protein 31 (BAP31) can be cleaved into the 20-kDa fragment p20-BAP31 following chronic ER stress [ 132 ], thus directing proapoptotic signals between the ER and mitochondria [ 140 , 141 ], and causing Ca 2+ release from the ER, followed by Ca 2+ entry into the mitochondria which, in turn, induces apoptosis [ 140 , 141 ]. On the other hand, caspase 4 has been shown to function as an ER-stress-specific caspase in humans [ 130 , 142 ].

As stated above, malignant cells have higher protein synthesis rates than normal cells [ 143 ] and, therefore, they are more prone to undergoing protein build-up and misfolding processes, leading to ER stress and, eventually, to apoptosis, when the ER function is persistently compromised [ 105 ]. Particularly, pancreatic epithelial cells exhibit a highly developed ER, because of their heavy engagement in hormone and digestive enzyme synthesis and secretion [ 105 ], and this fact makes pancreatic cells especially sensitive to ER-stress-induced apoptosis [ 144 , 145 ].

10. Alkylphospholipid Analogs as Selective Antitumor Drugs against Cancer Cells by Targeting Subcellular Structures

Taking into account that the timing and intensity of ER stress are critical factors in promoting survival or an apoptotic response, the selective induction of a persistent ER stress response in malignant cells, while normal cells are spared, could constitute a hypothetical promising approach in fighting pancreatic cancer. In this context, some members of a family of synthetic chemical compounds, collectively known as alkylphospholipid analogs (APLs), draw particular attention. APLs—also known as alkyl-lysophospholipid analogs (ALPs), antitumor ether lipids (AELs), or antitumor lipids (ATLs) [ 146 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 150 ]—were initially synthesized as metabolically stable analogs of 2-lysophosphatidylcholine [ 146 ]. These drugs have been shown to elicit important pharmacological activities against several diseases, including leishmaniasis—particularly miltefosine (hexadecylphosphocholine) ( Figure 5 ) [ 148 , 151 , 152 , 153 , 154 ]—and cancer—particularly perifosine ( Figure 5 ) (octadecyl-[1,1-dimethyl-piperidino-4-yl]phosphate) in clinical trials for hematological [ 148 , 155 , 156 , 157 , 158 , 159 , 160 ] and solid tumors [ 148 , 161 , 162 , 163 , 164 , 165 , 166 , 167 ]. A number of APLs have shown interesting biomedical activities, and are promising drugs in the treatment of different diseases in the clinic [ 148 ]. Miltefosine, representing the minimal structural requirement for the antitumor activity of APLs, has become the first oral drug to treat visceral and cutaneous leishmaniasis [ 152 , 154 , 168 ], marketed under the trade name of Impavido [ 148 ]. Miltefosine has also been approved to be used in the clinic as a topical drug, marketed under the trade name of Miltex (6% miltefosine solution), for the palliative treatment of cutaneous metastases from breast cancer [ 148 , 169 ].

Edelfosine (1- O -octadecyl-2- O -methyl- rac -glycero-3-phosohocholine; formerly named ET-18-OCH 3 ) ( Figure 5 ) is considered to be the prototype molecule of APLs, and studies to elucidate its mechanism of action have been extrapolated to other APLs [ 150 , 170 ]. Edelfosine was first synthesized in 1969 by Günter Kny [ 171 ], a chemical diploma student in Otto Westphal’s group, following the previous studies of Bernd Arnold and Hans Ulrich Weltzien synthesizing 1- O -alkyl- and 2- O -methyl derivatives of glycerol [ 146 ]. The molecular structure of edelfosine is critical for its biological actions [ 146 , 147 , 172 ], and the presence of the ether bonds in C1 and C2 of the glycerol backbone—instead of the typical ester bonds in a phospholipid molecule—makes this ether lipid very metabolically stable in comparison with its natural counterparts [ 147 ]. As a matter of fact, more than 98% of edelfosine remained unmodified inside the tumor cells after 24 h of incubation [ 173 , 174 ], thus indicating that edelfosine is active per se, and does not act as a prodrug.

Studies on edelfosine are paving the way for the synthesis of new APLs with promising therapeutic biomedical properties [ 149 ]. Edelfosine shows a higher antileishmanial activity than miltefosine [ 175 , 176 ]. Edelfosine also shows additional antiparasitic activities, including anti- Schistosoma mansoni [ 177 , 178 ] and anti- Strongyloides venezuelensis [ 179 ] activities. When it comes to cancer, and despite new generations of APLs having been synthesized, edelfosine shows the highest antitumor activity against a wide number of different hematological and solid tumors [ 132 , 135 , 146 , 170 , 180 ]. In addition, in vivo experiments with animal models show that edelfosine is very effective against a number of tumors, including multiple myeloma [ 181 ], chronic lymphocytic leukemia [ 180 ], mantle-cell lymphoma [ 182 ], Ewing’s sarcoma [ 135 ], and pancreatic cancer [ 132 ]. On the other hand, edelfosine lacks significant toxicity, not showing any significant cardiotoxicity, hepatotoxicity, or renal toxicity [ 183 ].

A number of key findings on the mechanism of action of APLs were unveiled in the late 1990s and early 2000s by Faustino Mollinedo and Consuelo Gajate’s research group, first in Valladolid (Spain) and then in Salamanca (Spain), showing that edelfosine was able to induce apoptosis selectively in cancer cells, whereas normal, non-transformed cells were spared [ 172 , 184 ]. The underlying basis for this selectivity was the preferential uptake of edelfosine by tumor cells when compared to normal, non-transformed cells [ 146 , 172 , 184 , 185 ]. Shortly after, we found that its antitumor action—especially in hematological cancer cells—was due to the reorganization of membrane raft domains [ 180 , 181 , 184 , 186 , 187 , 188 , 189 , 190 , 191 , 192 , 193 ], leading for the first time to the activation of the Fas/CD95 death receptor from within the cell, independently of its ligand FasL/CD95L, through its recruitment in membrane raft scaffolds [ 184 , 186 ]. Subsequent studies led to a further characterization of these edelfosine-induced co-clusters of Fas/CD95 and membrane rafts, which were enriched in proapoptotic downstream signaling molecules [ 170 , 184 , 186 , 188 , 194 , 195 , 196 ], while survival signaling molecules were displaced from lipid rafts [ 189 , 193 , 197 , 198 , 199 , 200 ]. These data were the first evidence for a selective proapoptotic drug, as well as for the involvement of membrane rafts as a major target in cancer chemotherapy and as major regulators of apoptosis [ 187 , 193 ].

Interestingly, while edelfosine accumulated in membrane lipid rafts in hematological cancer cells, leading to a rapid induction of apoptosis [ 180 , 181 , 184 , 188 ], this ether lipid mainly accumulated in the ER of several solid tumors [ 132 , 135 , 201 ], promoting a slower induction of apoptotic cell death. Taking together, edelfosine behaves as a promising antitumor drug that targets membrane domains (membrane lipid rafts) and subcellular structures (ER) rather than specific molecules, thus expanding the possibilities to achieve a stronger and deeper effect on a target cell by affecting several molecules and signaling processes simultaneously instead of individual proteins.

Regarding pancreatic cancer, edelfosine showed a potent in vitro and in vivo antitumor activity against different human pancreatic cancer cell lines [ 132 ]. When compared with additional APLs of clinical interest, APLs ranked as follows: edelfosine > perifosine >> erucylphosphocholine ≥ miltefosine, regarding the ability to induce apoptosis in different human pancreatic cancer cell lines, including BxPC-3, Capan-2, CFPAC-1, and HuP-T4 [ 132 ].

11. Accumulation of the Ether Lipid Edelfosine in the ER of Pancreatic Cancer Cells

It is interesting to note that edelfosine behaves as a potent antitumor drug, promoting apoptosis in multiple myeloma (MM) [ 170 , 181 , 202 ] and pancreatic cancer [ 132 ] cells—two tumors showing a highly developed ER and a very high level of protein synthesis—through an excessive production of monoclonal immunoglobulins (also referred to as paraproteins) in MM cells [ 124 , 203 ] and of insulin and digestive enzymes in pancreatic cells. Thus, in the ER, both tumors seem to have an “Achilles’ heel” that could be exploited as a therapeutic target.

ER stress and its downstream cell death pathways can be engaged by a wide array of stimuli (e.g., thapsigargin, tunicamycin, brefeldin A, 2-deoxyglucose, chronic exposure to long-chain free fatty acids, cannabinoids, several plant-derived natural compounds) and anticancer drugs (e.g., bortezomib) in different cell types, including pancreatic cells [ 120 , 121 , 128 , 204 , 205 , 206 ]. However, this induction of the ER stress response is usually indirect, through the action on different processes that eventually lead to an accumulation of unfolded proteins.

Unlike the above stimuli and anticancer drugs, edelfosine is selectively taken by tumor cells [ 184 , 185 ], and rapidly accumulates in the ER—especially in solid tumor cells—leading to persistent ER stress and, eventually, to apoptosis [ 132 , 135 , 201 ]. In order to visualize the subcellular localization of edelfosine, we used different newly synthesized fluorescent edelfosine analogs, including the first fluorescent edelfosine analog all-( E )-1- O -(15′-phenylpentadeca-8′,10′,12′,14′-tetraenyl)-2- O -methyl- rac -glycero-3-phosphocholine (PTE-ET) [ 184 , 207 ], its variant PTRI-ET, and the second generation of fluorescent edelfosine analogs that contained BODIPY (4,4-difluoro-4-bora-3a,4a-diaza- s -indacene; boron-dipyrromethene) [ 208 , 209 ], as a very potent fluorescent label incorporated into the alkyl chain of edelfosine, leading to the edelfosine analogs 1- O -[11′-(6”-ethyl-1”,3”,5”,7”-tetramethyl-4”,4”-difluoro-4”-bora-3a”,4a”-diaza- s -indacen-2”-yl)undecyl)]-2- O -methyl- rac -glycero-3-phosphocholine (Et-BDP-ET) and 1- O -[13′-(1”,3”,5”,7”-tetramethyl-4”,4”-difluoro-4”-bora-3a”,4a”-diaza- s -indacen-2”-yl)tridec-12′-ynyl]-2- O -methyl- rac -glycero-3-phosphocholine (Yn-BDP-ET) [ 210 ] ( Figure 6 ).

Using the BODIPY fluorescent edelfosine analog Et-BDP-ET [ 210 ], we found that this BODIPY-conjugated fluorescent derivative accumulated in the ER of HuP-T4 and Capan-2 human pancreatic cancer cells [ 132 ] ( Figure 7 ). This ER localization of the BODIPY fluorescent edelfosine analog was also found in Ewing’s sarcoma cells [ 135 ], and the fluorescent PTE-ET edelfosine analog mainly accumulated in the ER of human cervical carcinoma HeLa cells, non-small-cell lung cancer A549 cells, and glioblastoma cells [ 201 ], as assessed using a version of a red fluorescent protein (RFP) targeting the ER that colocalized with the ER marker calreticulin [ 211 ].

In an attempt to unveil the molecular mechanism of the antitumor ether lipid edelfosine, we used the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae —which is sensitive to the cytotoxic action of edelfosine [ 197 , 199 , 200 , 212 ]—as an experimental eukaryotic model organism [ 213 ]. We found that different fluorescent edelfosine analogs (PTE-ET, PTRI-ET, Et-BDP-ET, and Yn-BDP-ET) ( Figure 6 ) yielded a similar localization pattern in yeast ( Figure 8 ) [ 200 ]. This pattern of fluorescent edelfosine consisted of a bag-like envelope surrounding the nucleus (identified by the nucleolus marker Sik1p tagged with RFP), which resembled the morphological traits of the ER ( Figure 8 ) [ 200 ]. In fact, we found an excellent colocalization between fluorescent edelfosine and the ER, as assessed by using Elo3p-GFP or Sec63pGFP as ER markers ( Figure 8 ) [ 200 ]. No colocalization was detected between fluorescent edelfosine and other subcellular organelles or compartments, such as the Golgi, spindle pole, endosomes, cytoskeleton, peroxisomes, and lipid droplets [ 200 ]. Quantification of the subcellular localization of fluorescent edelfosine in S. cerevisiae showed that most of the antitumor ether lipid accumulated in the ER, albeit an additional localization was found in the yeast [ 200 ]. Interestingly, edelfosine binds to lipid rafts in both human cells [ 180 , 181 , 184 , 188 ] and yeast [ 199 , 200 ]. As a matter of fact, edelfosine was mainly found in the ER after 3 h of incubation with S. cerevisiae , but a significant amount of the antitumor drug was also found in lipid rafts, as determined after sucrose gradient raft isolation [ 199 , 200 ], which could suggest the presence of lipid rafts in the ER [ 200 ]. On the other hand, the ER localization of edelfosine in yeast did not depend on endocytosis, as PTE-ET could still be detected in endocytosis-defective end4pep4 Δ mutants [ 200 ]. Thus, it is tempting to envisage the existence of traffic between the plasma membrane and the ER through lipid rafts. In this regard, it is worth remembering that the ER is a large intracellular organelle extending from the nuclear envelope to the cell membrane.

Targeting of a subcellular structure offers the advantage of simultaneously affecting several proteins and signaling processes, as compared to the targeting of only one specific molecule or signaling process. In this way, global processes can be affected, and a stronger and longer lasting response can be achieved. Thus, targeting the ER could lead to a potent response, eventually leading to cell death. However, it might be reasonable to think that a concomitant higher cytotoxicity could also be a major and serious side effect, as the ER is present in both cancer and non-cancer cells. In the case of edelfosine, this latter problem is averted, because this antitumor ether lipid acts from within the cell [ 184 , 185 ], and it is taken up preferentially by cancer cells, while non-cancer cells are spared [ 146 , 147 , 170 , 184 ].

12. Induction of ER Stress-Mediated Apoptosis following Treatment with the Ether Lipid Edelfosine in Pancreatic Cancer Cells

As shown above, edelfosine accumulates in the ER of human pancreatic cancer cells, as assessed by using the fluorescent edelfosine analog Et-BDP-ET [ 132 ] ( Figure 7 ). This leads to a potent induction of an ER stress response ( Figure 9 ), characterized by an upregulation of the transcription factor CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein homologous protein (CHOP) (also known as growth-arrest and DNA-damage-inducible gene 153 (GADD153)), an increase in the phosphorylation level of eIF2α, and activation of caspase 4, Bax, and JNK [ 132 ] ( Figure 9 ). In addition, the integral membrane protein of the ER (BAP31) is cleaved into the 20-kDa fragment p20-BAP31 [ 132 ], which directs proapoptotic signals between the ER and the mitochondria [ 140 ]. However, the ER chaperone GRP78, linked to a cytoprotective response [ 214 , 215 ], is not upregulated following edelfosine treatment [ 132 ]. Similar ER stress responses are also attained when edelfosine induces apoptosis in additional tumor cells [ 135 , 201 , 216 ]. The balance between GRP78 (cytoprotective) and CHOP/GADD153 (proapoptotic) may lead to either cell survival or cell death following an ER stress response [ 217 ]. Edelfosine upregulates CHOP/GADD153, without any change in the GRP78 protein level ( Figure 9 ), thus tipping the GRP78/CHOP balance in favor of ER-stress-induced cell death. When ER stress is too severe or chronic, a series of ER-stress-induced apoptosis routes are activated, leading to JNK and caspase activation and CHOP upregulation, as well as Bax and Bak activation [ 217 ]. Edelfosine meets all of these requirements in its proapoptotic action in pancreatic cancer [ 132 ] ( Figure 9 a,b) and other tumors [ 135 , 201 , 216 ].

A remarkable feature of edelfosine is its ability to induce a dramatic activation of JNK in cancer cells [ 132 , 216 , 218 ]. Edelfosine promotes a very potent and persistent JNK activation that precedes the onset of apoptosis [ 218 ], as well as a high increase in the c- jun mRNA level that is associated with the activation of activator protein-1 (AP-1) transcription factor [ 218 ]. Edelfosine analogs that did not induce apoptosis failed to activate JNK, and there was a good correlation between edelfosine-induced apoptosis and the degree of JNK activation [ 218 ]. Specifically, edelfosine induces a dramatic activation of JNK, as assessed by a solid-phase JNK assay using a fusion protein between glutathione-S-transferase (GST) and c-Jun (amino acids 1–223) as a substrate for JNK-mediated phosphorylation, in a wide number of human pancreatic cancer cells, including BxPC-3, Capan-2, CFPAC-1, and HuP-T4 [ 132 ] ( Figure 9 b). Pretreatment with the JNK-specific inhibitor SP600125 [ 219 ] diminished both edelfosine-induced JNK activation and apoptosis [ 135 , 216 , 219 ]. Gene-transfer-mediated overexpression of apoptosis signal-regulating kinase 1 (ASK-1), which plays a crucial role in ER stress [ 220 ], increased edelfosine-induced JNK activation and apoptosis [ 216 ], supporting the involvement of ASK1/JNK signaling in the ER-stress-induced apoptosis triggered by edelfosine. As a novel mechanism favoring JNK activation, we found a new chaperoning role of heat shock protein 90 (Hsp90) on JNK-mediated apoptosis, following the recruitment of Hsp90 and JNK in lipid rafts, as assessed by lipid raft isolation followed by co-immunoprecipiation as well as by immunoelectron microscopy in hematological cancer cells [ 221 ].

Edelfosine treatment also inhibits phosphatidylcholine and protein synthesis in tumor cells [ 216 ], suggesting that this drug affects both phospholipid and protein homeostasis, and prevents the accumulation of newly synthesized proteins into the ER when the ER itself is compromised.

Further support for the involvement of the ER stress in the proapoptotic action of edelfosine in tumor cells derives from in vivo data of pancreatic cancer xenograft models. Oral administration of edelfosine (30 mg/kg of body weight) drastically reduced the size of pancreatic tumors generated by inoculation of Capan-2 or HuP-T4 human pancreatic tumor cells in CB17 severe combined immunodeficient (SCID) mice [ 132 ] ( Figure 10 ). Tumors isolated from the xenograft mouse models with SCID mice, orally treated with edelfosine, showed a dramatic increase in apoptotic markers as well as in CHOP/GADD153 staining following immunohistochemical analyses [ 132 ] ( Figure 10 ). These data, involving ER stress in the antitumor action of edelfosine, are also reproducible in other tumors, such as in Ewing’s sarcoma [ 135 ].

Interestingly, normal human primary fibroblasts, the non-tumorigenic and hTERT immortalized human pancreatic ductal HPNE cell line, and normal hepatocytes were not significantly affected by edelfosine [ 184 , 185 , 222 ].

13. ER Stress and Mitochondrial Connection in the Induction of Apoptosis in Pancreatic Cancer Cells by the Ether Lipid Edelfosine

The induction of pancreatic cancer cell apoptosis by edelfosine involves the caspase-8-mediated cleavage of the integral membrane protein of the ER (BAP31) into the 20-kDa fragment p20-BAP31 [ 132 ], which directs proapoptotic signals between the ER and the mitochondria [ 140 , 223 ] through a release of Ca 2+ from the ER, concomitant with an uptake of Ca 2+ into the mitochondria, leading to cytochrome c release and cell death [ 129 , 140 ]. Gajate et al. [ 132 ] found that edelfosine induced a caspase-mediated apoptotic response (involving activation of caspases 3, 7, 8, and 9) in pancreatic cancer cells, through the cleavage of BAP31 into p20-BAP31, alterations in the ER calcium level, and release of cytochrome c from the mitochondria to the cytosol. Ectopic expression of Bcl-X L , acting as a mitochondrial safeguard, prevented cytochrome c release and apoptosis without inhibiting ER-stored Ca 2+ release [ 132 , 216 ]. Furthermore, bax −/− bak −/− double-knockout cells failed to undergo edelfosine-induced apoptosis, whereas wild-type cells were sensitive to the drug [ 216 ]. Wild-type and bax -/- bak -/- cells displayed similar patterns of phosphatidylcholine and protein synthesis inhibition, despite their differences in drug sensitivity, suggesting that edelfosine-induced apoptosis is dependent on Bax/Bak, but phosphatidylcholine and protein synthesis inhibition seems not to be critical [ 216 ]. These data indicate that the mitochondria are indispensable for edelfosine-induced, ER-stress-mediated cell death.

The ER and the mitochondria interact through dynamic platforms known as mitochondria-associated membranes (MAMs) [ 224 , 225 , 226 ], which show higher levels of cholesterol compared to the rest of the ER [ 227 , 228 ], and provide an excellent scaffold for crosstalk and the transfer of lipids between the ER and the mitochondria [ 226 , 229 , 230 ]. Because edelfosine accumulates in lipid rafts [ 150 , 170 , 180 , 181 , 184 , 187 , 188 , 193 , 201 , 228 ], shows a high affinity for cholesterol [ 193 , 228 , 231 , 232 , 233 ], and is also able to target the mitochondria [ 176 , 210 , 228 ]—likely through the involvement of lipid rafts [ 210 , 228 ]—it could be envisaged a network of central subcellular organelles involved in cell demise regulation that could be mediated by lipid rafts. In this context, edelfosine represents an excellent tool to unveil this raft-mediated membrane–ER–mitochondria network that could modulate signaling processes and cell fate.

14. Novel Approaches for the Potentiation of ER-Mediated Apoptosis in Pancreatic Cancer Cells Induced by Edelfosine

The above data clearly indicate that edelfosine induces ER stress and UPR signaling—the latter being known as a pro-survival response intended to diminish the accumulation of unfolded and altered proteins and restore normal ER function. Preincubation of BxPC-3 pancreatic cells with dithiothreitol (DTT)—a well-known ER stress and UPR inducer—did not lead to a statistically significant reduction in edelfosine-induced apoptosis [ 132 ], further supporting the notion that persistent edelfosine-induced ER stress overrides protective UPR mechanisms, and eventually switches the cytoprotective role of UPR to cell-death-promoting mechanisms [ 132 ]. In this regard, we suggest that the induction of sustained ER-stress-mediated apoptosis by edelfosine could be further potentiated by its combined use with additional ER stress inducers.

Human neutrophils contain constitutively high levels of arginase-1 [ 234 ], and the release of this enzyme leads to arginine deprivation in the surrounding medium. Arginine depletion inhibits T-cell activation [ 235 ] and induces autophagy as a cytoprotective response to ER stress in human T lymphocytes [ 114 ]; this could lead to the generation of an immune-privileged site for the tumor [ 236 ]. Nevertheless, cancer cells are more susceptible to arginine deprivation than their non-cancerous counterparts [ 237 , 238 ], and pancreatic cancer cells behave as one of the most sensitive cell types to the absence of arginine in the culture medium [ 239 ]. Recent data show that neutrophils are emerging as double-edged swords in cancer, being associated with both cancer progression and immunosurveillance against tumors, and can therefore either promote or inhibit cancer, and could play a major role in metastasis [ 236 , 240 , 241 ]. Based on RNA silencing experiments and biochemical approaches, we have recently found that the release of neutrophil-derived arginase-1 leads to arginine depletion which, in turn, induces ER stress in pancreatic cancer cells through the activation of the PERK→eiF2α→ATF4→CHOP axis, and eventually leads to cell death [ 239 ]. We have recently found that either arginine depletion or neutrophil-released arginase-1 highly potentiates the antitumor action of the ER-targeting antitumor ether lipid edelfosine against pancreatic cancer cells [ 239 ], opening up new avenues for cancer treatment.

On the other hand, as stated above, ER stress can lead to a potent increase in autophagy as a cytoprotective response and as a survival mechanism [ 114 , 242 , 243 ]. Autophagy is widely monitored through immunoblot analysis by the conversion of microtubule-associated protein 1 light chain 3 (LC3), which is located in the cytosol (LC3-I), to its phosphatidylethanolamine-conjugated form (LC3-II), which is membrane-bound and is located in the autophagosomal membrane, as the amount of LC3-II is correlated with the abundance of autophagosomes [ 244 ]. Edelfosine was found to induce a potent autophagic response, as assessed by an increase in the amount of LC3-II in BxPC-3 and MiaPaCa-2 human pancreatic cancer cells [ 222 ]. Pretreatment with the autophagy inhibitors chloroquine, bafilomycin A1, and 3-methyladenine potentiated the apoptotic cell death promoted by edelfosine, as assessed by flow cytometry analysis [ 222 ]. Thus, further induction of persistent ER stress along with blockade of autophagy, as a compensatory cytoprotective mechanism, could provide new therapeutic approaches to treat pancreatic cancer.

15. Outlook

Taking together the different studies carried out with the antitumor ether lipid edelfosine shown above, we can envisage a novel approach in the treatment of pancreatic cancer. Taking advantage of the readiness of pancreatic cancer cells to undergo ER stress due to their prominent and active ER, we might hypothesize that the use of an antitumor drug that shows a selective uptake for pancreatic cancer cells and accumulates in the ER of the pancreatic cancer cells could trigger a persistent ER stress response, leading eventually to tumor cell apoptosis. Importantly, the APL edelfosine meets these requirements—namely, it is selectively taken up by the cancer cells, sparing their non-cancerous counterparts, and interacts directly with the ER, accumulating in the ER and leading to persistent ER stress, which inevitably results in cell death. Figure 11 depicts a model for the involvement of ER in edelfosine-induced apoptosis, and highlights the importance of the accumulation of the APL in the ER, leading to sustained ER stress, which eventually leads to tumor cell apoptosis. The mitochondria are crucial for the above edelfosine-induced cell death initiated by ER stress. A number of different drugs (e.g., bortezomib, cisplatin, cannabinoids) can induce an ER stress response in an indirect way, affecting ER-mediated processes, but edelfosine physically accumulates in the ER, leading to a very potent and persistent ER stress response and, eventually, to apoptosis.

This targeting of the ER by edelfosine represents a novel approach in the treatment of the thus-far undruggable pancreatic cancer. As stated above, pancreatic cancer is usually diagnosed at an advanced stage, showing metastatic spread at diagnosis, and a dismal prognosis. The particular features of pancreatic cancer, herein discussed, and the inefficient current chemotherapy that only improves life survival by an average of a few months, show the urgency of the need to develop more effective treatments.

Interestingly, because the induction of ER stress generates autophagy as a compensatory cytoprotective response to keep tumor cells alive, the combination of ER stress inducers plus autophagy inhibitors could represent a promising strategy in the treatment of this thus-far incurable cancer.

Preclinical studies with xenograft animal models rendered excellent results in promoting cell death in pancreatic cancer cells via an ER-mediated process following oral edelfosine treatment. The selectivity of edelfosine for cancer cells means that this antitumor ether lipid accumulates in the tumor in in vivo assays [ 180 , 181 ], and lacks significant toxicity [ 183 ].

We have very recently found that the release of arginase-1 from neutrophils could promote an ER-stress-mediated cell death process in pancreatic cancer cells [ 239 ]. Because of their ability to interact with cancer cells, as well as their outstanding capability to travel to different tissues [ 236 ], neutrophils could be used as vehicles to carry arginase-1 to the metastatic site. Combination with neutrophil-released arginase-1 clearly potentiates the antitumor activity of edelfosine against pancreatic cancer cells [ 239 ]. Because there is a significant neutrophil infiltration in pancreatic cancer [ 245 , 246 , 247 , 248 , 249 , 250 , 251 , 252 ], this could open a new approach to analyze in order to potentiate the antitumor activity of the ER-targeting drug edelfosine. Taking all of the above evidence into consideration, we postulate that further induction of persistent ER stress by combination therapy, as well as blockade of autophagy, acting as a compensatory cytoprotective mechanism, could provide new therapeutic approaches to treat pancreatic cancer. These data highlight how the direct targeting of the ER, leading to a physical antitumor drug accumulation in the ER with a concomitant and persistent ER stress, could be a promising therapeutic approach in the therapy of pancreatic cancer, provided these new drugs are selective for tumor cells, so that non-cancer cells are not affected.

An increasing number of newly synthesized drugs—including topsentin, thiadiazole, and indole derivatives, which inhibit protein kinases and modulate key regulators of epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition—are being tested against pancreatic cancer cells [ 253 , 254 , 255 , 256 ]. On the other hand, amphiphilic pyrrolidine derivatives also show antitumor activity against a number of human pancreatic cancer cell lines, which is potentiated by the inhibition of autophagy [ 222 ]. The diversity in chemical structures suggests that different molecules can be targeted, but no effective treatment for pancreatic cancer has been developed thus far. The antitumor ether lipid edelfosine targets cellular membranes, is preferentially taken up by tumor cells, and accumulates in the ER, triggering sustained ER stress and subsequent apoptosis. These particular features make edelfosine a promising drug for the treatment of pancreatic cancer, and structure–activity relationship studies could provide new insights into its mechanism of action and unveil the chemical structure required for selective tumor cell uptake and ER targeting, which might contribute to the generation of improved drug derivatives against pancreatic cancer.

16. Conclusions

The existing chemotherapeutic armory against pancreatic cancer is ineffective and, hence, the pancreatic cancer survival rates have remained relatively unchanged over the past 50 years. The antitumor ether lipid edelfosine—the prototype molecule of a family of synthetic drugs collectively known as alkylphospholipid analogs—is a 2-lysophospholipid analog that shows selective proapoptotic activity against a wide variety of human tumors, including pancreatic cancer, because of its preferential uptake by cancer cells, whereas non-cancerous cells are spared. A hallmark of pancreatic cells is their abundant and active ER to cope with their high rates of protein synthesis. Thus, the ER can be an interesting target for pancreatic cancer therapy. Edelfosine is taken up by pancreatic cancer cells and accumulates in the ER, leading to persistent ER stress and subsequent apoptosis. Edelfosine is orally administered, lacks significant toxicity, and can be considered to be a paradigmatic drug for an ER-targeted therapy. Edelfosine shows a potent in vitro and in vivo antitumor activity against pancreatic cancer through an ER-mediated process. This opens a new paradigm in pancreatic cancer chemotherapy that involves the selective uptake of an ER-targeted drug by the tumor cells, taking advantage of the extremely high protein synthetic activity of pancreatic cells. It is tempting to envisage that this new approach could avoid the high toxicity, and improve the poor results, shown by the current treatment of pancreatic cancer.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Author Contributions

The manuscript was written through the contributions of all authors. Conceptualization, F.M. and C.G.; writing—original draft preparation, F.M.; writing—review and editing, F.M. and C.G.; figure preparation, F.M. and C.G. Both authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation, and Universities (SAF2017-89672-R grant).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

References

1. Talathi S.S. Zimmerman R. Young M. Anatomy, Abdomen and Pelvis, Pancreas StatPearls StatPearls Publishing Treasure Island, FL, USA 2021 Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK532912/ (accessed on 15 June 2021) 30422507

2. Sohn T.A. Yeo C.J. Cameron J.L. Koniaris L. Kaushal S. Abrams R.A. Sauter P.K. Coleman J. Hruban R.H. Lillemoe K.D. Resected adenocarcinoma of the pancreas-616 patients: Results, outcomes, and prognostic indicators J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2000 4 567 579 10.1016/S1091-255X(00)80105-5 11307091

3. Artinyan A. Soriano P.A. Prendergast C. Low T. Ellenhorn J.D. Kim J. The anatomic location of pancreatic cancer is a prognostic factor for survival HPB (Oxford) 2008 10 371 376 10.1080/13651820802291233 18982154 PMC2575681

4. Das S.L. Kennedy J.I. Murphy R. Phillips A.R. Windsor J.A. Petrov M.S. Relationship between the exocrine and endocrine pancreas after acute pancreatitis World J. Gastroenterol. 2014 20 17196 17205 10.3748/wjg.v20.i45.17196 25493036 PMC4258592

5. Weiss F.U. Halangk W. Lerch M.M. New advances in pancreatic cell physiology and pathophysiology Best Pract. Res. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2008 22 3 15 10.1016/j.bpg.2007.10.017 18206809

6. Reichert M. Rustgi A.K. Pancreatic ductal cells in development, regeneration, and neoplasia J. Clin. Investig. 2011 121 4572 4578 10.1172/JCI57131 22133881 PMC3225990

7. Pelosi E. Castelli G. Testa U. Pancreatic Cancer: Molecular Characterization, Clonal Evolution and Cancer Stem Cells Biomedicines 2017 5 65 10.3390/biomedicines5040065 PMC5744089 29156578

8. Storz P. Acinar cell plasticity and development of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2017 14 296 304 10.1038/nrgastro.2017.12 28270694 PMC6036907

9. Kelgiorgi D. Dervenis C. Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: The basics, the gray zone, and the target F1000Res 2017 6 663 10.12688/f1000research.10188.1 28529726 PMC5428491

10. Klimstra D.S. Modlin I.R. Coppola D. Lloyd R.V. Suster S. The pathologic classification of neuroendocrine tumors: A review of nomenclature, grading, and staging systems Pancreas 2010 39 707 712 10.1097/MPA.0b013e3181ec124e 20664470

11. Burns W.R. Edil B.H. Neuroendocrine pancreatic tumors: Guidelines for management and update Curr. Treat. Options Oncol. 2012 13 24 34 10.1007/s11864-011-0172-2 22198808

12. Khanna L. Prasad S.R. Sunnapwar A. Kondapaneni S. Dasyam A. Tammisetti V.S. Salman U. Nazarullah A. Katabathina V.S. Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: 2020 Update on Pathologic and Imaging Findings and Classification Radiographics 2020 40 1240 1262 10.1148/rg.2020200025 32795239

13. Brooks J.C. Shavelle R.M. Vavra-Musser K.N. Life expectancy in pancreatic neuroendocrine cancer Clin. Res. Hepatol. Gastroenterol. 2019 43 88 97 10.1016/j.clinre.2018.08.005 30220478

14. Ahrendt S.A. Pitt H.A. Surgical management of pancreatic cancer Oncology (Williston Park) 2002 16 725 734 12088296

15. Vincent A. Herman J. Schulick R. Hruban R.H. Goggins M. Pancreatic cancer Lancet 2011 378 607 620 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62307-0 21620466 PMC3062508

16. Bond-Smith G. Banga N. Hammond T.M. Imber C.J. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma BMJ 2012 344 e2476 10.1136/bmj.e2476 22592847

17. Siegel R.L. Miller K.D. Jemal A. Cancer Statistics CA Cancer J. Clin. 2017 67 7 30 10.3322/caac.21387 28055103

18. McGuigan A. Kelly P. Turkington R.C. Jones C. Coleman H.G. McCain R.S. Pancreatic cancer: A review of clinical diagnosis, epidemiology, treatment and outcomes World J. Gastroenterol. 2018 24 4846 4861 10.3748/wjg.v24.i43.4846 30487695 PMC6250924

19. Rawla P. Sunkara T. Gaduputi V. Epidemiology of Pancreatic Cancer: Global Trends, Etiology and Risk Factors World J. Oncol. 2019 10 10 27 10.14740/wjon1166 30834048 PMC6396775

20. International Agency for Research on Cancer, WHO Very high HDI. The Global Cancer Observatory. Globocan 2020. WHO 2021 Available online: https://gco.iarc.fr/today/data/factsheets/populations/981-very-high-hdi-fact-sheets.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2021)

21. Fidler M.M. Soerjomataram I. Bray F. A global view on cancer incidence and national levels of the human development index Int. J. Cancer 2016 139 2436 2446 10.1002/ijc.30382 27522007

22. Sung H. Ferlay J. Siegel R.L. Laversanne M. Soerjomataram I. Jemal A. Bray F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries CA Cancer J. Clin. 2021 71 209 249 10.3322/caac.21660 33538338

23. International Agency for Research on Cancer, WHO Low HDI. The Global Cancer Observatory. Globocan 2020. WHO 2021 Available online: https://gco.iarc.fr/today/data/factsheets/populations/984-low-hdi-fact-sheets.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2021)

24. Goodarzi E. Dehkordi A.H. Beiranvand R. Naemi H. Khazaei Z. Epidemiology of the Incidence and Mortality of Pancreas Cancer and its Relationship with the Human Development Index (HDI) in the World: An Ecological Study in 2018 Curr. Pharm. Des. 2020 26 5163 5173 10.2174/1381612826666200713170047 32660397

25. Veisani Y. Jenabi E. Khazaei S. Nematollahi S. Global incidence and mortality rates in pancreatic cancer and the association with the Human Development Index: Decomposition approach Public Health 2018 156 87 91 10.1016/j.puhe.2017.12.015 29408193

26. Wong M.C.S. Jiang J.Y. Liang M. Fang Y. Yeung M.S. Sung J.J.Y. Global temporal patterns of pancreatic cancer and association with socioeconomic development Sci. Rep. 2017 7 3165 10.1038/s41598-017-02997-2 28600530 PMC5466634

27. Ataey A. Jafarvand E. Adham D. Moradi-Asl E. The Relationship Between Obesity, Overweight, and the Human Development Index in World Health Organization Eastern Mediterranean Region Countries J. Prev. Med. Public Health 2020 53 98 105 10.3961/jpmph.19.100 32268464 PMC7142010

28. Arnold M. Pandeya N. Byrnes G. Renehan P.A.G. Stevens G.A. Ezzati P.M. Ferlay J. Miranda J.J. Romieu I. Dikshit R. Global burden of cancer attributable to high body-mass index in 2012: A population-based study Lancet Oncol. 2015 16 36 46 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)71123-4 25467404 PMC4314462

29. Paternoster S. Falasca M. The intricate relationship between diabetes, obesity and pancreatic cancer Biochim. Biophys. Acta. Rev. Cancer 2020 1873 188326 10.1016/j.bbcan.2019.188326 31707038

30. International Agency for Research on Cancer, WHO World. The Global Cancer Observatory. Globocan 2020. WHO 2021 Available online: https://gco.iarc.fr/today/data/factsheets/populations/900-world-fact-sheets.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2021)

31. Ferlay J. Partensky C. Bray F. More deaths from pancreatic cancer than breast cancer in the EU by 2017 Acta Oncol. 2016 55 1158 1160 10.1080/0284186X.2016.1197419 27551890

32. Rahib L. Smith B.D. Aizenberg R. Rosenzweig A.B. Fleshman J.M. Matrisian L.M. Projecting cancer incidence and deaths to 2030: The unexpected burden of thyroid, liver, and pancreas cancers in the United States Cancer Res. 2014 74 2913 2921 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-0155 24840647

33. Lennerz J.K. Stenzinger A. Allelic ratio of KRAS mutations in pancreatic cancer Oncologist 2015 20 e8 e9 10.1634/theoncologist.2014-0408 25777349 PMC4391769

34. Kleeff J. Korc M. Apte M. La Vecchia C. Johnson C.D. Biankin A.V. Neale R.E. Tempero M. Tuveson D.A. Hruban R.H. Pancreatic cancer Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers 2016 2 16022 10.1038/nrdp.2016.22 27158978

35. Jiao Y. Shi C. Edil B.H. de Wilde R.F. Klimstra D.S. Maitra A. Schulick R.D. Tang L.H. Wolfgang C.L. Choti M.A. DAXX/ATRX, MEN1, and mTOR pathway genes are frequently altered in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors Science 2011 331 1199 1203 10.1126/science.1200609 21252315 PMC3144496

36. Chan C.S. Laddha S.V. Lewis P.W. Koletsky M.S. Robzyk K. Da Silva E. Torres P.J. Untch B.R. Li J. Bose P. ATRX, DAXX or MEN1 mutant pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors are a distinct alpha-cell signature subgroup Nat. Commun. 2018 9 4158 10.1038/s41467-018-06498-2 30315258 PMC6185985

37. Lopez N.E. Prendergast C. Lowy A.M. Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: Definitions and management World J. Gastroenterol. 2014 20 10740 10751 10.3748/wjg.v20.i31.10740 25152577 PMC4138454

38. Tamburrino D. Partelli S. Crippa S. Manzoni A. Maurizi A. Falconi M. Selection criteria in resectable pancreatic cancer: A biological and morphological approach World J. Gastroenterol. 2014 20 11210 11215 10.3748/wjg.v20.i32.11210 25170205 PMC4145759

39. Lee D.H. Jang J.Y. Kang J.S. Kim J.R. Han Y. Kim E. Kwon W. Kim S.W. Recent treatment patterns and survival outcomes in pancreatic cancer according to clinical stage based on single-center large-cohort data Ann. Hepatobiliary Pancreat. Surg. 2018 22 386 396 10.14701/ahbps.2018.22.4.386 30588531 PMC6295381

40. Barugola G. Partelli S. Marcucci S. Sartori N. Capelli P. Bassi C. Pederzoli P. Falconi M. Resectable pancreatic cancer: Who really benefits from resection? Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2009 16 3316 3322 10.1245/s10434-009-0670-7 19707831

41. Evans D.B. What Makes a Pancreatic Cancer Resectable? Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. Educ. Book 2018 38 300 305 10.1200/EDBK_200861 30231408

42. Lambert A. Schwarz L. Borbath I. Henry A. Van Laethem J.L. Malka D. Ducreux M. Conroy T. An update on treatment options for pancreatic adenocarcinoma Ther. Adv. Med. Oncol. 2019 11 1758835919875568 10.1177/1758835919875568 31598142 PMC6763942

43. Christians K.K. Heimler J.W. George B. Ritch P.S. Erickson B.A. Johnston F. Tolat P.P. Foley W.D. Evans D.B. Tsai S. Survival of patients with resectable pancreatic cancer who received neoadjuvant therapy Surgery 2016 159 893 900 10.1016/j.surg.2015.09.018 26602840

44. Cucchetti A. Ercolani G. Taffurelli G. Serenari M. Maroni L. Pezzilli R. Del Gaudio M. Ravaioli M. Cescon M. Pinna A.D. A comprehensive analysis on expected years of life lost due to pancreatic cancer Pancreatology 2016 16 449 453 10.1016/j.pan.2016.02.005 26951889

45. Huang L. Jansen L. Balavarca Y. Babaei M. van der Geest L. Lemmens V. Van Eycken L. De Schutter H. Johannesen T.B. Primic-Zakelj M. Stratified survival of resected and overall pancreatic cancer patients in Europe and the USA in the early twenty-first century: A large, international population-based study BMC Med. 2018 16 125 10.1186/s12916-018-1120-9 30126408 PMC6102804

46. Bosetti C. Bertuccio P. Negri E. La Vecchia C. Zeegers M.P. Boffetta P. Pancreatic cancer: Overview of descriptive epidemiology Mol. Carcinog. 2012 51 3 13 10.1002/mc.20785 22162227

47. Oberstein P.E. Olive K.P. Pancreatic cancer: Why is it so hard to treat? Therap. Adv. Gastroenterol. 2013 6 321 337 10.1177/1756283X13478680 23814611 PMC3667471

48. Wong H.H. Lemoine N.R. Biological approaches to therapy of pancreatic cancer Pancreatology 2008 8 431 461 10.1159/000151536 18724071 PMC2882228

49. Katz M.H. Hu C.Y. Fleming J.B. Pisters P.W. Lee J.E. Chang G.J. Clinical calculator of conditional survival estimates for resected and unresected survivors of pancreatic cancer Arch. Surg. 2012 147 513 519 10.1001/archsurg.2011.2281 22351874 PMC3740148

50. Maitra A. Hruban R.H. Pancreatic cancer Annu. Rev. Pathol. 2008 3 157 188 10.1146/annurev.pathmechdis.3.121806.154305 18039136 PMC2666336

51. Adamska A. Domenichini A. Falasca M. Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Current and Evolving Therapies Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017 18 1338 10.3390/ijms18071338 PMC5535831 28640192

52. Papke B. Der C.J. Drugging RAS: Know the enemy Science 2017 355 1158 1163 10.1126/science.aam7622 28302824

53. Hajatdoost L. Sedaghat K. Walker E.J. Thomas J. Kosari S. Chemotherapy in Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review Medicina (Kaunas) 2018 54 48 10.3390/medicina54030048 PMC6122094 30344279

54. Stathis A. Moore M.J. Advanced pancreatic carcinoma: Current treatment and future challenges Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2010 7 163 172 10.1038/nrclinonc.2009.236 20101258

55. Faluyi O.O. Connor J.L. Chatterjee M. Ikin C. Wong H. Palmer D.H. Advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma outcomes with transition from devolved to centralised care in a regional Cancer Centre Br. J. Cancer 2017 116 424 431 10.1038/bjc.2016.406 28081546 PMC5318965

56. Garrido-Laguna I. Hidalgo M. Pancreatic cancer: From state-of-the-art treatments to promising novel therapies Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2015 12 319 334 10.1038/nrclinonc.2015.53 25824606

57. Abbassi R. Algul H. Palliative chemotherapy in pancreatic cancer-treatment sequences Transl. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2019 4 56 10.21037/tgh.2019.06.09 31559337 PMC6737397

58. Jiang B. Zhou L. Lu J. Wang Y. Liu C. You L. Guo J. Stroma-Targeting Therapy in Pancreatic Cancer: One Coin with Two Sides? Front. Oncol. 2020 10 576399 10.3389/fonc.2020.576399 33178608 PMC7593693

59. Heldin C.H. Rubin K. Pietras K. Ostman A. High interstitial fluid pressure–an obstacle in cancer therapy Nat. Rev. Cancer 2004 4 806 813 10.1038/nrc1456 15510161

60. Gu J. Saiyin H. Fu D. Li J. Stroma–A Double-Edged Sword in Pancreatic Cancer: A Lesson from Targeting Stroma in Pancreatic Cancer with Hedgehog Signaling Inhibitors Pancreas 2018 47 382 389 10.1097/MPA.0000000000001023 29521941

61. Kota J. Hancock J. Kwon J. Korc M. Pancreatic cancer: Stroma and its current and emerging targeted therapies Cancer Lett. 2017 391 38 49 10.1016/j.canlet.2016.12.035 28093284

62. Suker M. Beumer B.R. Sadot E. Marthey L. Faris J.E. Mellon E.A. El-Rayes B.F. Wang-Gillam A. Lacy J. Hosein P.J. FOLFIRINOX for locally advanced pancreatic cancer: A systematic review and patient-level meta-analysis Lancet Oncol. 2016 17 801 810 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)00172-8 27160474 PMC5527756

63. Thota R. Maitra A. Berlin J.D. Preclinical Rationale for the Phase III Trials in Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: Is Wishful Thinking Clouding Successful Drug Development for Pancreatic Cancer? Pancreas 2017 46 143 150 10.1097/MPA.0000000000000753 28085753 PMC5242389

64. Burris H.A. 3rd Moore M.J. Andersen J. Green M.R. Rothenberg M.L. Modiano M.R. Cripps M.C. Portenoy R.K. Storniolo A.M. Tarassoff P. Improvements in survival and clinical benefit with gemcitabine as first-line therapy for patients with advanced pancreas cancer: A randomized trial J. Clin. Oncol. 1997 15 2403 2413 10.1200/JCO.1997.15.6.2403 9196156

65. Von Hoff D.D. Ervin T. Arena F.P. Chiorean E.G. Infante J. Moore M. Seay T. Tjulandin S.A. Ma W.W. Saleh M.N. Increased survival in pancreatic cancer with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine N. Engl. J. Med. 2013 369 1691 1703 10.1056/NEJMoa1304369 24131140 PMC4631139

66. Goldstein D. El-Maraghi R.H. Hammel P. Heinemann V. Kunzmann V. Sastre J. Scheithauer W. Siena S. Tabernero J. Teixeira L. nab-Paclitaxel plus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer: Long-term survival from a phase III trial J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2015 107 dju413 10.1093/jnci/dju413 25638248

67. Thota R. Pauff J.M. Berlin J.D. Treatment of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A review Oncology (Williston Park) 2014 28 70 74 24683721

68. Roviello G. Ramello M. Catalano M. D’Angelo A. Conca R. Gasperoni S. Dreoni L. Petrioli R. Ianza A. Nobili S. Association between neutropenia and survival to nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer Sci. Rep. 2020 10 19281 10.1038/s41598-020-76465-9 33159172 PMC7648798

69. Conroy T. Desseigne F. Ychou M. Bouche O. Guimbaud R. Becouarn Y. Adenis A. Raoul J.L. Gourgou-Bourgade S. de la Fouchardiere C. FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer N. Engl. J. Med. 2011 364 1817 1825 10.1056/NEJMoa1011923 21561347

70. Gourgou-Bourgade S. Bascoul-Mollevi C. Desseigne F. Ychou M. Bouche O. Guimbaud R. Becouarn Y. Adenis A. Raoul J.L. Boige V. Impact of FOLFIRINOX compared with gemcitabine on quality of life in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer: Results from the PRODIGE 4/ACCORD 11 randomized trial J. Clin. Oncol. 2012 31 23 29 10.1200/JCO.2012.44.4869 23213101

71. Lambert A. Gavoille C. Conroy T. Current status on the place of FOLFIRINOX in metastatic pancreatic cancer and future directions Ther. Adv. Gastroenterol. 2017 10 631 645 10.1177/1756283X17713879 PMC5557187 28835777

72. Sawada M. Kasuga A. Mie T. Furukawa T. Taniguchi T. Fukuda K. Yamada Y. Takeda T. Kanata R. Matsuyama M. Modified FOLFIRINOX as a second-line therapy following gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel therapy in metastatic pancreatic cancer BMC Cancer 2020 20 449 10.1186/s12885-020-06945-8 32434547 PMC7238500

73. Cavanna L. Stroppa E.M. Citterio C. Mordenti P. Di Nunzio C. Peveri S. Orlandi E. Vecchia S. Modified FOLFIRINOX for unresectable locally advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer. A real-world comparison of an attenuated with a full dose in a single center experience Onco Targets Ther. 2019 12 3077 3085 10.2147/OTT.S200754 31118666 PMC6498392

74. Tong H. Fan Z. Liu B. Lu T. The benefits of modified FOLFIRINOX for advanced pancreatic cancer and its induced adverse events: A systematic review and meta-analysis Sci. Rep. 2018 8 8666 10.1038/s41598-018-26811-9 29875415 PMC5989209

75. Karandish F. Mallik S. Biomarkers and Targeted Therapy in Pancreatic Cancer Biomark. Cancer 2016 8 27 35 10.4137/BIC.S34414 27147897 PMC4847554

76. Tanaka S. Molecular Pathogenesis and Targeted Therapy of Pancreatic Cancer Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2016 23 Suppl. 2 S197 S205 10.1245/s10434-015-4463-x 25749932

77. Amanam I. Chung V. Targeted Therapies for Pancreatic Cancer Cancers (Basel) 2018 10 36 10.3390/cancers10020036 PMC5836068 29382159

78. Qian Y. Gong Y. Fan Z. Luo G. Huang Q. Deng S. Cheng H. Jin K. Ni Q. Yu X. Molecular alterations and targeted therapy in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma J. Hematol. Oncol. 2020 13 130 10.1186/s13045-020-00958-3 33008426 PMC7532113

79. Schneider G. Schmid R.M. Genetic alterations in pancreatic carcinoma Mol. Cancer 2003 2 15 10.1186/1476-4598-2-15 12605716 PMC150381

80. Makohon-Moore A. Brosnan J.A. Iacobuzio-Donahue C.A. Pancreatic cancer genomics: Insights and opportunities for clinical translation Genome Med. 2013 5 26 10.1186/gm430 23673020 PMC4064313

81. Nelson S.R. Walsh N. Genetic Alterations Featuring Biological Models to Tailor Clinical Management of Pancreatic Cancer Patients Cancers (Basel) 2020 12 1233 10.3390/cancers12051233 32423157 PMC7281628

82. Waddell N. Pajic M. Patch A.M. Chang D.K. Kassahn K.S. Bailey P. Johns A.L. Miller D. Nones K. Quek K. Whole genomes redefine the mutational landscape of pancreatic cancer Nature 2015 518 495 501 10.1038/nature14169 25719666 PMC4523082

83. Witkiewicz A.K. McMillan E.A. Balaji U. Baek G. Lin W.C. Mansour J. Mollaee M. Wagner K.U. Koduru P. Yopp A. Whole-exome sequencing of pancreatic cancer defines genetic diversity and therapeutic targets Nat. Commun. 2015 6 6744 10.1038/ncomms7744 25855536 PMC4403382

84. Bailey P. Chang D.K. Nones K. Johns A.L. Patch A.M. Gingras M.C. Miller D.K. Christ A.N. Bruxner T.J. Quinn M.C. Genomic analyses identify molecular subtypes of pancreatic cancer Nature 2016 531 47 52 10.1038/nature16965 26909576

85. Mollinedo F. Gajate C. Novel therapeutic approaches for pancreatic cancer by combined targeting of RAF-->MEK-->ERK signaling and autophagy survival response Ann. Transl. Med. 2019 7 S153 10.21037/atm.2019.06.40 31576360 PMC6685885

86. Infante J.R. Somer B.G. Park J.O. Li C.P. Scheulen M.E. Kasubhai S.M. Oh D.Y. Liu Y. Redhu S. Steplewski K. A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of trametinib, an oral MEK inhibitor, in combination with gemcitabine for patients with untreated metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas Eur. J. Cancer 2014 50 2072 2081 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.04.024 24915778

87. Van Cutsem E. Hidalgo M. Canon J.L. Macarulla T. Bazin I. Poddubskaya E. Manojlovic N. Radenkovic D. Verslype C. Raymond E. Phase I/II trial of pimasertib plus gemcitabine in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer Int. J. Cancer 2018 143 2053 2064 10.1002/ijc.31603 29756206

88. Kinsey C.G. Camolotto S.A. Boespflug A.M. Guillen K.P. Foth M. Truong A. Schuman S.S. Shea J.E. Seipp M.T. Yap J.T. Protective autophagy elicited by RAF-->MEK-->ERK inhibition suggests a treatment strategy for RAS-driven cancers Nat. Med. 2019 25 620 627 10.1038/s41591-019-0367-9 30833748 PMC6452642

89. Bryant K.L. Stalnecker C.A. Zeitouni D. Klomp J.E. Peng S. Tikunov A.P. Gunda V. Pierobon M. Waters A.M. George S.D. Combination of ERK and autophagy inhibition as a treatment approach for pancreatic cancer Nat. Med. 2019 25 628 640 10.1038/s41591-019-0368-8 30833752 PMC6484853

90. Chantarojanasiri T. Hirooka Y. Ratanachu-Ek T. Kawashima H. Ohno E. Goto H. Evolution of pancreas in aging: Degenerative variation or early changes of disease? J. Med. Ultrason. 2015 42 177 183 10.1007/s10396-014-0576-2 26576570

91. Wang L. Zheng S. Pancreatic senescence and its clinical manifestations Aging Med. 2020 3 48 52 10.1002/agm2.12095 PMC7099748 32232192

92. Caglar V. Songur A. Yagmurca M. Acar M. Toktas M. Gonul Y. Age-related volumetric changes in pancreas: A stereological study on computed tomography Surg. Radiol. Anat. 2012 34 935 941 10.1007/s00276-012-0988-x 22684677

93. Janssen J. Papavassiliou I. Effect of aging and diffuse chronic pancreatitis on pancreas elasticity evaluated using semiquantitative EUS elastography Ultraschall Med. 2014 35 253 258 10.1055/s-0033-1355767 24327468

94. Sato T. Ito K. Tamada T. Sone T. Noda Y. Higaki A. Kanki A. Tanimoto D. Higashi H. Age-related changes in normal adult pancreas: MR imaging evaluation Eur. J. Radiol. 2012 81 2093 2098 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.07.014 21906894

95. Detlefsen S. Sipos B. Feyerabend B. Kloppel G. Pancreatic fibrosis associated with age and ductal papillary hyperplasia Virchows Arch. 2005 447 800 805 10.1007/s00428-005-0032-1 16021508

96. Riccillo F.L. Bracamonte M.I. Console G.M. Gomez Dumm C.L. Histomorphological and quantitative immunohistochemical changes in the rat pancreas during aging Biocell 2004 28 127 134 10.32604/biocell.2004.28.127 15462563

97. Lohr J.M. Panic N. Vujasinovic M. Verbeke C.S. The ageing pancreas: A systematic review of the evidence and analysis of the consequences J. Intern. Med. 2018 283 446 460 10.1111/joim.12745 29474746

98. Ilic M. Ilic I. Epidemiology of pancreatic cancer World J. Gastroenterol. 2016 22 9694 9705 10.3748/wjg.v22.i44.9694 27956793 PMC5124974

99. Bray F. Ferlay J. Soerjomataram I. Siegel R.L. Torre L.A. Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries CA Cancer J. Clin. 2018 68 394 424 10.3322/caac.21492 30207593

100. Wang H. Liu J. Xia G. Lei S. Huang X. Survival of pancreatic cancer patients is negatively correlated with age at diagnosis: A population-based retrospective study Sci. Rep. 2020 10 7048 10.1038/s41598-020-64068-3 32341400 PMC7184604

101. Leung P.S. Ip S.P. Pancreatic acinar cell: Its role in acute pancreatitis Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 2006 38 1024 1030 10.1016/j.biocel.2005.12.001 16423553

102. Case R.M. Synthesis, intracellular transport and discharge of exportable proteins in the pancreatic acinar cell and other cells Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 1978 53 211 354 10.1111/j.1469-185X.1978.tb01437.x 208670

103. Cabrera O. Berman D.M. Kenyon N.S. Ricordi C. Berggren P.O. Caicedo A. The unique cytoarchitecture of human pancreatic islets has implications for islet cell function Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2006 103 2334 2339 10.1073/pnas.0510790103 16461897 PMC1413730

104. Da Silva Xavier G. The Cells of the Islets of Langerhans J. Clin. Med. 2018 7 54 10.3390/jcm7030054 PMC5867580 29534517

105. Oyadomari S. Araki E. Mori M. Endoplasmic reticulum stress-mediated apoptosis in pancreatic beta-cells Apoptosis 2002 7 335 345 10.1023/A:1016175429877 12101393

106. Corazzari M. Gagliardi M. Fimia G.M. Piacentini M. Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress, Unfolded Protein Response, and Cancer Cell Fate Front. Oncol. 2017 7 78 10.3389/fonc.2017.00078 28491820 PMC5405076

107. Robinson C.M. Talty A. Logue S.E. Mnich K. Gorman A.M. Samali A. An Emerging Role for the Unfolded Protein Response in Pancreatic Cancer Cancers (Basel) 2021 13 261 10.3390/cancers13020261 PMC7828145 33445669

108. Wang X.Z. Harding H.P. Zhang Y. Jolicoeur E.M. Kuroda M. Ron D. Cloning of mammalian Ire1 reveals diversity in the ER stress responses EMBO J. 1998 17 5708 5717 10.1093/emboj/17.19.5708 9755171 PMC1170899

109. Huang G. Yao J. Zeng W. Mizuno Y. Kamm K.E. Stull J.T. Harding H.P. Ron D. Muallem S. ER stress disrupts Ca 2+ -signaling complexes and Ca 2+ regulation in secretory and muscle cells from PERK-knockout mice J. Cell Sci. 2006 119 153 161 10.1242/jcs.02731 16352659

110. Haze K. Yoshida H. Yanagi H. Yura T. Mori K. Mammalian transcription factor ATF6 is synthesized as a transmembrane protein and activated by proteolysis in response to endoplasmic reticulum stress Mol. Biol. Cell 1999 10 3787 3799 10.1091/mbc.10.11.3787 10564271 PMC25679

111. Pommier A. Anaparthy N. Memos N. Kelley Z.L. Gouronnec A. Yan R. Auffray C. Albrengues J. Egeblad M. Iacobuzio-Donahue C.A. Unresolved endoplasmic reticulum stress engenders immune-resistant, latent pancreatic cancer metastases Science 2018 360 eaao4908 10.1126/science.aao4908 29773669 PMC6547380

112. Sah R.P. Garg S.K. Dixit A.K. Dudeja V. Dawra R.K. Saluja A.K. Endoplasmic reticulum stress is chronically activated in chronic pancreatitis J. Biol. Chem. 2014 289 27551 27561 10.1074/jbc.M113.528174 25077966 PMC4183795

113. New M. Van Acker T. Long J.S. Sakamaki J.I. Ryan K.M. Tooze S.A. Molecular Pathways Controlling Autophagy in Pancreatic Cancer Front. Oncol. 2017 7 28 10.3389/fonc.2017.00028 28316954 PMC5334363

114. Garcia-Navas R. Munder M. Mollinedo F. Depletion of L-arginine induces autophagy as a cytoprotective response to endoplasmic reticulum stress in human T lymphocytes Autophagy 2012 8 1557 1576 10.4161/auto.21315 22874569 PMC3494587

115. Chen X. Cubillos-Ruiz J.R. Endoplasmic reticulum stress signals in the tumour and its microenvironment Nat. Rev. Cancer 2021 21 71 88 10.1038/s41568-020-00312-2 33214692 PMC7927882

116. Garcia-Carbonero N. Li W. Cabeza-Morales M. Martinez-Useros J. Garcia-Foncillas J. New Hope for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Treatment Targeting Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress Response: A Systematic Review Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018 19 2468 10.3390/ijms19092468 30134550 PMC6165247

117. Nawrocki S.T. Carew J.S. Dunner K. Jr. Boise L.H. Chiao P.J. Huang P. Abbruzzese J.L. McConkey D.J. Bortezomib inhibits PKR-like endoplasmic reticulum (ER) kinase and induces apoptosis via ER stress in human pancreatic cancer cells Cancer Res. 2005 65 11510 11519 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-2394 16357160

118. Xu D. Liang S.Q. Yang H. Luthi U. Riether C. Berezowska S. Marti T.M. Hall S.R.R. Bruggmann R. Kocher G.J. Increased sensitivity to apoptosis upon endoplasmic reticulum stress-induced activation of the unfolded protein response in chemotherapy-resistant malignant pleural mesothelioma Br. J. Cancer 2018 119 65 75 10.1038/s41416-018-0145-3 29921948 PMC6035279

119. Mandic A. Hansson J. Linder S. Shoshan M.C. Cisplatin induces endoplasmic reticulum stress and nucleus-independent apoptotic signaling J. Biol. Chem. 2003 278 9100 9106 10.1074/jbc.M210284200 12509415

120. Carracedo A. Gironella M. Lorente M. Garcia S. Guzman M. Velasco G. Iovanna J.L. Cannabinoids induce apoptosis of pancreatic tumor cells via endoplasmic reticulum stress-related genes Cancer Res. 2006 66 6748 6755 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-0169 16818650

121. Limonta P. Moretti R.M. Marzagalli M. Fontana F. Raimondi M. Montagnani Marelli M. Role of Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress in the Anticancer Activity of Natural Compounds Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019 20 961 10.3390/ijms20040961 30813301 PMC6412802

122. Nawrocki S.T. Carew J.S. Pino M.S. Highshaw R.A. Dunner K. Jr. Huang P. Abbruzzese J.L. McConkey D.J. Bortezomib sensitizes pancreatic cancer cells to endoplasmic reticulum stress-mediated apoptosis Cancer Res. 2005 65 11658 11666 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-2370 16357177

123. Avril T. Vauleon E. Chevet E. Endoplasmic reticulum stress signaling and chemotherapy resistance in solid cancers Oncogenesis 2017 6 e373 10.1038/oncsis.2017.72 28846078 PMC5608920

124. Nikesitch N. Lee J.M. Ling S. Roberts T.L. Endoplasmic reticulum stress in the development of multiple myeloma and drug resistance Clin. Transl. Immunol. 2018 7 e1007 10.1002/cti2.1007 PMC5822402 29484184

125. Sitia R. Braakman I. Quality control in the endoplasmic reticulum protein factory Nature 2003 426 891 894 10.1038/nature02262 14685249

126. Ellgaard L. Helenius A. Quality control in the endoplasmic reticulum Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2003 4 181 191 10.1038/nrm1052 12612637

127. Walter P. Ron D. The unfolded protein response: From stress pathway to homeostatic regulation Science 2011 334 1081 1086 10.1126/science.1209038 22116877

128. Iurlaro R. Munoz-Pinedo C. Cell death induced by endoplasmic reticulum stress FEBS J. 2016 283 2640 2652 10.1111/febs.13598 26587781

129. Breckenridge D.G. Germain M. Mathai J.P. Nguyen M. Shore G.C. Regulation of apoptosis by endoplasmic reticulum pathways Oncogene 2003 22 8608 8618 10.1038/sj.onc.1207108 14634622

130. Hitomi J. Katayama T. Eguchi Y. Kudo T. Taniguchi M. Koyama Y. Manabe T. Yamagishi S. Bando Y. Imaizumi K. Involvement of caspase-4 in endoplasmic reticulum stress-induced apoptosis and Abeta-induced cell death J. Cell Biol. 2004 165 347 356 10.1083/jcb.200310015 15123740 PMC2172196

131. Merksamer P.I. Papa F.R. The UPR and cell fate at a glance J. Cell Sci. 2010 123 1003 1006 10.1242/jcs.035832 20332117 PMC2844313

132. Gajate C. Matos-da-Silva M. Dakir E.L. Fonteriz R.I. Alvarez J. Mollinedo F. Antitumor alkyl-lysophospholipid analog edelfosine induces apoptosis in pancreatic cancer by targeting endoplasmic reticulum Oncogene 2012 31 2627 2639 10.1038/onc.2011.446 22056873

133. Hetz C. The unfolded protein response: Controlling cell fate decisions under ER stress and beyond Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2012 13 89 102 10.1038/nrm3270 22251901

134. Sano R. Reed J.C. ER stress-induced cell death mechanisms Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2013 1833 3460 3470 10.1016/j.bbamcr.2013.06.028 23850759 PMC3834229

135. Bonilla X. Dakir E.H. Mollinedo F. Gajate C. Endoplasmic reticulum targeting in Ewing’s sarcoma by the alkylphospholipid analog edelfosine Oncotarget 2015 6 14596 14613 10.18632/oncotarget.4053 25999349 PMC4546490

136. Hetz C. Papa F.R. The Unfolded Protein Response and Cell Fate Control Mol. Cell 2018 69 169 181 10.1016/j.molcel.2017.06.017 29107536

137. Lee A.S. The glucose-regulated proteins: Stress induction and clinical applications Trends Biochem. Sci. 2001 26 504 510 10.1016/S0968-0004(01)01908-9 11504627

138. Park K.W. Eun Kim G. Morales R. Moda F. Moreno-Gonzalez I. Concha-Marambio L. Lee A.S. Hetz C. Soto C. The Endoplasmic Reticulum Chaperone GRP78/BiP Modulates Prion Propagation in vitro and in vivo Sci. Rep. 2017 7 44723 10.1038/srep44723 28333162 PMC5363067

139. Liu Z. Lv Y. Zhao N. Guan G. Wang J. Protein kinase R-like ER kinase and its role in endoplasmic reticulum stress-decided cell fate Cell Death Dis. 2015 6 e1822 10.1038/cddis.2015.183 26225772 PMC4650730

140. Breckenridge D.G. Stojanovic M. Marcellus R.C. Shore G.C. Caspase cleavage product of BAP31 induces mitochondrial fission through endoplasmic reticulum calcium signals, enhancing cytochrome c release to the cytosol J. Cell Biol. 2003 160 1115 1127 10.1083/jcb.200212059 12668660 PMC2172754

141. Iwasawa R. Mahul-Mellier A.L. Datler C. Pazarentzos E. Grimm S. Fis1 and Bap31 bridge the mitochondria-ER interface to establish a platform for apoptosis induction EMBO J. 2011 30 556 568 10.1038/emboj.2010.346 21183955 PMC3034017

142. Bian Z.M. Elner S.G. Elner V.M. Dual involvement of caspase-4 in inflammatory and ER stress-induced apoptotic responses in human retinal pigment epithelial cells Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2009 50 6006 6014 10.1167/iovs.09-3628 19643964 PMC3208232

143. Reiling J.H. Sabatini D.M. Increased mTORC1 signaling UPRegulates stress Mol. Cell 2008 29 533 535 10.1016/j.molcel.2008.02.011 18342598

144. Fonseca S.G. Gromada J. Urano F. Endoplasmic reticulum stress and pancreatic beta-cell death Trends Endocrinol. Metab. 2011 22 266 274 21458293 10.1016/j.tem.2011.02.008 PMC3130122

145. Ghosh R. Colon-Negron K. Papa F.R. Endoplasmic reticulum stress, degeneration of pancreatic islet beta-cells, and therapeutic modulation of the unfolded protein response in diabetes Mol. Metab. 2019 27S S60 S68 10.1016/j.molmet.2019.06.012 31500832 PMC6768499

146. Gajate C. Mollinedo F. Biological activities, mechanisms of action and biomedical prospect of the antitumor ether phospholipid ET-18-OCH 3 (Edelfosine), a proapoptotic agent in tumor cells Curr. Drug Metab. 2002 3 491 525 10.2174/1389200023337225 12369895

147. Mollinedo F. Gajate C. Martin-Santamaria S. Gago F. ET-18-OCH 3 (edelfosine): A selective antitumour lipid targeting apoptosis through intracellular activation of Fas/CD95 death receptor Curr. Med. Chem. 2004 11 3163 3184 10.2174/0929867043363703 15579006

148. Mollinedo F. Antitumor ether lipids: Proapoptotic agents with multiple therapeutic indications Expert Opin. Ther. Pat. 2007 17 385 405 10.1517/13543776.17.4.385

149. Mollinedo F. Antitumor alkylphospholipid analogs: A promising and growing family of synthetic cell membrane-targeting molecules for cancer treatment Anticancer Agents Med. Chem. 2014 14 495 498 10.2174/1871520614999140313160011 24628231

150. Gajate C. Mollinedo F. Lipid rafts, endoplasmic reticulum and mitochondria in the antitumor action of the alkylphospholipid analog edelfosine Anticancer Agents Med. Chem. 2014 14 509 527 10.2174/1871520614666140309222259 24628241

151. Sundar S. Chatterjee M. Visceral leishmaniasis–current therapeutic modalities Indian J. Med. Res. 2006 123 345 352 16778315

152. Sundar S. Jha T.K. Thakur C.P. Engel J. Sindermann H. Fischer C. Junge K. Bryceson A. Berman J. Oral miltefosine for Indian visceral leishmaniasis N. Engl. J. Med. 2002 347 1739 1746 10.1056/NEJMoa021556 12456849

153. Sundar S. Rai M. Treatment of visceral leishmaniasis Expert Opin. Pharm. 2005 6 2821 2829 10.1517/14656566.6.16.2821 16318433

154. Sundar S. Singh A. Rai M. Prajapati V.K. Singh A.K. Ostyn B. Boelaert M. Dujardin J.C. Chakravarty J. Efficacy of miltefosine in the treatment of visceral leishmaniasis in India after a decade of use Clin. Infect. Dis. 2012 55 543 550 10.1093/cid/cis474 22573856

155. Ghobrial I.M. Roccaro A. Hong F. Weller E. Rubin N. Leduc R. Rourke M. Chuma S. Sacco A. Jia X. Clinical and translational studies of a phase II trial of the novel oral Akt inhibitor perifosine in relapsed or relapsed/refractory Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia Clin. Cancer Res. 2010 16 1033 1041 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-1837 20103671 PMC2885252

156. Richardson P.G. Wolf J. Jakubowiak A. Zonder J. Lonial S. Irwin D. Densmore J. Krishnan A. Raje N. Bar M. Perifosine plus bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma previously treated with bortezomib: Results of a multicenter phase I/II trial J. Clin. Oncol. 2011 29 4243 4249 10.1200/JCO.2010.33.9788 21990396

157. Jakubowiak A.J. Richardson P.G. Zimmerman T. Alsina M. Kaufman J.L. Kandarpa M. Kraftson S. Ross C.W. Harvey C. Hideshima T. Perifosine plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed and relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: A Phase I Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium study Br. J. Haematol. 2012 158 472 480 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2012.09173.x 22640031

158. Richardson P.G. Eng C. Kolesar J. Hideshima T. Anderson K.C. Perifosine, an oral, anti-cancer agent and inhibitor of the Akt pathway: Mechanistic actions, pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, and clinical activity Expert Opin. Drug Metab. Toxicol. 2012 8 623 633 10.1517/17425255.2012.681376 22512706 PMC4467022

159. Richardson P.G. Nagler A. Ben-Yehuda D. Badros A. Hari P. Hajek R. Spicka I. Kaya H. Le Blanc R. Yoon S.-S. Randomized Placebo-Controlled Phase III Study of Perifosine Combined with Bortezomib and Dexamethasone in Relapsed, Refractory Multiple Myeloma Patients Previously Treated with Bortezomib Blood 2013 122 3189 10.1182/blood.v122.21.3189.3189 PMC9175725 35847734

160. Friedman D.R. Lanasa M.C. Davis P.H. Allgood S.D. Matta K.M. Brander D.M. Chen Y. Davis E.D. Volkheimer A.D. Moore J.O. Perifosine treatment in chronic lymphocytic leukemia: Results of a phase II clinical trial and in vitro studies Leuk. Lymphoma 2014 55 1067 1075 10.3109/10428194.2013.824080 23863122

161. Bendell J.C. Nemunaitis J. Vukelja S.J. Hagenstad C. Campos L.T. Hermann R.C. Sportelli P. Gardner L. Richards D.A. Randomized placebo-controlled phase II trial of perifosine plus capecitabine as second- or third-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer J. Clin. Oncol. 2011 29 4394 4400 10.1200/JCO.2011.36.1980 21969495

162. Becher O.J. Millard N.E. Modak S. Kushner B.H. Haque S. Spasojevic I. Trippett T.M. Gilheeney S.W. Khakoo Y. Lyden D.C. A phase I study of single-agent perifosine for recurrent or refractory pediatric CNS and solid tumors PLoS ONE 2017 12 e0178593 10.1371/journal.pone.0178593 28582410 PMC5459446

163. Becher O.J. Gilheeney S.W. Khakoo Y. Lyden D.C. Haque S. De Braganca K.C. Kolesar J.M. Huse J.T. Modak S. Wexler L.H. A phase I study of perifosine with temsirolimus for recurrent pediatric solid tumors Pediatr. Blood Cancer 2017 64 e26409 10.1002/pbc.26409 28035748

164. Kushner B.H. Cheung N.V. Modak S. Becher O.J. Basu E.M. Roberts S.S. Kramer K. Dunkel I.J. A phase I/Ib trial targeting the PI3K/Akt pathway using perifosine: Long-term progression-free survival of patients with resistant neuroblastoma Int. J. Cancer 2017 140 480 484 10.1002/ijc.30440 27649927 PMC5118186

165. Hasegawa K. Kagabu M. Mizuno M. Oda K. Aoki D. Mabuchi S. Kamiura S. Yamaguchi S. Aoki Y. Saito T. Phase II basket trial of perifosine monotherapy for recurrent gynecologic cancer with or without PIK3CA mutations Invest. New Drugs 2017 35 800 812 10.1007/s10637-017-0504-6 28864978

166. Kaley T.J. Panageas K.S. Mellinghoff I.K. Nolan C. Gavrilovic I.T. DeAngelis L.M. Abrey L.E. Holland E.C. Lassman A.B. Phase II trial of an AKT inhibitor (perifosine) for recurrent glioblastoma J. Neurooncol. 2019 144 403 407 10.1007/s11060-019-03243-7 31325145 PMC7493746

167. Kaley T.J. Panageas K.S. Pentsova E.I. Mellinghoff I.K. Nolan C. Gavrilovic I. DeAngelis L.M. Abrey L.E. Holland E.C. Omuro A. Phase I clinical trial of temsirolimus and perifosine for recurrent glioblastoma Ann. Clin. Transl. Neurol. 2020 7 429 436 10.1002/acn3.51009 32293798 PMC7187704

168. Dorlo T.P. Balasegaram M. Beijnen J.H. de Vries P.J. Miltefosine: A review of its pharmacology and therapeutic efficacy in the treatment of leishmaniasis J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2012 67 2576 2597 10.1093/jac/dks275 22833634

169. Leonard R. Hardy J. van Tienhoven G. Houston S. Simmonds P. David M. Mansi J. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial of 6% miltefosine solution, a topical chemotherapy in cutaneous metastases from breast cancer J. Clin. Oncol. 2001 19 4150 4159 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.21.4150 11689583

170. Gajate C. Mollinedo F. Edelfosine and perifosine induce selective apoptosis in multiple myeloma by recruitment of death receptors and downstream signaling molecules into lipid rafts Blood 2007 109 711 719 10.1182/blood-2006-04-016824 17003375

171. Kny G. Über Lysolecithin-Analoga–Synthese und biologische Eigenschaften Diploma Thesis University of Freiburg Freiburg, Germany 1969

172. Mollinedo F. Fernandez-Luna J.L. Gajate C. Martin-Martin B. Benito A. Martinez-Dalmau R. Modolell M. Selective induction of apoptosis in cancer cells by the ether lipid ET-18-OCH 3 (Edelfosine): Molecular structure requirements, cellular uptake, and protection by Bcl-2 and Bcl-X L Cancer Res. 1997 57 1320 1328 9102220

173. Hoffman D.R. Hoffman L.H. Snyder F. Cytotoxicity and metabolism of alkyl phospholipid analogues in neoplastic cells Cancer Res. 1986 46 5803 5809 3756924

174. Magistrelli A. Villa P. Benfenati E. Modest E.J. Salmona M. Tacconi M.T. Fate of 1- O -octadecyl-2- O -methyl- rac -glycero-3-phosphocholine (ET18-OME) in malignant cells, normal cells, and isolated and perfused rat liver Drug Metab. Dispos. 1995 23 113 118 7720513

175. Varela-M R.E. Villa-Pulgarin J.A. Yepes E. Muller I. Modolell M. Munoz D.L. Robledo S.M. Muskus C.E. Lopez-Aban J. Muro A. In Vitro and In Vivo Efficacy of Ether Lipid Edelfosine against Leishmania spp. and SbV-Resistant Parasites PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2012 6 e1612 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001612 22506086 PMC3323514

176. Villa-Pulgarin J.A. Gajate C. Botet J. Jimenez A. Justies N. Varela-M R.E. Cuesta-Marban A. Muller I. Modolell M. Revuelta J.L. Mitochondria and lipid raft-located F O F 1 -ATP synthase as major therapeutic targets in the antileishmanial and anticancer activities of ether lipid edelfosine PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2017 11 e0005805 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005805 28829771 PMC5568728

177. Yepes E. Varela-M R.E. Lopez-Aban J. Dakir E.H. Mollinedo F. Muro A. In vitro and in vivo anti-schistosomal activity of the alkylphospholipid analog edelfosine PLoS ONE 2014 9 e109431 10.1371/journal.pone.0109431 25302497 PMC4193788

178. Yepes E. Varela-M R.E. Lopez-Aban J. Rojas-Caraballo J. Muro A. Mollinedo F. Inhibition of Granulomatous Inflammation and Prophylactic Treatment of Schistosomiasis with a Combination of Edelfosine and Praziquantel PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2015 9 e0003893 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003893 26191954 PMC4507859

179. Legarda-Ceballos A.L. Rojas-Caraballo J. Lopez-Aban J. Ruano A.L. Yepes E. Gajate C. Mollinedo F. Muro A. The alkylphospholipid edelfosine shows activity against Strongyloides venezuelensis and induces apoptosis-like cell death Acta. Trop. 2016 162 180 187 10.1016/j.actatropica.2016.07.001 27394030

180. Mollinedo F. de la Iglesia-Vicente J. Gajate C. Estella-Hermoso de Mendoza A. Villa-Pulgarin J.A. de Frias M. Roue G. Gil J. Colomer D. Campanero M.A. In vitro and In vivo selective antitumor activity of Edelfosine against mantle cell lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia involving lipid rafts Clin. Cancer Res. 2010 16 2046 2054 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-2456 20233887

181. Mollinedo F. de la Iglesia-Vicente J. Gajate C. Estella-Hermoso de Mendoza A. Villa-Pulgarin J.A. Campanero M.A. Blanco-Prieto M.J. Lipid raft-targeted therapy in multiple myeloma Oncogene 2010 29 3748 3757 10.1038/onc.2010.131 20418917

182. Reis-Sobreiro M. Gajate C. Mollinedo F. Involvement of mitochondria and recruitment of Fas/CD95 signaling in lipid rafts in resveratrol-mediated antimyeloma and antileukemia actions Oncogene 2009 28 3221 3234 10.1038/onc.2009.183 19561642

183. Mollinedo F. Gajate C. Morales A.I. del Canto-Janez E. Justies N. Collia F. Rivas J.V. Modolell M. Iglesias A. Novel anti-inflammatory action of edelfosine lacking toxicity with protective effect in experimental colitis J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 2009 329 439 449 10.1124/jpet.108.148254 19244550

184. Gajate C. Del Canto-Janez E. Acuña A.U. Amat-Guerri F. Geijo E. Santos-Beneit A.M. Veldman R.J. Mollinedo F. Intracellular triggering of Fas aggregation and recruitment of apoptotic molecules into Fas-enriched rafts in selective tumor cell apoptosis J. Exp. Med. 2004 200 353 365 10.1084/jem.20040213 15289504 PMC2211978

185. Gajate C. Fonteriz R.I. Cabaner C. Alvarez-Noves G. Alvarez-Rodriguez Y. Modolell M. Mollinedo F. Intracellular triggering of Fas, independently of FasL, as a new mechanism of antitumor ether lipid-induced apoptosis Int. J. Cancer 2000 85 674 682 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(20000301)85:5<674::AID-IJC13>3.0.CO;2-Z 10699948

186. Gajate C. Mollinedo F. The antitumor ether lipid ET-18-OCH 3 induces apoptosis through translocation and capping of Fas/CD95 into membrane rafts in human leukemic cells Blood 2001 98 3860 3863 10.1182/blood.V98.13.3860 11739199

187. Mollinedo F. Gajate C. Fas/CD95 death receptor and lipid rafts: New targets for apoptosis-directed cancer therapy Drug Resist. Updat. 2006 9 51 73 10.1016/j.drup.2006.04.002 16687251

188. Gajate C. Gonzalez-Camacho F. Mollinedo F. Involvement of raft aggregates enriched in Fas/CD95 death-inducing signaling complex in the antileukemic action of edelfosine in Jurkat cells PLoS ONE 2009 4 e5044 10.1371/journal.pone.0005044 19352436 PMC2662410

189. Mollinedo F. Gajate C. Lipid rafts as major platforms for signaling regulation in cancer Adv. Biol. Regul. 2015 57 130 146 10.1016/j.jbior.2014.10.003 25465296

190. Gajate C. Mollinedo F. Lipid rafts and raft-mediated supramolecular entities in the regulation of CD95 death receptor apoptotic signaling Apoptosis 2015 20 584 606 10.1007/s10495-015-1104-6 25702154

191. Gajate C. Mollinedo F. Lipid raft-mediated Fas/CD95 apoptotic signaling in leukemic cells and normal leukocytes and therapeutic implications J. Leukoc. Biol. 2015 98 739 759 10.1189/jlb.2MR0215-055R 26246489

192. Gajate C. Mollinedo F. Fas/CD95, lipid rafts and cancer TRAIL, Fas Ligand, TNF and TLR3 in Cancer Micheau O. Springer International Publishing AG Cham, Switzerland 2017 187 228

193. Mollinedo F. Gajate C. Lipid rafts as signaling hubs in cancer cell survival/death and invasion: Implications in tumor progression and therapy J. Lipid Res. 2020 61 611 635 10.1194/jlr.TR119000439 33715811 PMC7193951

194. Gajate C. Gonzalez-Camacho F. Mollinedo F. Lipid raft connection between extrinsic and intrinsic apoptotic pathways Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2009 380 780 784 10.1016/j.bbrc.2009.01.147 19338752

195. Mollinedo F. Gajate C. Lipid rafts and clusters of apoptotic signaling molecule-enriched rafts in cancer therapy Future Oncol. 2010 6 811 821 10.2217/fon.10.34 20465392

196. Mollinedo F. Gajate C. Lipid rafts, death receptors and CASMERs: New insights for cancer therapy Future Oncol. 2010 6 491 494 10.2217/fon.10.22 20373862

197. Zaremberg V. Gajate C. Cacharro L.M. Mollinedo F. McMaster C.R. Cytotoxicity of an anti-cancer lysophospholipid through selective modification of lipid raft composition J. Biol. Chem. 2005 280 38047 38058 10.1074/jbc.M502849200 16155007

198. Reis-Sobreiro M. Roue G. Moros A. Gajate C. de la Iglesia-Vicente J. Colomer D. Mollinedo F. Lipid raft-mediated Akt signaling as a therapeutic target in mantle cell lymphoma Blood Cancer J. 2013 3 e118 10.1038/bcj.2013.15 23727661 PMC3674457

199. Czyz O. Bitew T. Cuesta-Marban A. McMaster C.R. Mollinedo F. Zaremberg V. Alteration of plasma membrane organization by an anticancer lysophosphatidylcholine analogue induces intracellular acidification and internalization of plasma membrane transporters in yeast J. Biol. Chem. 2013 288 8419 8432 10.1074/jbc.M112.425744 23344949 PMC3605658

200. Cuesta-Marban A. Botet J. Czyz O. Cacharro L.M. Gajate C. Hornillos V. Delgado J. Zhang H. Amat-Guerri F. Acuña A.U. Drug uptake, lipid rafts, and vesicle trafficking modulate resistance to an anticancer lysophosphatidylcholine analogue in yeast J. Biol. Chem. 2013 288 8405 8418 10.1074/jbc.M112.425769 23335509 PMC3605657

201. Nieto-Miguel T. Gajate C. Mollinedo F. Differential Targets and Subcellular Localization of Antitumor Alkyl-lysophospholipid in Leukemic Versus Solid Tumor Cells J. Biol. Chem. 2006 281 14833 14840 10.1074/jbc.M511251200 16540473

202. Mollinedo F. Death receptors in multiple myeloma and therapeutic opportunities Myeloma Therapy. Pursuing the Plasma Cell Lonial S. Humana Press Totowa, NJ, USA 2008 393 419

203. White-Gilbertson S. Hua Y. Liu B. The role of endoplasmic reticulum stress in maintaining and targeting multiple myeloma: A double-edged sword of adaptation and apoptosis Front. Genet. 2013 4 109 10.3389/fgene.2013.00109 23781234 PMC3678081

204. Karaskov E. Scott C. Zhang L. Teodoro T. Ravazzola M. Volchuk A. Chronic palmitate but not oleate exposure induces endoplasmic reticulum stress, which may contribute to INS-1 pancreatic beta-cell apoptosis Endocrinology 2006 147 3398 3407 10.1210/en.2005-1494 16601139

205. Cnop M. Ladriere L. Hekerman P. Ortis F. Cardozo A.K. Dogusan Z. Flamez D. Boyce M. Yuan J. Eizirik D.L. Selective inhibition of eukaryotic translation initiation factor 2 alpha dephosphorylation potentiates fatty acid-induced endoplasmic reticulum stress and causes pancreatic beta-cell dysfunction and apoptosis J. Biol. Chem. 2007 282 3989 3997 10.1074/jbc.M607627200 17158450

206. Cunha D.A. Hekerman P. Ladriere L. Bazarra-Castro A. Ortis F. Wakeham M.C. Moore F. Rasschaert J. Cardozo A.K. Bellomo E. Initiation and execution of lipotoxic ER stress in pancreatic beta-cells J. Cell Sci. 2008 121 2308 2318 10.1242/jcs.026062 18559892 PMC3675788

207. Quesada E. Delgado J. Gajate C. Mollinedo F. Acuña A.U. Amat-Guerri F. Fluorescent phenylpolyene analogues of the ether phospholipid edelfosine for the selective labeling of cancer cells J. Med. Chem. 2004 47 5333 5335 10.1021/jm049808a 15481970

208. Kowada T. Maeda H. Kikuchi K. BODIPY-based probes for the fluorescence imaging of biomolecules in living cells Chem. Soc. Rev. 2015 44 4953 4972 10.1039/C5CS00030K 25801415

209. Lu H. Shen Z. Editorial: BODIPYs and Their Derivatives: The Past, Present and Future Front. Chem. 2020 8 290 10.3389/fchem.2020.00290 32426323 PMC7212381

210. Mollinedo F. Fernandez M. Hornillos V. Delgado J. Amat-Guerri F. Acuña A.U. Nieto-Miguel T. Villa-Pulgarin J.A. Gonzalez-Garcia C. Cena V. Involvement of lipid rafts in the localization and dysfunction effect of the antitumor ether phospholipid edelfosine in mitochondria Cell Death Dis. 2011 2 e158 10.1038/cddis.2011.41 21593790 PMC3122120

211. Klee M. Pimentel-Muinos F.X. Bcl-XL specifically activates Bak to induce swelling and restructuring of the endoplasmic reticulum J. Cell Biol. 2005 168 723 734 10.1083/jcb.200408169 15728194 PMC2171806

212. Zhang H. Gajate C. Yu L.P. Fang Y.X. Mollinedo F. Mitochondrial-derived ROS in edelfosine-induced apoptosis in yeasts and tumor cells Acta Pharmacol. Sin. 2007 28 888 894 10.1111/j.1745-7254.2007.00568.x 17506948

213. Mollinedo F. Lipid raft involvement in yeast cell growth and death Front. Oncol. 2012 2 140 10.3389/fonc.2012.00140 23087902 PMC3467458

214. Casas C. GRP78 at the Centre of the Stage in Cancer and Neuroprotection Front. Neurosci. 2017 11 177 10.3389/fnins.2017.00177 28424579 PMC5380735

215. Bi X. Zhang G. Wang X. Nguyen C. May H.I. Li X. Al-Hashimi A.A. Austin R.C. Gillette T.G. Fu G. Endoplasmic Reticulum Chaperone GRP78 Protects Heart from Ischemia/Reperfusion Injury through Akt Activation Circ. Res. 2018 122 1545 1554 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.117.312641 29669712 PMC5970094

216. Nieto-Miguel T. Fonteriz R.I. Vay L. Gajate C. Lopez-Hernandez S. Mollinedo F. Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress in the Proapoptotic Action of Edelfosine in Solid Tumor Cells Cancer Res. 2007 67 10368 10378 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-0278 17974980

217. Wang M. Wey S. Zhang Y. Ye R. Lee A.S. Role of the unfolded protein response regulator GRP78/BiP in development, cancer, and neurological disorders Antioxid. Redox Signal. 2009 11 2307 2316 10.1089/ars.2009.2485 19309259 PMC2819800

218. Gajate C. Santos-Beneit A. Modolell M. Mollinedo F. Involvement of c-Jun NH 2 -terminal kinase activation and c-Jun in the induction of apoptosis by the ether phospholipid 1- O -octadecyl-2- O -methyl- rac -glycero-3-phosphocholine Mol. Pharmacol. 1998 53 602 612 10.1124/mol.53.4.602 9547349

219. Bennett B.L. Sasaki D.T. Murray B.W. O’Leary E.C. Sakata S.T. Xu W. Leisten J.C. Motiwala A. Pierce S. Satoh Y. SP600125, an anthrapyrazolone inhibitor of Jun N-terminal kinase Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2001 98 13681 13686 10.1073/pnas.251194298 11717429 PMC61101

220. Nishitoh H. Matsuzawa A. Tobiume K. Saegusa K. Takeda K. Inoue K. Hori S. Kakizuka A. Ichijo H. ASK1 is essential for endoplasmic reticulum stress-induced neuronal cell death triggered by expanded polyglutamine repeats Genes Dev. 2002 16 1345 1355 10.1101/gad.992302 12050113 PMC186318

221. Nieto-Miguel T. Gajate C. Gonzalez-Camacho F. Mollinedo F. Proapoptotic role of Hsp90 by its interaction with c-Jun N-terminal kinase in lipid rafts in edelfosine-mediated antileukemic therapy Oncogene 2008 27 1779 1787 10.1038/sj.onc.1210816 17891170

222. Bello C. Bai J. Zambron B.K. Elias-Rodriguez P. Gajate C. Robina I. Caffa I. Cea M. Montecucco F. Nencioni A. Induction of cell killing and autophagy by amphiphilic pyrrolidine derivatives on human pancreatic cancer cells Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2018 150 457 478 10.1016/j.ejmech.2018.02.086 29547833

223. Nguyen M. Breckenridge D.G. Ducret A. Shore G.C. Caspase-resistant BAP31 inhibits fas-mediated apoptotic membrane fragmentation and release of cytochrome c from mitochondria Mol. Cell Biol. 2000 20 6731 6740 10.1128/MCB.20.18.6731-6740.2000 10958671 PMC86192

224. Vance J.E. Phospholipid synthesis in a membrane fraction associated with mitochondria J. Biol. Chem. 1990 265 7248 7256 10.1016/S0021-9258(19)39106-9 2332429

225. Giorgi C. Missiroli S. Patergnani S. Duszynski J. Wieckowski M.R. Pinton P. Mitochondria-associated membranes: Composition, molecular mechanisms, and physiopathological implications Antioxid. Redox Signal. 2015 22 995 1019 10.1089/ars.2014.6223 25557408

226. Missiroli S. Patergnani S. Caroccia N. Pedriali G. Perrone M. Previati M. Wieckowski M.R. Giorgi C. Mitochondria-associated membranes (MAMs) and inflammation Cell Death Dis. 2018 9 329 10.1038/s41419-017-0027-2 29491386 PMC5832426

227. Fujimoto M. Hayashi T. Su T.P. The role of cholesterol in the association of endoplasmic reticulum membranes with mitochondria Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2012 417 635 639 10.1016/j.bbrc.2011.12.022 22185692 PMC3259743

228. Mollinedo F. Gajate C. Mitochondrial Targeting Involving Cholesterol-Rich Lipid Rafts in the Mechanism of Action of the Antitumor Ether Lipid and Alkylphospholipid Analog Edelfosine Pharmaceutics 2021 13 763 10.3390/pharmaceutics13050763 34065546 PMC8161315

229. Flis V.V. Daum G. Lipid transport between the endoplasmic reticulum and mitochondria Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2013 5 a013235 10.1101/cshperspect.a013235 23732475 PMC3660828

230. Missiroli S. Danese A. Iannitti T. Patergnani S. Perrone M. Previati M. Giorgi C. Pinton P. Endoplasmic reticulum-mitochondria Ca 2+ crosstalk in the control of the tumor cell fate Biochim. Biophys. Acta. Mol. Cell Res. 2017 1864 858 864 10.1016/j.bbamcr.2016.12.024 28064002

231. Busto J.V. del Canto-Jañez E. Goñi F.M. Mollinedo F. Alonso A. Combination of the anti-tumour cell ether lipid edelfosine with sterols abolishes haemolytic side effects of the drug J. Chem. Biol. 2008 1 89 94 10.1007/s12154-008-0009-z 19568801 PMC2698323

232. Ausili A. Martinez-Valera P. Torrecillas A. Gomez-Murcia V. de Godos A.M. Corbalan-Garcia S. Teruel J.A. Gomez Fernandez J.C. Anticancer Agent Edelfosine Exhibits a High Affinity for Cholesterol and Disorganizes Liquid-Ordered Membrane Structures Langmuir 2018 34 8333 8346 10.1021/acs.langmuir.8b01539 29924618

233. Ausili A. Torrecillas A. Aranda F.J. Mollinedo F. Gajate C. Corbalan-Garcia S. de Godos A. Gomez-Fernandez J.C. Edelfosine Is Incorporated into Rafts and Alters Their Organization J. Phys. Chem. B 2008 112 11643 11654 10.1021/jp802165n 18712919

234. Munder M. Mollinedo F. Calafat J. Canchado J. Gil-Lamaignere C. Fuentes J.M. Luckner C. Doschko G. Soler G. Eichmann K. Arginase I is constitutively expressed in human granulocytes and participates in fungicidal activity Blood 2005 105 2549 2556 10.1182/blood-2004-07-2521 15546957

235. Munder M. Schneider H. Luckner C. Giese T. Langhans C.D. Fuentes J.M. Kropf P. Mueller I. Kolb A. Modolell M. Suppression of T-cell functions by human granulocyte arginase Blood 2006 108 1627 1634 10.1182/blood-2006-11-010389 16709924

236. Mollinedo F. Neutrophil Degranulation, Plasticity, and Cancer Metastasis Trends Immunol. 2019 40 228 242 10.1016/j.it.2019.01.006 30777721

237. Wheatley D.N. Arginine deprivation and metabolomics: Important aspects of intermediary metabolism in relation to the differential sensitivity of normal and tumour cells Semin. Cancer Biol. 2005 15 247 253 10.1016/j.semcancer.2005.04.002 15886013

238. Wheatley D.N. Philip R. Campbell E. Arginine deprivation and tumour cell death: Arginase and its inhibition Mol. Cell Biochem. 2003 244 177 185 10.1023/A:1022451705701 12701828

239. García-Navas R. Gajate C. Mollinedo F. Neutrophils drive endoplasmic reticulum stress-mediated apoptosis in cancer cells through arginase-1 release Sci. Rep. 2021 11 12574 10.1038/s41598-021-91947-0 34131176 PMC8206108

240. Lecot P. Sarabi M. Pereira Abrantes M. Mussard J. Koenderman L. Caux C. Bendriss-Vermare N. Michallet M.C. Neutrophil Heterogeneity in Cancer: From Biology to Therapies Front. Immunol. 2019 10 2155 10.3389/fimmu.2019.02155 31616408 PMC6764113

241. Szczerba B.M. Castro-Giner F. Vetter M. Krol I. Gkountela S. Landin J. Scheidmann M.C. Donato C. Scherrer R. Singer J. Neutrophils escort circulating tumour cells to enable cell cycle progression Nature 2019 566 553 557 10.1038/s41586-019-0915-y 30728496

242. Ogata M. Hino S. Saito A. Morikawa K. Kondo S. Kanemoto S. Murakami T. Taniguchi M. Tanii I. Yoshinaga K. Autophagy is activated for cell survival after endoplasmic reticulum stress Mol. Cell Biol. 2006 26 9220 9231 10.1128/MCB.01453-06 17030611 PMC1698520

243. Hoyer-Hansen M. Jaattela M. Connecting endoplasmic reticulum stress to autophagy by unfolded protein response and calcium Cell Death Differ. 2007 14 1576 1582 10.1038/sj.cdd.4402200 17612585

244. Mizushima N. Yoshimori T. How to interpret LC3 immunoblotting Autophagy 2007 3 542 545 10.4161/auto.4600 17611390

245. Reid M.D. Basturk O. Thirabanjasak D. Hruban R.H. Klimstra D.S. Bagci P. Altinel D. Adsay V. Tumor-infiltrating neutrophils in pancreatic neoplasia Mod. Pathol. 2011 24 1612 1619 10.1038/modpathol.2011.113 21822201 PMC3227778

246. Chao T. Furth E.E. Vonderheide R.H. CXCR2-Dependent Accumulation of Tumor-Associated Neutrophils Regulates T-cell Immunity in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Cancer Immunol. Res. 2016 4 968 982 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-16-0188 27737879 PMC5110270

247. Wu L. Saxena S. Awaji M. Singh R.K. Tumor-Associated Neutrophils in Cancer: Going Pro Cancers (Basel) 2019 11 564 10.3390/cancers11040564 31010242 PMC6520693

248. Shaul M.E. Fridlender Z.G. Tumour-associated neutrophils in patients with cancer Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2019 16 601 620 10.1038/s41571-019-0222-4 31160735

249. Huber M. Brehm C.U. Gress T.M. Buchholz M. Alashkar Alhamwe B. von Strandmann E.P. Slater E.P. Bartsch J.W. Bauer C. Lauth M. The Immune Microenvironment in Pancreatic Cancer Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020 21 7307 10.3390/ijms21197307 PMC7583843 33022971

250. Zhang Y. Chandra V. Riquelme Sanchez E. Dutta P. Quesada P.R. Rakoski A. Zoltan M. Arora N. Baydogan S. Horne W. Interleukin-17-induced neutrophil extracellular traps mediate resistance to checkpoint blockade in pancreatic cancer J. Exp. Med. 2020 217 e20190354 10.1084/jem.20190354 32860704 PMC7953739

251. Naso J.R. Topham J.T. Karasinska J.M. Lee M.K.C. Kalloger S.E. Wong H.L. Nelson J. Moore R.A. Mungall A.J. Jones S.J.M. Tumor infiltrating neutrophils and gland formation predict overall survival and molecular subgroups in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma Cancer Med. 2021 10 1155 1165 10.1002/cam4.3695 33372414 PMC7897949

252. Charles Jacob H.K. Charles Richard J.L. Signorelli R. Kashuv T. Lavania S. Vaish U. Boopathy R. Middleton A. Boone M.M. Sundaram R. Modulation of Early Neutrophil Granulation: The Circulating Tumor Cell-Extravesicular Connection in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Cancers (Basel) 2021 13 2727 10.3390/cancers13112727 34072942 PMC8198339

253. Carbone D. Parrino B. Cascioferro S. Pecoraro C. Giovannetti E. Di Sarno V. Musella S. Auriemma G. Cirrincione G. Diana P. 1,2,4-Oxadiazole topsentin analogs with antiproliferative activity against pancreatic cancer cells, targeting GSK3β kinase ChemMedChem 2021 16 537 554 10.1002/cmdc.202000752 33141472

254. Cascioferro S. Li Petri G. Parrino B. Carbone D. Funel N. Bergonzini C. Mantini G. Dekker H. Geerke D. Peters G.J. Imidazo [2,1-b][1,3,4]thiadiazoles with antiproliferative activity against primary and gemcitabine-resistant pancreatic cancer cells Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2020 189 112088 10.1016/j.ejmech.2020.112088 32007666

255. Li Petri G. Cascioferro S. El Hassouni B. Carbone D. Parrino B. Cirrincione G. Peters G.J. Diana P. Giovannetti E. Biological evaluation of the antiproliferative and anti-migratory activity of a series of 3-(6-phenylimidazo[2,1- b ][1,3,4]thiadiazol-2-yl)-1 H -indole derivatives against pancreatic cancer cells Anticancer Res. 2019 39 3615 3620 10.21873/anticanres.13509 31262887

256. Cascioferro S. Li Petri G. Parrino B. El Hassouni B. Carbone D. Arizza V. Perricone U. Padova A. Funel N. Peters G.J. 3-(6-Phenylimidazo [2,1- b ][1,3,4]thiadiazol-2-yl)-1 H -indole derivatives as new anticancer agents in the treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma Molecules 2020 25 329 10.3390/molecules25020329 PMC7024338 31947550