Targeting Reactive Oxygen Species Capacity of Tumor Cells with Repurposed Drug as an Anticancer Therapy.

1. Introduction

As a common and frequently occurring disease worldwide, cancers increasingly continue to produce serious clinical and socioeconomic issues [ 1 , 2 ]. Reducing cancer mortality is the primary challenge globally, and the study on cancer treatment has increasingly been a hot spot in the field of scientific research [ 1 , 2 ]. Despite the progress made in cancer therapy, the growing burden of the most common cancers in low-income and middle-income countries remains to be a major challenge [ 3 ]. More importantly, global cancer mortality is not much decreased compared with those in the past decades, though many new anticancer drugs have been approved for tumor prevention or treatment [ 4 ]. Unfortunately, the commonly used chemotherapeutics are accompanied with severe adverse effects [ 5 ]. Extensive efforts have been made to develop novel and highly efficacious tumor-targeting agents [ 6 ]. However, it is not only the frequent appearance of resistance concomitant with targeted therapies but also the higher budgets of targeted drugs that account for the limited use clinically, which lead to the classical cytotoxic drugs to remain the first choice for patients [ 7 , 8 ]. Therefore, there is still a need to develop more effective and less toxic anticancer drugs worldwide to prevent and treat cancer.

Over the past few decades, the challenges of drug discovery facing the global pharmaceutical industry are multifold and stagnant, including the escalating cost and length of time required for new drug development and high risk of research and development failure [ 9 , 10 ]. Currently, the cost of discovering and developing a drug from scratch is traditionally about 2.5 billion US dollars on average, and it takes about 10 to 15 years to enter the market and the success rate is only 2% [ 11 , 12 ]. Few new anticancer drugs are approved by the FDA annually ( Figure 1 ), though more than 10,000 clinical trials have been completed to evaluate cancer drug interventions [ 13 ]. Hence, alternative approaches to drug development are direly needed.

In light of these challenges, drug repurposing may be an alternative approach to overcome obstructions and has gained much attention and momentum in recent years. Drug repurposing is the practice of discovering novel effects or targets of the approved drugs beyond their initial approval, which can expand the indications for marketed drugs [ 14 ]. Drug repurposing has many advantages over developing an entirely new drug for a specific indication. For example, repurposed drugs have been found to be safe enough in preclinical models and humans; it is unlikely to fail in early-stage trials and subsequent efficacy trials based on the safety standpoint [ 15 ]. Additionally, the time frame and investment for drug development can be reduced; that is, the return on investment in the development of repurposed drugs for new uses is more rapid ( Figure 2 ) [ 15 ]. Finally, repurposed drugs may reveal new anticancer targets and pathways that can be further developed [ 15 ]. Historically, drug repurposing was largely discovered by accident by researchers [ 15 ]. Once it is discovered that repurposed drugs have off-target effects or newly discovered target effects, they will be developed commercially [ 15 ]. The most dramatic examples of repurposed drug are thalidomide and sildenafil citrate. Thalidomide was initially used to treat morning sickness, but it was found to cause severe skeletal birth defects in newborns [ 16 ]. However, it was successfully repositioned for use in erythema nodosum leprosum and multiple myeloma therapy [ 17 ]. Sildenafil citrate was originally developed as an antihypertension drug, but when Pfizer reintroduced it to treat erectile dysfunction and marketed it as Viagra [ 18 ]. Surprisingly, it captured vast majority of the erectile dysfunction drug market [ 15 ]. Such successes have encouraged the global pharmaceutical industry and drug researchers to identify repurposed drugs. Indeed, there is no systematic approach to predict which drugs can be used as repurposed drugs. The strategies towards identifying drug repurposing opportunities based on a number of promising candidate drugs roughly include computational and experimental approaches [ 15 , 19 ]. A full account of the comprehensive strategies used for drug repurposing is beyond the scope of this review, and readers are directed elsewhere [ 15 , 19 ].

2. Overview Biological Characteristics of Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS)

2.1. The Types and Sources of ROS

In recent years, the understanding of tumor pathophysiology and pathogenesis has witnessed an unprecedented explosion. A large number of pleiotropic physiological signaling pathway factors regulating tumor occurrence and development have been emerged. Reactive oxygen species (ROS), the inevitable product of cell metabolism in aerobic life, are broadly defined as oxygen-containing chemical species with reactive properties, and they can be divided into nonradical and free radical [ 20 , 21 ]. ROS are constantly produced by both enzymatic reaction and the mitochondrial electron transport chain (ETC) from molecular oxygen [ 20 – 22 ]. Complexes I, II, and III of mitochondrial ETC account for a great amount of the intracellular ROS production [ 23 ]. The enzyme-catalyzed reactions involve NADPH oxidase (NOX), xanthine oxidase, uncoupled endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS), arachidonic acid, and metabolic enzymes such as the cytochrome P450 enzymes, lipoxygenase, and cyclooxygenase; indeed, NOX has primarily evolved to produce ROS [ 22 , 24 ]. During the process of aerobic respiration and cellular metabolism, superoxide (O 2 − ) is generated either intracellularly by 1 e − transfer to O 2 from the ETC or extracellularly by NOX. In the mitochondria, O 2 − damages iron-sulfur (Fe-S) clusters to release iron (Fe 2+ ) into the extracellular matrix and reduces ferric iron (Fe 3+ ) to ferrous iron (Fe 2+ ), which leads to inactivation of protein function [ 25 , 26 ]. The O 2 − is dismutated to hydrogen peroxide (H 2 O 2 ) in a buffer or catalyzed by superoxide dismutases (SOD1 and SOD2) [ 22 ]. Moreover, H 2 O 2 is also generated by various other oxidases present in subcellular localizations, prominently including the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) lumen [ 27 , 28 ]. Meanwhile, O 2 − is converted into peroxynitrite (ONOO − ) and hydroxyl radical (OH ∙ ) through a reaction with nitric oxide (NO) [ 29 ]. OH ∙ is generated by a ferrous iron-mediated reduction of H 2 O 2 and the decomposition of ONOO − [ 29 ]. Additionally, H 2 O 2 can be converted into hypochlorous acid and hypobromous acid (HOCl and HOBr) through myeloperoxidase in the phagocytic vacuole in neutrophils for pathogen defense [ 22 , 30 , 31 ] ( Figure 3 ). Meanwhile, biologically relevant ROS are also derived from the exogenous environment, which includes air pollutants, stress, ultraviolet rays, toxicants, tumor chemotherapy, and radiotherapy [ 24 , 32 – 35 ]. However, these exposures are highly variable; it is challenging to measure ROS directly in cells and tissues.

2.2. The Impact and Damage Outcomes of ROS

Among the radical and nonradical oxygen species, H 2 O 2 is recognized as the key redox signaling agent in redox regulation of biological activities, and a total of 37 H 2 O 2 ­generating enzymes have been found [ 36 , 37 ]. It is now clear that H 2 O 2 plays a fundamental role in physiology as a functional signaling entity [ 38 ]. H 2 O 2 first occurred at low homeostasis levels in normally breathing eukaryotic cells, and it was the primary ROS responsible for protein oxidation [ 39 ]. Generally, the generation of H 2 O 2 was constantly stimulated by metabolic cues or various stressors intracellularly, and the concentration of H 2 O 2 is maintained in the low nanomolar range, which is important for signaling by redox signaling via oxidation and called “oxidative eustress” [ 40 , 41 ]. The overall cellular concentration of the O 2 − is maintained at about 10 –11 M, which is much lower than the 10 –8 M of H 2 O 2 [ 42 ]. Diffusible H 2 O 2 contributes to orchestration of various processes including cell proliferation, differentiation, and angiogenesis through oxidation of sulfur (thiolate groups) in target proteins and further activates stress responsive survival pathways [ 43 , 44 ]. Meanwhile, H 2 O 2 acts as signal transduction molecules that induce proinflammatory cytokines and the nuclear factor- κ B (NF- κ B) pathway [ 45 , 46 ].

In contrast to low levels of H 2 O 2 , supraphysiological concentrations of H 2 O 2 cause “oxidative distress,” which can induce a plethora of irreversible damaging effects to proteins, DNA, and lipids and ultimately cause cell death [ 47 ]. At the cellular level, oxidation of proteins by ROS is more common than that of DNA and lipids [ 48 ]. When proteins are exposed to ROS, amino acid side chains are modified, and consequently, the protein structure is altered [ 48 ]. ROS can cleave peptide bonds through α -amidation, diamidation, proline residue oxidation, glutamine residue oxidation, and aspartyl residue oxidation [ 49 ]. ROS-induced protein oxidation may contribute to the following: (1) hydroxylation of aromatic groups and aliphatic amino acid side chains, nitration of aromatic amino acid residues, nitrosation of sulfhydryl groups, and sulfonation of methionine residues; (2) polypeptide chain breaking to form cross-linked protein aggregates; and (3) the functional groups of proteins reacting with oxidation products of polyunsaturated fatty acids or carbohydrate derivatives, which affects normal physiological function [ 48 , 49 ]. It is equally well known that sustained exposure to high ROS levels can damage DNA through single strand break, point mutations, miscoding, and abnormal amplification [ 48 ]. DNA is complexed as chromatin with histones; ROS can further affect the oxidation and reduction of adduct radicals of DNA [ 48 ]. Besides, toxic concentrations of ROS also induce mitochondrial DNA mutations [ 48 , 50 ]. Lipids have the functions of energy storage, signal transduction, transport, and cell membrane composition in cells, and many types of lipids are easily oxidized by ROS [ 48 , 51 ]. The reaction of ROS with lipid molecules can activate the lipid peroxidation free radical cascade, which is generally very fast [ 48 ]. The hydrogen atom abstraction forms a methylene carbon of a polyunsaturated fatty acid by a lipid hydroperoxyl radical, forming a new carbon centered radical that propagates the peroxidative chain reaction and a hydroperoxide [ 52 ]. Moreover, the more double bonds in the lipid, the easier it is for hydrogen atoms to be taken away [ 53 ]. Excessive ROS can cause lipid peroxidation in biofilms, which would result in loss of fluidity, abnormal membrane potential, and rupture and leakage of cell contents [ 54 ]. Therefore, it is challenging and important to determine the precise role and maintain a safe cellular ROS gradient and regulate redox signaling pathways.

2.3. Intracellular Clearance of ROS

Excess ROS production induces a plethora of damaging effects to cellular biomacromolecules. Hence, supraphysiological gradients of ROS are showcased as harmful species, and buffering ROS to maintain redox homeostasis is required. In order to prevent the unrestricted accumulation of ROS, a series of antioxidant defense systems have been discovered and can act independently or synergistically to neutralize ROS. Antioxidants can be divided into two groups, that is, noncatalytic small molecules and catalytic antioxidants [ 29 ]. Glutathione (GSH) is the most abundant nonenzymatic antioxidant molecule and is essential for cell survival and redox homeostasis [ 55 ]. GSH is a tripeptide that synthesis catalyzed by glutamate-cysteine ligase (GCL) and GSH synthetase (GSS), and it is used as a cofactor by GSH S-transferases (GSTs) and GSH peroxidases (GPXs) to eliminate ROS [ 56 ]. Besides, endogenously synthesized bilirubin, melatonin, α -lipoic acid, and uric acid are other nonenzymatic antioxidant molecules that mitigate the excess level of ROS produced in cells [ 29 , 57 ]. Enzymatic antioxidants include SOD, catalase (CAT), peroxiredoxins (PRXs, also called PRXs), glutathione peroxidases (GPxs), thioredoxin reductases (TrxRs), and thioredoxins (Trxs) [ 29 ]. Enzymatic antioxidants with high catalytic activity are uncovered as handling ROS levels in cells [ 29 ]. SODs are a family of metalloenzymes catalyzing the dismutation of O 2 − to H 2 O 2 , which utilizes metal ions, including copper (Cu 2+ ), ferrous iron (Fe 2+ ), manganese (Mn 2+ ), and zinc (Zn 2+ ) as cofactors [ 58 ]. CAT is primarily localized in the cytosol and cell organelles called the peroxisome, which can convert H 2 O 2 into O 2 and H 2 O [ 59 ]. In addition, Trxs promote PRDX-mediated H 2 O 2 detoxification and reduction of lipid by GPx requires GSH [ 56 ]. More importantly, GSH and Trxs generate oxidized forms through detoxification of ROS [ 56 ]. Oxidized GSH and Trxs are both regenerated by GSH reductase (GSR) and Trxs reductase 1 using NADPH as a cofactor, respectively [ 60 ]. GSH and Trxs, and TrxRs are noncatalytic and catalytic antioxidants, which are critically involved in different stages of cancers [ 61 – 63 ].

In addition, it is established that many transcription factors, including nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2 (NRF2), the forkhead box O (FOXO), hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF), NF­ κ B, and tumor protein p53 (TP53 or Trp53 in mice), are activated by ROS and regulate intracellular redox environment of cells [ 64 ]. NRF2 is the most important transcription factor for the activation of a number of genes that have antioxidant functions within the cell [ 65 , 66 ]. However, under resting conditions, NRF2 is degraded through interacting with Kelch-like ECH-associated protein 1- (KEAP1-) Cullin 3 (CUL3) E3 ligase complex. Under conditions of oxidative stress or electrophilic addition, cysteine residues on KEAP1 are modified, thus blocking NRF2 interaction and subsequent degradation [ 67 ]. Then, NRF2 translocated into the nucleus, where it serves as a transcription factor for expression of the antioxidant responsive element- (ARE-) driven genes, including hemeoxygenase-1 (HO-1), NAD(P)H quinone oxidoreductase 1 (NQO1), glutathione S-transferases (GSTs), and UDP-glucuronosyltransferases (UGTs) [ 67 ]. In addition, sestrins (SESN1, 2, and 3) exert indirect antioxidant activity, in part by activation of transcription factor NRF2 [ 68 , 69 ]. The FOXO family of transcription factors contributes to the maintenance of cellular and organismal homeostasis in various ways [ 70 ]. For example, FOXO improves mitochondrial redox, suppresses the levels of free transition metal ions, and promotes antioxidant defense system [ 71 ]. Hypoxia has been associated with an increase in O 2 − and H 2 O 2 generation through inhibition of the mitochondrial ETC [ 72 ]. HIF is a transcription factor that serves as the master regulator of transcriptional responses to hypoxia [ 73 ]. Oxidants can stabilize HIF during hypoxia, thereby helping to increase the hypoxia response [ 73 ]. NF- κ B serves as a master switch of inflammation, which is associated with extensive H 2 O 2 production [ 74 ]. In different context, H 2 O 2 has different roles in NF­ κ B function [ 74 ]. H 2 O 2 activates NF­ κ B pathway and then negatively controls the stability of I κ B in the cytosol [ 75 ], while H 2 O 2 also directly modulates NF­ κ B due to the presence of oxidizable cysteines in the DNA-binding region of NF- κ B [ 76 ]. The tumor suppressor protein p53 was considers the transcription factor that has a major role in regulating antioxidant gene expression [ 77 , 78 ]. Under the control of H 2 O 2 , it regulates the selective transduction activation of p53 target genes through the oxidation of p53 cysteine residues. Reciprocally, p53 regulates the expression of antioxidant genes to maintain cellular redox balance [ 79 ]. Other transcription factors, such as AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK), activator protein 1 (AP-1), heat shock factor 1 (HSF1), peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ coactivator-1 α (PGC-1 α ), uncoupling protein (UCP), and protein­tyrosine phosphatase 1B (PTP1B), also contribute to redox status [ 80 – 85 ].

However, the extents to which individual members of the above network of antioxidant transcription factors are differentially activated by oxidative stress are uncertain, although it is improbable that all of them are activated simultaneously. However, different transcription factors may respond to distinct threshold levels of ROS. When cells suffered from moderate levels of ROS, NRF2 first was activated, and then a series of genes encoding detoxification enzymes were further induced, which provided a floodgate to protect against ROS [ 20 ]. When cells further adapt to sustained exposure to high ROS levels, which causes activation of Krüppel-like transcription factor 9 (KLF9) and downregulation of NRF2, the NRF2-induced defense cannot counteract the excess ROS, then triggering additional redox switches that activate other members of the antioxidant transcription factor network [ 20 ] ( Figure 4 ). Therefore, intracellular ROS regulation is closely related to the above complex processes, and there is no constant boundary between prooxidants and antioxidants in the regulation of ROS.

3. ROS Paradox and Contradictory Strategies Based on ROS for Cancer Treatment

Under normal physiological conditions, the redox system is in good coordination and well-balanced. However, in the presence of obvious stimuli, the balance would be disrupted, triggering oxidative stress and in turn increasing ROS levels, implicated in various human diseases including cancer. Interestingly, oxidative stress can activate cell survival or death mechanisms depending on the severity and exposure time of ROS excess. In general, ROS act as mitogens to induce proliferation and differentiation of normal and cancer cells at low concentrations (usually submicromolar concentrations) [ 48 ]. At moderate concentrations, ROS have been implicated in tumor initiation and progression, malignant conversion, and resistance to chemotherapy. The higher concentrations of ROS result in damage cellular biomolecules and cause gene mutations, thus promoting canceration of normal cells or inducing cancer cell apoptosis, necrosis, autophagy, ferroptosis, and pyroptosis [ 48 , 86 ] ( Figure 5 ). Therefore, the roles of ROS are complicated, and ROS operate as a diversified biochemical entity in cancer progression.

Because the influence of ROS on cancer development is contradictory, reducing or increasing intracellular ROS levels would be a potential strategy to prevent or treat cancer [ 87 ]. Namely, reducing the intracellular ROS content by inhibiting ROS production pathway and using exogenous supplementation of antioxidants is an effective strategy, and it could effectively prevent the early stage of tumor occurrence. Cancer cells are more sensitive to enhanced intracellular ROS than normal cells; thus, cancer cells can be preferentially killed by enhancing the cellular ROS levels, which might be another puissant strategy to selectively kill cancer cells. Moreover, the expression level of antioxidant enzymes and oxidative stress environment in drug-resistant tumor cells are usually higher; ROS-modulating drugs may have a better therapeutic effect on the intervention of drug-resistant tumor cells. The use of small molecules to increase the production of ROS or/and inhibit the antioxidant defense system is one of the most effective anticancer methods [ 87 ]. In recent years, several clinical trials have been made in the research of therapeutic drugs targeting ROS regulation in cancer cells [ 88 ]. Moreover, small molecules regulating ROS homeostasis for cancer therapy have been comprehensively reviewed [ 24 , 87 ]. However, most small molecules described in the literature or on the clinical development stages have not entered into clinical treatment for cancer. Several FDA-approved drugs based on ROS regulation have led to repurposing of cancer indications, which may be considered a novel and valid cancer therapeutics [ 89 ]. Therefore, in this paper, we will focus on repurposed drugs for cancer therapy by the regulation of ROS homeostasis.

4. Repurposed Drug-Regulated ROS Homeostasis as a Novel Cancer Therapeutics in Oncology

4.1. Repurposed Drugs as a ROS Scavenger in Cancer

ROS accumulation is one of the initiating factors in the early stage of the neoplastic process. To this extent, ROS can lead to more metabolic adaptations and more levels of DNA damage and genetic instability in normal cells, consequently promoting the cancer cell proliferation and growth [ 90 , 91 ]. Numerous epidemiological data and preclinical/clinical studies suggest that small molecule ROS inhibitors can effectively prevent tumorigenesis. Therefore, repurposed drugs that act as ROS scavengers have the potential to modulate levels of ROS for therapeutic benefit in cancer.

4.1.1. Vitamin C

Vitamin C, known as ascorbic acid, is an antioxidant converted from glucose, which is abundant in fresh fruits and vegetables [ 92 ]. At physiological concentrations, vitamin C prevents gene mutations caused by peroxidation by removing ROS, and it also blocks oxidative modification of amino acids to maintain protein integrity and protects lipids from peroxidation [ 93 ]. In a cohort study, Wright et al. analyzed the comprehensive intake of individual selenium, flavonoids, vitamin C, and carotenoids to predict the risk of lung cancer. They proved that integration of dietary antioxidants can significantly reduce lung cancer incidence in male smokers [ 94 ]. However, it has been nearly half of a century since the beginning of researches of anticancer mechanism of vitamin C, and its role was challenged and verified repeatedly. Moreover, the controversy about the anticancer efficiency of vitamin C may depend on the administration ways (oral or intravenous), which can result in different concentrations in the plasma of cancer subjects [ 92 ]. High-dose vitamin C alone or in combination can inhibit tumor growth in various cancer models through regulation the level of ROS [ 95 – 97 ]. Furthermore, high-dose intravenous vitamin C in cancer patients has led to increased quality of life with minimal side effects [ 98 , 99 ]. Several excellent reviews have recently described that vitamin C is used for cancer chemoprevention and clarified that the anticancer mechanism of high doses of vitamin C is targeting excessive ROS generation and/or epigenetic regulators and/or hypoxia-inducible factor 1 (HIF-1) [ 92 , 100 , 101 ]. Moreover, vitamin C has also been extensively tested in clinical trials of cancer for many years ( Table 1 ).

4.1.2. Vitamin E

Vitamin E is a hydrophobic fat-soluble compound that exists in a variety of food sources, and it in nature occurs as 8 isoforms (tocopherols and tocotrienols, both as α , β , γ , and δ forms); however, only α -tocopherol is considered to be essential for human [ 102 , 103 ]. Vitamin E protects cells from cell damage caused by ROS, thereby attenuating DNA damage and cancer development [ 102 ]. Vitamin E has been extensively studied, and much data indicates that it has a role in cancer prevention [ 103 ]. For example, it is found that vitamin E can interfere phosphotidylinositol-3-kinase/protein kinase B (PI3K/PKB) and protein kinase C (PKC) signaling pathways by scavenging ROS, which may be one of the antitumor mechanisms [ 102 , 104 – 106 ]. Moreover, clinical trials of vitamin E in cancer treatment have been detailed in some review and research articles [ 107 , 108 ], although it was found that the development and metastasis of lung tumors were increased in vitamin E-treated mouse models [ 109 ].

4.2. Repurposed Drugs as a ROS Inducer in Cancer

Interestingly, repurposed drugs are more likely to act as ROS inducers in the treatment or prevention of cancer. ROS-inducing repurposed drugs by mechanisms of inhibiting intracellular antioxidant systems and/or producing ROS generation in cells were reported to selectively kill cancer phenotypes. Several reviews on the small molecules regulating ROS homeostasis for cancer therapy have been published [ 24 , 87 , 89 ]. In the review, we will classify and describe repurposed drugs that induce the excessive production of ROS in the cancer cells to exert antitumor effects.

4.2.1. Antibacterial

(1) Tigecycline . Tigecycline is a broad-spectrum antibiotic approved by the FDA for the treatment of multidrug-resistant bacterial infections, complicated intra-abdominal infections, complicated skin structure infections, and community-acquired pneumonia [ 110 ]. Its antibacterial mechanism involves killing bacteria by binding to the 30S bacterial ribosomal subunit, thereby preventing tRNA and its codons from linking to the A site of the ribosomal complex, which result in inhibiting protein synthesis [ 111 , 112 ]. Recent studies have found that tigecycline is identified as one of the effective anticancer agents by enhancing the levels ROS. For example, tigecycline inhibited mitochondrial respiration, mitochondrial membrane potential, and adenosine triphosphate (ATP) levels and caused an increase in intracellular ROS in a dose-dependent manner, which induced death of non-small-cell lung cancer cells [ 113 ]. Additionally, tigecycline was found to selectively kill leukemic stem and progenitor cells by inhibiting mitochondrial translation [ 114 ]. Besides, tigecycline significantly enhanced conventional cisplatin activity against human hepatocellular carcinoma through inducing mitochondrial dysfunction and increasing the levels of mitochondrial superoxide, hydrogen peroxide, and ROS levels [ 115 ]. More importantly, a phase I clinical trial evaluating the safety and biologic activity of intravenous infusions of tigecycline to treat acute myeloid leukemia was completed ( NCT01332786 ) ( Table 1 ).

(2) Levofloxacin . Levofloxacin is a third-generation fluoroquinolone antibacterial drug, which can kill bacterial through preventing DNA replication [ 116 ]. It is often used clinically for some moderate and severe infections caused by sensitive bacteria [ 116 ]. With the further study, repurposed antibiotic levofloxacin is an attractive candidate for cancer treatment. It was found that levofloxacin effectively inhibited lung cancer cell proliferation and induces apoptosis [ 117 ]. Mechanistically, levofloxacin inhibited the activity of the mitochondrial electron transport chain complex, which in turn blocked mitochondrial respiration, reduced ATP production, and increased the levels of ROS, mitochondrial superoxide, and hydrogen peroxide [ 117 ]. Moreover, levofloxacin effectively targeted breast cancer cells and acted synergistically with 5-fluorouracil through inhibiting mitochondrial biogenesis and was accompanied by the deactivation of PI3K/PKB/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) and mitogen-activated protein kinase/extracellular signal-regulated kinase (MAPK/ERK) signaling pathways [ 118 ].

(3) Doxycycline . Doxycycline (DOXY), a derivative of tetracycline, is a broad-spectrum antibiotic that exhibits many therapeutic activities in addition to its antibacterial properties [ 116 , 119 ]. Doxycycline has recently carved out a role in cancer therapy. It was found that doxycycline triggered cell death in different cancer cells, including cervical, breast, lung, and prostate cancer cells [ 120 ]. A further study found that doxycycline was effective in targeting glioblastoma through inducing mitochondrial dysfunctions and oxidative stress [ 121 ]. Moreover, the ROS-apoptosis signal regulating kinase 1- (ASK1-) Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK) pathway is involved in doxycycline-induced melanoma cell death [ 122 ]. Amplification of tumor-associated ROS has been used as a boosting strategy to improve tumor therapy. A recent study has shown that prodrug chlorin e6 (Ce6) and zoledronic acid (ZA)/mesoporous silica nanoparticles (MSN)/doxorubicin- (DOX-) thioketal- (TK-) DOXY can be used for the chemodynamic therapy of osteosarcoma [ 123 ]. Upon laser irradiation, the loaded Ce6 produced in situ ROS and subsequently resulted in DOX/DOXY release. The released DOXY promoted ROS production and further induced ROS burst, which increased the sensitivity of the osteosarcoma to chemotherapy and resulted in enhancing tumor cell inhibition and apoptosis [ 123 ]. Furthermore, some clinical trials are ongoing, including a phase II trial study of how well metformin hydrochloride works together with doxycycline in treating patients with localized breast or uterine cancer ( NCT02874430 ) and a study of doxycycline for the treatment of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma ( NCT02341209 ) ( Table 1 ).

(4) Clarithromycin . Clarithromycin belongs to a family of 14-membered ring macrolide antibiotics, but several clinical investigations showed that clarithromycin was highly efficient for multiple myeloma (MM) when used in combination with conventional chemotherapy since 1997 [ 124 ]. This finding highlights the importance of clarithromycin on the treatment of MM and offers a new regimen for the relapsed/refractory MM patients. Moreover, the results of Zhou et al. showed that clarithromycin plus cisplatin had a synergetic effect against ovarian cancer cell viability and induced the apoptosis rate, which was linked to the increase of ROS levels in vitro and in vivo [ 125 ]. This result proved that clarithromycin augmented cisplatin response via a ROS-mediated synergistic effect. However, no clinical trials have investigated the activity of clarithromycin against ovarian cancer. Indeed, a phase II clinical trial evaluating clarithromycin treatment for cachexia (the loss of muscle mass) in people with non-small-cell lung cancer was terminated due to having not enough participants ( NCT02416570 ) ( Table 1 ).

4.2.2. Anthelmintic

(1) Niclosamide . Niclosamide, an FDA-approved oral agent, belongs to the antiparasitic disease drug and has been used in the clinical treatment of intestinal parasitic infections for nearly 50 years [ 126 ]. In recent studies, it had been documented that niclosamide had antitumor effects and can increase the sensitivity of tumor cells to chemotherapy and radiotherapy through regulating redox homeostasis. For example, niclosamide inhibited the NF- κ B pathway and increased ROS levels to induce apoptosis in acute myelogenous leukemia cells [ 127 ]. Niclosamide also suppressed renal cell carcinoma by inhibiting Wnt/beta-catenin and inducing mitochondrial dysfunctions [ 128 ]. Moreover, niclosamide was found to sensitize the responsiveness of cervical cancer cells to paclitaxel via ROS-mediated mTOR inhibition [ 129 ]. Also, niclosamide was chosen based on a cell-based high-throughput viability screen and it had a radiosensitizing effect on H1299 human lung cancer cells [ 130 ]. A further study had demonstrated that niclosamide plus gamma-ionizing radiation can produce ROS and promote c-Jun and its phosphorylation [ 130 ]. Moreover, niclosamide also acted as a potent radiosensitizer through inhibiting signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3) and B-cell lymphoma-2 (Bcl-2) and increasing ROS generation in triple-negative breast cancer cells [ 131 ]. The therapeutic effect of combination valproic acid and niclosamide was investigated on human lung cancer cell line [ 132 ]. The results showed that combination therapy caused a dramatic decrease in cell viability by inducing the extrinsic apoptotic pathway and stimulating endoplasmic reticulum stress and mitochondrial membrane potential loss associated with increased ROS levels [ 132 ]. Based on these encouraging results, the evaluation of niclosamide in several clinical trials has been investigated ( Table 1 ).

(2) Albendazole . Albendazole is a broad-spectrum, low-toxic antiparasitic drug that kills susceptible parasites by reducing the glycogen stores and the formation of ATP [ 133 ]. There are several evidences supporting albendazole repositioning for cancer therapy against tumor cell lines [ 133 ]. Further studies have shown that oxidative stress was one of anticancer mechanisms that mediated albendazole. Castro et al. had demonstrated that albendazole treatment could trigger apoptosis and induce MCF-7 cell death through ROS generation, which was related to depletion of reduced glutathione levels, augmented important oxidative biomarkers, and increased the activity of antioxidant enzymes [ 134 ]. It was found that ROS can induce p38 MAPK activation in U937 cells treated with albendazole. Pretreatment with SB202190 (p38 MAPK inhibitor) increased the activity of cells treated with albendazole, indicating that ROS-induced P38 MAPK activation was associated with albendazole-mediated cell death [ 135 ]. However, no clinical trials have been conducted to investigate the antitumor effects of the albendazole.

4.2.3. Antimalarial

(1) Artemisinin . Artemisinin and its derivatives are natural synthetic antimalarial drugs [ 136 ]. With the deepening of research, artemisinin not only has strong antimalarial activity but also has obvious antitumor effects. Artemisinin harbors an endoperoxide bridge whose cleavage results in the generation of ROS and/or artemisinin carbon-centered free radicals, further promoting cell apoptosis, inhibiting cell proliferation and damaging DNA, cell membrane, protein, and organelles to play an antitumor effect [ 137 ]. The ROS-mediated antitumor properties of artemisinin on numerous cancer types have been reported [ 138 – 142 ]. Compared with traditional chemotherapeutic drugs, artemisinin has the advantages of broad antitumor spectrum, less toxicity, and side effects, so it can be identified as an intriguing candidate for repurposing. However, there are no clinical trials investigating the antiproliferative effects of artemisinin; an additional study is necessary for optimal clinical efficacy.

(2) Hydroxychloroquine . Hydroxychloroquine, a chloroquine derivative, is originally developed to treat patients with malaria, but it has been further investigated because of its antiproliferative effects on different types of tumors [ 143 ]. In general, hydroxychloroquine has a better oral bioavailability and safety profile than chloroquine, which makes it a suitable candidate to evaluate its potential therapeutic applications in cancer [ 143 ]. Hence, hydroxychloroquine was under investigation in cell level, animal models, and clinical trials for a variety of cancers. Many studies found that hydroxychloroquine was capable of killing tumor cells by different pathways accompanied by the massive production of ROS. In-depth evaluation of hydroxychloroquine, it revealed that it could be considered an effective autophagy inhibitor [ 144 ]. Autophagy is a self-degrading intracellular process involving tumor suppression and promotion [ 145 ]. However, inhibition of autophagy with hydroxychloroquine can not only hinder the autophagic protective effect but also increase dysfunctional mitochondria and ROS production, and a further study found that ROS was the main mechanism of enhanced cytotoxicity with autophagy inhibition [ 144 ]. Moreover, hydroxychloroquine exhibited a good synergism with microtubule polymerization inhibitor CYT997 on the induction of ROS-associated apoptosis in human head and neck squamous cell carcinoma [ 146 ]. In addition, breast cancer cell apoptosis induced by hydroxychloroquine was related to the inhibition of the autophagic flux and accumulation of damaged mitochondria and ROS [ 147 ]. Hence, the inhibition of autophagy is, at least partially, responsible for hydroxychloroquine-mediated upregulation of ROS in cancer cell death.

4.2.4. Cardiovascular

(1) Simvastatin . Simvastatin is an antihigh cholesterol drug widely used in the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular diseases by inhibiting the 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme a (Hmg-CoA) reductase in the mevalonate pathway and blocking the formation of intermediary products in the biosynthesis of cholesterol [ 148 ]. Simvastatin has recently been considered a potential sensitizer to chemotherapy and radiotherapy and exhibits inhibitory effects on amounts of types of cancer [ 149 ]. For example, simvastatin alone or in combination with doxorubicin significantly increased ROS levels and suppressed breast cancer MCF-7 cell proliferation [ 150 ]. Moreover, a combined therapy of simvastatin and pentoxifylline effectively activated ERK/AKT, upregulated ROS levels, downregulated p-p38, and inhibited NF- κ B signaling pathway, thereby promoting triple-negative breast cancer cell apoptosis [ 150 ]. Additionally, simvastatin administration alone also could induce ROS formation in the KKU-100 cells [ 151 ]. Due to the excellent antitumor effect of simvastatin in vitro , a large number of clinical studies have been conducted ( Table 1 ).

(2) Digoxin . Digoxin, an inhibitor of Na + /K + ATPase, is widely used to treat heart failure. The clinical tests of digoxin as an anticancer drug, alone or in combination with chemotherapeutic drug, were reported [ 152 ]. Anticancer effects of digoxin involve various mechanisms. For example, Wang et al. reported that digoxin inhibited p53 synthesis by activating Src/MAPK signaling pathways and suppresses tumor growth [ 153 ]. In addition, digoxin induced apoptosis and cell cycle arrest and had antitumor effects on Burkitt lymphoma cells in vitro and in vivo [ 154 ]. Many studies also reported that digoxin promoted ROS generation via inhibiting hypoxia-inducible factor-1alpha (HIF-1 α ), a key regulator of angiogenesis, to block cell growth in a multiple tumor model [ 155 – 157 ]. Moreover, digoxin was found to inhibit activity of the NRF2-ARE luciferase reporter gene in A549-ARE cells, which suggested that digoxin may be a potent NRF2 inhibitor [ 158 ]. Zhou et al. found that digoxin could reverse drug resistance of gemcitabine in SW1990/Gem and Panc-1/Gem cells [ 159 ]. Mechanistically, digoxin inhibited the activity of NRF2 by suppressing PI3K/Akt signaling pathway in gemcitabine-resistant pancreatic cancer cells [ 159 ]. To date, digoxin has been investigated in clinical trials for cancer therapy ( Table 1 ).

4.2.5. Antipsychotics

(1) Fluphenazine . Fluphenazine is a phenothiazine antipsychotic drug, which is an antagonist of dopamine D1 and D2 receptors and has a high affinity with 5-HT receptors [ 160 ]. It is used in the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder [ 160 ]. Studies have shown an overall decreased cancer incidence in schizophrenic patients using antipsychotics, implying that antipsychotics may have anticancer potentials [ 161 ]. As expected, research found that fluphenazine may play an important role in the treatment of cancer [ 161 ]. It was found that the ROS levels in triple negative breast cancer cells were significantly increased after fluphenazine treatment, which could impair the mitochondria membrane integrity and further induce cancer cell death [ 162 ]. Moreover, HeLa cancer cells treated with fluphenazine in combination with UVA light demonstrated a consistent ROS production in a clearly concentration-dependent manner, indicating a significant photodynamic mechanism involved in the photocytotoxic effect of fluphenazine [ 163 ]. Moreover, a clinical trial of fluphenazine in treating patients with refractory advanced multiple myeloma was completed ( NCT00335647 ) ( Table 1 ).

(2) Pimozide . Pimozide is an FDA-approved antipsychotic, and it is used to treat clinical Tourette syndrome and schizophrenia [ 164 ]. In 1979, pimozide was first found to act as a dopamine antagonist with antimelanoma cancer effect [ 165 ]. After that, pimozide had been investigated in a number of cancer cells, and a further study found that pimozide inhibited the cancer cells through the generation of ROS [ 166 ]. For example, pimozide induced ROS generation by downregulating the expression of the antioxidant enzyme catalase to suppress osteosarcoma and prostate cancer [ 166 , 167 ]. Moreover, recently, the ability of ROS generation to suppress hepatocellular carcinoma cells has been reported [ 168 ]. However, to date, pimozide has not been investigated in clinical trials to clarify the antitumor activity.

5. Research Perspectives and Discussion

Despite the fact that traditional approaches of looking for differences in the transcriptome or the proteome in cancer have many benefits, much attention has been focused on significant changes in function, such as regulating ROS level, which may be an effective anticancer strategy [ 169 , 170 ]. Certainly, many clinical chemotherapeutic drugs, such as doxorubicin, daunorubicin, and epirubicin, can kill cancer cells by enhancing ROS production. However, the uses of these drugs are accompanied by indiscriminate cytotoxicity and adverse events and chemoresistance. Repurposed drugs with established safety profiles that are developed based on clearing ROS generation or increasing ROS production may be a novel strategy for the treatment of cancers. However, repurposed drugs may be the lack of specificity for cancer. Moreover, ROS are considered a double-edged sword in cancer. The molecular action of ROS is multidirectional, which in turn produces many uncertainties. There are still some key issues that need to be resolved in the development of ROS-related repurposed drugs.

It is necessary to first understand whether repurposed drugs based on ROS regulation can really be used clinically to treat cancer. The benefits of antioxidant drugs for early cancer therapies by reducing ROS level have been widely recognized. However, several studies have demonstrated antioxidant drugs produced the paradoxical results. Long-term supplementation with the antioxidants N-acetylcysteine and vitamin E promotes KRAS-driven lung cancer metastasis [ 109 ]. In addition, it has been shown that the administration of antioxidants, such as N-acetylcysteine, accelerates the progression of lung cancers and melanomas [ 171 ]. Thus, whether antioxidants inhibit or promote tumors needs further support by solid trials performed on a large scale. Meanwhile, raising ROS to cytotoxic levels can kill cancer cells; this strategy may inevitably damage normal cells. Since the dose of chemotherapy drugs clinically is much higher than the dose required for the original effect of the repurposed drugs, it may be difficult to obtain an effective and safe dose clinically. Repurposed drugs may produce ultrahigh ROS levels that the human body cannot tolerate when administered rapidly and at a high concentration, which can significantly induce systemic toxicity to cancer patients. In this regard, ROS-related repurposed drugs are more suitable for use as chemotherapy sensitizers or adjuvant drugs in tumor treatment, which may lead to unexpected response. Moreover, further elucidation of ROS-related cysteine modifications and their functional consequences will be the basis for improving our understanding of the selective effects of ROS on cancer and normal cells.

Another major challenge is increasing the selectivity of ROS-related repurposed drugs as therapeutic drugs. Cancer cells thrive on levels of ROS that are moderately higher than those in their normal counterparts; this feature renders ROS-responsive photodynamic therapy can reach good results. Up to now, new ROS-responsive prodrugs, probes, theranostic prodrugs, and nanotheranostics that allow for the monitoring of ROS with temporal and spatial specificity have been developed for the targeted treatment and precise diagnosis of cancer and selectively killing tumor cells [ 172 , 173 ]. In fact, ROS-responsive prodrug strategies have been successfully used to modify clinically platinum-based drugs, showing enhanced therapeutic efficacy and reduced side effects [ 174 , 175 ]. Therefore, the development of repurposed drugs inspired ROS-responsive groups/probes/nanoparticles would be a significant improvement in cancer treatment selectively.

In future research, before adopting the treatment method, there should be advanced inspection and real-time monitoring of the ROS status in the body, and ROS-related repurposed drugs should be taken appropriately to increase or decrease the ROS level in the body, so as to obtain a better treatment effect.

Acknowledgments

The work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81903074), the Medical Health Science and Technology Project of Health Commission of Zhejiang Province (Nos. 2020KY366 and 2021KY399), the Hospital Pharmacy Program of Zhejiang Pharmaceutical Association (No. 2019ZYY43), and the Science and Technology Plan Project of Taizhou (No. 1901ky48).

Ethical Approval

This review article does not contain any original studies with animals or human participants.

Conflicts of Interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Authors' Contributions

Jiabing Wang and Dongsheng Sun contributed equally to this work.

1 Siegel R. L. Miller K. D. Fuchs H. E. Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2021 CA: a Cancer Journal for Clinicians 2021 71 1 7 33 10.3322/caac.21654 33433946

2 Koren E. Fuchs Y. Modes of regulated cell death in cancer Cancer Discovery 2021 11 2 245 265 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-0789 33462123

3 Gonzalez-Fierro A. Duenas-Gonzalez A. Drug repurposing for cancer therapy, easier said than done Seminars in Cancer Biology 2021 68 123 131 10.1016/j.semcancer.2019.12.012 31877340

4 Bray F. Ferlay J. Soerjomataram I. GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries CA: a Cancer Journal for Clinicians 2018 2018 68 394 424 10.3322/caac.21492 30207593

5 Brown A. S. Patel C. J. A standard database for drug repositioning Scientific data 2017 4 1 p. 170029 10.1038/sdata.2017.29 2-s2.0-85015422682 PMC5349249 28291243

6 Wood S. L. Pernemalm M. Crosbie P. A. Whetton A. D. Molecular histology of lung cancer: from targets to treatments Cancer Treatment Reviews 2015 41 4 361 375 10.1016/j.ctrv.2015.02.008 2-s2.0-84926251392 25825324

7 Hill A. Gotham D. Fortunak J. Target prices for mass production of tyrosine kinase inhibitors for global cancer treatment BMJ Open 2016 6 1 p. e009586 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009586 2-s2.0-84960412502 26817636 PMC4735306

8 Bedard P. L. Hyman D. M. Davids M. S. Siu L. L. Small molecules, big impact: 20 years of targeted therapy in oncology Lancet 2020 395 10229 1078 1088 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30164-1 32222192

9 Pammolli F. Magazzini L. Riccaboni M. The productivity crisis in pharmaceutical R&D Nature Reviews. Drug Discovery 2011 10 6 428 438 10.1038/nrd3405 2-s2.0-79957889347 21629293

10 Waring M. J. Arrowsmith J. Leach A. R. An analysis of the attrition of drug candidates from four major pharmaceutical companies Nature Reviews. Drug Discovery 2015 14 7 475 486 10.1038/nrd4609 2-s2.0-84934439985 26091267

11 Hanash S. Taguchi A. The grand challenge to decipher the cancer proteome Nature Reviews Cancer 2010 10 9 652 660 10.1038/nrc2918 2-s2.0-77955976922 20733593

12 Nosengo N. Can you teach old drugs new tricks? Nature 2016 534 7607 314 316 10.1038/534314a 2-s2.0-84975795401 27306171

13 Hay M. Thomas D. W. Craighead J. L. Economides C. Rosenthal J. Clinical development success rates for investigational drugs Nature Biotechnology 2014 32 1 40 51 10.1038/nbt.2786 2-s2.0-84892153139 24406927

14 Ashburn T. T. Thor K. B. Drug repositioning: identifying and developing new uses for existing drugs Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2004 3 8 673 683 10.1038/nrd1468 2-s2.0-4344668661 15286734

15 Pushpakom S. Iorio F. Eyers P. A. Drug repurposing: progress, challenges and recommendations Nature Reviews. Drug Discovery 2019 18 1 41 58 10.1038/nrd.2018.168 2-s2.0-85057067854 30310233

16 Kirtonia A. Gala K. Fernandes S. G. Repurposing of drugs: an attractive pharmacological strategy for cancer therapeutics Seminars in Cancer Biology 2021 68 258 278 10.1016/j.semcancer.2020.04.006 32380233

17 Singhal S. Mehta J. Desikan R. Antitumor activity of thalidomide in refractory multiple myeloma The New England Journal of Medicine 1999 341 21 1565 1571 10.1056/NEJM199911183412102 2-s2.0-0032748385 10564685

18 Sivasankaran T. G. Udayakumar R. Elanchezhiyan C. Sabhanayakam S. Effect of sildenafil citrate (Viagra) and ethanol on the albino rat testis: a scanning electron microscopic approach Cell Biology International 2008 32 2 293 297 10.1016/j.cellbi.2007.10.006 2-s2.0-39649085822 18083048

19 Turanli B. Altay O. Boren J. Systems biology based drug repositioning for development of cancer therapy Seminars in cancer biology 2019 68 10.1016/j.semcancer.2019.09.020 31568815

20 Hayes J. D. Dinkova-Kostova A. T. Tew K. D. Oxidative stress in cancer Cancer Cell 2020 38 2 167 197 10.1016/j.ccell.2020.06.001 32649885 PMC7439808

21 Gorrini C. Harris I. S. Mak T. W. Modulation of oxidative stress as an anticancer strategy Nature Reviews. Drug Discovery 2013 12 12 931 947 10.1038/nrd4002 2-s2.0-84889575198 24287781

22 Dharmaraja A. T. Role of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in therapeutics and drug resistance in cancer and bacteria Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 2017 60 8 3221 3240 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.6b01243 2-s2.0-85018446678 28135088

23 Sousa J. S. D'Imprima E. Vonck J. Mitochondrial respiratory chain complexes Subcellular Biochemistry 2018 87 167 227 10.1007/978-981-10-7757-9_7 2-s2.0-85042407765 29464561

24 Wang Y. Qi H. Liu Y. The double-edged roles of ROS in cancer prevention and therapy Theranostics 2021 11 10 4839 4857 10.7150/thno.56747 33754031 PMC7978298

25 Fridovich I. Superoxide radical: an endogenous toxicant Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology 1983 23 1 239 257 10.1146/annurev.pa.23.040183.001323 6307121

26 Imlay J. A. The molecular mechanisms and physiological consequences of oxidative stress: lessons from a model bacterium Nature Reviews. Microbiology 2013 11 7 443 454 10.1038/nrmicro3032 2-s2.0-84879422944 23712352 PMC4018742

27 Del Rio L. A. Lopez-Huertas E. ROS generation in peroxisomes and its role in cell signaling Plant & Cell Physiology 2016 57 7 1364 1376 10.1093/pcp/pcw076 2-s2.0-84982067582 27081099

28 Yoboue E. D. Sitia R. Simmen T. Redox crosstalk at endoplasmic reticulum (ER) membrane contact sites (MCS) uses toxic waste to deliver messages Cell Death & Disease 2018 9 3 p. 331 10.1038/s41419-017-0033-4 2-s2.0-85043297862 29491367 PMC5832433

29 Sies H. Jones D. P. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) as pleiotropic physiological signalling agents Nature Reviews. Molecular Cell Biology 2020 21 7 363 383 10.1038/s41580-020-0230-3 32231263

30 Winterbourn C. C. Kettle A. J. Hampton M. B. Reactive oxygen species and neutrophil function Annual Review of Biochemistry 2016 85 765 792 10.1146/annurev-biochem-060815-014442 27050287

31 Dickinson B. C. Chang C. J. Chemistry and biology of reactive oxygen species in signaling or stress responses Nature Chemical Biology 2011 7 8 504 511 10.1038/nchembio.607 2-s2.0-79960478547 21769097 PMC3390228

32 Urso L. Cavallari I. Sharova E. Ciccarese F. Pasello G. Ciminale V. Metabolic rewiring and redox alterations in malignant pleural mesothelioma British Journal of Cancer 2020 122 1 52 61 10.1038/s41416-019-0661-9 31819191 PMC6964675

33 de Jager T. L. Cockrell A. E. Du Plessis S. S. Ultraviolet light induced generation of reactive oxygen species Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology 2017 996 15 23 10.1007/978-3-319-56017-5_2 29124687

34 Kumari S. Badana A. K. Malla R. Reactive oxygen species: a key constituent in cancer survival Biomarker Insights 2018 13 1 9 10.1177/1177271918755391 PMC5808965 29449774

35 Inoue M. Sato E. F. Nishikawa M. Mitochondrial generation of reactive oxygen species and its role in aerobic life Current Medicinal Chemistry 2003 10 23 2495 2505 10.2174/0929867033456477 2-s2.0-0344513852 14529465

36 Rhee S. G. Redox signaling: hydrogen peroxide as intracellular messenger Experimental & Molecular Medicine 1999 31 2 53 59 10.1038/emm.1999.9 10410302

37 Stone J. R. Yang S. Hydrogen peroxide: a signaling messenger Antioxidants & Redox Signaling 2006 8 3-4 243 270 10.1089/ars.2006.8.243 2-s2.0-33646698671 16677071

38 Go Y. M. Chandler J. D. Jones D. P. The cysteine proteome Free Radical Biology & Medicine 2015 84 227 245 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2015.03.022 2-s2.0-84929085559 25843657 PMC4457640

39 Ursini F. Maiorino M. Forman H. J. Redox homeostasis: the golden mean of healthy living Redox Biology 2016 8 205 215 10.1016/j.redox.2016.01.010 2-s2.0-84955279653 26820564 PMC4732014

40 Niki E. Oxidative stress and antioxidants: Distress or eustress ? Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics 2016 595 19 24 10.1016/j.abb.2015.11.017 2-s2.0-84968914436 27095209

41 Sies H. Hydrogen peroxide as a central redox signaling molecule in physiological oxidative stress: oxidative eustress Redox Biology 2017 11 613 619 10.1016/j.redox.2016.12.035 2-s2.0-85009877414 28110218 PMC5256672

42 Chance B. Sies H. Boveris A. Hydroperoxide metabolism in mammalian organs Physiological Reviews 1979 59 3 527 605 10.1152/physrev.1979.59.3.527 2-s2.0-0018776894 37532

43 Zeida A. Trujillo M. Ferrer-Sueta G. Denicola A. Estrin D. A. Radi R. Catalysis of peroxide reduction by fast reacting protein thiols Chemical Reviews 2019 119 19 10829 10855 10.1021/acs.chemrev.9b00371 2-s2.0-85073083954 31498605

44 Poole L. B. The basics of thiols and cysteines in redox biology and chemistry Free Radical Biology & Medicine 2015 80 148 157 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2014.11.013 2-s2.0-84923919258 25433365 PMC4355186

45 Naik E. Dixit V. M. Mitochondrial reactive oxygen species drive proinflammatory cytokine production The Journal of Experimental Medicine 2011 208 3 417 420 10.1084/jem.20110367 2-s2.0-79952712223 21357740 PMC3058577

46 Gloire G. Legrand-Poels S. Piette J. NF- κ B activation by reactive oxygen species: Fifteen years later Biochemical Pharmacology 2006 72 11 1493 1505 10.1016/j.bcp.2006.04.011 2-s2.0-33750523632 16723122

47 Halliwell B. Biochemistry of oxidative stress Biochemical Society Transactions 2007 35 5 1147 1150 10.1042/BST0351147 2-s2.0-36749010860 17956298

48 Cui Q. Wang J. Q. Assaraf Y. G. Modulating ROS to overcome multidrug resistance in cancer Drug Resistance Updates 2018 41 1 25 10.1016/j.drup.2018.11.001 2-s2.0-85056756964 30471641

49 Stadtman E. R. Levine R. L. Free radical-mediated oxidation of free amino acids and amino acid residues in proteins Amino Acids 2003 25 3-4 207 218 10.1007/s00726-003-0011-2 2-s2.0-0346100345 14661084

50 Ishikawa K. Takenaga K. Akimoto M. ROS-generating mitochondrial DNA mutations can regulate tumor cell metastasis Science 2008 320 5876 661 664 10.1126/science.1156906 2-s2.0-43249112094 18388260

51 Brovkovych V. Aldrich A. Li N. Atilla-Gokcumen G. E. Frasor J. Removal of serum lipids and lipid-derived metabolites to investigate breast cancer cell biology Proteomics 2019 19 10.1002/pmic.201800370 2-s2.0-85065479735 PMC6742575 30919589

52 Gaschler M. M. Stockwell B. R. Lipid peroxidation in cell death Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 2017 482 3 419 425 10.1016/j.bbrc.2016.10.086 2-s2.0-85012272811 28212725 PMC5319403

53 Ayala A. Munoz M. F. Arguelles S. Lipid peroxidation: production, metabolism, and signaling mechanisms of malondialdehyde and 4-hydroxy-2-nonenal Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 2014 2014 31 360438 10.1155/2014/360438 2-s2.0-84901917562 24999379 PMC4066722

54 Maiorino M. Conrad M. Ursini F. GPx4, lipid peroxidation, and cell death: discoveries, rediscoveries, and open issues Antioxidants & Redox Signaling 2018 29 1 61 74 10.1089/ars.2017.7115 2-s2.0-85031756454 28462584

55 Gamcsik M. P. Kasibhatla M. S. Teeter S. D. Colvin O. M. Glutathione levels in human tumors Biomarkers 2012 17 8 671 691 10.3109/1354750X.2012.715672 2-s2.0-84870514054 22900535 PMC3608468

56 Harris I. S. DeNicola G. M. The complex interplay between antioxidants and ROS in cancer Trends in Cell Biology 2020 30 6 440 451 10.1016/j.tcb.2020.03.002 32303435

57 Aruoma O. I. Grootveld M. Bahorun T. Free radicals in biology and medicine: from inflammation to biotechnology BioFactors 2006 27 1-4 1 3 10.1002/biof.5520270101 2-s2.0-33748937222 17012759

58 Nguyen N. H. Tran G. B. Nguyen C. T. Anti-oxidative effects of superoxide dismutase 3 on inflammatory diseases Journal of Molecular Medicine 2020 98 1 59 69 10.1007/s00109-019-01845-2 31724066

59 Kirkman H. N. Gaetani G. F. Mammalian catalase: a venerable enzyme with new mysteries Trends in Biochemical Sciences 2007 32 1 44 50 10.1016/j.tibs.2006.11.003 2-s2.0-33845930270 17158050

60 Couto N. Wood J. Barber J. The role of glutathione reductase and related enzymes on cellular redox homoeostasis network Free Radical Biology & Medicine 2016 95 27 42 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2016.02.028 2-s2.0-84961680130 26923386

61 Bian M. Fan R. Zhao S. Liu W. Targeting the thioredoxin system as a strategy for cancer therapy Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 2019 62 16 7309 7321 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.8b01595 2-s2.0-85065580448 30963763

62 Zhang J. Li X. Han X. Liu R. Fang J. Targeting the thioredoxin system for cancer therapy Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 2017 38 9 794 808 10.1016/j.tips.2017.06.001 2-s2.0-85021149965 28648527

63 Harris I. S. Treloar A. E. Inoue S. Glutathione and thioredoxin antioxidant pathways synergize to drive cancer initiation and progression Cancer Cell 2015 27 2 211 222 10.1016/j.ccell.2014.11.019 2-s2.0-84922783167 25620030

64 Marinho H. S. Real C. Cyrne L. Soares H. Antunes F. Hydrogen peroxide sensing, signaling and regulation of transcription factors Redox Biology 2014 2 535 562 10.1016/j.redox.2014.02.006 2-s2.0-84901741434 24634836 PMC3953959

65 Hayes J. D. Dinkova-Kostova A. T. The Nrf2 regulatory network provides an interface between redox and intermediary metabolism Trends in Biochemical Sciences 2014 39 4 199 218 10.1016/j.tibs.2014.02.002 2-s2.0-84897421970 24647116

66 Sies H. Berndt C. Jones D. P. Oxidative Stress Annual Review of Biochemistry 2017 86 1 715 748 10.1146/annurev-biochem-061516-045037 2-s2.0-85009852867 28441057

67 Deshmukh P. Unni S. Krishnappa G. Padmanabhan B. The Keap1-Nrf2 pathway: promising therapeutic target to counteract ROS-mediated damage in cancers and neurodegenerative diseases Biophysical Reviews 2017 9 1 41 56 10.1007/s12551-016-0244-4 2-s2.0-85014361638 28510041 PMC5425799

68 Sánchez-Álvarez M. Strippoli R. Donadelli M. Bazhin A. V. Cordani M. Sestrins as a therapeutic bridge between ROS and autophagy in cancer Cancers 2019 11 10.3390/cancers11101415 2-s2.0-85073410293 PMC6827145 31546746

69 Rhee S. G. Bae S. H. The antioxidant function of sestrins is mediated by promotion of autophagic degradation of Keap1 and Nrf2 activation and by inhibition of mTORC1 Free Radical Biology & Medicine 2015 88 Part B 205 211 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2015.06.007 2-s2.0-84969781294 26117317

70 Eijkelenboom A. Burgering B. M. FOXOs: signalling integrators for homeostasis maintenance Nature Reviews. Molecular Cell Biology 2013 14 2 83 97 10.1038/nrm3507 2-s2.0-84872899284 23325358

71 Klotz L. O. Sanchez-Ramos C. Prieto-Arroyo I. Urbanek P. Steinbrenner H. Monsalve M. Redox regulation of FoxO transcription factors Redox Biology 2015 6 51 72 10.1016/j.redox.2015.06.019 2-s2.0-84936946288 26184557 PMC4511623

72 Hernansanz-Agustin P. Ramos E. Navarro E. Mitochondrial complex I deactivation is related to superoxide production in acute hypoxia Redox Biology 2017 12 1040 1051 10.1016/j.redox.2017.04.025 2-s2.0-85019092634 28511347 PMC5430576

73 Kaelin W. G. Jr. Ratcliffe P. J. Oxygen sensing by metazoans: the central role of the HIF hydroxylase pathway Molecular Cell 2008 30 4 393 402 10.1016/j.molcel.2008.04.009 2-s2.0-43649093915 18498744

74 Oliveira-Marques V. Marinho H. S. Cyrne L. Antunes F. Role of hydrogen peroxide in NF-kappaB activation: from inducer to modulator Antioxidants & Redox Signaling 2009 11 9 2223 2243 10.1089/ars.2009.2601 2-s2.0-68949215885 19496701

75 Schreck R. Rieber P. Baeuerle P. A. Reactive oxygen intermediates as apparently widely used messengers in the activation of the NF-kappa B transcription factor and HIV-1 The EMBO Journal 1991 10 8 2247 2258 10.1002/j.1460-2075.1991.tb07761.x 2065663 PMC452914

76 Halvey P. J. Hansen J. M. Johnson J. M. Go Y. M. Samali A. Jones D. P. Selective oxidative stress in cell nuclei by nuclear-targeted D-amino acid oxidase Antioxidants & Redox Signaling 2007 9 7 807 816 10.1089/ars.2007.1526 2-s2.0-34250370525 17508907

77 Maillet A. Pervaiz S. Redox regulation of p53, redox effectors regulated by p53: a subtle balance Antioxidants & Redox Signaling 2012 16 11 1285 1294 10.1089/ars.2011.4434 2-s2.0-84859855907 22117613

78 Nguyen T. T. Grimm S. A. Bushel P. R. Revealing a human p53 universe Nucleic Acids Research 2018 46 16 8153 8167 10.1093/nar/gky720 2-s2.0-85061283403 30107566 PMC6144829

79 Liu B. Chen Y. St. Clair D. K. ROS and p53: a versatile partnership Free Radical Biology & Medicine 2008 44 8 1529 1535 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2008.01.011 2-s2.0-41149105243 18275858 PMC2359898

80 Herzig S. Shaw R. J. AMPK: guardian of metabolism and mitochondrial homeostasis Nature Reviews. Molecular Cell Biology 2018 19 2 121 135 10.1038/nrm.2017.95 2-s2.0-85041140494 28974774 PMC5780224

81 Soriano F. X. Baxter P. Murray L. M. Sporn M. B. Gillingwater T. H. Hardingham G. E. Transcriptional regulation of the AP-1 and Nrf2 target gene sulfiredoxin Molecules and Cells 2009 27 3 279 282 10.1007/s10059-009-0050-y 2-s2.0-70349311825 19326073 PMC2837916

82 Kovacs D. Sigmond T. Hotzi B. HSF1Base: a comprehensive database of HSF1 (heat shock factor 1) target genes International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2019 20 22 p. 5815 10.3390/ijms20225815 31752429 PMC6888953

83 St-Pierre J. Drori S. Uldry M. Suppression of reactive oxygen species and neurodegeneration by the PGC-1 transcriptional coactivators Cell 2006 127 2 397 408 10.1016/j.cell.2006.09.024 2-s2.0-33749999530 17055439

84 Echtay K. S. Roussel D. St-Pierre J. Superoxide activates mitochondrial uncoupling proteins Nature 2002 415 6867 96 99 10.1038/415096a 2-s2.0-18244379331 11780125

85 Londhe A. D. Bergeron A. Curley S. M. Regulation of PTP1B activation through disruption of redox-complex formation Nature Chemical Biology 2020 16 2 122 125 10.1038/s41589-019-0433-0 31873221 PMC6982540

86 An H. Heo J. S. Kim P. Tetraarsenic hexoxide enhances generation of mitochondrial ROS to promote pyroptosis by inducing the activation of caspase-3/GSDME in triple-negative breast cancer cells Cell Death & Disease 2021 12 2 p. 159 10.1038/s41419-021-03454-9 33558527 PMC7870965

87 Kirtonia A. Sethi G. Garg M. The multifaceted role of reactive oxygen species in tumorigenesis Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences 2020 77 22 4459 4483 10.1007/s00018-020-03536-5 32358622 PMC11105050

88 Kirkpatrick D. L. Powis G. Clinically evaluated cancer drugs inhibiting redox signaling Antioxidants & Redox Signaling 2017 26 6 262 273 10.1089/ars.2016.6633 2-s2.0-85012038698 26983373 PMC5312618

89 Ralph S. J. Nozuhur S. ALHulais R. A. Rodríguez-Enríquez S. Moreno-Sánchez R. Repurposing drugs as pro-oxidant redox modifiers to eliminate cancer stem cells and improve the treatment of advanced stage cancers Medicinal Research Reviews 2019 39 6 2397 2426 10.1002/med.21589 2-s2.0-85073315006 31111530

90 Sassetti E. Clausen M. H. Laraia L. Small-molecule inhibitors of reactive oxygen species production Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 2021 64 9 5252 5275 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.0c01914 33856791

91 Bridge G. Rashid S. Martin S. DNA mismatch repair and oxidative DNA damage: implications for cancer biology and treatment Cancers 2014 6 1597 1614 10.3390/cancers6031597 2-s2.0-84928822333 25099886 PMC4190558

92 Pauling L. Vitamin C therapy of advanced cancer The New England Journal of Medicine 1980 302 694 695 10.1056/nejm198003203021219 2-s2.0-0018899598 7354772

93 Chen Q. Espey M. G. Sun A. Y. Ascorbate in pharmacologic concentrations selectively generates ascorbate radical and hydrogen peroxide in extracellular fluid in vivo Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2007 104 8749 8754 10.1073/pnas.0702854104 2-s2.0-34547429599 17502596 PMC1885574

94 Wright M. E. Mayne S. T. Stolzenberg-Solomon R. Z. Development of a comprehensive dietary antioxidant index and application to lung cancer risk in a cohort of male smokers American Journal of Epidemiology 2004 160 68 76 15229119 10.1093/aje/kwh173

95 Du J. Martin S. M. Levine M. Mechanisms of ascorbate-induced cytotoxicity in pancreatic cancer Clinical Cancer Research 2010 16 509 520 20068072 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-1713 PMC2807999

96 Espey M. G. Chen P. Chalmers B. Pharmacologic ascorbate synergizes with gemcitabine in preclinical models of pancreatic cancer Free Radical Biology & Medicine 2011 50 1610 1619 21402145 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2011.03.007 PMC3482496

97 Stephenson C. M. Levin R. D. Spector T. Lis C. G. Phase I clinical trial to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of high-dose intravenous ascorbic acid in patients with advanced cancer Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology 2013 72 139 146 23670640 10.1007/s00280-013-2179-9 PMC3691494

98 Banhegyi G. Benedetti A. Margittai E. Subcellular compartmentation of ascorbate and its variation in disease states Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 2014 1843 1909 1916 24907663 10.1016/j.bbamcr.2014.05.016

99 Naidu K. A. Vitamin C in human health and disease is still a mystery? An overview Nutrition Journal 2003 2 1 p. 7 10.1186/1475-2891-2-7 2-s2.0-3042559581 PMC201008 14498993

100 Zasowska-Nowak A. Nowak P. J. Cialkowska-Rysz A. High-dose vitamin C in advanced-stage cancer patients Nutrients 2021 13 3 p. 735 10.3390/nu13030735 33652579 PMC7996511

101 Kazmierczak-Baranska J. Boguszewska K. Adamus-Grabicka A. Karwowski B. T. Two faces of vitamin C-antioxidative and pro-oxidative agent Nutrients 2020 12 5 p. 1501 10.3390/nu12051501 32455696 PMC7285147

102 Zingg J. M. Vitamin E: regulatory role on signal transduction IUBMB Life 2019 71 4 456 478 10.1002/iub.1986 2-s2.0-85058676723 30556637

103 Azzi A. Many tocopherols, one vitamin E Molecular Aspects of Medicine 2018 61 92 103 10.1016/j.mam.2017.06.004 2-s2.0-85020518769 28624327

104 Ricciarelli R. Azzi A. Regulation of Recombinant PKC α Activity by Protein Phosphatase 1 and Protein Phosphatase 2A Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics 1998 355 2 197 200 10.1006/abbi.1998.0732 2-s2.0-0032528382 9675027

105 Nogueira V. Park Y. Chen C. C. Akt determines replicative senescence and oxidative or oncogenic premature senescence and sensitizes cells to oxidative apoptosis Cancer Cell 2008 14 6 458 470 10.1016/j.ccr.2008.11.003 2-s2.0-56849118516 19061837 PMC3038665

106 Huang P. H. Chuang H. C. Chou C. C. Vitamin E facilitates the inactivation of the kinase Akt by the phosphatase PHLPP1 Science Signaling 2013 6 10.1126/scisignal.2003816 2-s2.0-84875716808 PMC3910367 23512990

107 Ungurianu A. Zanfirescu A. Nițulescu G. Margină D. Vitamin E beyond its antioxidant label Antioxidants 2021 10 10.3390/antiox10050634 PMC8143145 33919211

108 Cardenas E. Ghosh R. Vitamin E: a dark horse at the crossroad of cancer management Biochemical Pharmacology 2013 86 7 845 852 10.1016/j.bcp.2013.07.018 2-s2.0-84884704107 23919929 PMC4100069

109 Wiel C. Le Gal K. Ibrahim M. X. BACH1 stabilization by antioxidants stimulates lung cancer metastasis Cell 2019 178 2 330 345.e22 e22 10.1016/j.cell.2019.06.005 2-s2.0-85068400783 31257027

110 Tasina E. Haidich A. B. Kokkali S. Arvanitidou M. Efficacy and safety of tigecycline for the treatment of infectious diseases: a meta-analysis The Lancet Infectious Diseases 2011 11 11 834 844 10.1016/S1473-3099(11)70177-3 2-s2.0-82455187892 21784708

111 Stein G. E. Babinchak T. Tigecycline: an update Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease 2013 75 4 331 336 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2012.12.004 2-s2.0-84875233683 23357291

112 Cai Y. Bai N. Liu X. Liang B. Wang J. Wang R. Tigecycline: alone or in combination? Infectious Diseases 2016 48 7 491 502 10.3109/23744235.2016.1155735 2-s2.0-84978755555 26982103

113 Jia X. Gu Z. Chen W. Jiao J. Tigecycline targets nonsmall cell lung cancer through inhibition of mitochondrial function Fundamental & Clinical Pharmacology 2016 30 4 297 306 10.1111/fcp.12199 2-s2.0-84977558469 27009695

114 Skrtic M. Sriskanthadevan S. Jhas B. Inhibition of mitochondrial translation as a therapeutic strategy for human acute myeloid leukemia Cancer Cell 2011 20 674 688 22094260 10.1016/j.ccr.2011.10.015 PMC3221282

115 Tan J. Song M. Zhou M. Hu Y. Antibiotic tigecycline enhances cisplatin activity against human hepatocellular carcinoma through inducing mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative damage Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 2017 483 1 17 23 10.1016/j.bbrc.2017.01.021 2-s2.0-85009476113 28069382

116 Bahuguna A. Rawat D. S. An overview of new antitubercular drugs, drug candidates, and their targets Medicinal Research Reviews 2020 40 1 263 292 10.1002/med.21602 31254295

117 Song M. Wu H. Wu S. Antibiotic drug levofloxacin inhibits proliferation and induces apoptosis of lung cancer cells through inducing mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative damage Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy 2016 84 1137 1143 10.1016/j.biopha.2016.10.034 2-s2.0-84992585818 27780143

118 Yu M. Li R. Zhang J. Repositioning of antibiotic levofloxacin as a mitochondrial biogenesis inhibitor to target breast cancer Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 2016 471 4 639 645 10.1016/j.bbrc.2016.02.072 2-s2.0-84960381284 26902121

119 Henehan M. Montuno M. De Benedetto A. Doxycycline as an anti-inflammatory agent: updates in dermatology Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology 2017 31 1800 1808 10.1111/jdv.14345 2-s2.0-85020231362 28516469

120 Markowska A. Kaysiewicz J. Markowska J. Huczynski A. Doxycycline, salinomycin, monensin and ivermectin repositioned as cancer drugs Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry Letters 2019 29 13 1549 1554 10.1016/j.bmcl.2019.04.045 2-s2.0-85064895735 31054863

121 Tan Q. Yan X. Song L. Induction of mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative damage by antibiotic drug doxycycline enhances the responsiveness of glioblastoma to chemotherapy Medical Science Monitor 2017 23 4117 4125 10.12659/MSM.903245 2-s2.0-85029587943 28842551 PMC5584825

122 Shieh J. M. Huang T. F. Hung C. F. Chou K. H. Tsai Y. J. Wu W. B. Activation of c-Jun N-terminal kinase is essential for mitochondrial membrane potential change and apoptosis induced by doxycycline in melanoma cells British Journal of Pharmacology 2010 160 5 1171 1184 10.1111/j.1476-5381.2010.00746.x 2-s2.0-77953226760 20590610 PMC2936026

123 Tong F. Ye Y. Chen B. Bone-targeting prodrug mesoporous silica-based nanoreactor with reactive oxygen species burst for enhanced chemotherapy ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2020 12 31 34630 34642 10.1021/acsami.0c08992 32635715

124 Mark T. M. Coleman M. It's time to take clarithromycin seriously in multiple myeloma Acta Haematologica 2016 135 2 101 102 10.1159/000440874 2-s2.0-84957412169 26505907

125 Zhou B. Xia M. Wang B. Clarithromycin synergizes with cisplatin to inhibit ovarian cancer growth in vitro and in vivo Journal of Ovarian Research 2019 12 1 p. 107 10.1186/s13048-019-0570-9 31703731 PMC6839134

126 Xu J. Shi P. Y. Li H. Zhou J. Broad spectrum antiviral agent niclosamide and its therapeutic potential ACS Infectious Diseases 2020 6 5 909 915 10.1021/acsinfecdis.0c00052 32125140 PMC7098069

127 Jin Y. Lu Z. Ding K. Antineoplastic mechanisms of niclosamide in acute myelogenous leukemia stem cells: inactivation of the NF-kappaB pathway and generation of reactive oxygen species Cancer Research 2010 70 6 2516 2527 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-3950 2-s2.0-77950212486 20215516

128 Zhao J. He Q. Gong Z. Chen S. Cui L. Niclosamide suppresses renal cell carcinoma by inhibiting Wnt/ β -catenin and inducing mitochondrial dysfunctions Springerplus 2016 5 1 p. 1436 10.1186/s40064-016-3153-x 2-s2.0-84984601509 27652012 PMC5005241

129 Chen L. Wang L. Shen H. Lin H. Li D. Anthelminthic drug niclosamide sensitizes the responsiveness of cervical cancer cells to paclitaxel via oxidative stress-mediated mTOR inhibition Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 2017 484 2 416 421 10.1016/j.bbrc.2017.01.140 2-s2.0-85011048715 28137584

130 Lee S. L. Son A. R. Ahn J. Song J. Y. Niclosamide enhances ROS-mediated cell death through c-Jun activation Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy 2014 68 5 619 624 10.1016/j.biopha.2014.03.018 2-s2.0-84905102301 24750999

131 Lu L. Dong J. Wang L. Activation of STAT3 and Bcl-2 and reduction of reactive oxygen species (ROS) promote radioresistance in breast cancer and overcome of radioresistance with niclosamide Oncogene 2018 37 39 5292 5304 10.1038/s41388-018-0340-y 2-s2.0-85047961241 29855616

132 Akgun O. Erkisa M. Ari F. Effective and new potent drug combination: histone deacetylase and Wnt/ β ‐catenin pathway inhibitors in lung carcinoma cells Journal of Cellular Biochemistry 2019 120 9 15467 15482 10.1002/jcb.28813 2-s2.0-85069524183 31037769

133 Nath J. Paul R. Ghosh S. K. Paul J. Singha B. Debnath N. Drug repurposing and relabeling for cancer therapy: emerging benzimidazole antihelminthics with potent anticancer effects Life Sciences 2020 258 10.1016/j.lfs.2020.118189 32781060

134 Castro L. S. Kviecinski M. R. Ourique F. Albendazole as a promising molecule for tumor control Redox Biology 2016 10 90 99 10.1016/j.redox.2016.09.013 2-s2.0-84989355114 27710854 PMC5053114

135 Wang L. J. Lee Y. C. Huang C. H. Non-mitotic effect of albendazole triggers apoptosis of human leukemia cells via SIRT3/ROS/p38 MAPK/TTP axis-mediated TNF- α upregulation Biochemical Pharmacology 2019 162 154 168 10.1016/j.bcp.2018.11.003 2-s2.0-85056800835 30414389

136 Patel O. P. S. Beteck R. M. Legoabe L. J. Exploration of artemisinin derivatives and synthetic peroxides in antimalarial drug discovery research European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 2021 213 10.1016/j.ejmech.2021.113193 33508479

137 Cheong D. H. J. Tan D. W. S. Wong F. W. S. Tran T. Anti-malarial drug, artemisinin and its derivatives for the treatment of respiratory diseases Pharmacological Research 2020 158 10.1016/j.phrs.2020.104901 PMC7217791 32405226

138 Xiao F. L. Gao W. J. Liu C. Y. Wang X. P. Chen T. S. Artemisinin induces caspase-8/9-mediated and Bax/Bak-independent apoptosis in human lung adenocarcinoma (ASTC-a-1) cells Journal of X-Ray Science and Technology 2011 19 4 545 555 10.3233/XST-2011-0313 2-s2.0-80155172484 25214386

139 Li P. Yang S. Dou M. Chen Y. Zhang J. Zhao X. Synergic effects of artemisinin and resveratrol in cancer cells Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology 2014 140 12 2065 2075 10.1007/s00432-014-1771-7 2-s2.0-84925231659 25048878 PMC11823731

140 Noori S. Hassan Z. M. Farsam V. Artemisinin as a Chinese medicine, selectively induces apoptosis in pancreatic tumor cell line Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine 2014 20 8 618 623 10.1007/s11655-013-1454-2 2-s2.0-84905569503 23771805

141 Fox J. M. Moynihan J. R. Mott B. T. Artemisinin-derived dimer ART-838 potently inhibited human acute leukemias, persisted in vivo, and synergized with antileukemic drugs Oncotarget 2016 7 6 7268 7279 10.18632/oncotarget.6896 2-s2.0-84980701332 26771236 PMC4872784

142 Jia J. Qin Y. Zhang L. Artemisinin inhibits gallbladder cancer cell lines through triggering cell cycle arrest and apoptosis Molecular Medicine Reports 2016 13 5 4461 4468 10.3892/mmr.2016.5073 2-s2.0-84964711826 27035431

143 Gomez V. E. Giovannetti E. Peters G. J. Unraveling the complexity of autophagy: potential therapeutic applications in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma Seminars in Cancer Biology 2015 35 11 19 10.1016/j.semcancer.2015.09.011 2-s2.0-84948649216 26408419

144 Saleem A. Dvorzhinski D. Santanam U. Effect of dual inhibition of apoptosis and autophagy in prostate cancer Prostate 2012 72 12 1374 1381 10.1002/pros.22487 2-s2.0-84864284745 22241682 PMC3840901

145 Xia H. Green D. R. Zou W. Autophagy in tumour immunity and therapy Nature Reviews. Cancer 2021 21 5 281 297 10.1038/s41568-021-00344-2 33758415 PMC8087647

146 Gao L. Zhao X. Lang L. Shay C. Andrew Yeudall W. Teng Y. Autophagy blockade sensitizes human head and neck squamous cell carcinoma towards CYT997 through enhancing excessively high reactive oxygen species-induced apoptosis Journal of Molecular Medicine (Berlin, Germany) 2018 96 9 929 938 10.1007/s00109-018-1670-5 2-s2.0-85050240887 30022281

147 Vera-Ramirez L. Vodnala S. K. Nini R. Hunter K. W. Green J. E. Autophagy promotes the survival of dormant breast cancer cells and metastatic tumour recurrence Nature Communications 2018 9 1 p. 1944 10.1038/s41467-018-04070-6 2-s2.0-85047764481 29789598 PMC5964069

148 Di Bello E. Zwergel C. Mai A. Valente S. The innovative potential of statins in cancer: new targets for new therapies Frontiers in Chemistry 2020 8 p. 516 10.3389/fchem.2020.00516 PMC7312214 32626692

149 Sánchez C. A. Rodríguez E. Varela E. Statin-induced inhibition of MCF-7 breast cancer cell proliferation is related to cell cycle arrest and apoptotic and necrotic cell death mediated by an enhanced oxidative stress Cancer Investigation 2008 26 7 698 707 10.1080/07357900701874658 2-s2.0-48249083431 18608208

150 Castellanos-Esparza Y. C. Wu S. Huang L. Synergistic promoting effects of pentoxifylline and simvastatin on the apoptosis of triple-negative MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cells International Journal of Oncology 2018 52 4 1246 1254 10.3892/ijo.2018.4272 2-s2.0-85042766817 29436616

151 Buranrat B. Senggunprai L. Prawan A. Kukongviriyapan V. Simvastatin and atorvastatin as inhibitors of proliferation and inducers of apoptosis in human cholangiocarcinoma cells Life Sciences 2016 153 41 49 10.1016/j.lfs.2016.04.018 2-s2.0-84964582964 27098189

152 Alevizopoulos K. Calogeropoulou T. Lang F. Stournaras C. Na+/K+ ATPase inhibitors in cancer Current Drug Targets 2014 15 10 988 1000 10.2174/1389450115666140908125025 25198786

153 Wang Z. Zheng M. Li Z. Cardiac glycosides inhibit p53 synthesis by a mechanism relieved by Src or MAPK inhibition Cancer Research 2009 69 16 6556 6564 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-0891 2-s2.0-69249146076 19679550 PMC2728080

154 Wang T. Xu P. Wang F. Effects of digoxin on cell cycle, apoptosis and NF- κ B pathway in Burkitt's lymphoma cells and animal model Leukemia & Lymphoma 2017 58 10.1080/10428194.2016.1256480 2-s2.0-85010657637 28084852

155 Wei D. Peng J. J. Gao H. Digoxin downregulates NDRG1 and VEGF through the inhibition of HIF-1 α under hypoxic conditions in human lung adenocarcinoma A549 cells International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2013 14 4 7273 7285 10.3390/ijms14047273 2-s2.0-84876012356 23549264 PMC3645685

156 Gayed B. A. O'Malley K. J. Pilch J. Wang Z. Digoxin inhibits blood vessel density and HIF-1a expression in castration-resistant C4-2 xenograft prostate tumors Clinical and Translational Science 2012 5 1 39 42 10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00376.x 2-s2.0-84862777480 22376255 PMC4156020

157 Abu-Remaileh M. Khalaileh A. Pikarsky E. Aqeilan R. I. WWOX controls hepatic HIF1 α to suppress hepatocyte proliferation and neoplasia Cell Death & Disease 2018 9 5 p. 511 10.1038/s41419-018-0510-4 2-s2.0-85046453128 29724996 PMC5938702

158 Choi E. J. Jung B. J. Lee S. H. A clinical drug library screen identifies clobetasol propionate as an NRF2 inhibitor with potential therapeutic efficacy in KEAP1 mutant lung cancer Oncogene 2017 36 37 5285 5295 10.1038/onc.2017.153 2-s2.0-85031682434 28504720

159 Zhou Y. Zhou Y. Yang M. Digoxin sensitizes gemcitabine-resistant pancreatic cancer cells to gemcitabine via inhibiting Nrf2 signaling pathway Redox Biology 2019 22 10.1016/j.redox.2019.101131 2-s2.0-85060986581 PMC6365940 30735911

160 Hendouei N. Saghafi F. Shadfar F. Hosseinimehr S. J. Molecular mechanisms of anti-psychotic drugs for improvement of cancer treatment European Journal of Pharmacology 2019 856 10.1016/j.ejphar.2019.05.031 2-s2.0-85065901712 31108054

161 Otreba M. Kosmider L. In vitroanticancer activity of fluphenazine, perphenazine and prochlorperazine. A review Journal of Applied Toxicology 2021 41 1 82 94 10.1002/jat.4046 32852120

162 Xu F. Xia Y. Feng Z. Repositioning antipsychotic fluphenazine hydrochloride for treating triple negative breast cancer with brain metastases and lung metastases American Journal of Cancer Research 2019 9 3 459 478 30949404 PMC6448056

163 Menilli L. Garcia-Argaez A. N. Dalla Via L. Miolo G. The neuroleptic drug fluphenazine induces a significant UVA-mediated cytotoxic effect on three human cancer cell lines through apoptosis Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences 2019 18 9 2232 2239 10.1039/C9PP00023B 2-s2.0-85072042200 30860541

164 Mothi M. Sampson S. Pimozide for schizophrenia or related psychoses Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013 13 10.1002/14651858.cd001949.pub2 2-s2.0-44949208562 PMC11927953 24194433

165 Taub R. N. Baker M. A. Treatment of metastatic malignant melanoma with pimozide The Lancet 1979 313 8116 p. 605 10.1016/s0140-6736(79)91025-0 2-s2.0-0018387714 85182

166 Kim U. Kim C. Y. Lee J. M. Pimozide inhibits the human prostate cancer cells through the generation of reactive oxygen species Frontiers in Pharmacology 2020 10 10.3389/fphar.2019.01517 PMC6976539 32009948

167 Cai N. Zhou W. Ye L. L. The STAT3 inhibitor pimozide impedes cell proliferation and induces ROS generation in human osteosarcoma by suppressing catalase expression American Journal of Translational Research 2017 9 8 3853 3866 28861175 PMC5575198

168 Chen J. J. Zhang L. N. Cai N. Zhang Z. Ji K. Antipsychotic agent pimozide promotes reversible proliferative suppression by inducing cellular quiescence in liver cancer Oncology Reports 2019 42 3 1101 1109 10.3892/or.2019.7229 2-s2.0-85069630621 31322218 PMC6667923

169 Moreno-Sanchez R. Saavedra E. Gallardo-Perez J. C. Rumjanek F. D. Rodriguez-Enriquez S. Understanding the cancer cell phenotype beyond the limitations of current omics analyses The FEBS Journal 2016 283 1 54 73 10.1111/febs.13535 2-s2.0-84961285812 26417966

170 Ralph S. J. Pritchard R. Rodríguez-Enríquez S. Moreno-Sánchez R. Ralph R. Hitting the bull's-eye in metastatic cancers-NSAIDs elevate ROS in mitochondria, inducing malignant cell death Pharmaceuticals 2015 8 1 62 106 10.3390/ph8010062 2-s2.0-84922983621 25688484 PMC4381202

171 Kodama R. Kato M. Furuta S. ROS-generating oxidases Nox1 and Nox4 contribute to oncogenic Ras-induced premature senescence Genes to Cells 2013 18 1 32 41 10.1111/gtc.12015 2-s2.0-84871608812 23216904

172 Wang P. Gong Q. Hu J. Li X. Zhang X. Reactive oxygen species (ROS)-responsive prodrugs, probes, and theranostic prodrugs: applications in the ROS-related diseases Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 2021 64 1 298 325 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.0c01704 33356214

173 Li Y. Yang J. Sun X. Reactive oxygen species-based nanomaterials for cancer therapy Frontiers in Chemistry 2021 9 10.3389/fchem.2021.650587 PMC8100441 33968899

174 Dilruba S. Kalayda G. V. Platinum-based drugs: past, present and future Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology 2016 77 6 1103 1124 10.1007/s00280-016-2976-z 2-s2.0-84958748464 26886018

175 Wheate N. J. Walker S. Craig G. E. Oun R. The status of platinum anticancer drugs in the clinic and in clinical trials Dalton Transactions 2010 39 35 8113 8127 10.1039/c0dt00292e 2-s2.0-77955936898 20593091