Ribosome Biogenesis and Function in Cancer: From Mechanisms to Therapy.

1. Introduction

The significance of ribosome biogenesis and mRNA translation in promoting tumorigenesis has been increasingly recognised in the last few decades. Nucleolar morphology is a well-established hallmark of cancer and has been recognised since the early 20th century as a diagnostic indicator of malignancy [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]. As oncogenic signalling pathways like MAPK/ERK, PI3K/Akt/mTOR, and others were uncovered, the link between faulty ribosome function and cancer became more apparent [ 5 , 6 ]. These oncogenic pathways cooperate to enhance ribosome and protein synthesis, promoting “translation addiction” in cancer cells. In fact, mutations in tumour suppressor genes and oncogenes, which are present across all cancer types, affect ribosome biogenesis and mRNA translation [ 7 , 8 ]. Individuals with ribosomopathies who have an increased risk of developing cancers also provide direct evidence that defects in the translation machinery contribute to oncogenesis [ 9 , 10 ].

In this review, we outline the process of ribosome biogenesis and mRNA translation and how their dysregulation contributes to cancer, highlight the importance of the nucleolus and the nucleolar stress response in guarding against cancer progression, and discuss promising ribosome-targeting strategies for cancer therapy.

2. Ribosome Synthesis and Function

The production of eukaryotic ribosomes is one of the most intricate biological processes. It requires the precise coordination of all three RNA polymerases (Pol I, II, and III) with numerous auxiliary factors to ensure accurate transcription and synthesis of ribosomal components and the assembly of precursor ribosomal particles [ 11 , 12 , 13 ]. Ribosome biogenesis occurs in the nucleolus, a specialised nuclear compartment that forms around nucleolar organiser regions of the chromatin containing repeated sequences of 47S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) genes [ 14 , 15 ]. These rRNA genes are clustered on the short arms of acrocentric chromosomes 13, 14, 15, 21, and 22, typically arranged in a head-to-tail, tandem configuration [ 16 , 17 ]. A canonical rRNA gene unit is approximately 43 kilobases, consisting of a 47S precursor rRNA (pre-rRNA) coding region, flanked upstream by a regulatory promoter and repetitive enhancer elements, and downstream by a transcription terminator sequence, embedded within an intergenic spacer (IGS) [ 18 ]. The 47S pre-rRNA harbours sequences encoding 18S, 5.8S, and 28S rRNAs, separated by 5′ and 3′ external transcribed spacers (ETS) and two internal transcribed spacers (ITS1, ITS2) ( Figure 1 ). Whilst rRNA genes are described as tandem repeats, studies have revealed the presence of several palindromic sequences and multiple rRNA gene variants that are differentially expressed [ 19 ]. Notably, in the first complete human genome assembly, it was revealed that the rRNA gene units, which were originally assumed highly homogenous, contain sequence variants [ 20 ]. The rRNA gene repeats exhibit chromosome-specific patterns, differing systematically across chromosomes, and to a lesser extent, they include variability between repeats within each array [ 20 , 21 ]. These variants contain single nucleotide changes, insertions and deletions, and large structural differences in the IGS and coding regions, all of which may contribute to ribosome heterogeneity [ 20 , 21 ].

2.1. Transcription of rRNA Genes and Synthesis of RPs and RBFs

Each human cell contains up to 400 copies of 47S rRNA genes, though only a subset is actively transcribed at any given time [ 18 , 22 , 23 ]. Transcriptionally active rRNA genes exist in a euchromatin state, characterised by DNA hypomethylation and acetylated histones [ 24 ]. This state is maintained by the upstream binding factor (UBF), a key regulator of rRNA gene transcription [ 22 , 23 , 25 ]. UBF binds as a dimer via its high mobility group domains to the core promoter and upstream control element (UCE) of rRNA gene promoters, inducing substantial DNA topological changes that promote chromatin accessibility and the recruitment of Pol I ( Figure 2 ). Another crucial component for the initiation of Pol I transcription is selectivity factor 1 (SL1), which specifically binds to the core promoter [ 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 ]. SL1 is composed of TATA-box-binding protein (TBP) and TBP-associated factors (TAFs), including TAF1A, TAF1B, TAF1C, TAF1D, and TAF12 [ 27 , 30 ]. SL1 cooperates with UBF at the rRNA gene promoter to form a pre-initiation complex (PIC) that ultimately facilitates Pol I recruitment [ 31 , 32 ]. Pol I is incorporated into the PIC through its interaction with Pol I-specific transcription factor RRN3, which acts as a bridging factor between SL1 and Pol I, allowing the formation of a transcriptionally competent Pol I machinery [ 31 , 32 ]. Topoisomerase IIα, which relieves supercoiling tension generated during Pol I transcription, is also a critical element of transcription initiation [ 33 , 34 ]. Together, the coordinated actions of transcription factors, enzymes, and other regulatory proteins within the nucleolus ensure efficient Pol I transcription to produce the 47S pre-rRNA ( Figure 2 ).

At the same time, 5S rRNA is transcribed by Pol III in the nucleoplasm, where its 3′ end is subsequently trimmed by exonucleases [ 35 , 36 ]. The processed 5S rRNA assembles with two ribosomal proteins (RPs), RPL5 and RPL11, into a 5S ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complex, and is then transported into the nucleolus, where it is incorporated into ribosomal particles [ 37 , 38 ].

Other components involved in ribosome biogenesis include ribosome biogenesis factors (RBFs) and non-coding small nucleolar RNAs (snoRNAs). Over 200 snoRNAs have been identified in humans; they are synthesised in the nucleoplasm before being assembled into small nucleolar ribonucleoprotein (snoRNP) complexes [ 39 , 40 , 41 ]. These snoRNP complexes have a primary function in guiding site-specific rRNA cleavage and modifications [ 40 , 42 , 43 ]. Additionally, RBFs and RPs assist in rRNA processing, whilst playing key roles in ribosome assembly and remodelling [ 13 ]. There are several hundred RBFs functioning as chaperones, transiently associating with precursor ribosomal particles during ribosome biogenesis [ 44 , 45 ]. In contrast, RPs are integrated into the ribosome.

2.2. Pre-40S and -60S Ribosomal Subunits Processing and Modification

Nascent 47S pre-rRNA strands embedded with sequences of 18S, 5.8S and 28S rRNA are quickly bound by a subset of snoRNPs, RPs, and RBFs, forming a large 90S processome in the nucleolus [ 46 , 47 , 48 ]. These complexes undergo a series of orchestrated cleavages by endonucleases and exonucleases, sequentially removing the non-coding ETS and ITS regions from pre-rRNA molecules ( Figure 2 ) [ 49 , 50 ].

Throughout the process of ribosome biogenesis, pre-rRNAs undergo extensive co-transcriptional modifications to assist with rRNA folding. Most of these modifications are catalysed by box C/D and H/ACA snoRNPs complexes [ 42 , 43 , 51 ]. Each snoRNP complex contain a 60–170 nucleotide snoRNA, that guides the complex to a specific pre-rRNA site, four structural proteins, and a dedicated modification enzyme [ 39 , 41 ]. Box C/D snoRNPs contain fibrillarin (FBL), a methyltransferase that catalyses 2′-O-methylation of the rRNA backbone, whilst box H/ACA snoRNPs consist of the pseudouridine synthase dyskerin (DKC1) which causes rRNA pseudouridylation [ 42 , 43 ]. Other types of modifications like base methylation and acetylation are introduced by independent enzymes [ 52 , 53 , 54 ]. These modifications are integral to ribosome subunit assembly, establishing a defined rRNA structure to prevent improper RNA annealing events and occurrence of premature formation of secondary structures. Notably, the cumulative loss of rRNA modifications disrupts ribosomal assembly and subsequent mRNA translation; this deregulation is widely implicated in cancer [ 55 , 56 ].

2.3. Nuclear Export of Pre-Ribosomal Particles and Assembly into a Mature 80S Ribosome

After the cleavage event in ITS1, the maturation of pre-40S and -60S ribosomal particles occurs separately, each involving a series of RBF-mediated alterations and modifications of rRNAs in the nucleus [ 49 , 50 ]. The 18S rRNA assembles into the pre-40S subunit along with RPs designated as RPS, whilst the pre-60S subunit contains 5S, 5.8S and 28S rRNAs with RPs designated as RPL [ 13 ]. Both the pre-40S and -60S ribosomal subunits, and their associated RBFs are then exported into the cytoplasm through the nuclear pore complex [ 57 , 58 , 59 ]. This nuclear-cytoplasmic export of pre-ribosomal subunits primarily depends on the nuclear export receptor exportin 1 (XPO1), also known as chromosomal maintenance 1 (CRM1) ( Figure 2 ) [ 58 ]. In the final stages of ribosome biogenesis, RBFs which facilitate nuclear export and restrict early ribosomal subunit coupling and translation initiation are removed [ 49 ]. This results in formation of a 40S subunit, containing 33 RPs, and a 60S subunit, containing 47 RPs, in the cytoplasm. These ribosome subunits then assemble with translation factors into a functional 80S ribosome, competent for mRNA translation.

2.4. mRNA Translation

The process of mRNA translation can be divided into four main steps: initiation, elongation, termination, and ribosome recycling [ 60 , 61 ]. It relies on the interplay of ribosome subunits, translation factors termed as eukaryotic initiation factors (eIFs) and elongation factors (eEFs), amino acids, and transfer RNAs (tRNAs). In a rate-limiting initiation step, 40S ribosome subunit interacts with a complex, comprising of GTP-bound eIF2, initiator methionyl tRNAi (tRNAi Met ), and translation factors eIF3, eIF1, eIF5, and eIF1A, to form a 43S PIC [ 60 ]. The 43S PIC associates with mRNA-bound eIF4F complex, composed of cap-binding protein eIF4E, RNA helicase eIF4A, and scaffolding protein eIF4G, creating a 48S translation initiation complex. Processed mRNA molecules associate with eIF4F by binding eIF4E at the 5′ 7-methylguanosine (m 7 G) cap and eIF4G at the 3′ polyadenylated tail [ 62 , 63 ]. The 48S complex scans the 5′ untranslated region (UTR) of mRNAs until an AUG start codon is recognised, prompting the recruitment of the 60S ribosome subunit. This results in multiple GTP hydrolysis reactions and the displacement of translation initiation factors from the complex, allowing the formation of the mature 80S ribosome and signalling for translation elongation.

During the elongation phase, amino acids are repeatedly attached to a growing polypeptide chain [ 62 , 64 ]. This process is directed by base-pairing mRNA codons with corresponding anticodons of tRNAs. eEF1A decodes the codons and delivers aminoacyl-tRNA to the ribosome, allowing formation of the peptide bond between amino acids [ 64 ]. Following formation of peptide bonds, eEF2 mediates ribosome translocation, triggering the recruitment of subsequent aminoacyl-tRNAs. Translation terminates when an in-frame stop codon (UAA, UAG or UGA) is detected, resulting in the release of tRNA and the dissociation of 40S and 60S ribosomal subunits from nascent proteins [ 65 , 66 ]. These ribosomal subunits are then recycled for translation of other mRNAs [ 66 ].

The process of ribosome biogenesis is highly coordinated and energy-consuming. It is estimated that there are 10 million ribosomes in a human cell, constituting up to 6% of total protein mass, to meet the demands of protein synthesis [ 67 ]. In the case of impaired ribosome biogenesis, cells must immediately halt cell cycle progression to prevent incomplete growth and division.

3. The Nucleolus and Nucleolar Stress Response

The nucleolus is a highly organised, membrane-less nuclear compartment that is essential for precise regulation of ribosome biogenesis [ 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 ]. Pol I transcription, rRNA processing, and ribosomal subunit assembly underpin nucleolar structure, which is maintained through protein–protein interactions within distinct compartments [ 9 , 73 ]. The nucleolus exhibits liquid-like properties, forming a distinct phase-separated domain [ 14 , 70 , 74 ]. Formation of the nucleolus is driven by Pol I transcription, during which rRNA and RNPs coalesce into phase-separated droplets without membranes [ 14 , 75 , 76 , 77 ]. Differential miscibility of individual RNPs gives rise to a dynamic ‘tripartite architecture’, which consists of three distinct immiscible layers forming a droplet-within-droplet architecture. This unique organisation, observable by electron or light microscopy, enables compartmentalisation of successive steps in ribosome biogenesis [ 14 , 70 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 ].

At the core of the nucleolus lie fibrillar centres (FCs), which contain the transcription machinery for Pol I and its components, such as UBF and RRN3 ( Figure 3 ) [ 75 , 82 ]. FC also acts as a storage repository site for inactive rRNA gene repeats and unengaged Pol I transcription factors [ 75 , 82 ]. Surrounding the FCs, the dense fibrillar components (DFCs) host early pre-rRNA processing factors, such as FBL and nucleolin (NCL). Transcription of rRNA genes by Pol I takes place at the boundary of the FC and DFC [ 75 , 82 ]. The outermost layer is the granular component (GC), where late steps of ribosome biogenesis occur, such as the assembly of rRNA with RPs to form pre-40S and -60S ribosomal subunits [ 75 , 76 , 83 , 84 ].

Disruption of ribosome biogenesis through inhibition of rRNA gene transcription or defects in rRNA processing and ribosome formation can disrupt the nucleolar architecture, leading to disintegration of the nucleolus, release of sequestered proteins into the nucleoplasm or cytoplasm, and activation of stress signalling pathways, known as the nucleolar stress response [ 70 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 ]. Accordingly, the nucleolus acts as a control centre that integrates both intrinsic and extrinsic signals to mediate cellular response to stress, including activation of the p53 tumour suppressor pathway [ 81 , 89 , 90 ]. Under normal conditions, p53 is suppressed by HDM2 through either ubiquitin-mediated proteasomal degradation or by direct binding to p53, thereby inhibiting its transcriptional activity. However, in response to defects in Pol I transcription and ribosome biogenesis, several ribosome components and assembly factors, including rRNA and RPs, are released from the nucleolus into the nucleoplasm [ 81 , 89 , 90 , 91 ].

These factors, including RPL5/RPL11-5S rRNA complexes, interact with and inhibit HDM2, resulting in p53 stabilisation and activation of downstream responses such as DNA repair, cell cycle arrest, and apoptosis [ 90 , 91 ]. Nucleolar stress can also trigger p53-independent responses, which remain poorly understood [ 81 ]. Various cellular stresses, including DNA damage, serum starvation, depletion of nucleotides, and cell cycle arrest, inhibit Pol I inhibition and ribosome assembly, triggering the nucleolar stress response, highlighting that ribosome biogenesis is tightly coupled to cellular homeostasis and stress surveillance mechanisms [ 87 , 90 , 92 , 93 ].

4. Dysregulation of Ribosome Biogenesis and Function in Cancer

The notion that Pol I transcription and ribosome biogenesis are dysregulated in cancer had been postulated before the 1900s, based on the observation that the size and the number of nucleoli in malignant cells are greater than those in normal cells [ 1 , 2 ]. This association is further supported by studies of rare congenital disorders that affect ribosome function, collectively known as ribosomopathies. Individuals with ribosomopathies suffer from life-threatening conditions, including bone marrow failure and congenital malformations, and notably, have a higher risk of developing cancer in their lifetime [ 9 , 10 ]. Several known ribosomopathies can be classified into two main categories: those with mutations in RPs and those with mutations in other RBFs. Research groups have investigated how specific gene mutations in these ribosomopathies impact ribosome biogenesis, and the putative mechanisms behind cancer predisposition [ 94 , 95 ]. Additionally, recurrent somatic mutations in RPs and deregulation in RP expression have been identified in many types of cancer [ 94 , 95 ].

4.1. From Ribosomopathies to Cancer

Amongst all ribosomopathies, Diamond–Blackfan anaemia (DBA), a congenital red blood cell aplasia, is probably the best characterised. Roughly 70–80% of cases are ascribed to loss-of-function mutations in RP genes, which result in impairment of ribosomal maturation, a distinguishing feature of DBA [ 96 , 97 ]. Genetic lesions in 24 RP genes have been linked to DBA to date. This includes genes encoding RPs of the small 40S (RPS7, RPS10, RPS15A, RPS17, RPS19, RPS20, RPS24, RPS26, RPS27, RPS27A, RPS28, RPS29) and the large 60S (RPL5, RPL8, RPL9, RPL11, RPL15, RPL17, RPL18, RPL26, RPL27, RPL31, RPL35, RPL35A) ribosomal subunits [ 98 ]. Studies have shown that RP haploinsufficiency caused by mutations in these genes consequently depletes free 40S and 60S subunits, and thus functional 80S ribosomes [ 98 , 99 ]. Across DBA-related RP genes, RPS19 (25%), RPS26 (7%), RPL5 (7%), RPL11 (5%), and RPL35A (4%) were found to be more commonly altered [ 99 ]. More recently, defects in non-RP genes, GATA1, TSR2, and HEATR3, have also been associated with the DBA phenotype, though they account for only a small proportion of all cases [ 100 , 101 , 102 ]. About 80% of DBA cases initially respond to corticosteroid therapy [ 99 , 103 ]. Some individuals achieve spontaneous remission, defined as having an adequate haemoglobin level for at least 6 months without transfusion, by early adulthood [ 99 ]. A widely perceived mechanism through which corticosteroids stimulate red blood cell production in DBA is induction of stress erythropoiesis, involving an expansion of erythroid progenitors and the activation of glucocorticoid receptors [ 104 , 105 , 106 ]. Studies also indicate that corticosteroids contribute to the development of red blood cells by modulating signalling pathways, like p53, MYC, and mTOR [ 105 , 107 ]. However, the precise mechanism of corticosteroid response in DBA remains elusive due to the complexity of the disease and the multifaceted effects of corticosteroids [ 107 ]. Individuals with DBA are nearly five times more likely to develop solid tumours and haematological malignancies compared with the general population [ 94 , 108 , 109 ]. Different types of cancers with varying incidence rates have been reported in DBA patients, including gastrointestinal cancers, sarcomas, leukemia, myeloma, and lymphoma [ 108 , 109 ]. Notably, in DBA, there is an increased risk of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), which can progress into acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

Ribosomopathies can also be caused by mutations in non-RP genes necessary for ribosomal assembly and maturation. Shwachman–Diamond syndrome (SDS), dyskeratosis congenita (DC), cartilage–hair hypoplasia (CHH), and Treacher Collins syndrome (TCS) exemplify this group [ 9 , 94 ]. In SDS, mutations in the SBDS gene and related factors disrupt 60S subunit maturation, leading to reduced 80S ribosome formation and impaired protein synthesis [ 110 ]. X- linked DC is associated with mutations in DKC, affecting rRNA pseudouridylation, a modification step in ribosome biogenesis, whilst CHH arises from RMRP mutations, which hinder pre-rRNA cleavage [ 111 , 112 ]. TCS is linked to TCOF1 and POLR1 gene mutations that disrupt Pol I-driven rRNA transcription and modification [ 113 ]. Notably, ribosomopathies like SDS, DC, and CHH are all associated with a higher cancer risk, including MDS, AML, and various solid tumours, suggesting that defects in ribosome biogenesis contribute to oncogenic transformation [ 94 , 95 , 114 ]. This link may reflect selective pressure for malignant clones that adapted to chronic ribosomal stress; however not all ribosomopathies, such as TCS, exhibit this predisposition [ 94 , 95 ].

It is important to note that defects in ribosome biogenesis, whilst significant, are not on their own sufficient to drive cancer development. This can be inferred from studies of ribosomopathies, where individuals initially present with clinical phenotypes attributed to cellular hypo-proliferative defects, such as bone marrow failure, malformations, and mental and motor deficiencies [ 94 ]. Subsequently, cells acquire secondary mutations in growth signalling pathways to transform into hyper-proliferative states and become malignant. Sulima et al. proposed a model where defects in ribosome biogenesis create selective pressure on cells, leading to compensatory mutations that rescue them from hypo-proliferative states [ 94 ]. These rescued cells acquire malignant properties, such as altered proliferation capacity and protein synthesis, evading the control of ribosome production and resulting in clonal expansion.

4.2. Oncoribosomes

Whilst the causal link between ribosomal defects and cancer development remains unclear, dysregulation of ribosome biogenesis is implicated in cancer progression through the identification of recurrent somatic mutations in RP genes in several types of cancer [ 95 ]. A large-scale genomic study in various cancer samples and cell lines found that 43% harbour heterozygous deletions in RP genes [ 115 ]. Comparable to the germ-line mutations in RP genes observed in DBA, these somatic RP gene lesions result in haploinsufficiency of the corresponding RPs. Recurrent mutations in genes of the large 60S subunit components RPL5, RPL10, RPL11, RPL22, and RPL23A, and the small 40S subunit components RPS15, RPS20, and RPS27 have been specifically implicated in cancer [ 95 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 ].

Across RP genes, the frequency of mutations in or deletions of RPL5 is relatively high, with several reported cases in breast cancer, multiple myeloma (MM), melanoma, glioblastoma, and T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (T-ALL) [ 95 , 116 , 120 , 121 ]. Further studies in MM indicate that patients with low RPL5 expression had unfavourable outcomes [ 117 ]. RPL5, along with RPL11, contributes to p53 stabilisation by inhibiting the E3 ubiquitin–protein ligase HDM2, thereby linking impaired nucleolar stress response to tumorigenesis [ 122 ]. Analysis of 19,000 cancer samples from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) revealed mutations in RPL5 and RPL11 in 139 and 74 cases, respectively, indicating their involvement in cancer pathogenesis [ 122 ]. Mutations in RPL10 and RPL22 have also been implicated in tumorigenesis and identified in additional cancer types, including the rare somatic RPL10 mutations in MM and RPL22 mutations producing truncated proteins in endometrial, gastric and colorectal cancer samples [ 119 ]. Moreover, amplification of the genomic region containing the RPL23A gene has been uncovered in samples of uterine cancer [ 116 ].

Whilst mutations in 40S RP genes are less common, RPS15 is notable for being mutated or deleted in up to 20% of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) cases, impairing p53 activation [ 123 , 124 ]. Similarly, RPS20, which also interacts with HDM2, is mutated in colorectal cancer [ 125 ]. Furthermore, mutations in RPS27 have been detected in melanoma samples [ 126 ]. This evidence of recurrent somatic mutations in a variety of RP genes across different cancer types highlights the striking association of ribosome alterations in oncogenesis.

Beyond quantitative alterations in ribosome abundance, qualitative differences in RP composition, rRNA sequence, and rRNA modifications give rise to ribosome heterogeneity. Emerging evidence supports the concept that heterogeneous ribosomal subpopulations perform specialised functions in translational control, enabling context-dependent regulation of gene expression [ 127 ]. Specific ribosomes have been shown to preferentially translate mRNAs with complex secondary structures, distinct sequence motifs, or stress-responsive elements. Recent advancement in high-resolution imaging and single-particle profiling techniques now allow direct visualisation of individual ribosomes, facilitating the characterisation of their ribosome composition and spatial organisation [ 128 ].

In many tumour types, changes in ribosomal protein composition and rRNA modifications give rise to so-called oncoribosomes that support elevated protein synthesis and regulate the translation of tumour-specific proteins. For example, the RPL10-R98S mutation frequently found in T-ALL promotes the translation of mRNAs containing internal ribosome entry sites (IRES) in their 5′UTR, such as BCL2, thereby conferring survival advantage [ 129 ]. Additionally, this mutation impairs programmed −1 ribosomal frameshifting, a key mechanism of regulating gene expression, and stabilises mRNAs involved in the JAK-STAT signalling pathway [ 130 ]. Post-transcriptional modifications of rRNA also contribute to ribosome heterogeneity. 2′-O-methylation, catalysed by FBL, and pseudouridylation, mediated by DKC1, are key modulators. FBL overexpression, often observed following p53 loss, drives IRES-dependent translation of oncogenes such as IGF1R, MYC, and VEGFA, promoting tumorigenesis [ 131 ]. FBL also interacts with YBX1 to activate BRCA1 transcription, highlighting its extra-ribosomal function beyond ribosome biogenesis in promoting chemoresistance in cancer [ 132 ]. Conversely, mutations in DKC1 lead to reduced rRNA pseudouridylation, impairing the translation of tumour suppressors (p53, p27 Kip1 ) and anti-apoptotic proteins (BCL-XL, XIAP) [ 133 , 134 ]. Additionally, oncoribosomes can reprogram cancer metabolism, as seen in T-ALL, where RPL10-R98S mutations induce oxidative stress and deregulated serine/glycine metabolism [ 135 , 136 ]. Together, these findings underscore the role of ribosome specialisation in promoting oncogenic translation programs and metabolic reprogramming. The concept of oncogenic ribosome thus represents both a driver of tumorigenesis and a promising target for selective cancer therapies.

4.3. Oncogenic Signalling Modulates Ribosome Synthesis and Function

Several oncogenic pathways converge to upregulate ribosome biogenesis and mRNA translation, creating a feed-forward network that fuels “translation addiction” in cancer cells. Cancer-associated genetic alterations in MYC, PIK3CA, PTEN, KRAS, and BRAF dysregulate growth-promoting signals, enhancing ribosome production and protein synthesis [ 137 , 138 ].

MYC is a master regulator in coordinating ribosome biogenesis at a transcriptional level through its involvement in initiating Pol I, II, and III actions ( Figure 4 ). In the nucleolus, MYC promotes the assembly of a PIC at the rRNA gene promoters, driving the synthesis of 18S, 5.8S and 28S rRNAs. MYC also stimulates Pol II transcription of genes encoding RPs and RBFs (e.g., DKC1, UBF, FBL, NPM1 and NCL mRNAs) and enhances Pol III activity by interacting with Pol III-specific transcription factor IIIB (TFIIIB) [ 139 ]. The MYC-TFIIIB complex engages with TRRAP and GCN5, leading to Pol III transcription of the 5S rRNA and tRNA genes. In many cancers, however, MYC is frequently overexpressed and hyperactivated through gene translocations, amplifications or upstream oncogenic signalling stimulation, resulting in elevated levels of rRNAs, RPs, RBFs, and key translation initiation components such as the eIF4F complex and 5′ mRNA cap-methylation machinery [ 140 , 141 ]. This broad MYC-driven transcriptional program sustains high translational capacity and drives uncontrolled proliferation.

In addition to MYC, the mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) complex 1 (mTORC1) pathway orchestrates ribosome biogenesis and mRNA translation in response to extracellular growth signals ( Figure 4 ). Binding of growth factors, cytokines, and hormones to cell-surface receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) and G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) activates phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)/Akt signalling [ 142 , 143 ]. Activated Akt inhibits tuberous sclerosis complex 2 (TSC2), a GTPase activating protein (GAP) that keeps Ras homolog enriched in brain (RHEB) protein in its inactive, GDP-bound from. The relief of TSC2 inhibition allows GTP-bound RHEB to activate mTORC1, a kinase complex containing mTOR, Raptor, and mLST8. In cancers harbouring PIK3CA mutations or PTEN loss, PI3K/Akt-mTORC1 signalling is constitutively active [ 144 ]. Moreover, Ras–ERK signalling driven by mutant KRAS, HRAS, NRAS, or BRAF can activate mTORC1 independently of PI3K/Akt via ERK and p90 ribosomal S6 kinase (RSK)-mediated phosphorylation of TSC1 and mTORC1 component Raptor [ 145 ].

Once activated, mTORC1 phosphorylates its two main substrates, p70 RSK (referred to as S6K1/2) and eIF4E-binding proteins (4E-BPs) [ 146 , 147 ]. Phosphorylation of S6K1 stimulates translation initiation through RPS6 phosphorylation, eIF4B activation, and programmed cell death 4 (PDCD4) inhibition, thereby stimulating the mRNA helicase activity of eIF4A during translation initiation [ 148 , 149 ]. Additionally, mTORC1-mediated phosphorylation of 4E-BPs release their binding from cap-binding protein eIF4E, allowing the formation of the eIF4F complex and cap-dependent translation. S6K1 also promotes elongation by phosphorylating and inhibiting eEF2 kinase (eEF2K), thus increasing eEF2 activity [ 150 ]. Collectively, these mTORC1-driven signalling pathways promote global protein synthesis, underscoring its significance in supporting oncogenic growth. In addition to mTORC1, the Ras–ERK pathway regulates translation initiation through MAPK-interacting kinase 1 (MNK1) and 2 (MNK2) [ 151 , 152 ]. MNKs interact with the eIF4F complex via eIF4G, to phosphorylate eIF4E, increasing its cap-binding and enhancing recruitment of 40S subunit to oncogenic mRNAs. Collectively, oncogenic MYC, PI3K/Akt-mTORC1, and Ras–ERK/MNK signalling drive ribosome production and translational output to promote cancer cell proliferation, survival, and metastasis.

5. Targeting Ribosome Biogenesis and mRNA Translation in Cancer

Dysregulation in ribosome synthesis and the translation machinery are increasingly recognised as potential vulnerabilities that can be exploited in cancer therapy.

5.1. Existing Chemotherapeutics Affect Ribosome Synthesis

Chemotherapy has been established as a pillar of cancer treatment for decades. Whilst these agents are collectively recognised for their DNA damaging properties, research findings have revealed that some also impact ribosome biogenesis at various stages [ 153 ]. Classes of chemotherapeutic agents inhibiting the production of ribosomes include alkylating agents, DNA intercalating agents, antimetabolites, and topoisomerase inhibitors ( Figure 5 ).

5.1.1. Alkylating-like Platinum Compounds

Platinum-based compounds such as cisplatin and oxaliplatin have a similar mechanism of action to alkylating agents [ 154 , 155 ]. Whilst they do not harbour alkyl groups, these compounds primarily form covalent bonds between DNA nucleotides within the same strand, across opposite strands, and with DNA-associated proteins, leading to DNA-protein crosslinks [ 154 ]. These crosslinks alter the DNA structure, causing defects in DNA repair and replication. Beyond these effects on DNA, mechanistic studies have demonstrated that cisplatin-induced DNA crosslinks trigger a redistribution of rRNA transcription machinery components, including UBF, TBP, TAFs, and Pol I, ultimately inhibiting rRNA synthesis [ 156 ]. Further research confirmed that both cisplatin and oxaliplatin rapidly inhibited Pol I transcription of rRNA genes [ 153 ]. Notably, this inhibitory effect was observed at clinically relevant concentrations of oxaliplatin, whereas higher doses of cisplatin were required to achieve a similar outcome [ 157 ]. Additional comparisons between these two compounds revealed that cisplatin induces cell death through activation of the DDR, whilst oxaliplatin does so by triggering ribosome biogenesis stress leading to activation of the nucleolar stress response [ 158 ]. This suggests that selectively targeting ribosome function could serve as an alternative strategy for inducing cytotoxicity with minimal DNA damage.

5.1.2. DNA Intercalating Agents

Key compounds that belong in this class of drugs include actinomycin D (ActD), mitomycin C (MMC), doxorubicin, and mitoxantrone. These molecules insert themselves between DNA base pairs, preventing replication and transcription, inhibiting topoisomerase (TOP) enzymes, and causing DNA damage [ 159 ]. ActD and MMC preferentially intercalate the DNA between guanine-cytosine (GC) base pairs, thereby interfering with transcription at GC-rich regions [ 160 , 161 ]. ActD also promotes the formation of transient TOP-DNA complexes. TOP enzymes exist in two forms, type I (TOP1) and II (TOP2), both of which create DNA breaks to relieve supercoiling tension during replication. Stabilisation of TOP-DNA structures for extended periods impedes the transcription machinery, inducing DNA strand breaks [ 162 ]. Beyond their DNA damaging effects, these compounds effectively inhibit rRNA transcription and 47S pre-rRNA production [ 153 ]. This is likely due to the presence of GC-rich regions at rRNA genes, where ActD and MMC predominantly act [ 33 , 90 ]. Notably, low doses of ActD (<5 nM) selectively inhibit Pol I transcription, whilst high doses of ActD inhibit Pol II and Pol III as well, leading to global transcription suppression [ 159 ].

5.1.3. Antimetabolites

Antimetabolites are chemotherapeutic agents that resemble nucleotides but contain slight structural variations. They interfere with DNA and RNA synthesis through inhibiting essential enzymes and incorporating into DNA and RNA structures [ 163 ]. Pyrimidine analogue, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), disrupts DNA replication by inhibiting thymidylate synthase, and impairs RNA synthesis by being inserted into various RNA species [ 164 ]. This interference affects post-transcriptional modifications of tRNA, snRNA, and rRNA, compromising their processing and stability [ 165 ]. Specifically, 5-FU interferes with the late processing and maturation steps of rRNA synthesis, leading to reduced 28S rRNA abundance and triggering a nucleolar stress response involving p53 stabilisation [ 166 ]. Another study has verified that 5-FU can be incorporated into rRNA of functional ribosomes, altering translation [ 167 ]. In addition, folate antagonist methotrexate that blocks purine and pyrimidine synthesis, also affect ribosome synthesis. Unlike 5-FU, methotrexate inhibits rRNA transcription as evidenced by decreased 47S pre-rRNA levels [ 153 ].

5.1.4. Topoisomerase Inhibitors

TOP1 and TOP2 inhibitors represent an important class of chemotherapeutic agents. TOP1 inhibitors such as camptothecin (CPT) inhibit transcription and induce DNA damage by forming TOP1-DNA complexes [ 168 , 169 ]. Early evidence indicated the ability of CPT and its derivative, topotecan, to inhibit global RNA synthesis [ 170 ]. Another finding confirmed that this included rRNA synthesis suppression [ 34 ]. Interestingly, CPT has a stronger effect on early rRNA processing than on rRNA transcription [ 153 ]. Similarly, TOP2 inhibitors, particularly TOP2 poisons, impact multiple stages of ribosome biogenesis [ 153 ]. As mentioned previously, doxorubicin and mitoxantrone rapidly inhibit rRNA transcription. Another type of TOP2 poison, etoposide, which stabilises TOP2-DNA covalent complexes without intercalating the DNA, also affects ribosome biogenesis, specifically impairing rRNA processing [ 153 , 171 ].

These findings highlight that targeting the ribosome is one of the diverse mechanisms of action of chemotherapeutic agents. Therefore, developing novel compounds that selectively interfere with ribosome biogenesis could achieve greater therapeutic efficacy whilst also overcoming major limitations of chemotherapy, including severe side effects and secondary cancers.

5.2. Pol I Transcription Inhibitors

Efforts to develop highly specific inhibitors of Pol I transcription, the rate-limiting step of ribosome biogenesis, led to the development of compounds like CX-5461, BMH21, and PMR-116 ( Figure 5 ).

High-throughput quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR)-based screening, measuring drug-related effects on transcription, led to the discovery of CX-5461, a small molecule inhibitor with greater selectivity towards inhibiting Pol I than Pol II [ 172 ]. CX-5461 blocks Pol I binding to the SL1 complex and its recruitment to rRNA gene promoters [ 172 ]. As a potent rRNA synthesis inhibitor, CX-5461 induces nucleolar stress, resulting in the activation of the p53 pathway [ 173 ]. Additionally, CX-5461 triggers other molecular responses, including activation of the DNA damage response (DDR), stabilisation of G-quadruplex (G4) structures, and TOP2 trapping leading to replication stress [ 174 , 175 , 176 , 177 , 178 ]. The mechanism by which CX-5461 traps TOP2 on the DNA differs to classical TOP2 poisons due to its selectivity towards genomic regions characterised by high transcriptional activity and enrichment of G4 structures [ 176 , 179 ]. These responses ultimately lead to cell cycle arrest and cell death.

Several genetic screens have uncovered biomarkers of response to CX-5461. Components of the homologous recombination (HR) repair machinery, the Fanconi anaemia pathway, and the G4-resolving polymerase POLQ were identified to be synthetic lethal with CX-5461 [ 180 , 181 ]. Various studies have also shown that CX-5461 sensitivity correlates with a high proportion of transcriptionally active rRNA gene repeats, BRCA mutations, and MYC activation, underscoring the importance of biomarker-guided patient selection for optimal therapeutic benefit [ 174 , 175 , 182 , 183 , 184 ]. CX-5461 has demonstrated significant efficacy in combination with various agents, enhancing its anti-tumour activity in preclinical cancer models. The combination of CX-5461 and low-dose topotecan markedly increased nucleolar replication stress and DDR, resulting in significant inhibition of high-grade serous ovarian cancer tumour growth [ 180 ]. CX-5461 was also shown to synergise with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, providing improved therapeutic benefit in ovarian and prostate PDX models [ 175 , 185 ]. Furthermore, CX-5461 works in combination with PIM kinase, mTOR (everolimus), and histone deacetylase (panobinostat) inhibitors in MYC-driven cancer models, through amplifying the inhibition of ribosome biogenesis, protein synthesis, and metabolic homeostasis [ 186 , 187 , 188 ]. Resistance to CX-5461 has been attributed to the loss of TOP2 isoforms, TOP2A and TOP2B, which are essential for CX-5461-induced replication stress [ 176 , 189 ]. Other resistance mechanisms include translational rewiring that enhanced mitochondrial metabolism and activated pro-survival pathways [ 187 ].

Early clinical studies of CX-5461 provided proof-of-concept evidence supporting the therapeutic potential of targeting ribosome biogenesis [ 190 , 191 ]. In a first-in-human phase I study, CX-5461 demonstrated clinical benefit in 6/16 patients with advanced haematological malignancies [ 190 ]. This included a prolonged partial response in one patient with anaplastic large cell lymphoma and stable disease in five patients with DLBCL and MM [ 190 ]. That study demonstrated on-target effect of CX-5461 in reducing the rate of rRNA gene transcription in peripheral blood mononuclear cells and patient tumours [ 190 ]. A phase I/II trial of CX-5461 in heavily pre-treated patients with advanced solid tumours showed an overall response rate (ORR) of 14%, mainly in patients with HR-deficient cancers [ 191 ]. This validated preclinical findings of CX-5461 exhibiting synthetic lethality with DNA repair defects [ 175 , 178 ] and led to further investigations in a phase Ib expansion study ( NCT04890613 ) of CX-5461 in patients with solid tumours and BRCA1/2, PALB2, and/or other HR mutations. Preliminary data reported 40% of 15 patients evaluable for response had clinical benefit [ 192 ]. Amongst these, five patients with BRCA1 ( n = 4) and HR ( n = 1) mutated ovarian cancer achieved stable disease, two of whom had prolonged response of more than 6 months [ 192 ]. All five ovarian cancer patients who achieved stable disease in this cohort had previously received platinum-based and PARP inhibitor therapy, indicating that CX-5461 has a different sensitivity profile to these compounds [ 175 ]. CX-5461 exhibited therapeutic potential through its multifaceted mechanisms of action. However, these mechanisms may also contribute to reported adverse effects, including photosensitivity and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia [ 190 , 191 ]. Notably, whilst ribosomopathies are associated with bone marrow failure syndromes, the inhibition of Pol I transcription by CX-5461 did not exhibit evidence of myelosuppression in the clinical studies [ 190 , 191 ]. Overall, these clinical trials demonstrated relatively low ORR; therefore, further evaluation of combination therapies is critical, such as the REPAIR study ( NCT05425862 ) in prostate cancer which assesses the combination of CX-5461 and the PARP inhibitor, talazoparib. A recent study by Koh et al. using an immortalised cell line model in vitro suggests that CX-5461 can cause rapid, widespread, and non-selective mutagenesis [ 193 ]. Notably, several early-phase studies of CX-5461 in patients with HR-deficient and metastatic solid tumours are recruiting patients ( NCT04890613 , NCT06606990 ). These ongoing clinical efforts underscore the therapeutic promise of CX-5461.

A second-generation compound, PMR-116, was developed to provide a more selective inhibition of Pol I transcription, whilst eliminating the TOP2 poisoning activity and phototoxicity associated with CX-5461 [ 194 ]. PMR-116 exhibits improved pharmacokinetics, including enhanced tumour penetration and a longer plasma half-life, leading to better tumour suppression in preclinical models [ 194 ]. PMR-116 is being evaluated in a phase I clinical trial for patients with advanced solid tumours (CTRN12620001146987), aiming to assess its clinical efficacy and safety profile [ 194 ].

Another Pol I inhibitor, BMH-21, was identified through chemical compound library screening for p53-activating agents [ 195 ]. BMH-21 inhibits rRNA synthesis by intercalating onto GC-rich regions of rRNA genes, leading to degradation of the Pol I catalytic subunit RPA194 and activation of p53 without triggering a DDR [ 196 ]. Further studies revealed that BMH-21 inhibits Pol I transcription particularly at the elongation phase [ 197 ]. Preclinical models have also demonstrated its therapeutic potential across several types of cancer, though clinical testing has yet to be conducted [ 198 ].

In summary, the development of selective Pol I transcription inhibitors aims to exploit the reliance of cancer cells on dysregulated ribosome biogenesis, whilst minimising toxicity to normal cells. CX-5461, the first-in-class inhibitor of Pol I transcription, demonstrated promising therapeutic activity with a favourable safety profile. It has since been recognised as a multi-modal agent, also functioning as a TOP2 poison and a G4 stabiliser. These additional mechanisms of action contribute to its anti-tumour efficacy particularly through its synthetic lethal interactions with HR deficient cancers. The second-generation compound PMR-116 was developed to retain on-target inhibition of Pol I with improved pharmacokinetic properties, but the clinical efficacy and tolerability are not established yet. Similarly, BMH-21 has not yet progressed to clinical evaluation. Therefore, whilst selective Pol I transcription inhibitors present a novel class of cancer therapeutics, their clinical development is still in its early stages. Overcoming limitations, such as the incomplete understanding of their mechanisms of action, the absence of robust predictive biomarkers, and the need for rational combination strategies, will be essential to fully harness the therapeutic potential of selective Pol I inhibitors in cancer.

5.3. Direct Inhibitors of the Translation Machinery

In addition to impairing ribosome biogenesis, several strategies have been explored to directly interfere with the translation machinery, particularly through targeting components of the eIF4F complex, such as eIF4E, eIF4G, and eIF4A [ 199 ] ( Figure 5 ).

5.3.1. Inhibitors of eIF4E-eIF4G Interaction

The assembly of the eIF4F complex can be targeted by disrupting the interaction between cap-binding subunit eIF4E and scaffolding protein eIF4G. High-throughput screens have identified small molecule compounds, 4EGI-1 and 4E1RCat, which impede eIF4E-eIF4G interaction. 4EGI-1 displaces eIF4G from eIF4E, whilst stabilising the binding of 4E-BPs to eIF4E, thereby inhibiting cap-dependent translation [ 200 ]. Structural studies proposed an allosteric effect of 4EGI-1, where it binds eIF4E at a distant region to the eIF4G binding site and causes conformational changes preventing eIF4G from interacting with eIF4E [ 201 , 202 ]. Additional studies have shown that 4EGI-1 induces cancer cell death through the induction of pro-apoptotic protein NOXA and the repression of pro-survival factors BCL2A1 and BCL2L1 [ 203 , 204 ]. Furthermore, 4EGI-1 demonstrated synergy with the BCL2 inhibitor ABT-737 to enhance apoptosis in CLL and improve sensitivity to gemcitabine in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in vitro [ 205 ]. The subsequent generation BCL2 inhibitor, venetoclax (ABT-199), is presently approved for use in CLL and AML. Meanwhile, 4E1RCat interferes with eIF4F complex assembly by binding eIF4E at sites typically bound by eIF4G and 4E-BPs [ 206 ]. Cencic et al. showed 4E1RCat reduced eIF4E-dependent translation of mRNAs encoding MCL-1 and MYC in vitro and reversed chemoresistance in a MYC-driven lymphoma mouse model [ 206 ]. Additional studies revealed that 4E1RCat in combination with selective inhibitor of eIF2α dephosphorylation salubrinal decreased cancer cell viability and inhibited xenograft tumour growth [ 207 ]. However, these small molecule inhibitors of eIF4E-eIF4G interaction exhibit poor potency and limited biological impact at concentrations practical for therapeutic applications.

More recently, EGPI-1, another small molecule blocking the eIF4E-eIF4G interaction, was identified and shown to exhibit anti-tumour activity in vitro and in vivo [ 208 ]. EGPI-1 reduced phosphorylation levels of eIF4E and 4E-BP and expression of oncogenic proteins cyclin D1 and MYC in lung cancer cells [ 209 ]. In xenograft models, tumour growth was inhibited following treatment with EGPI-1. These findings indicate the potential of targeting eIF4E-eIF4G interaction, though further optimisation studies are needed to improve therapeutic efficacy.

5.3.2. Inhibitors of eIF4E Cap-Binding Activity

Another approach to target eIF4E in the eIF4F complex is by blocking its association with capped mRNAs. The effects of cap analogues, molecules chemically modified to resemble the 5′ m 7 G cap structure on mRNAs, have been studied in in vitro models of cancer [ 210 , 211 ]. Synthetic cap analogues effectively reduce cap-dependent translation by binding to eIF4E and depleting the eIF4E pool accessible to mRNAs. However, these cap analogues exhibit poor permeability and stability in vivo. To overcome the inefficient delivery of cap analogues, Ghosh et al. developed 4Ei-1, a prodrug metabolised into cap analogue 7-benzyl guanosine monophosphate (7Bn-GMP) after cell uptake [ 212 ]; 7Bn-GMP was reported as a potent antagonist of eIF4E-cap interaction with high binding affinity to eIF4E compared to the m 7 G cap structure on mRNA [ 213 , 214 ], and 4Ei-1 was rapidly converted into 7Bn-GMP in cells and resulted in dose-dependent inhibition of cap-dependent translation in zebrafish embryos [ 212 ]. Notably, eIF4E expression level was reduced in response to 4Ei-1 and restored by proteasome inhibitors [ 215 ]. This indicates that 4Ei-1 inhibits cap-dependent translation initiation by interfering with eIF4E cap binding and promoting proteasomal degradation of eIF4E. Further studies have demonstrated that 4Ei-1 decreases cell viability in vitro and enhances gemcitabine cytotoxicity in breast and lung cancer cells [ 215 ]. More recently, an acyclic nucleoside phosphonate prodrug strategy was utilised to create cap analogue prodrugs containing a bis-pivaloxymethyl (POM) (Z)-4-phosphono-but-2-enyl linker [ 216 ]. Bis-POM is a lipophilic portion of the structure masking the negative charge of the phosphonate group, allowing increased cell permeability. The top performing compound was shown to decrease expression of oncogenic proteins whose translation was mediated by eIF4E, displaying anti-proliferative activity in vemurafenib-resistant melanoma cells [ 217 ]. Whilst these cap analogue prodrugs can inhibit cap-dependent translation, they exhibit low potency and are unsuitable for further advancement as drug candidates.

Ribavirin, a currently available antiviral medication, was reported to directly bind eIF4E and inhibit eIF4E-cap interaction, though several studies have disputed its mechanism of action [ 199 , 218 , 219 ]. Indeed, ribavirin has demonstrated anti-tumour activity in preclinical studies and therapeutic benefit in clinical trials, but its efficacy may involve mechanisms unrelated to eIF4E [ 220 , 221 , 222 , 223 ].

5.3.3. Antisense Oligonucleotides Targeting eIF4E

Targeting eIF4E can also be achieved through antisense oligonucleotide (ASO)-based strategies [ 224 ]. ASOs are short, single-strand oligonucleotides designed to bind specific RNA sequences through complementary base pairing and induce RNase H-mediated degradation of target mRNA. Early preclinical findings indicated that ASO LY2275796 (also referred to as ISIS 183750) achieved on-target silencing of eIF4E mRNA in human tumour xenograft models, significantly suppressing tumour growth [ 224 ]. In a phase I dose escalation study, a reduction in eIF4E expression level was detected in tumour biopsies following LY2275796, although no tumour response was observed [ 225 ]. LY2275796 was evaluated in combination with TOP1 inhibitor irinotecan in a phase I/II study ( NCT00903708 ) for the treatment of irinotecan-refractory colorectal cancer [ 226 ]. Whilst no objective responses were reported, 7/15 patients displayed stable disease [ 226 ]. No new clinical trials of LY2275796 have been registered.

5.3.4. Targeting RNA Helicase eIF4A

The prominence of the DEAD box RNA helicase eIF4A in mRNA translation has also led to the evaluation of natural compounds with the ability to inhibit its activity, such as hippuristanol, silvestrol, and pateamine A (PatA). Hippuristanol directly binds to the C-terminal domain of eIF4A, exerting an allosteric effect that blocks RNA binding and eIF4A helicase activity [ 227 ]. This results in the inhibition of cap-dependent translation initiation and formation of 80S ribosomes. Mechanistic studies indicate that hippuristanol induces cell cycle arrest and apoptosis associated with decreased cyclin D1, CDK4, and CDK6, and the activation of caspases in vitro and in vivo [ 228 ]. Hippuristanol has also been shown to enhance lymphoma and leukemia cell death in combination with BCL2 inhibitor ABT-737 [ 229 ]. Silvestrol belongs to a class of eIF4A inhibitors called rocaglates that harbour a bicyclic cyclopenta-[b]benzofuran core [ 230 , 231 ]. Unlike hippuristanol, these compounds stabilise the interaction between eIF4A and polypurines within the 5′ UTR, preventing eIF4A function in the eIF4F complex and creating steric barriers that block ribosome recruitment [ 232 ]. Rocaglates, including silvestrol, have been shown to trigger anti-tumour activity associated with induced apoptosis and inhibit the translation of oncogenic mRNAs in preclinical models [ 230 , 233 , 234 ]. Further studies have also demonstrated that silvestrol sensitises tumours with PTEN inactivation and elevated eIF4E to doxorubicin in vivo [ 235 ]. Similar to silvestrol, PatA stimulates the dimerization of eIF4A and non-specific RNAs, inhibiting eIF4A function and translation initiation [ 236 , 237 ]. Both PatA and the synthetic derivative des-methyl des-amino PatA (DMDAPatA) were shown to be potent inhibitors of translation initiation, harbouring anti-proliferative activity in vitro [ 238 , 239 ]. Despite their promise, there are many challenges in the clinical development of these eIF4A inhibitors due to toxicity concerns and the chemical complexity of natural products. Silverstrol exhibits low oral bioavailability and is a substrate of the multidrug efflux pump which plays a significant role in drug resistance [ 240 , 241 ]. In addition, PatA binds eIF4A irreversibly, causing persistent inhibition of protein synthesis and increased toxicity in vivo [ 238 ]. DMDAPatA was initially developed to overcome these issues, though its potency is limited due to high plasma protein binding [ 242 ].

More recently, Ernst et al. successfully optimised candidate drug eFT226 (Zotatifin) based on the structure of rocaglate derivative rocaglamide A [ 243 ]. eFT226 demonstrated highly selective eIF4A-mediated translation inhibition, which resulted in the downregulation of eIF4A-dependent oncogenic proteins [ 243 , 244 ]. The compound also exerted anti-tumour activity, indicated by the induction of cell cycle arrest and apoptosis breast cancer cell line MDA-MB-231 [ 245 ]. In orthotropic xenograft models, eFT226 suppressed tumour growth without significant toxicities. Additional studies revealed that eFT226 exerts anti-proliferative effects in a panel of solid tumour cell lines with HER2 and FGFR1/2 RTK dysregulation [ 245 ]. It was also shown that RTK-driven tumour cells with elevated mTOR signalling and increased basal rates of nascent protein synthesis were more sensitive to eFT226. Furthermore, eFT226 synergises with PIK3CA inhibitor alpelisib and Akt inhibitor ipatasertib to induce cytotoxicity in RTK-driven tumours in vitro and in vivo. Clinical studies to examine eFT226 in advanced solid tumours ( NCT04092673 ) and breast cancer ( NCT 05101564 ) are ongoing.

5.3.5. Translation Elongation Inhibitor: Omacetaxine

Another compound, omacetaxine (also known as homoharringtonine), inhibits the translation machinery at the elongation stage. Unlike the previously mentioned therapeutic agents which target translation factors, omacetaxine directly binds to the A-site cleft in the 60S ribosome subunit [ 246 ]. This unique mechanism prevents aminoacyl-tRNAs from interacting with the ribosome, blocking subsequent peptide bond formation and translation elongation [ 246 ]. Omacetaxine has been approved by the FDA for the treatment of chromic myeloid leukemia (CML) [ 247 , 248 ]. A more recent study in relapsed/refractory MM demonstrated that omacetaxine synergises with immunomodulatory drugs, causing substantial downregulation of the oncoproteins interferon regulatory factor 4 (IRF4) and MYC [ 249 ].

Altogether, these findings highlight the potential of targeting the translation machinery in cancer therapy. As cancer cells frequently exhibit “translation addiction” and rely on hyperactivated cap-dependent translation to sustain growth and survival, targeting components of the eIF4F complex presents an attractive approach. Various strategies have been explored, including small molecules disrupting eIF4F complex assembly (e.g., 4EGI-1, 4E1RCat), ASOs (e.g., LY2275796), cap analogues (e.g., 4Ei-1), and inhibitors of RNA helicase eIF4A (e.g., hippuristanol, silvestrol). Whilst several agents have demonstrated promising anti-tumour activity in preclinical models and early-phase trials, clinical translation has been limited by issues relating to suboptimal pharmacokinetics, off-target toxicity, poor selectivity, and the lack of predictive biomarkers. Despite these challenges, ongoing efforts to optimise drug delivery, develop more selective analogues (e.g., eFT226), and identify biomarkers of “translation addiction” continue to drive the development of translation-targeting therapies.

5.4. Inhibitors of Signalling Pathways Regulating Translation

In addition to direct inhibitors of the translation machinery, mRNA translation can also be suppressed through targeting regulatory signalling pathways, such as the PI3K/ Akt/mTOR and MAPK/ERK pathways ( Figure 5 ).

5.4.1. mTOR Inhibitors

The first generation of mTOR inhibitors, rapamycin and the rapalogues everolimus and temsirolimus, inhibit mTORC1 in the PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway [ 250 ]. They form a complex with FK506-binding protein FKBP12 that binds to the FRB domain of mTOR, causing allosteric inhibition of mTORC1 [ 251 ]. This limits the phosphorylation of downstream target S6K1, and to a lesser extent 4E-BPs [ 251 ]. Studies have demonstrated the anti-tumour activity of these compounds in various preclinical cancer models, with everolimus and temsirolimus approved by the FDA for the treatment of largely advanced-staged cancers [ 252 ]. However, their clinical efficacy remains limited, due to incomplete inhibition of 4E-BPs and compensatory mTORC2-induced activation of Akt, promoting cell survival and resistance [ 253 , 254 , 255 ].

To tackle these problems, ATP-competitive mTOR inhibitors and dual PI3K-mTOR inhibitors, were developed [ 256 , 257 , 258 , 259 , 260 , 261 ]. Several ATP-competitive mTOR inhibitors, including OSI-027, MLN-0128 (also known as Sapanisertib), and AZD2014, have been evaluated in clinical studies [ 262 , 263 , 264 ]. These compounds bind to the ATP-binding pocket of mTOR KIN domain, resulting in the inhibition of both mTORC1 and mTORC2. Preclinical findings show that these compounds are highly selective towards mTOR as opposed to other kinases such as P13K, significantly inhibiting S6K and 4E-BP phosphorylation and inducing anti-tumour activity [ 262 , 265 ]. However, the single-agent efficacy of these inhibitors in early clinical trials of advanced solid tumours and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) remain limited [ 266 , 267 ]. Notably, RapaLink-1, an mTOR inhibitor that targets both FRB domain and ATP-binding site of mTOR, was designed to overcome limitations of previous mTOR inhibitors [ 268 ]. Although RapaLink-1 has demonstrated growth-inhibitory effects in vitro and in vivo, it has yet to be evaluated in clinical settings. Dual PI3K-mTOR inhibitors were developed primarily to efficiently inhibit Akt, in addition to the downstream targets of mTOR. Like mTOR inhibitors, the dual PI3K-mTOR inhibitors have shown promising anti-tumour activity in various preclinical models and tested in clinical trials of advanced solid tumours and non-Hodgkin lymphoma [ 269 , 270 , 271 ]. Despite their improved potency, both ATP-competitive mTOR inhibitors and dual PI3K-mTOR inhibitors fail to fully overcome the resistance mechanisms of classical mTOR inhibitors [ 199 , 272 ], underscoring the complexity of targeting mTOR signalling in cancer therapy.

5.4.2. MNK Inhibitors

Translation inhibition can also be achieved by targeting MNK1/2 in the MAPK/ERK signalling pathway. Like mTOR inhibitors, selective MNK1/2 inhibitors have been heavily investigated over the past few decades [ 273 ]. High-throughput screening, in which numerous compounds were tested for their selectivity towards MNK1/2 compared to other kinases, were used [ 274 , 275 ]. Most small molecule inhibitors of MNK1/2 are ATP-competitive inhibitors that bind to the active conformation of MNK1/2 at its ATP binding pocket [ 276 , 277 ]. These inhibitors, including initial MNK 1/2 inhibitor cercosporamide, were found to effectively block eIF4E phosphorylation and induce anti-tumour activity in various preclinical cancer models [ 274 , 276 ]. Amongst them, three MNK1/2 inhibitors, BAY1143269, eFT508, and ETC-206, have been further evaluated in clinical trials.

BAY1143269, which features a characteristic amino-substituted imidazo [1, 2-b] pyridazine structure, binds and inhibits MNK1 and MNK2 at half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC 50 ) of 40 nM and 904 nM [ 275 ]. It was shown to inhibit eIF4E phosphorylation, exhibiting anti-tumour properties both in vitro and in vivo [ 275 , 278 ]. Notably, response to BAY1143269 was associated with deregulation of the pro-survival protein survivin, leading to the induction of cell cycle arrest and apoptosis [ 275 ]. When BAY1143269 was combined with docetaxel, a therapeutic agent known to induce survivin, tumour growth in xenograft models of NSCLC was suppressed [ 275 ]. The safety and efficacy of BAY1143269 was assessed in a phase I study ( NCT02439346 ), though the trial was terminated prematurely and no outcomes were published.

Similarly, eFT508 is a highly selective and potent inhibitor of MNK1/2, with IC 50 values of 2.4 nM and 1.0 nM against MNK1 and MNK2, respectively [ 279 ]. It contains a key pyridone-aminal structure designed to fit within the ATP-binding pocket of MNK1/2 and form hydrogen bonds stabilising its interaction [ 279 ]. Preclinical findings indicate that eFT508 effectively blocks eIF4E phosphorylation and results in tumour growth inhibition in various cancer models [ 279 ]. These promising results have led to further clinical assessments into the safety and efficacy of eFT508 in advanced solid tumours, including prostate, colorectal, and breast cancers [ 280 , 281 ]. A recent publication reported that eFT508 effectively inhibits MNK1/2 activity in metastatic breast cancer tissues and can be safely combined with paclitaxel for subsequent phase II studies [ 281 ]. Notably, Xu et al. demonstrated that eFT508 significantly reduced the abundance of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), a key immune checkpoint protein often elevated upregulated in cancer cells to evade immune evasion surveillance [ 282 ]. Their study proposed that tumours driven by MYC and KRAS oncogenes possess altered mRNA translation, which makes them susceptible to eFT508. By suppressing PD-L1 translation, eFT508 reversed the metastatic nature of these tumours. This finding provided the rationale for combining eFT508 with anti-PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors in clinical trials [ 282 ]. Preliminary findings of the phase II trial assessing the addition of eFT508 to checkpoint inhibitor therapy indicated that some patients with NSCLC, gastric, and renal cancer experience objective responses [ 283 ].

The third compound, ETC-206, also displays selectivity for both MNK1 (IC50 = 62 nM) and MNK2 (IC50 = 86 nM) and prevents phosphorylation of downstream target eIF4E [ 277 ]. It harbours an imidazo [1, 2-a] pyridine core structure that similarly occupies the ATP-binding site of MNK1/2 [ 277 ]. In addition to its anti-tumour activity as a single agent, studies show that ETC-206 synergizes with the BCR-ABL1 kinase inhibitor dasatinib, currently approved for the treatment of CML, to enhance tumour growth suppression in vivo [ 277 ]. Furthermore, recent findings indicate that ETC-206 was able to reverse multidrug resistance mediated by efflux transporter protein ABCG2 [ 284 ]. ETC-206 is currently being evaluated in combination with pembrolizumab or irinotecan for metastatic colorectal cancer in a phase II trial [ 285 ]. Interim data from the study found that ETC-206 was well-tolerated, prolonging the median time to progression and overall survival [ 285 ].

Despite the promise of MNK inhibitors, resistance mechanisms like those observed in mTOR/PI3K pathway inhibitors may arise [ 273 ]. Reactivation of MAPK/ERK signalling or other compensatory pathways could diminish their effectiveness, highlighting the need for combination therapies to sustain therapeutic responses.

5.5. Nuclear Export Inhibitor: Selinexor (KPT-330)

Over the past decade, selective inhibitors of nuclear export (SINE) have emerged as promising therapeutics by targeting nuclear-cytoplasmic transport of macromolecules ( Figure 5 ). XPO1 is a well-characterised nuclear export receptor responsible for transporting about 220 proteins bearing a nuclear export signal (NES) [ 286 , 287 ]. Amongst the proteins are tumour suppressors (such as Rb, p53, APC, FOXO), immune response mediators (such as the inhibitor of NF-κB, IκB) and cell cycle regulators (such as p21, cyclin B1/D1) [ 288 , 289 , 290 , 291 , 292 , 293 ]. XPO1 is also involved in transporting of a subset of mRNAs associated with the cap-binding protein eIF4E, particularly those encoding proteins involved in cell survival, proliferation, metastasis, and invasion (such as MYC, cyclin D1, and HDM2) [ 294 , 295 ]. In addition, XPO1 is also responsible for translocating pre-40S and -60S ribosomal subunits composed of rRNA from the nucleus to the cytoplasm [ 58 ]. Proteomic studies further suggest that XPO1 regulates ribosome maturation, translation, and mRNA degradation [ 296 ].

The critical biological role of XPO1 and its overexpression in various solid and haematologic malignancies have driven the development of SINE compounds as a targeted cancer therapy [ 297 , 298 , 299 ]. These small molecule inhibitors covalently bind to residue Cys 528 in the NES binding site of XPO1 in a slowly reversible manner, abrogating its nuclear export activity [ 300 ]. This causes nuclear retention and activation of tumour suppressor proteins and immune response mediators, whilst limiting nuclear-cytoplasmic export and translation of eIF4E-bound mRNAs [ 287 , 291 , 293 ]. Some of these mRNAs encode for cell cycle promoters, like cyclin D1/E and cyclin-dependent kinases, and anti-apoptotic proteins, like MCL-1 and BCL-xL [ 291 , 293 ]. As a result, growth signalling pathways such as Akt/PTEN/mTOR (via FOXO) and Wnt/β-catenin (via APC) are downregulated, leading to cell cycle arrest and apoptosis. Whilst the impact of XPO1 inhibition on ribosome biogenesis is less documented, studies using leptomycin B, a prototypical nuclear export inhibitor, have shown that blocking XPO1 reduces the export of pre-40S and -60S ribosomal subunits into the cytoplasm [ 58 ]. This suggests that disrupting ribosome synthesis and mRNA translation activity may be a critical mechanism through which SINE compounds exert their anti-cancer effects.

Across the SINE compounds developed, Selinexor (KPT-330) exhibited potent therapeutic efficacy with superior pharmacokinetic properties in various preclinical cancer models [ 287 , 301 ]. These findings supported the clinical investigations of Selinexor in haematologic malignancies and solid tumours [ 287 , 302 ]. Several clinical trials have evaluated the efficacy of Selinexor as a single agent and in combination with the standard-of-care therapeutics in heavily pre-treated MM [ 303 , 304 , 305 ]. The phase II STORM trial reported 26% of patients with triple-class refractory MM having partial response to Selinexor plus dexamethasone, with two patients achieving a complete response [ 303 ]. In the phase III BOSTON trial, the combination of Selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone resulted in a median progression-free-survival (PFS) of 13.9 months compared with 9.5 months in the bortezomib–dexamethasone group [ 304 ]. The multi-arm STOMP study assessing the combination of Selinexor and backbone treatments for MM also reported ORR of 73% in the daratumumab group, 78% in the carfilzomib group, and 40% in the pomalidomide group [ 305 , 306 , 307 , 308 ]. These positive results led to FDA approval of Selinexor in combination with bortezomib–dexamethasone for MM patients who have received at least one prior line of therapy.

Selinexor has also shown promising activity in other haematological cancers, including AML, CLL and non-Hodgkin lymphoma [ 309 , 310 , 311 , 312 ]. The keystone phase II SADAL trial which reported an ORR of 28% (36/127) in patients with DLBCL, led to FDA approval of Selinexor for the treatment of relapsed/refractory DLBCL [ 312 , 313 ]. Clinical trials have also tested Selinexor in solid cancers, including glioblastoma, soft tissue and bone sarcoma, dedifferentiated liposarcoma, ovarian, cervical, and endometrial cancers [ 314 ]. The response rate across these malignancies varied, though the therapeutic potential of Selinexor remains evident [ 287 ].

Whilst Selinexor has demonstrated clinical efficacy, several clinical challenges limit its broader use and long-term benefits. Adverse events including gastrointestinal toxicity, fatigue, and weight loss are significant, frequently leading to dose interruption or discontinuation [ 315 ]. Patients also face common haematologic and metabolic complications, such as thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and hyponatremia. These dose-limiting toxicities can be attenuated through lower doses and supportive care with antiemetics and growth factor support [ 316 ]. Furthermore, the mechanisms of acquired resistance to Selinexor are still under investigation. Potential factors contributing to resistance may involve compensatory upregulation of nuclear transport of FOXO3a through activation of the Akt pathway, activation of the NRG1-ERBB3 pathway, downregulation of TGF β-SMAD4 activity, or altered XPO1 binding via XPO1 Cys528 mutation [ 317 , 318 , 319 ]. Notably, through analysis of MM cells derived from patients enrolled in the BOSTON study, Restrepo et al. reported a three-gene signature, ETV7, WNT10A, and DUSP1, that predicts response to Selinexor-based therapy [ 320 ]. The study suggests that upregulation of these genes increases interferon-mediated apoptotic signalling, priming tumour cells to Selinexor therapy. Another study proposed XPO1, NF-kB (p65), MCL-1 and p53 protein levels as potential markers of response to XPO1 inhibitors in haematological malignancies [ 321 ].

Beyond its direct effect on tumour cells, Selinexor has been reported to exhibit immunomodulatory effects, which opens new opportunities for new combinations to enhance the efficacy and durability of response to immunotherapy. Preclinical studies have reported that Selinexor modulates immune cell functions through polarisation of macrophage cells to the anti-tumorigenic, immunostimulatory M1-like phenotype, improvement of NK cell function, and modulation of T-cell checkpoints [ 322 , 323 , 324 ]. Early clinical trial data assessing Selinexor as a bridging therapy for CAR-T therapy showed promising results, where patients with relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma and MM with patients achieving durable responses [ 325 , 326 ]. Optimising dosing strategies, developing biomarkers for improved patient selection, and developing better-tolerated second-generation XPO1 inhibitors (e.g., eltanexor) are active areas of investigation to enhance its therapeutic advancement.

6. Conclusions

Increased ribosome synthesis and altered mRNA translation are hallmarks of cancer cells that increase the anabolic demands required for malignant transformation and tumour growth. Targeting ribosome biogenesis and mRNA translation is a relatively new paradigm for treating cancer, showing encouraging preclinical and early-phase clinical activity. However, the functional complexity and heterogeneity of ribosomes in different cellular contexts complicate the development of selective inhibitors. Disruption of protein synthesis through a global suppression approach may prove effective in oncogene-driven cancers reliant on hyperactivated ribosome biogenesis. Alternatively, preferential inhibition of specific mechanisms that promote oncogenic mRNAs translation may have promising application in distinct genetic and molecular contexts, such as RP-mutated cancers. Equally as important is the development of predictive biomarkers for patient stratification to facilitate successful clinical translation of ribosome-targeting therapies.

Nevertheless, like other cancer therapeutic strategies, both intrinsic and acquired resistance pose a major challenge. Potential mechanisms associated with resistance to this new therapy can include alterations in ribosome composition, activation of compensatory signalling pathways, or adaptive translational reprogramming. Therefore, advancing the development of selective inhibitors, deepening our understanding of ribosome heterogeneity and translational addiction in cancer, and exploring effective combination strategies will be key to enhancing the clinical potential of ribosome-targeting therapies.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, A.K., J.K., E.S. and S.S.; writing—original draft preparation, K.G. and S.S.C.; writing—review and editing, A.K., J.K. and E.S.; supervision, E.S., A.K. and J.K.; funding acquisition, E.S., A.K. and J.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Unuma T. Busch H. Formation of microspherules in nucleoli of tumor cells treated with high doses of actinomycin D Cancer Res. 1967 27 1232 1242 4952515

2. Daskal Y. Woodard C. Crooke S.T. Busch H. Comparative ultrastructural studies of nucleoli of tumor cells treated with adriamycin and the newer anthracyclines, carminomycin and marcellomycin Cancer Res. 1978 38 467 473 202387

3. Derenzini M. Montanaro L. Trere D. Ribosome biogenesis and cancer Acta Histochem. 2017 119 190 197 10.1016/j.acthis.2017.01.009 28168996

4. Derenzini M. Montanaro L. Trere D. What the nucleolus says to a tumour pathologist Histopathology 2009 54 753 762 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2008.03168.x 19178588

5. Dhillon A.S. Hagan S. Rath O. Kolch W. MAP kinase signalling pathways in cancer Oncogene 2007 26 3279 3290 10.1038/sj.onc.1210421 17496922

6. Noorolyai S. Shajari N. Baghbani E. Sadreddini S. Baradaran B. The relation between PI3K/AKT signalling pathway and cancer Gene 2019 698 120 128 10.1016/j.gene.2019.02.076 30849534

7. Bailey M.H. Tokheim C. Porta-Pardo E. Sengupta S. Bertrand D. Weerasinghe A. Colaprico A. Wendl M.C. Kim J. Reardon B. Comprehensive Characterization of Cancer Driver Genes and Mutations Cell 2018 174 1034 1035 10.1016/j.cell.2018.07.034 30096302 PMC8045146

8. Jiao L. Liu Y. Yu X.Y. Pan X. Zhang Y. Tu J. Song Y.H. Li Y. Ribosome biogenesis in disease: New players and therapeutic targets Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 2023 8 15 10.1038/s41392-022-01285-4 36617563 PMC9826790

9. Kang J. Brajanovski N. Chan K.T. Xuan J. Pearson R.B. Sanij E. Ribosomal proteins and human diseases: Molecular mechanisms and targeted therapy Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 2021 6 323 10.1038/s41392-021-00728-8 34462428 PMC8405630

10. Sulima S.O. Kampen K.R. De Keersmaecker K. Cancer Biogenesis in Ribosomopathies Cells 2019 8 229 10.3390/cells8030229 30862070 PMC6468915

11. Thomson E. Ferreira-Cerca S. Hurt E. Eukaryotic ribosome biogenesis at a glance J. Cell Sci. 2013 126 4815 4821 10.1242/jcs.111948 24172536

12. Henras A.K. Soudet J. Gerus M. Lebaron S. Caizergues-Ferrer M. Mougin A. Henry Y. The post-transcriptional steps of eukaryotic ribosome biogenesis Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2008 65 2334 2359 10.1007/s00018-008-8027-0 18408888 PMC11131730

13. Dorner K. Ruggeri C. Zemp I. Kutay U. Ribosome biogenesis factors-from names to functions EMBO J. 2023 42 e112699 10.15252/embj.2022112699 36762427 PMC10068337

14. Lafontaine D.L.J. Riback J.A. Bascetin R. Brangwynne C.P. The nucleolus as a multiphase liquid condensate Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2021 22 165 182 10.1038/s41580-020-0272-6 32873929

15. Derenzini M. Thiry M. Goessens G. Ultrastructural cytochemistry of the mammalian cell nucleolus J. Histochem. Cytochem. 1990 38 1237 1256 10.1177/38.9.2201735 2201735

16. Henderson A.S. Warburton D. Atwood K.C. Location of ribosomal DNA in the human chromosome complement Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1972 69 3394 3398 10.1073/pnas.69.11.3394 4508329 PMC389778

17. McStay B. Nucleolar organizer regions: Genomic ‘dark matter’ requiring illumination Genes. Dev. 2016 30 1598 1610 10.1101/gad.283838.116 27474438 PMC4973289

18. McStay B. Grummt I. The epigenetics of rRNA genes: From molecular to chromosome biology Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 2008 24 131 157 10.1146/annurev.cellbio.24.110707.175259 18616426

19. Caburet S. Conti C. Schurra C. Lebofsky R. Edelstein S.J. Bensimon A. Human ribosomal RNA gene arrays display a broad range of palindromic structures Genome Res. 2005 15 1079 1085 10.1101/gr.3970105 16024823 PMC1182220

20. Nurk S. Koren S. Rhie A. Rautiainen M. Bzikadze A.V. Mikheenko A. Vollger M.R. Altemose N. Uralsky L. Gershman A. The complete sequence of a human genome Science 2022 376 44 53 10.1126/science.abj6987 35357919 PMC9186530

21. Liao W.W. Asri M. Ebler J. Doerr D. Haukness M. Hickey G. Lu S. Lucas J.K. Monlong J. Abel H.J. A draft human pangenome reference Nature 2023 617 312 324 10.1038/s41586-023-05896-x 37165242 PMC10172123

22. Sanij E. Hannan R.D. The role of UBF in regulating the structure and dynamics of transcriptionally active rDNA chromatin Epigenetics 2009 4 374 382 10.4161/epi.4.6.9449 19717978

23. Sanij E. Poortinga G. Sharkey K. Hung S. Holloway T.P. Quin J. Robb E. Wong L.H. Thomas W.G. Stefanovsky V. UBF levels determine the number of active ribosomal RNA genes in mammals J. Cell Biol. 2008 183 1259 1274 10.1083/jcb.200805146 19103806 PMC2606969

24. Hamperl S. Wittner M. Babl V. Perez-Fernandez J. Tschochner H. Griesenbeck J. Chromatin states at ribosomal DNA loci Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2013 1829 405 417 10.1016/j.bbagrm.2012.12.007 23291532

25. Hamdane N. Stefanovsky V.Y. Tremblay M.G. Nemeth A. Paquet E. Lessard F. Sanij E. Hannan R. Moss T. Conditional inactivation of Upstream Binding Factor reveals its epigenetic functions and the existence of a somatic nucleolar precursor body PLoS Genet. 2014 10 e1004505 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004505 25121932 PMC4133168

26. Zomerdijk J.C. Beckmann H. Comai L. Tjian R. Assembly of transcriptionally active RNA polymerase I initiation factor SL1 from recombinant subunits Science 1994 266 2015 2018 10.1126/science.7801130 7801130

27. Comai L. Tanese N. Tjian R. The TATA-binding protein and associated factors are integral components of the RNA polymerase I transcription factor, SL1 Cell 1992 68 965 976 10.1016/0092-8674(92)90039-F 1547496

28. Knutson B.A. Hahn S. TFIIB-related factors in RNA polymerase I transcription Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2013 1829 265 273 10.1016/j.bbagrm.2012.08.003 22960599 PMC3556359

29. Bywater M.J. Pearson R.B. McArthur G.A. Hannan R.D. Dysregulation of the basal RNA polymerase transcription apparatus in cancer Nat. Rev. Cancer 2013 13 299 314 10.1038/nrc3496 23612459

30. Engel C. Neyer S. Cramer P. Distinct Mechanisms of Transcription Initiation by RNA Polymerases I and II Annu Rev. Biophys. 2018 47 425 446 10.1146/annurev-biophys-070317-033058 29792819

31. Girbig M. Misiaszek A.D. Muller C.W. Structural insights into nuclear transcription by eukaryotic DNA-dependent RNA polymerases Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2022 23 603 622 10.1038/s41580-022-00476-9 35505252

32. Russell J. Zomerdijk J.C. The RNA polymerase I transcription machinery Biochem. Soc. Symp. 2006 73 203 216 10.1042/bss0730203 16626300 PMC3858827

33. Ray S. Panova T. Miller G. Volkov A. Porter A.C. Russell J. Panov K.I. Zomerdijk J.C. Topoisomerase IIalpha promotes activation of RNA polymerase I transcription by facilitating pre-initiation complex formation Nat. Commun. 2013 4 1598 10.1038/ncomms2599 23511463 PMC3615473

34. Zhang H. Wang J.C. Liu L.F. Involvement of DNA topoisomerase I in transcription of human ribosomal RNA genes Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1988 85 1060 1064 10.1073/pnas.85.4.1060 2829214 PMC279701

35. Ciganda M. Williams N. Eukaryotic 5S rRNA biogenesis Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. RNA 2011 2 523 533 10.1002/wrna.74 21957041 PMC3278907

36. Layat E. Probst A.V. Tourmente S. Structure, function and regulation of Transcription Factor IIIA: From Xenopus to Arabidopsis Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2013 1829 274 282 10.1016/j.bbagrm.2012.10.013 23142779

37. Hannan K.M. Soo P. Wong M.S. Lee J.K. Hein N. Poh P. Wysoke K.D. Williams T.D. Montellese C. Smith L.K. Nuclear stabilization of p53 requires a functional nucleolar surveillance pathway Cell Rep. 2022 41 111571 10.1016/j.celrep.2022.111571 36323262 PMC9647041

38. Kressler D. Bange G. Ogawa Y. Stjepanovic G. Bradatsch B. Pratte D. Amlacher S. Strauss D. Yoneda Y. Katahira J. Synchronizing nuclear import of ribosomal proteins with ribosome assembly Science 2012 338 666 671 10.1126/science.1226960 23118189

39. Jorjani H. Kehr S. Jedlinski D.J. Gumienny R. Hertel J. Stadler P.F. Zavolan M. Gruber A.R. An updated human snoRNAome Nucleic Acids Res. 2016 44 5068 5082 10.1093/nar/gkw386 27174936 PMC4914119

40. Hirose T. Steitz J.A. Position within the host intron is critical for efficient processing of box C/D snoRNAs in mammalian cells Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2001 98 12914 12919 10.1073/pnas.231490998 11606788 PMC60799

41. Marz M. Gruber A.R. Honer Zu Siederdissen C. Amman F. Badelt S. Bartschat S. Bernhart S.H. Beyer W. Kehr S. Lorenz R. Animal snoRNAs and scaRNAs with exceptional structures RNA Biol. 2011 8 938 946 10.4161/rna.8.6.16603 21955586 PMC3256416

42. Grandi P. Rybin V. Bassler J. Petfalski E. Strauss D. Marzioch M. Schafer T. Kuster B. Tschochner H. Tollervey D. 90S pre-ribosomes include the 35S pre-rRNA, the U3 snoRNP, and 40S subunit processing factors but predominantly lack 60S synthesis factors Mol. Cell 2002 10 105 115 10.1016/S1097-2765(02)00579-8 12150911

43. Kiss-Laszlo Z. Henry Y. Bachellerie J.P. Caizergues-Ferrer M. Kiss T. Site-specific ribose methylation of preribosomal RNA: A novel function for small nucleolar RNAs Cell 1996 85 1077 1088 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81308-2 8674114

44. Albanese V. Reissmann S. Frydman J. A ribosome-anchored chaperone network that facilitates eukaryotic ribosome biogenesis J. Cell Biol. 2010 189 69 81 10.1083/jcb.201001054 20368619 PMC2854368

45. Leidig C. Bange G. Kopp J. Amlacher S. Aravind A. Wickles S. Witte G. Hurt E. Beckmann R. Sinning I. Structural characterization of a eukaryotic chaperone--the ribosome-associated complex Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2013 20 23 28 10.1038/nsmb.2447 23202586

46. Klinge S. Woolford J.L. Jr. Ribosome assembly coming into focus Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2019 20 116 131 10.1038/s41580-018-0078-y 30467428 PMC7725133

47. Vanden Broeck A. Klinge S. An emerging mechanism for the maturation of the Small Subunit Processome Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2022 73 102331 10.1016/j.sbi.2022.102331 35176592

48. Singh S. Vanden Broeck A. Miller L. Chaker-Margot M. Klinge S. Nucleolar maturation of the human small subunit processome Science 2021 373 eabj5338 10.1126/science.abj5338 34516797 PMC8744464

49. Vanden Broeck A. Klinge S. Eukaryotic Ribosome Assembly Annu. Rev. Biochem. 2024 93 189 210 10.1146/annurev-biochem-030222-113611 38768392

50. Bohnsack K.E. Bohnsack M.T. Uncovering the assembly pathway of human ribosomes and its emerging links to disease EMBO J. 2019 38 e100278 10.15252/embj.2018100278 31268599 PMC6600647

51. Bailey A.D. Talkish J. Ding H. Igel H. Duran A. Mantripragada S. Paten B. Ares M. Concerted modification of nucleotides at functional centers of the ribosome revealed by single-molecule RNA modification profiling Elife 2022 11 e76562 10.7554/eLife.76562 35384842 PMC9045821

52. Meyer B. Wurm J.P. Sharma S. Immer C. Pogoryelov D. Kotter P. Lafontaine D.L. Wohnert J. Entian K.D. Ribosome biogenesis factor Tsr3 is the aminocarboxypropyl transferase responsible for 18S rRNA hypermodification in yeast and humans Nucleic Acids Res. 2016 44 4304 4316 10.1093/nar/gkw244 27084949 PMC4872110

53. Schosserer M. Minois N. Angerer T.B. Amring M. Dellago H. Harreither E. Calle-Perez A. Pircher A. Peter Gerstl M. Pfeifenberger S. Corrigendum: Methylation of ribosomal RNA by NSUN5 is a conserved mechanism modulating organismal lifespan Nat. Commun. 2016 7 11530 10.1038/ncomms11530 27167997 PMC4865849

54. Sharma S. Yang J. van Nues R. Watzinger P. Kotter P. Lafontaine D.L.J. Granneman S. Entian K.D. Specialized box C/D snoRNPs act as antisense guides to target RNA base acetylation PLoS Genet. 2017 13 e1006804 10.1371/journal.pgen.1006804 28542199 PMC5464676

55. Haruehanroengra P. Zheng Y.Y. Zhou Y. Huang Y. Sheng J. RNA modifications and cancer RNA Biol. 2020 17 1560 1575 10.1080/15476286.2020.1722449 31994439 PMC7567502

56. Cui L. Zheng J. Lin Y. Lin P. Lu Y. Zheng Y. Guo B. Zhao X. Decoding the ribosome's hidden language: rRNA modifications as key players in cancer dynamics and targeted therapies Clin. Transl. Med. 2024 14 e1705 10.1002/ctm2.1705 38797935 PMC11128715

57. Johnson A.W. Lund E. Dahlberg J. Nuclear export of ribosomal subunits Trends Biochem. Sci. 2002 27 580 585 10.1016/S0968-0004(02)02208-9 12417134

58. Thomas F. Kutay U. Biogenesis and nuclear export of ribosomal subunits in higher eukaryotes depend on the CRM1 export pathway J. Cell Sci. 2003 116 2409 2419 10.1242/jcs.00464 12724356

59. Wild T. Horvath P. Wyler E. Widmann B. Badertscher L. Zemp I. Kozak K. Csucs G. Lund E. Kutay U. A protein inventory of human ribosome biogenesis reveals an essential function of exportin 5 in 60S subunit export PLoS Biol. 2010 8 e1000522 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000522 21048991 PMC2964341

60. Jackson R.J. Hellen C.U. Pestova T.V. The mechanism of eukaryotic translation initiation and principles of its regulation Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2010 11 113 127 10.1038/nrm2838 20094052 PMC4461372

61. Fabbri L. Chakraborty A. Robert C. Vagner S. The plasticity of mRNA translation during cancer progression and therapy resistance Nat. Rev. Cancer 2021 21 558 577 10.1038/s41568-021-00380-y 34341537

62. Hinnebusch A.G. Structural Insights into the Mechanism of Scanning and Start Codon Recognition in Eukaryotic Translation Initiation Trends Biochem. Sci. 2017 42 589 611 10.1016/j.tibs.2017.03.004 28442192

63. Hinnebusch A.G. Ivanov I.P. Sonenberg N. Translational control by 5’-untranslated regions of eukaryotic mRNAs Science 2016 352 1413 1416 10.1126/science.aad9868 27313038 PMC7422601

64. Knight J.R.P. Garland G. Poyry T. Mead E. Vlahov N. Sfakianos A. Grosso S. De-Lima-Hedayioglu F. Mallucci G.R. von der Haar T. Control of translation elongation in health and disease Dis. Model Mech. 2020 13 dmm043208 10.1242/dmm.043208 32298235 PMC7104864

65. Hellen C.U.T. Translation Termination and Ribosome Recycling in Eukaryotes Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2018 10 a032656 10.1101/cshperspect.a032656 29735640 PMC6169810

66. Dever T.E. Green R. The elongation, termination, and recycling phases of translation in eukaryotes Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2012 4 a013706 10.1101/cshperspect.a013706 22751155 PMC3385960

67. Shore D. Albert B. Ribosome biogenesis and the cellular energy economy Curr. Biol. 2022 32 R611 R617 10.1016/j.cub.2022.04.083 35728540

68. Carotenuto P. Pecoraro A. Palma G. Russo G. Russo A. Therapeutic Approaches Targeting Nucleolus in Cancer Cells 2019 8 1090 10.3390/cells8091090 31527430 PMC6770360

69. Pederson T. The nucleolus Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2011 3 a000638 10.1101/cshperspect.a000638 21106648 PMC3039934

70. Iarovaia O.V. Minina E.P. Sheval E.V. Onichtchouk D. Dokudovskaya S. Razin S.V. Vassetzky Y.S. Nucleolus: A Central Hub for Nuclear Functions Trends Cell Biol. 2019 29 647 659 10.1016/j.tcb.2019.04.003 31176528

71. Gavrilova A.A. Neklesova M.V. Zagryadskaya Y.A. Kuznetsova I.M. Turoverov K.K. Fonin A.V. Stress-Induced Evolution of the Nucleolus: The Role of Ribosomal Intergenic Spacer (rIGS) Transcripts Biomolecules 2024 14 1333 10.3390/biom14101333 39456266 PMC11505599

72. Sakthivel D. Brown-Suedel A. Bouchier-Hayes L. The role of the nucleolus in regulating the cell cycle and the DNA damage response Adv. Protein. Chem. Struct. Biol. 2023 135 203 241 10.1016/bs.apcsb.2023.01.001 37061332

73. Gonzalez-Arzola K. The nucleolus: Coordinating stress response and genomic stability Biochim. Biophys. Acta Gene Regul. Mech. 2024 1867 195029 10.1016/j.bbagrm.2024.195029 38642633

74. King M.R. Ruff K.M. Pappu R.V. Emergent microenvironments of nucleoli Nucleus 2024 15 2319957 10.1080/19491034.2024.2319957 38443761 PMC10936679

75. Brown I.N. Lafita-Navarro M.C. Conacci-Sorrell M. Regulation of Nucleolar Activity by MYC Cells 2022 11 574 10.3390/cells11030574 35159381 PMC8834138

76. Corman A. Sirozh O. Lafarga V. Fernandez-Capetillo O. Targeting the nucleolus as a therapeutic strategy in human disease Trends Biochem. Sci. 2023 48 274 287 10.1016/j.tibs.2022.09.006 36229381

77. Potapova T.A. Gerton J.L. Ribosomal DNA and the nucleolus in the context of genome organization Chromosome Res. 2019 27 109 127 10.1007/s10577-018-9600-5 30656516

78. Feric M. Vaidya N. Harmon T.S. Mitrea D.M. Zhu L. Richardson T.M. Kriwacki R.W. Pappu R.V. Brangwynne C.P. Coexisting Liquid Phases Underlie Nucleolar Subcompartments Cell 2016 165 1686 1697 10.1016/j.cell.2016.04.047 27212236 PMC5127388

79. Yoneda M. Nakagawa T. Hattori N. Ito T. The nucleolus from a liquid droplet perspective J. Biochem. 2021 170 153 162 10.1093/jb/mvab090 34358306

80. Lam Y.W. Trinkle-Mulcahy L. New insights into nucleolar structure and function F1000Prime Rep 2015 7 48 10.12703/P7-48 26097721 PMC4447046

81. Boulon S. Westman B.J. Hutten S. Boisvert F.M. Lamond A.I. The nucleolus under stress Mol. Cell 2010 40 216 227 10.1016/j.molcel.2010.09.024 20965417 PMC2987465

82. Munoz-Velasco I. Herrera-Escamilla A.K. Vazquez-Salazar A. Nucleolar origins: Challenging perspectives on evolution and function Open Biol. 2025 15 240330 10.1098/rsob.240330 40068812 PMC11896706

83. Sirri V. Urcuqui-Inchima S. Roussel P. Hernandez-Verdun D. Nucleolus: The fascinating nuclear body Histochem. Cell Biol. 2008 129 13 31 10.1007/s00418-007-0359-6 18046571 PMC2137947

84. Boisvert F.M. van Koningsbruggen S. Navascues J. Lamond A.I. The multifunctional nucleolus Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2007 8 574 585 10.1038/nrm2184 17519961

85. Mayer C. Grummt I. Cellular stress and nucleolar function Cell Cycle 2005 4 1036 1038 10.4161/cc.4.8.1925 16205120

86. Yung B.Y. Busch R.K. Busch H. Mauger A.B. Chan P.K. Effects of actinomycin D analogs on nucleolar phosphoprotein B23 (37,000 daltons/pI 5.1) Biochem. Pharmacol. 1985 34 4059 4063 10.1016/0006-2952(85)90387-9 2415133

87. Pestov D.G. Strezoska Z. Lau L.F. Evidence of p53-dependent cross-talk between ribosome biogenesis and the cell cycle: Effects of nucleolar protein Bop1 on G(1)/S transition Mol. Cell Biol. 2001 21 4246 4255 10.1128/MCB.21.13.4246-4255.2001 11390653 PMC87085

88. Yang K. Yang J. Yi J. Nucleolar Stress: Hallmarks, sensing mechanism and diseases Cell Stress 2018 2 125 140 10.15698/cst2018.06.139 31225478 PMC6551681

89. Nicolas E. Parisot P. Pinto-Monteiro C. de Walque R. De Vleeschouwer C. Lafontaine D.L. Involvement of human ribosomal proteins in nucleolar structure and p53-dependent nucleolar stress Nat. Commun. 2016 7 11390 10.1038/ncomms11390 27265389 PMC4897761

90. Xuan J. Gitareja K. Brajanovski N. Sanij E. Harnessing the Nucleolar DNA Damage Response in Cancer Therapy Genes 2021 12 1156 10.3390/genes12081156 34440328 PMC8393943

91. Maehama T. Nishio M. Otani J. Mak T.W. Suzuki A. Nucleolar stress: Molecular mechanisms and related human diseases Cancer Sci. 2023 114 2078 2086 10.1111/cas.15755 36762786 PMC10154868

92. Rubbi C.P. Milner J. Disruption of the nucleolus mediates stabilization of p53 in response to DNA damage and other stresses EMBO J. 2003 22 6068 6077 10.1093/emboj/cdg579 14609953 PMC275437

93. Liu Y. Deisenroth C. Zhang Y. RP-MDM2-p53 Pathway: Linking Ribosomal Biogenesis and Tumor Surveillance Trends Cancer 2016 2 191 204 10.1016/j.trecan.2016.03.002 28741571 PMC5531060

94. Sulima S.O. Hofman I.J.F. De Keersmaecker K. Dinman J.D. How Ribosomes Translate Cancer Cancer Discov. 2017 7 1069 1087 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-17-0550 28923911 PMC5630089

95. Kampen K.R. Sulima S.O. Vereecke S. De Keersmaecker K. Hallmarks of ribosomopathies Nucleic Acids Res. 2020 48 1013 1028 10.1093/nar/gkz637 31350888 PMC7026650

96. Da Costa L. Leblanc T. Mohandas N. Diamond-Blackfan anemia Blood 2020 136 1262 1273 10.1182/blood.2019000947 32702755 PMC7483438

97. Da Costa L. Mohandas N. David N.L. Platon J. Marie I. O'Donohue M.F. Leblanc T. Gleizes P.E. Diamond-Blackfan anemia, the archetype of ribosomopathy: How distinct is it from the other constitutional ribosomopathies? Blood Cells Mol. Dis. 2024 106 102838 10.1016/j.bcmd.2024.102838 38413287

98. Ulirsch J.C. Verboon J.M. Kazerounian S. Guo M.H. Yuan D. Ludwig L.S. Handsaker R.E. Abdulhay N.J. Fiorini C. Genovese G. The Genetic Landscape of Diamond-Blackfan Anemia Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2019 104 356 10.1016/j.ajhg.2018.12.011 30735661 PMC6372259

99. Liu Y. Karlsson S. Perspectives of current understanding and therapeutics of Diamond-Blackfan anemia Leukemia 2024 38 1 9 10.1038/s41375-023-02101-w 37973818 PMC10776401

100. Ludwig L.S. Gazda H.T. Eng J.C. Eichhorn S.W. Thiru P. Ghazvinian R. George T.I. Gotlib J.R. Beggs A.H. Sieff C.A. Altered translation of GATA1 in Diamond-Blackfan anemia Nat. Med. 2014 20 748 753 10.1038/nm.3557 24952648 PMC4087046

101. Gripp K.W. Curry C. Olney A.H. Sandoval C. Fisher J. Chong J.X. Genomics U.W.C.f.M. Pilchman L. Sahraoui R. Stabley D.L. Diamond-Blackfan anemia with mandibulofacial dystostosis is heterogeneous, including the novel DBA genes TSR2 and RPS28 Am. J. Med. Genet. A. 2014 164 2240 2249 10.1002/ajmg.a.36633 24942156 PMC4149220

102. O’Donohue M.F. Da Costa L. Lezzerini M. Unal S. Joret C. Bartels M. Brilstra E. Scheijde-Vermeulen M. Wacheul L. De Keersmaecker K. HEATR3 variants impair nuclear import of uL18 (RPL5) and drive Diamond-Blackfan anemia Blood 2022 139 3111 3126 10.1182/blood.2021011846 35213692 PMC9136880

103. Vlachos A. Muir E. How I treat Diamond-Blackfan anemia Blood 2010 116 3715 3723 10.1182/blood-2010-02-251090 20651069 PMC2981532

104. Iskander D. Wang G. Heuston E.F. Christodoulidou C. Psaila B. Ponnusamy K. Ren H. Mokhtari Z. Robinson M. Chaidos A. Single-cell profiling of human bone marrow progenitors reveals mechanisms of failing erythropoiesis in Diamond-Blackfan anemia Sci. Transl. Med. 2021 13 eabf0113 10.1126/scitranslmed.abf0113 34516827

105. Wang B. Wang C. Wan Y. Gao J. Ma Y. Zhang Y. Tong J. Zhang Y. Liu J. Chang L. Decoding the pathogenesis of Diamond-Blackfan anemia using single-cell RNA-seq Cell Discov. 2022 8 41 10.1038/s41421-022-00389-z 35534476 PMC9085895

106. Ashley R.J. Yan H. Wang N. Hale J. Dulmovits B.M. Papoin J. Olive M.E. Udeshi N.D. Carr S.A. Vlachos A. Steroid resistance in Diamond Blackfan anemia associates with p57Kip2 dysregulation in erythroid progenitors J. Clin. Investig. 2020 130 2097 2110 10.1172/JCI132284 31961825 PMC7108903

107. Maceckova Z. Kubickova A. De Sanctis J.B. Hajduch M. Effect of Glucocorticosteroids in Diamond-Blackfan Anaemia: Maybe Not as Elusive as It Seems Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022 23 1886 10.3390/ijms23031886 35163808 PMC8837118

108. Vlachos A. Rosenberg P.S. Atsidaftos E. Alter B.P. Lipton J.M. Incidence of neoplasia in Diamond Blackfan anemia: A report from the Diamond Blackfan Anemia Registry Blood 2012 119 3815 3819 10.1182/blood-2011-08-375972 22362038 PMC3335385

109. Vlachos A. Rosenberg P.S. Atsidaftos E. Kang J. Onel K. Sharaf R.N. Alter B.P. Lipton J.M. Increased risk of colon cancer and osteogenic sarcoma in Diamond-Blackfan anemia Blood 2018 132 2205 2208 10.1182/blood-2018-05-848937 30266775 PMC6238192

110. Thompson A.S. Giri N. Gianferante D.M. Jones K. Savage S.A. Alter B.P. McReynolds L.J. Shwachman Diamond syndrome: Narrow genotypic spectrum and variable clinical features Pediatr. Res. 2022 92 1671 1680 10.1038/s41390-022-02009-8 35322185 PMC9500118

111. Mason P.J. Bessler M. The genetics of dyskeratosis congenita Cancer Genet. 2011 204 635 645 10.1016/j.cancergen.2011.11.002 22285015 PMC3269008

112. Goldfarb K.C. Cech T.R. Targeted CRISPR disruption reveals a role for RNase MRP RNA in human preribosomal RNA processing Genes Dev. 2017 31 59 71 10.1101/gad.286963.116 28115465 PMC5287113

113. Valdez B.C. Henning D. So R.B. Dixon J. Dixon M.J. The Treacher Collins syndrome (TCOF1) gene product is involved in ribosomal DNA gene transcription by interacting with upstream binding factor Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2004 101 10709 10714 10.1073/pnas.0402492101 15249688 PMC489999

114. Reilly C.R. Shimamura A. Predisposition to myeloid malignancies in Shwachman-Diamond syndrome: Biological insights and clinical advances Blood 2023 141 1513 1523 10.1182/blood.2022017739 36542827 PMC10082379

115. Ajore R. Raiser D. McConkey M. Joud M. Boidol B. Mar B. Saksena G. Weinstock D.M. Armstrong S. Ellis S.R. Deletion of ribosomal protein genes is a common vulnerability in human cancer, especially in concert with TP53 mutations EMBO Mol. Med. 2017 9 498 507 10.15252/emmm.201606660 28264936 PMC5376749

116. Fancello L. Kampen K.R. Hofman I.J. Verbeeck J. De Keersmaecker K. The ribosomal protein gene RPL5 is a haploinsufficient tumor suppressor in multiple cancer types Oncotarget 2017 8 14462 14478 10.18632/oncotarget.14895 28147343 PMC5362418

117. Hofman I.J.F. van Duin M. De Bruyne E. Fancello L. Mulligan G. Geerdens E. Garelli E. Mancini C. Lemmens H. Delforge M. RPL5 on 1p22.1 is recurrently deleted in multiple myeloma and its expression is linked to bortezomib response Leukemia 2017 31 1706 1714 10.1038/leu.2016.370 27909306 PMC5380219

118. Rao S. Lee S.Y. Gutierrez A. Perrigoue J. Thapa R.J. Tu Z. Jeffers J.R. Rhodes M. Anderson S. Oravecz T. Inactivation of ribosomal protein L22 promotes transformation by induction of the stemness factor, Lin28B Blood 2012 120 3764 3773 10.1182/blood-2012-03-415349 22976955 PMC3488889

119. Ferreira A.M. Tuominen I. van Dijk-Bos K. Sanjabi B. van der Sluis T. van der Zee A.G. Hollema H. Zazula M. Sijmons R.H. Aaltonen L.A. High frequency of RPL22 mutations in microsatellite-unstable colorectal and endometrial tumors Hum. Mutat. 2014 35 1442 1445 10.1002/humu.22686 25196364

120. De Keersmaecker K. Atak Z.K. Li N. Vicente C. Patchett S. Girardi T. Gianfelici V. Geerdens E. Clappier E. Porcu M. Exome sequencing identifies mutation in CNOT3 and ribosomal genes RPL5 and RPL10 in T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia Nat. Genet. 2013 45 186 190 10.1038/ng.2508 23263491 PMC5547913

121. Liu Y. Easton J. Shao Y. Maciaszek J. Wang Z. Wilkinson M.R. McCastlain K. Edmonson M. Pounds S.B. Shi L. The genomic landscape of pediatric and young adult T-lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia Nat. Genet. 2017 49 1211 1218 10.1038/ng.3909 28671688 PMC5535770

122. Orsolic I. Bursac S. Jurada D. Drmic Hofman I. Dembic Z. Bartek J. Mihalek I. Volarevic S. Cancer-associated mutations in the ribosomal protein L5 gene dysregulate the HDM2/p53-mediated ribosome biogenesis checkpoint Oncogene 2020 39 3443 3457 10.1038/s41388-020-1231-6 32108164

123. Landau D.A. Tausch E. Taylor-Weiner A.N. Stewart C. Reiter J.G. Bahlo J. Kluth S. Bozic I. Lawrence M. Bottcher S. Mutations driving CLL and their evolution in progression and relapse Nature 2015 526 525 530 10.1038/nature15395 26466571 PMC4815041

124. Ljungstrom V. Cortese D. Young E. Pandzic T. Mansouri L. Plevova K. Ntoufa S. Baliakas P. Clifford R. Sutton L.A. Whole-exome sequencing in relapsing chronic lymphocytic leukemia: Clinical impact of recurrent RPS15 mutations Blood 2016 127 1007 1016 10.1182/blood-2015-10-674572 26675346 PMC4768426

125. Nieminen T.T. O’Donohue M.F. Wu Y. Lohi H. Scherer S.W. Paterson A.D. Ellonen P. Abdel-Rahman W.M. Valo S. Mecklin J.P. Germline mutation of RPS20, encoding a ribosomal protein, causes predisposition to hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma without DNA mismatch repair deficiency Gastroenterology 2014 147 595 598 10.1053/j.gastro.2014.06.009 24941021 PMC4155505

126. Dutton-Regester K. Gartner J.J. Emmanuel R. Qutob N. Davies M.A. Gershenwald J.E. Robinson W. Robinson S. Rosenberg S.A. Scolyer R.A. A highly recurrent RPS27 5'UTR mutation in melanoma Oncotarget 2014 5 2912 2917 10.18632/oncotarget.2048 24913145 PMC4102779

127. Gay D.M. Lund A.H. Jansson M.D. Translational control through ribosome heterogeneity and functional specialization Trends Biochem. Sci. 2022 47 66 81 10.1016/j.tibs.2021.07.001 34312084

128. Zhang Z. Xu A. Bai Y. Chen Y. Cates K. Kerr C. Bermudez A. Susanto T.T. Wysong K. Garcia Marques F.J. A subcellular map of translational machinery composition and regulation at the single-molecule level Science 2025 387 eadn2623 10.1126/science.adn2623 40048539 PMC13102253

129. Kampen K.R. Sulima S.O. Verbelen B. Girardi T. Vereecke S. Fancello L. Rinaldi G. Verbeeck J. Op de Beeck J. Uyttebroeck A. Correction: The ribosomal RPL10 R98S mutation drives IRES-dependent BCL-2 translation in T-ALL Leukemia 2019 33 1055 1062 10.1038/s41375-019-0424-x 30850735 PMC6756081

130. Girardi T. Vereecke S. Sulima S.O. Khan Y. Fancello L. Briggs J.W. Schwab C. de Beeck J.O. Verbeeck J. Royaert J. The T-cell leukemia-associated ribosomal RPL10 R98S mutation enhances JAK-STAT signaling Leukemia 2018 32 809 819 10.1038/leu.2017.225 28744013 PMC5669462

131. Marcel V. Ghayad S.E. Belin S. Therizols G. Morel A.P. Solano-Gonzalez E. Vendrell J.A. Hacot S. Mertani H.C. Albaret M.A. p53 acts as a safeguard of translational control by regulating fibrillarin and rRNA methylation in cancer Cancer Cell 2013 24 318 330 10.1016/j.ccr.2013.08.013 24029231 PMC7106277

132. Sun X. Gao C. Xu X. Li M. Zhao X. Wang Y. Wang Y. Zhang S. Yan Z. Liu X. FBL promotes cancer cell resistance to DNA damage and BRCA1 transcription via YBX1 EMBO Rep. 2023 24 e56230 10.15252/embr.202256230 37489617 PMC10481664

133. Yoon A. Peng G. Brandenburger Y. Zollo O. Xu W. Rego E. Ruggero D. Impaired control of IRES-mediated translation in X-linked dyskeratosis congenita Science 2006 312 902 906 10.1126/science.1123835 16690864

134. Bellodi C. Kopmar N. Ruggero D. Deregulation of oncogene-induced senescence and p53 translational control in X-linked dyskeratosis congenita EMBO J. 2010 29 1865 1876 10.1038/emboj.2010.83 20453831 PMC2885924

135. Kampen K.R. Fancello L. Girardi T. Rinaldi G. Planque M. Sulima S.O. Loayza-Puch F. Verbelen B. Vereecke S. Verbeeck J. Translatome analysis reveals altered serine and glycine metabolism in T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia cells Nat. Commun. 2019 10 2542 10.1038/s41467-019-10508-2 31186416 PMC6559966

136. Sulima S.O. Kampen K.R. Vereecke S. Pepe D. Fancello L. Verbeeck J. Dinman J.D. De Keersmaecker K. Ribosomal Lesions Promote Oncogenic Mutagenesis Cancer Res. 2019 79 320 327 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-18-1987 30482776 PMC7116100

137. Casacuberta-Serra S. Gonzalez-Larreategui I. Capitan-Leo D. Soucek L. MYC and KRAS cooperation: From historical challenges to therapeutic opportunities in cancer Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 2024 9 205 10.1038/s41392-024-01907-z 39164274 PMC11336233

138. Schaub F.X. Dhankani V. Berger A.C. Trivedi M. Richardson A.B. Shaw R. Zhao W. Zhang X. Ventura A. Liu Y. Pan-cancer Alterations of the MYC Oncogene and Its Proximal Network across the Cancer Genome Atlas Cell Syst. 2018 6 282 300 10.1016/j.cels.2018.03.003 29596783 PMC5892207

139. Campbell K.J. White R.J. MYC regulation of cell growth through control of transcription by RNA polymerases I and III Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med. 2014 4 a018408 10.1101/cshperspect.a018408 24789877 PMC3996375

140. Stine Z.E. Walton Z.E. Altman B.J. Hsieh A.L. Dang C.V. MYC, Metabolism, and Cancer Cancer Discov. 2015 5 1024 1039 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-15-0507 26382145 PMC4592441

141. Dhanasekaran R. Deutzmann A. Mahauad-Fernandez W.D. Hansen A.S. Gouw A.M. Felsher D.W. The MYC oncogene—the grand orchestrator of cancer growth and immune evasion Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2022 19 23 36 10.1038/s41571-021-00549-2 34508258 PMC9083341

142. Martini M. De Santis M.C. Braccini L. Gulluni F. Hirsch E. PI3K/AKT signaling pathway and cancer: An updated review Ann. Med 2014 46 372 383 10.3109/07853890.2014.912836 24897931

143. Piazzi M. Bavelloni A. Gallo A. Faenza I. Blalock W.L. Signal Transduction in Ribosome Biogenesis: A Recipe to Avoid Disaster Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019 20 2718 10.3390/ijms20112718 31163577 PMC6600399

144. Papa A. Pandolfi P.P. The PTEN(-)PI3K Axis in Cancer Biomolecules 2019 9 153 10.3390/biom9040153 30999672 PMC6523724

145. Mendoza M.C. Er E.E. Blenis J. The Ras-ERK and PI3K-mTOR pathways: Cross-talk and compensation Trends Biochem. Sci. 2011 36 320 328 10.1016/j.tibs.2011.03.006 21531565 PMC3112285

146. Topisirovic I. Sonenberg N. mRNA translation and energy metabolism in cancer: The role of the MAPK and mTORC1 pathways Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. 2011 76 355 367 10.1101/sqb.2011.76.010785 22123850

147. Thoreen C.C. Chantranupong L. Keys H.R. Wang T. Gray N.S. Sabatini D.M. A unifying model for mTORC1-mediated regulation of mRNA translation Nature 2012 485 109 113 10.1038/nature11083 22552098 PMC3347774

148. Sonenberg N. Hinnebusch A.G. Regulation of translation initiation in eukaryotes: Mechanisms and biological targets Cell 2009 136 731 745 10.1016/j.cell.2009.01.042 19239892 PMC3610329

149. Holz M.K. Ballif B.A. Gygi S.P. Blenis J. mTOR and S6K1 mediate assembly of the translation preinitiation complex through dynamic protein interchange and ordered phosphorylation events Cell 2005 123 569 580 10.1016/j.cell.2005.10.024 16286006

150. Wang X. Li W. Williams M. Terada N. Alessi D.R. Proud C.G. Regulation of elongation factor 2 kinase by p90(RSK1) and p70 S6 kinase EMBO J. 2001 20 4370 4379 10.1093/emboj/20.16.4370 11500364 PMC125559

151. Li S. Chen J.S. Li X. Bai X. Shi D. MNK, mTOR or eIF4E-selecting the best anti-tumor target for blocking translation initiation Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2023 260 115781 10.1016/j.ejmech.2023.115781 37669595

152. Silva R.L. Wendel H.G. MNK, EIF4E and targeting translation for therapy Cell Cycle 2008 7 553 555 10.4161/cc.7.5.5486 18256539

153. Burger K. Muhl B. Harasim T. Rohrmoser M. Malamoussi A. Orban M. Kellner M. Gruber-Eber A. Kremmer E. Holzel M. Chemotherapeutic drugs inhibit ribosome biogenesis at various levels J. Biol. Chem. 2010 285 12416 12425 10.1074/jbc.M109.074211 20159984 PMC2852979

154. Siddik Z.H. Cisplatin: Mode of cytotoxic action and molecular basis of resistance Oncogene 2003 22 7265 7279 10.1038/sj.onc.1206933 14576837

155. Dilruba S. Kalayda G.V. Platinum-based drugs: Past, present and future Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 2016 77 1103 1124 10.1007/s00280-016-2976-z 26886018

156. Jordan P. Carmo-Fonseca M. Cisplatin inhibits synthesis of ribosomal RNA in vivo Nucleic Acids Res. 1998 26 2831 2836 10.1093/nar/26.12.2831 9611224 PMC147654

157. Bruno P.M. Liu Y. Park G.Y. Murai J. Koch C.E. Eisen T.J. Pritchard J.R. Pommier Y. Lippard S.J. Hemann M.T. A subset of platinum-containing chemotherapeutic agents kills cells by inducing ribosome biogenesis stress Nat. Med. 2017 23 461 471 10.1038/nm.4291 28263311 PMC5520548

158. Sutton E.C. DeRose V.J. Early nucleolar responses differentiate mechanisms of cell death induced by oxaliplatin and cisplatin J. Biol. Chem. 2021 296 100633 10.1016/j.jbc.2021.100633 33819479 PMC8131322

159. Ferreira R. Schneekloth J.S. Jr. Panov K.I. Hannan K.M. Hannan R.D. Targeting the RNA Polymerase I Transcription for Cancer Therapy Comes of Age Cells 2020 9 266 10.3390/cells9020266 31973211 PMC7072222

160. Perry R.P. Kelley D.E. Inhibition of RNA synthesis by actinomycin D: Characteristic dose-response of different RNA species J. Cell. Physiol. 1970 76 127 139 10.1002/jcp.1040760202 5500970

161. Tomasz M. Mitomycin C: Small, fast and deadly (but very selective) Chem. Biol. 1995 2 575 579 10.1016/1074-5521(95)90120-5 9383461

162. Chatterjee N. Walker G.C. Mechanisms of DNA damage, repair, and mutagenesis Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 2017 58 235 263 10.1002/em.22087 28485537 PMC5474181

163. Avendaño C. Menéndez J.C. Medicinal Chemistry of Anticancer Drugs Elsevier Science San Diego, CA, USA 2023

164. Longley D.B. Harkin D.P. Johnston P.G. 5-fluorouracil: Mechanisms of action and clinical strategies Nat. Rev. Cancer 2003 3 330 338 10.1038/nrc1074 12724731

165. Liang Y.Y. Bacanu S. Sreekumar L. Ramos A.D. Dai L. Michaelis M. Cinatl J. Seki T. Cao Y. Coffill C.R. CETSA interaction proteomics define specific RNA-modification pathways as key components of fluorouracil-based cancer drug cytotoxicity Cell Chem. Biol. 2022 29 572 585 10.1016/j.chembiol.2021.06.007 34265272

166. Sun X.X. Dai M.S. Lu H. 5-fluorouracil activation of p53 involves an MDM2-ribosomal protein interaction J. Biol. Chem. 2007 282 8052 8059 10.1074/jbc.M610621200 17242401

167. Therizols G. Bash-Imam Z. Panthu B. Machon C. Vincent A. Ripoll J. Nait-Slimane S. Chalabi-Dchar M. Gaucherot A. Garcia M. Alteration of ribosome function upon 5-fluorouracil treatment favors cancer cell drug-tolerance Nat. Commun. 2022 13 173 10.1038/s41467-021-27847-8 35013311 PMC8748862

168. Thomas C.J. Rahier N.J. Hecht S.M. Camptothecin: Current perspectives Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2004 12 1585 1604 10.1016/j.bmc.2003.11.036 15028252

169. Martino E. Della Volpe S. Terribile E. Benetti E. Sakaj M. Centamore A. Sala A. Collina S. The long story of camptothecin: From traditional medicine to drugs Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2017 27 701 707 10.1016/j.bmcl.2016.12.085 28073672

170. Wu R.S. Kumar A. Warner J.R. Ribosome formation is blocked by camptothecin, a reversible inhibitor of RNA synthesis Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1971 68 3009 3014 10.1073/pnas.68.12.3009 5289246 PMC389580

171. Pietrzak M. Smith S.C. Geralds J.T. Hagg T. Gomes C. Hetman M. Nucleolar disruption and apoptosis are distinct neuronal responses to etoposide-induced DNA damage J. Neurochem. 2011 117 1033 1046 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2011.07279.x 21517844 PMC3107349

172. Drygin D. Lin A. Bliesath J. Ho C.B. O'Brien S.E. Proffitt C. Omori M. Haddach M. Schwaebe M.K. Siddiqui-Jain A. Targeting RNA polymerase I with an oral small molecule CX-5461 inhibits ribosomal RNA synthesis and solid tumor growth Cancer Res. 2011 71 1418 1430 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-1728 21159662

173. Bywater M.J. Poortinga G. Sanij E. Hein N. Peck A. Cullinane C. Wall M. Cluse L. Drygin D. Anderes K. Inhibition of RNA polymerase I as a therapeutic strategy to promote cancer-specific activation of p53 Cancer Cell 2012 22 51 65 10.1016/j.ccr.2012.05.019 22789538 PMC3749732

174. Quin J. Chan K.T. Devlin J.R. Cameron D.P. Diesch J. Cullinane C. Ahern J. Khot A. Hein N. George A.J. Inhibition of RNA polymerase I transcription initiation by CX-5461 activates non-canonical ATM/ATR signaling Oncotarget 2016 7 49800 49818 10.18632/oncotarget.10452 27391441 PMC5226549

175. Sanij E. Hannan K.M. Xuan J. Yan S. Ahern J.E. Trigos A.S. Brajanovski N. Son J. Chan K.T. Kondrashova O. CX-5461 activates the DNA damage response and demonstrates therapeutic efficacy in high-grade serous ovarian cancer Nat. Commun. 2020 11 2641 10.1038/s41467-020-16393-4 32457376 PMC7251123

176. Cameron D.P. Sornkom J. Alsahafi S. Drygin D. Poortinga G. McArthur G.A. Hein N. Hannan R. Panov K.I. CX-5461 Preferentially Induces Top2alpha-Dependent DNA Breaks at Ribosomal DNA Loci Biomedicines 2024 12 1514 10.3390/biomedicines12071514 39062087 PMC11275095

177. Bruno P.M. Lu M. Dennis K.A. Inam H. Moore C.J. Sheehe J. Elledge S.J. Hemann M.T. Pritchard J.R. The primary mechanism of cytotoxicity of the chemotherapeutic agent CX-5461 is topoisomerase II poisoning Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020 117 4053 4060 10.1073/pnas.1921649117 32041867 PMC7049172

178. Xu H. Di Antonio M. McKinney S. Mathew V. Ho B. O'Neil N.J. Santos N.D. Silvester J. Wei V. Garcia J. CX-5461 is a DNA G-quadruplex stabilizer with selective lethality in BRCA1/2 deficient tumours Nat. Commun. 2017 8 14432 10.1038/ncomms14432 28211448 PMC5321743

179. Bossaert M. Pipier A. Riou J.F. Noirot C. Nguyen L.T. Serre R.F. Bouchez O. Defrancq E. Calsou P. Britton S. Transcription-associated topoisomerase 2alpha (TOP2A) activity is a major effector of cytotoxicity induced by G-quadruplex ligands Elife 2021 10 e65184 10.7554/eLife.65184 34180392 PMC8279764

180. Yan S. Xuan J. Brajanovski N. Tancock M.R.C. Madhamshettiwar P.B. Simpson K.J. Ellis S. Kang J. Cullinane C. Sheppard K.E. The RNA polymerase I transcription inhibitor CX-5461 cooperates with topoisomerase 1 inhibition by enhancing the DNA damage response in homologous recombination-proficient high-grade serous ovarian cancer Br. J. Cancer 2021 124 616 627 10.1038/s41416-020-01158-z 33173151 PMC7851142

181. Masud T. Soong C. Xu H. Biele J. Bjornson S. McKinney S. Aparicio S. Ubiquitin-mediated DNA damage response is synthetic lethal with G-quadruplex stabilizer CX-5461 Sci. Rep. 2021 11 9812 10.1038/s41598-021-88988-w 33963218 PMC8105411

182. Son J. Hannan K.M. Poortinga G. Hein N. Cameron D.P. Ganley A.R.D. Sheppard K.E. Pearson R.B. Hannan R.D. Sanij E. rDNA Chromatin Activity Status as a Biomarker of Sensitivity to the RNA Polymerase I Transcription Inhibitor CX-5461 Front Cell Dev. Biol. 2020 8 568 10.3389/fcell.2020.00568 32719798 PMC7349920

183. Devlin J.R. Hannan K.M. Hein N. Cullinane C. Kusnadi E. Ng P.Y. George A.J. Shortt J. Bywater M.J. Poortinga G. Combination Therapy Targeting Ribosome Biogenesis and mRNA Translation Synergistically Extends Survival in MYC-Driven Lymphoma Cancer Discov. 2016 6 59 70 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-14-0673 26490423

184. Lee H.C. Wang H. Baladandayuthapani V. Lin H. He J. Jones R.J. Kuiatse I. Gu D. Wang Z. Ma W. RNA Polymerase I Inhibition with CX-5461 as a Novel Therapeutic Strategy to Target MYC in Multiple Myeloma Br. J. Haematol. 2017 177 80 94 10.1111/bjh.14525 28369725 PMC5695568

185. Lawrence M.G. Porter L.H. Choo N. Pook D. Grummet J.P. Pezaro C.J. Sandhu S. Ramm S. Luu J. Bakshi A. CX-5461 Sensitizes DNA Damage Repair-proficient Castrate-resistant Prostate Cancer to PARP Inhibition Mol. Cancer Ther. 2021 20 2140 2150 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-20-0932 34413130

186. Rebello R.J. Kusnadi E. Cameron D.P. Pearson H.B. Lesmana A. Devlin J.R. Drygin D. Clark A.K. Porter L. Pedersen J. The Dual Inhibition of RNA Pol I Transcription and PIM Kinase as a New Therapeutic Approach to Treat Advanced Prostate Cancer Clin. Cancer Res. 2016 22 5539 5552 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-0124 27486174

187. Kusnadi E.P. Trigos A.S. Cullinane C. Goode D.L. Larsson O. Devlin J.R. Chan K.T. De Souza D.P. McConville M.J. McArthur G.A. Reprogrammed mRNA translation drives resistance to therapeutic targeting of ribosome biogenesis EMBO J. 2020 39 e105111 10.15252/embj.2020105111 32945574 PMC7604608

188. Maclachlan K.H. Gitareja K. Kang J. Cuddihy A. Cao Y. Hein N. Cullinane C. Ang C.S. Brajanovski N. Pearson R.B. Targeting the ribosome to treat multiple myeloma Mol. Ther. Oncol. 2024 32 200771 10.1016/j.omton.2024.200771 38596309 PMC10905045

189. Pan M. Wright W.C. Chapple R.H. Zubair A. Sandhu M. Batchelder J.E. Huddle B.C. Low J. Blankenship K.B. Wang Y. The chemotherapeutic CX-5461 primarily targets TOP2B and exhibits selective activity in high-risk neuroblastoma Nat. Commun. 2021 12 6468 10.1038/s41467-021-26640-x 34753908 PMC8578635

190. Khot A. Brajanovski N. Cameron D.P. Hein N. Maclachlan K.H. Sanij E. Lim J. Soong J. Link E. Blombery P. First-in-Human RNA Polymerase I Transcription Inhibitor CX-5461 in Patients with Advanced Hematologic Cancers: Results of a Phase I Dose-Escalation Study Cancer Discov. 2019 9 1036 1049 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-18-1455 31092402

191. Hilton J. Gelmon K. Bedard P.L. Tu D. Xu H. Tinker A.V. Goodwin R. Laurie S.A. Jonker D. Hansen A.R. Results of the phase I CCTG IND.231 trial of CX-5461 in patients with advanced solid tumors enriched for DNA-repair deficiencies Nat. Commun. 2022 13 3607 10.1038/s41467-022-31199-2 35750695 PMC9232501

192. Soberanis Pina P.D. Lheureux S. Han H. Shapiro G. Provencher D.M. Rosen L.S. Sardesai S. Taylor S. Cescon D. Alqaisi H.A. 631P Phase Ib expansion study of CX-5461 in patients with solid tumours and BRCA2 and/or PALB2 mutation Ann. Oncol. 2024 35 S503 10.1016/j.annonc.2024.08.698

193. Koh G.C.C. Boushaki S. Zhao S.J. Pregnall A.M. Sadiyah F. Badja C. Memari Y. Georgakopoulos-Soares I. Nik-Zainal S. The chemotherapeutic drug CX-5461 is a potent mutagen in cultured human cells Nat. Genet. 2024 56 23 26 10.1038/s41588-023-01602-9 38036782 PMC10786719

194. Ferreira R. Hannah K.M. Panov K. Udumanne T. George A.J. Closa A. Yuen Z. Eyras E. Poh P. Maclachlan K. The novel RNA polymerase I transcription inhibitor PMR-116 exploits a critical therapeutic vulnerability in a broad-spectrum of high MYC malignancies bioRxiv 2025 10.1101/2025.04.19.649466

195. Peltonen K. Colis L. Liu H. Jaamaa S. Moore H.M. Enback J. Laakkonen P. Vaahtokari A. Jones R.J. af Hallstrom T.M. Identification of novel p53 pathway activating small-molecule compounds reveals unexpected similarities with known therapeutic agents PLoS ONE 2010 5 e12996 10.1371/journal.pone.0012996 20885994 PMC2946317

196. Colis L. Peltonen K. Sirajuddin P. Liu H. Sanders S. Ernst G. Barrow J.C. Laiho M. DNA intercalator BMH-21 inhibits RNA polymerase I independent of DNA damage response Oncotarget 2014 5 4361 4369 10.18632/oncotarget.2020 24952786 PMC4147329

197. Jacobs R.Q. Huffines A.K. Laiho M. Schneider D.A. The small-molecule BMH-21 directly inhibits transcription elongation and DNA occupancy of RNA polymerase I in vivo and in vitro J. Biol. Chem. 2022 298 101450 10.1016/j.jbc.2021.101450 34838819 PMC8683726

198. Peltonen K. Colis L. Liu H. Jaamaa S. Zhang Z. Af Hallstrom T. Moore H.M. Sirajuddin P. Laiho M. Small molecule BMH-compounds that inhibit RNA polymerase I and cause nucleolar stress Mol. Cancer Ther. 2014 13 2537 2546 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-14-0256 25277384 PMC4221476

199. Bhat M. Robichaud N. Hulea L. Sonenberg N. Pelletier J. Topisirovic I. Targeting the translation machinery in cancer Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2015 14 261 278 10.1038/nrd4505 25743081

200. Moerke N.J. Aktas H. Chen H. Cantel S. Reibarkh M.Y. Fahmy A. Gross J.D. Degterev A. Yuan J. Chorev M. Small-molecule inhibition of the interaction between the translation initiation factors eIF4E and eIF4G Cell 2007 128 257 267 10.1016/j.cell.2006.11.046 17254965

201. Papadopoulos E. Jenni S. Kabha E. Takrouri K.J. Yi T. Salvi N. Luna R.E. Gavathiotis E. Mahalingam P. Arthanari H. Structure of the eukaryotic translation initiation factor eIF4E in complex with 4EGI-1 reveals an allosteric mechanism for dissociating eIF4G Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014 111 E3187 E3195 10.1073/pnas.1410250111 25049413 PMC4128100

202. Sekiyama N. Arthanari H. Papadopoulos E. Rodriguez-Mias R.A. Wagner G. Leger-Abraham M. Molecular mechanism of the dual activity of 4EGI-1: Dissociating eIF4G from eIF4E but stabilizing the binding of unphosphorylated 4E-BP1 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015 112 E4036 E4045 10.1073/pnas.1512118112 26170285 PMC4522750

203. De A. Jacobson B.A. Peterson M.S. Stelzner M.E. Jay-Dixon J. Kratzke M.G. Patel M.R. Bitterman P.B. Kratzke R.A. Inhibition of oncogenic cap-dependent translation by 4EGI-1 reduces growth, enhances chemosensitivity and alters genome-wide translation in non-small cell lung cancer Cancer Gene Ther. 2019 26 157 165 10.1038/s41417-018-0058-6 30420719

204. Descamps G. Gomez-Bougie P. Tamburini J. Green A. Bouscary D. Maiga S. Moreau P. Le Gouill S. Pellat-Deceunynck C. Amiot M. The cap-translation inhibitor 4EGI-1 induces apoptosis in multiple myeloma through Noxa induction Br. J. Cancer 2012 106 1660 1667 10.1038/bjc.2012.139 22510748 PMC3349175

205. Willimott S. Beck D. Ahearne M.J. Adams V.C. Wagner S.D. Cap-translation inhibitor, 4EGI-1, restores sensitivity to ABT-737 apoptosis through cap-dependent and -independent mechanisms in chronic lymphocytic leukemia Clin. Cancer Res. 2013 19 3212 3223 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-2185 23633452

206. Cencic R. Hall D.R. Robert F. Du Y. Min J. Li L. Qui M. Lewis I. Kurtkaya S. Dingledine R. Reversing chemoresistance by small molecule inhibition of the translation initiation complex eIF4F Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011 108 1046 1051 10.1073/pnas.1011477108 21191102 PMC3024666

207. Kardos G.R. Gowda R. Dinavahi S.S. Kimball S. Robertson G.P. Salubrinal in Combination With 4E1RCat Synergistically Impairs Melanoma Development by Disrupting the Protein Synthetic Machinery Front. Oncol. 2020 10 834 10.3389/fonc.2020.00834 32637352 PMC7317660

208. Wang L. Guo C. Li X. Yu X. Li X. Xu K. Jiang B. Jia X. Li C. Shi D. Design, synthesis and biological evaluation of bromophenol-thiazolylhydrazone hybrids inhibiting the interaction of translation initiation factors eIF4E/eIF4G as multifunctional agents for cancer treatment Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2019 177 153 170 10.1016/j.ejmech.2019.05.044 31132531

209. Qi X. Zhang S. Chen Z. Wang L. Zhu W. Yin C. Fan J. Wu X. Wang J. Guo C. EGPI-1, a novel eIF4E/eIF4G interaction inhibitor, inhibits lung cancer cell growth and angiogenesis through Ras/MNK/ERK/eIF4E signaling pathway Chem. Biol. Interact. 2022 352 109773 10.1016/j.cbi.2021.109773 34902296

210. Ziemniak M. Strenkowska M. Kowalska J. Jemielity J. Potential therapeutic applications of RNA cap analogs Future Med. Chem. 2013 5 1141 1172 10.4155/fmc.13.96 23795970

211. O’Rourke R.L. Garner A.L. Chemical Probes for Studying the Eukaryotic Translation Initiation Factor 4E (eIF4E)-Regulated Translatome in Cancer ACS Pharmacol. Transl. Sci. 2025 8 621 635 10.1021/acsptsci.4c00674 40109752 PMC11915038

212. Ghosh B. Benyumov A.O. Ghosh P. Jia Y. Avdulov S. Dahlberg P.S. Peterson M. Smith K. Polunovsky V.A. Bitterman P.B. Nontoxic chemical interdiction of the epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition by targeting cap-dependent translation ACS Chem. Biol. 2009 4 367 377 10.1021/cb9000475 19351181 PMC2796976

213. Chen E.Z. Jacobson B.A. Patel M.R. Okon A.M. Li S. Xiong K. Vaidya A.J. Bitterman P.B. Wagner C.R. Kratzke R.A. Small-molecule inhibition of oncogenic eukaryotic protein translation in mesothelioma cells Investig. New Drugs 2014 32 598 603 10.1007/s10637-014-0076-7 24711125

214. Smith K.A. Zhou B. Avdulov S. Benyumov A. Peterson M. Liu Y. Okon A. Hergert P. Braziunas J. Wagner C.R. Transforming Growth Factor-beta1 Induced Epithelial Mesenchymal Transition is blocked by a chemical antagonist of translation factor eIF4E Sci. Rep. 2015 5 18233 10.1038/srep18233 26678431 PMC4683370

215. Li S. Jia Y. Jacobson B. McCauley J. Kratzke R. Bitterman P.B. Wagner C.R. Treatment of breast and lung cancer cells with a N-7 benzyl guanosine monophosphate tryptamine phosphoramidate pronucleotide (4Ei-1) results in chemosensitization to gemcitabine and induced eIF4E proteasomal degradation Mol. Pharm. 2013 10 523 531 10.1021/mp300699d 23289910 PMC5920544

216. Golojuch S. Kopcial M. Strzelecka D. Kasprzyk R. Baran N. Sikorski P.J. Kowalska J. Jemielity J. Exploring tryptamine conjugates as pronucleotides of phosphate-modified 7-methylguanine nucleotides targeting cap-dependent translation Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2020 28 115523 10.1016/j.bmc.2020.115523 32362385

217. Cardenas E.L. O’Rourke R.L. Menon A. Vega-Hernandez G. Meagher J. Stuckey J. Garner A.L. Second-Generation Cap Analogue Prodrugs for Targeting Aberrant Eukaryotic Translation Initiation Factor 4E Activity in Cancer ACS Med. Chem. Lett. 2025 16 96 100 10.1021/acsmedchemlett.4c00466 39811141 PMC11726381

218. Westman B. Beeren L. Grudzien E. Stepinski J. Worch R. Zuberek J. Jemielity J. Stolarski R. Darzynkiewicz E. Rhoads R.E. The antiviral drug ribavirin does not mimic the 7-methylguanosine moiety of the mRNA cap structure in vitro RNA 2005 11 1505 1513 10.1261/rna.2132505 16131589 PMC1370834

219. Yan Y. Svitkin Y. Lee J.M. Bisaillon M. Pelletier J. Ribavirin is not a functional mimic of the 7-methyl guanosine mRNA cap RNA 2005 11 1238 1244 10.1261/rna.2930805 16043507 PMC1370807

220. Pettersson F. Yau C. Dobocan M.C. Culjkovic-Kraljacic B. Retrouvey H. Puckett R. Flores L.M. Krop I.E. Rousseau C. Cocolakis E. Ribavirin treatment effects on breast cancers overexpressing eIF4E, a biomarker with prognostic specificity for luminal B-type breast cancer Clin. Cancer Res. 2011 17 2874 2884 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-2334 21415224 PMC3086959

221. Urtishak K.A. Wang L.S. Culjkovic-Kraljacic B. Davenport J.W. Porazzi P. Vincent T.L. Teachey D.T. Tasian S.K. Moore J.S. Seif A.E. Targeting EIF4E signaling with ribavirin in infant acute lymphoblastic leukemia Oncogene 2019 38 2241 2262 10.1038/s41388-018-0567-7 30478448 PMC6440839

222. Assouline S. Culjkovic B. Cocolakis E. Rousseau C. Beslu N. Amri A. Caplan S. Leber B. Roy D.C. Miller W.H. Jr. Molecular targeting of the oncogene eIF4E in acute myeloid leukemia (AML): A proof-of-principle clinical trial with ribavirin Blood 2009 114 257 260 10.1182/blood-2009-02-205153 19433856

223. Dunn L.A. Fury M.G. Sherman E.J. Ho A.A. Katabi N. Haque S.S. Pfister D.G. Phase I study of induction chemotherapy with afatinib, ribavirin, and weekly carboplatin and paclitaxel for stage IVA/IVB human papillomavirus-associated oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer Head Neck 2018 40 233 241 10.1002/hed.24938 28963790 PMC6760238

224. Graff J.R. Konicek B.W. Vincent T.M. Lynch R.L. Monteith D. Weir S.N. Schwier P. Capen A. Goode R.L. Dowless M.S. Therapeutic suppression of translation initiation factor eIF4E expression reduces tumor growth without toxicity J. Clin. Investig. 2007 117 2638 2648 10.1172/JCI32044 17786246 PMC1957541

225. Hong D.S. Kurzrock R. Oh Y. Wheler J. Naing A. Brail L. Callies S. Andre V. Kadam S.K. Nasir A. A phase 1 dose escalation, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic evaluation of eIF-4E antisense oligonucleotide LY2275796 in patients with advanced cancer Clin. Cancer Res. 2011 17 6582 6591 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-0430 21831956 PMC5036398

226. Duffy A.G. Makarova-Rusher O.V. Ulahannan S.V. Rahma O.E. Fioravanti S. Walker M. Abdullah S. Raffeld M. Anderson V. Abi-Jaoudeh N. Modulation of tumor eIF4E by antisense inhibition: A phase I/II translational clinical trial of ISIS 183750-an antisense oligonucleotide against eIF4E-in combination with irinotecan in solid tumors and irinotecan-refractory colorectal cancer Int. J. Cancer 2016 139 1648 1657 10.1002/ijc.30199 27194579 PMC6407898

227. Bordeleau M.E. Mori A. Oberer M. Lindqvist L. Chard L.S. Higa T. Belsham G.J. Wagner G. Tanaka J. Pelletier J. Functional characterization of IRESes by an inhibitor of the RNA helicase eIF4A Nat. Chem. Biol. 2006 2 213 220 10.1038/nchembio776 16532013

228. Tsumuraya T. Ishikawa C. Machijima Y. Nakachi S. Senba M. Tanaka J. Mori N. Effects of hippuristanol, an inhibitor of eIF4A, on adult T-cell leukemia Biochem. Pharmacol. 2011 81 713 722 10.1016/j.bcp.2010.12.025 21219881

229. Cencic R. Robert F. Galicia-Vazquez G. Malina A. Ravindar K. Somaiah R. Pierre P. Tanaka J. Deslongchamps P. Pelletier J. Modifying chemotherapy response by targeted inhibition of eukaryotic initiation factor 4A Blood Cancer J. 2013 3 e128 10.1038/bcj.2013.25 23872707 PMC3730203

230. Chu J. Zhang W. Cencic R. Devine W.G. Beglov D. Henkel T. Brown L.E. Vajda S. Porco J.A. Jr. Pelletier J. Amidino-Rocaglates: A Potent Class of eIF4A Inhibitors Cell Chem. Biol. 2019 26 1586 1593 10.1016/j.chembiol.2019.08.008 31519508 PMC6874763

231. Zhang W. Chu J. Cyr A.M. Yueh H. Brown L.E. Wang T.T. Pelletier J. Porco J.A. Jr. Intercepted Retro-Nazarov Reaction: Syntheses of Amidino-Rocaglate Derivatives and Their Biological Evaluation as eIF4A Inhibitors J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2019 141 12891 12900 10.1021/jacs.9b06446 31310112 PMC6693944

232. Sadlish H. Galicia-Vazquez G. Paris C.G. Aust T. Bhullar B. Chang L. Helliwell S.B. Hoepfner D. Knapp B. Riedl R. Evidence for a functionally relevant rocaglamide binding site on the eIF4A-RNA complex ACS Chem. Biol. 2013 8 1519 1527 10.1021/cb400158t 23614532 PMC3796129

233. Hwang B.Y. Su B.N. Chai H. Mi Q. Kardono L.B. Afriastini J.J. Riswan S. Santarsiero B.D. Mesecar A.D. Wild R. Silvestrol and episilvestrol, potential anticancer rocaglate derivatives from Aglaia silvestris J. Org. Chem. 2004 69 3350 3358 10.1021/jo040120f 15132542

234. Zhang X. Bi C. Lu T. Zhang W. Yue T. Wang C. Tian T. Zhang X. Huang Y. Lunning M. Targeting translation initiation by synthetic rocaglates for treating MYC-driven lymphomas Leukemia 2020 34 138 150 10.1038/s41375-019-0503-z 31171817 PMC6895415

235. Bordeleau M.E. Robert F. Gerard B. Lindqvist L. Chen S.M. Wendel H.G. Brem B. Greger H. Lowe S.W. Porco J.A. Jr. Therapeutic suppression of translation initiation modulates chemosensitivity in a mouse lymphoma model J. Clin. Investig. 2008 118 2651 2660 10.1172/JCI34753 18551192 PMC2423864

236. Low W.K. Dang Y. Schneider-Poetsch T. Shi Z. Choi N.S. Merrick W.C. Romo D. Liu J.O. Inhibition of eukaryotic translation initiation by the marine natural product pateamine A Mol. Cell 2005 20 709 722 10.1016/j.molcel.2005.10.008 16337595

237. Low W.K. Dang Y. Schneider-Poetsch T. Shi Z. Choi N.S. Rzasa R.M. Shea H.A. Li S. Park K. Ma G. Isolation and identification of eukaryotic initiation factor 4A as a molecular target for the marine natural product Pateamine, A Methods Enzym. 2007 431 303 324 10.1016/S0076-6879(07)31014-8 17923240

238. Low W.K. Li J. Zhu M. Kommaraju S.S. Shah-Mittal J. Hull K. Liu J.O. Romo D. Second-generation derivatives of the eukaryotic translation initiation inhibitor pateamine A targeting eIF4A as potential anticancer agents Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2014 22 116 125 10.1016/j.bmc.2013.11.046 24359706 PMC3958936

239. Saito H. Handa Y. Chen M. Schneider-Poetsch T. Shichino Y. Takahashi M. Romo D. Yoshida M. Furstner A. Ito T. DMDA-PatA mediates RNA sequence-selective translation repression by anchoring eIF4A and DDX3 to GNG motifs Nat. Commun. 2024 15 7418 10.1038/s41467-024-51635-9 39223140 PMC11369270

240. Gupta S.V. Sass E.J. Davis M.E. Edwards R.B. Lozanski G. Heerema N.A. Lehman A. Zhang X. Jarjoura D. Byrd J.C. Resistance to the translation initiation inhibitor silvestrol is mediated by ABCB1/P-glycoprotein overexpression in acute lymphoblastic leukemia cells AAPS J. 2011 13 357 364 10.1208/s12248-011-9276-7 21538216 PMC3160166

241. Peron G. Mastinu A. Pena-Corona S.I. Hernandez-Parra H. Leyva-Gomez G. Calina D. Sharifi-Rad J. Silvestrol, a potent anticancer agent with unfavourable pharmacokinetics: Current knowledge on its pharmacological properties and future directions for the development of novel drugs Biomed. Pharmacother. 2024 177 117047 10.1016/j.biopha.2024.117047 38959604

242. Kuznetsov G. Xu Q. Rudolph-Owen L. Tendyke K. Liu J. Towle M. Zhao N. Marsh J. Agoulnik S. Twine N. Potent in vitro and in vivo anticancer activities of des-methyl, des-amino pateamine A, a synthetic analogue of marine natural product pateamine A Mol. Cancer Ther. 2009 8 1250 1260 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-08-1026 19417157 PMC3026899

243. Ernst J.T. Thompson P.A. Nilewski C. Sprengeler P.A. Sperry S. Packard G. Michels T. Xiang A. Tran C. Wegerski C.J. Design of Development Candidate eFT226, a First in Class Inhibitor of Eukaryotic Initiation Factor 4A RNA Helicase J. Med. Chem. 2020 63 5879 5955 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.0c00182 32470302

244. Thompson P.A. Eam B. Young N.P. Fish S. Chen J. Barrera M. Howard H. Sung E. Parra A. Staunton J. Targeting Oncogene mRNA Translation in B-Cell Malignancies with eFT226, a Potent and Selective Inhibitor of eIF4A Mol. Cancer Ther. 2021 20 26 36 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-19-0973 33037136

245. Gerson-Gurwitz A. Young N.P. Goel V.K. Eam B. Stumpf C.R. Chen J. Fish S. Barrera M. Sung E. Staunton J. Zotatifin, an eIF4A-Selective Inhibitor, Blocks Tumor Growth in Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Driven Tumors Front. Oncol. 2021 11 766298 10.3389/fonc.2021.766298 34900714 PMC8663026

246. Gurel G. Blaha G. Moore P.B. Steitz T.A. U2504 determines the species specificity of the A-site cleft antibiotics: The structures of tiamulin, homoharringtonine, and bruceantin bound to the ribosome J. Mol. Biol. 2009 389 146 156 10.1016/j.jmb.2009.04.005 19362093 PMC2682339

247. Alvandi F. Kwitkowski V.E. Ko C.W. Rothmann M.D. Ricci S. Saber H. Ghosh D. Brown J. Pfeiler E. Chikhale E. U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval summary: Omacetaxine mepesuccinate as treatment for chronic myeloid leukemia Oncologist 2014 19 94 99 10.1634/theoncologist.2013-0077 24309980 PMC3903068

248. Gandhi V. Plunkett W. Cortes J.E. Omacetaxine: A protein translation inhibitor for treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia Clin. Cancer Res. 2014 20 1735 1740 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-1283 24501394 PMC4048124

249. Walker Z.J. Idler B.M. Davis L.N. Stevens B.M. VanWyngarden M.J. Ohlstrom D. Bearrows S.C. Hammes A. Smith C.A. Jordan C.T. Exploiting Protein Translation Dependence in Multiple Myeloma with Omacetaxine-Based Therapy Clin. Cancer Res. 2021 27 819 830 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-2246 33109736 PMC7854501

250. Janes M.R. Fruman D.A. Targeting TOR dependence in cancer Oncotarget 2010 1 69 76 10.18632/oncotarget.110 20657741 PMC2908250

251. Li J. Kim S.G. Blenis J. Rapamycin: One drug, many effects Cell Metab. 2014 19 373 379 10.1016/j.cmet.2014.01.001 24508508 PMC3972801

252. Kwitkowski V.E. Prowell T.M. Ibrahim A. Farrell A.T. Justice R. Mitchell S.S. Sridhara R. Pazdur R. FDA approval summary: Temsirolimus as treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma Oncologist 2010 15 428 435 10.1634/theoncologist.2009-0178 20332142 PMC3227966

253. Fruman D.A. Rommel C. PI3K and cancer: Lessons, challenges and opportunities Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2014 13 140 156 10.1038/nrd4204 24481312 PMC3994981

254. Benjamin D. Colombi M. Moroni C. Hall M.N. Rapamycin passes the torch: A new generation of mTOR inhibitors Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2011 10 868 880 10.1038/nrd3531 22037041

255. Choo A.Y. Blenis J. Not all substrates are treated equally: Implications for mTOR, rapamycin-resistance and cancer therapy Cell Cycle 2009 8 567 572 10.4161/cc.8.4.7659 19197153

256. Yun S. Vincelette N.D. Knorr K.L. Almada L.L. Schneider P.A. Peterson K.L. Flatten K.S. Dai H. Pratz K.W. Hess A.D. 4EBP1/c-MYC/PUMA and NF-kappaB/EGR1/BIM pathways underlie cytotoxicity of mTOR dual inhibitors in malignant lymphoid cells Blood 2016 127 2711 2722 10.1182/blood-2015-02-629485 26917778 PMC4891953

257. Demosthenous C. Han J.J. Stenson M.J. Maurer M.J. Wellik L.E. Link B. Hege K. Dogan A. Sotomayor E. Witzig T. Translation initiation complex eIF4F is a therapeutic target for dual mTOR kinase inhibitors in non-Hodgkin lymphoma Oncotarget 2015 6 9488 9501 10.18632/oncotarget.3378 25839159 PMC4496233

258. Ghobrial I.M. Siegel D.S. Vij R. Berdeja J.G. Richardson P.G. Neuwirth R. Patel C.G. Zohren F. Wolf J.L. TAK-228 (formerly MLN0128), an investigational oral dual TORC1/2 inhibitor: A phase I dose escalation study in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia Am. J. Hematol. 2016 91 400 405 10.1002/ajh.24300 26800393

259. Wu X. Xu Y. Liang Q. Yang X. Huang J. Wang J. Zhang H. Shi J. Recent Advances in Dual PI3K/mTOR Inhibitors for Tumour Treatment Front. Pharmacol. 2022 13 875372 10.3389/fphar.2022.875372 35614940 PMC9124774

260. Fan Q.W. Knight Z.A. Goldenberg D.D. Yu W. Mostov K.E. Stokoe D. Shokat K.M. Weiss W.A. A dual PI3 kinase/mTOR inhibitor reveals emergent efficacy in glioma Cancer Cell 2006 9 341 349 10.1016/j.ccr.2006.03.029 16697955 PMC2925230

261. Yu Y. Yoon S.O. Poulogiannis G. Yang Q. Ma X.M. Villen J. Kubica N. Hoffman G.R. Cantley L.C. Gygi S.P. Phosphoproteomic analysis identifies Grb10 as an mTORC1 substrate that negatively regulates insulin signaling Science 2011 332 1322 1326 10.1126/science.1199484 21659605 PMC3195509

262. Bhagwat S.V. Gokhale P.C. Crew A.P. Cooke A. Yao Y. Mantis C. Kahler J. Workman J. Bittner M. Dudkin L. Preclinical characterization of OSI-027, a potent and selective inhibitor of mTORC1 and mTORC2: Distinct from rapamycin Mol. Cancer Ther. 2011 10 1394 1406 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-10-1099 21673091

263. Guo Y. Kwiatkowski D.J. Equivalent benefit of rapamycin and a potent mTOR ATP-competitive inhibitor, MLN0128 (INK128), in a mouse model of tuberous sclerosis Mol. Cancer Res. 2013 11 467 473 10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-12-0605 23386687 PMC3657392

264. Massard C. Sandhu S. Blanco M. Papadatos-Pastos D. Carden C. De Bono J. Saran F. Molife L.R. Kaye S.B. Soria J.C. Toward a better dialogue between neuro-oncologists and phase I investigators J. Clin. Oncol. 2012 30 562 563 10.1200/JCO.2011.39.8347 22215743

265. Pike K.G. Malagu K. Hummersone M.G. Menear K.A. Duggan H.M. Gomez S. Martin N.M. Ruston L. Pass S.L. Pass M. Optimization of potent and selective dual mTORC1 and mTORC2 inhibitors: The discovery of AZD8055 and AZD2014 Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2013 23 1212 1216 10.1016/j.bmcl.2013.01.019 23375793

266. Mateo J. Olmos D. Dumez H. Poondru S. Samberg N.L. Barr S. Van Tornout J.M. Jie F. Sandhu S. Tan D.S. A first in man, dose-finding study of the mTORC1/mTORC2 inhibitor OSI-027 in patients with advanced solid malignancies Br. J. Cancer 2016 114 889 896 10.1038/bjc.2016.59 27002938 PMC4984800

267. Al-Kali A. Aldoss I. Atherton P.J. Strand C.A. Shah B. Webster J. Bhatnagar B. Flatten K.S. Peterson K.L. Schneider P.A. A phase 2 and pharmacological study of sapanisertib in patients with relapsed and/or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia Cancer Med. 2023 12 21229 21239 10.1002/cam4.6701 37960985 PMC10726920

268. Rodrik-Outmezguine V.S. Okaniwa M. Yao Z. Novotny C.J. McWhirter C. Banaji A. Won H. Wong W. Berger M. de Stanchina E. Overcoming mTOR resistance mutations with a new-generation mTOR inhibitor Nature 2016 534 272 276 10.1038/nature17963 27279227 PMC4902179

269. Janku F. Choong G.M. Opyrchal M. Dowlati A. Hierro C. Rodon J. Wicki A. Forster M.D. Blagden S.P. Yin J. A Phase I Study of the Oral Dual-Acting Pan-PI3K/mTOR Inhibitor Bimiralisib in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors Cancers 2024 16 1137 10.3390/cancers16061137 38539472 PMC10969742

270. Brown J.R. Hamadani M. Hayslip J. Janssens A. Wagner-Johnston N. Ottmann O. Arnason J. Tilly H. Millenson M. Offner F. Voxtalisib (XL765) in patients with relapsed or refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma or chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: An open-label, phase 2 trial Lancet Haematol. 2018 5 e170 e180 10.1016/S2352-3026(18)30030-9 29550382 PMC7029813

271. Dolly S.O. Wagner A.J. Bendell J.C. Kindler H.L. Krug L.M. Seiwert T.Y. Zauderer M.G. Lolkema M.P. Apt D. Yeh R.F. Phase I Study of Apitolisib (GDC-0980), Dual Phosphatidylinositol-3-Kinase and Mammalian Target of Rapamycin Kinase Inhibitor, in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors Clin. Cancer Res. 2016 22 2874 2884 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-2225 26787751 PMC4876928

272. Carracedo A. Ma L. Teruya-Feldstein J. Rojo F. Salmena L. Alimonti A. Egia A. Sasaki A.T. Thomas G. Kozma S.C. Inhibition of mTORC1 leads to MAPK pathway activation through a PI3K-dependent feedback loop in human cancer J. Clin. Investig. 2008 118 3065 3074 10.1172/JCI34739 18725988 PMC2518073

273. Jin X. Yu R. Wang X. Proud C.G. Jiang T. Progress in developing MNK inhibitors Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2021 219 113420 10.1016/j.ejmech.2021.113420 33892273

274. Konicek B.W. Stephens J.R. McNulty A.M. Robichaud N. Peery R.B. Dumstorf C.A. Dowless M.S. Iversen P.W. Parsons S. Ellis K.E. Therapeutic inhibition of MAP kinase interacting kinase blocks eukaryotic initiation factor 4E phosphorylation and suppresses outgrowth of experimental lung metastases Cancer Res. 2011 71 1849 1857 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-3298 21233335

275. Santag S. Siegel F. Wengner A.M. Lange C. Bomer U. Eis K. Puhler F. Lienau P. Bergemann L. Michels M. BAY 1143269, a novel MNK1 inhibitor, targets oncogenic protein expression and shows potent anti-tumor activity Cancer Lett. 2017 390 21 29 10.1016/j.canlet.2016.12.029 28043914

276. Webster K.R. Goel V.K. Hung I.N. Parker G.S. Staunton J. Neal M. Molter J. Chiang G.G. Jessen K.A. Wegerski C.J. eFT508, a Potent and Selective Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase Interacting Kinase (MNK) 1 and 2 Inhibitor, Is Efficacious in Preclinical Models of Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) Blood 2015 126 1554 10.1182/blood.V126.23.1554.1554

277. Yang H. Chennamaneni L.R. Ho M.W.T. Ang S.H. Tan E.S.W. Jeyaraj D.A. Yeap Y.S. Liu B. Ong E.H. Joy J.K. Optimization of Selective Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase Interacting Kinases 1 and 2 Inhibitors for the Treatment of Blast Crisis Leukemia J. Med. Chem. 2018 61 4348 4369 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.7b01714 29683667

278. Wan W. Zhang X. Huang C. Chen L. Yang X. Bao K. Peng T. Preclinical anti-angiogenic and anti-cancer activities of BAY1143269 in glioblastoma via targeting oncogenic protein expression Pharmacol. Res. Perspect. 2022 10 e00981 10.1002/prp2.981 35796398 PMC9260954

279. Reich S.H. Sprengeler P.A. Chiang G.G. Appleman J.R. Chen J. Clarine J. Eam B. Ernst J.T. Han Q. Goel V.K. Structure-based Design of Pyridone-Aminal eFT508 Targeting Dysregulated Translation by Selective Mitogen-activated Protein Kinase Interacting Kinases 1 and 2 (MNK1/2) Inhibition J. Med. Chem. 2018 61 3516 3540 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.7b01795 29526098

280. Falchook G.S. Infante J.R. Meric-Bernstam F. Miller L.L. Morison K. Vallner D. Sperry S. Goel V. Chiang G.G. Webster K. A phase 1 dose escalation study of eFT508, an inhibitor of mitogen-activated protein kinase-interacting serine/threonine kinase-1 (MNK-1) and MNK-2 in patients with advanced solid tumors J. Clin. Oncol. 2017 35 2579 10.1200/JCO.2017.35.15_suppl.2579

281. Ferrario C. Mackey J. Gelmon K.A. Levasseur N. Sorensen P.H. Oo H.Z. Negri G.L. Tse V.W.L. Spencer S.E. Cheng G. Phase Ib Pharmacodynamic Study of the MNK Inhibitor Tomivosertib (eFT508) Combined With Paclitaxel in Patients With Refractory Metastatic Breast Cancer Clin. Cancer Res. 2025 31 491 502 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-24-0841 39576211

282. Xu Y. Poggio M. Jin H.Y. Shi Z. Forester C.M. Wang Y. Stumpf C.R. Xue L. Devericks E. So L. Translation control of the immune checkpoint in cancer and its therapeutic targeting Nat. Med. 2019 25 301 311 10.1038/s41591-018-0321-2 30643286 PMC6613562

283. El-Khoueiry A.B. Tchekmedyian N. Sanborn R.E. Peguero J.A. Pulver K. Dembla V. Thomas J.S. Chiang G.G. Densel M. Sankar N. A phase II, open-label study of tomivosertib (eFT508) added on to continued checkpoint inhibitor therapy in patients (pts) with insufficient response to single-agent treatment J. Clin. Oncol. 2020 38 3112 10.1200/JCO.2020.38.15_suppl.3112

284. Yang H. Li Z. Wu Z. Chen X. Bo L. Patel H. Zhang B. Xiong W. Wang W. Chen Z.S. Reversal of ABCG2-mediated drug resistance by tinodasertib (ETC-206) Front. Pharmacol. 2025 16 1606857 10.3389/fphar.2025.1606857 40584625 PMC12202571

285. Matos M. Kannourakis G. Aghmesheh M. Mendis S.R. Mahon K. Dave H.P. Barde P.J. Schwedat A. Patava J. Safety, tolerability, and preliminary efficacy of tinodasertib as a monotherapy or in combination with pembrolizumab or irinotecan in metastatic colorectal cancer: Interim results from a phase II open-label, dose-finding, run-in and cohort expansion study J. Clin. Oncol. 2025 43 183 10.1200/JCO.2025.43.4_suppl.183

286. Fu S.C. Huang H.C. Horton P. Juan H.F. ValidNESs: A database of validated leucine-rich nuclear export signals Nucleic Acids Res. 2013 41 D338 D343 10.1093/nar/gks936 23093589 PMC3531083

287. Azizian N.G. Li Y. XPO1-dependent nuclear export as a target for cancer therapy J. Hematol. Oncol. 2020 13 61 10.1186/s13045-020-00903-4 32487143 PMC7268335

288. Nakayama R. Zhang Y.X. Czaplinski J.T. Anatone A.J. Sicinska E.T. Fletcher J.A. Demetri G.D. Wagner A.J. Preclinical activity of selinexor, an inhibitor of XPO1, in sarcoma Oncotarget 2016 7 16581 16592 10.18632/oncotarget.7667 26918731 PMC4941336

289. Tabe Y. Kojima K. Yamamoto S. Sekihara K. Matsushita H. Davis R.E. Wang Z. Ma W. Ishizawa J. Kazuno S. Ribosomal Biogenesis and Translational Flux Inhibition by the Selective Inhibitor of Nuclear Export (SINE) XPO1 Antagonist KPT-185 PLoS ONE 2015 10 e0137210 10.1371/journal.pone.0137210 26340096 PMC4560410

290. Aladhraei M. Kassem Al-Thobhani A. Poungvarin N. Suwannalert P. Association of XPO1 Overexpression with NF-kappaB and Ki67 in Colorectal Cancer Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2019 20 3747 3754 10.31557/APJCP.2019.20.12.3747 31870117 PMC7173379

291. Gravina G.L. Mancini A. Sanita P. Vitale F. Marampon F. Ventura L. Landesman Y. McCauley D. Kauffman M. Shacham S. Erratum to: KPT-330, a potent and selective exportin-1 (XPO-1) inhibitor, shows antitumor effects modulating the expression of cyclin D1 and survivin in prostate cancer models BMC Cancer 2016 16 8 10.1186/s12885-015-2046-7 26753765 PMC4707722

292. Taagepera S. McDonald D. Loeb J.E. Whitaker L.L. McElroy A.K. Wang J.Y. Hope T.J. Nuclear-cytoplasmic shuttling of C-ABL tyrosine kinase Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1998 95 7457 7462 10.1073/pnas.95.13.7457 9636171 PMC22649

293. Subhash V.V. Yeo M.S. Wang L. Tan S.H. Wong F.Y. Thuya W.L. Tan W.L. Peethala P.C. Soe M.Y. Tan D.S.P. Anti-tumor efficacy of Selinexor (KPT-330) in gastric cancer is dependent on nuclear accumulation of p53 tumor suppressor Sci. Rep. 2018 8 12248 10.1038/s41598-018-30686-1 30115935 PMC6095850

294. Volpon L. Culjkovic-Kraljacic B. Sohn H.S. Blanchet-Cohen A. Osborne M.J. Borden K.L.B. A biochemical framework for eIF4E-dependent mRNA export and nuclear recycling of the export machinery RNA 2017 23 927 937 10.1261/rna.060137.116 28325843 PMC5435865

295. Topisirovic I. Siddiqui N. Lapointe V.L. Trost M. Thibault P. Bangeranye C. Pinol-Roma S. Borden K.L. Molecular dissection of the eukaryotic initiation factor 4E (eIF4E) export-competent RNP EMBO J. 2009 28 1087 1098 10.1038/emboj.2009.53 19262567 PMC2683702

296. Kirli K. Karaca S. Dehne H.J. Samwer M. Pan K.T. Lenz C. Urlaub H. Gorlich D. A deep proteomics perspective on CRM1-mediated nuclear export and nucleocytoplasmic partitioning Elife 2015 4 e11466 10.7554/eLife.11466 26673895 PMC4764573

297. Saulino D.M. Younes P.S. Bailey J.M. Younes M. CRM1/XPO1 expression in pancreatic adenocarcinoma correlates with survivin expression and the proliferative activity Oncotarget 2018 9 21289 21295 10.18632/oncotarget.25088 29765539 PMC5940369

298. Cosson A. Chapiro E. Bougacha N. Lambert J. Herbi L. Cung H.A. Algrin C. Keren B. Damm F. Gabillaud C. Gain in the short arm of chromosome 2 (2p+) induces gene overexpression and drug resistance in chronic lymphocytic leukemia: Analysis of the central role of XPO1 Leukemia 2017 31 1625 1629 10.1038/leu.2017.100 28344316

299. Shen A. Wang Y. Zhao Y. Zou L. Sun L. Cheng C. Expression of CRM1 in human gliomas and its significance in p27 expression and clinical prognosis Neurosurgery 2009 65 153 159 10.1227/01.NEU.0000348550.47441.4B 19574837

300. Etchin J. Sanda T. Mansour M.R. Kentsis A. Montero J. Le B.T. Christie A.L. McCauley D. Rodig S.J. Kauffman M. KPT-330 inhibitor of CRM1 (XPO1)-mediated nuclear export has selective anti-leukaemic activity in preclinical models of T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia and acute myeloid leukaemia Br. J. Haematol. 2013 161 117 127 10.1111/bjh.12231 23373539 PMC3980736

301. Landes J.R. Moore S.A. Bartley B.R. Doan H.Q. Rady P.L. Tyring S.K. The efficacy of selinexor (KPT-330), an XPO1 inhibitor, on non-hematologic cancers: A comprehensive review J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 2023 149 2139 2155 10.1007/s00432-022-04247-z 35941226 PMC11796554

302. Abdul Razak A.R. Mau-Soerensen M. Gabrail N.Y. Gerecitano J.F. Shields A.F. Unger T.J. Saint-Martin J.R. Carlson R. Landesman Y. McCauley D. First-in-Class, First-in-Human Phase I Study of Selinexor, a Selective Inhibitor of Nuclear Export, in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors J. Clin. Oncol. 2016 34 4142 4150 10.1200/JCO.2015.65.3949 26926685 PMC5562433

303. Chari A. Vogl D.T. Gavriatopoulou M. Nooka A.K. Yee A.J. Huff C.A. Moreau P. Dingli D. Cole C. Lonial S. Oral Selinexor-Dexamethasone for Triple-Class Refractory Multiple Myeloma N. Engl. J. Med. 2019 381 727 738 10.1056/NEJMoa1903455 31433920

304. Grosicki S. Simonova M. Spicka I. Pour L. Kriachok I. Gavriatopoulou M. Pylypenko H. Auner H.W. Leleu X. Doronin V. Once-per-week selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone versus twice-per-week bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with multiple myeloma (BOSTON): A randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial Lancet 2020 396 1563 1573 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32292-3 33189178

305. Gasparetto C. Schiller G.J. Tuchman S.A. Callander N.S. Baljevic M. Lentzsch S. Rossi A.C. Kotb R. White D. Bahlis N.J. Once weekly selinexor, carfilzomib and dexamethasone in carfilzomib non-refractory multiple myeloma patients Br. J. Cancer 2022 126 718 725 10.1038/s41416-021-01608-2 34802051 PMC8605887

306. Gasparetto C. Lentzsch S. Schiller G. Callander N. Tuchman S. Chen C. White D. Kotb R. Sutherland H. Sebag M. Selinexor, daratumumab, and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma EJHaem 2021 2 56 65 10.1002/jha2.122 35846104 PMC9176052

307. Gonzalez-Calle V. Rodriguez-Otero P. Sureda A. De Arriba F. Reinoso M. Ribas P. Gonzalez-Rodriguez A.P. Gonzalez Y. Oriol A. Martinez-Lopez J. Selinexor, daratumumab, bortezomib and dexamethasone for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: Results of the phase II, nonrandomized, multicenter GEM-SELIBORDARA study Haematologica 2024 109 2219 2228 10.3324/haematol.2023.284089 38356463 PMC11215366

308. White D. Schiller G.J. Madan S. Lentzsch S. Chubar E. Lavi N. Van Domelen D.R. Bentur O.S. Baljevic M. Efficacy and safety of once weekly selinexor 40 mg versus 60 mg with pomalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma Front. Oncol. 2024 14 1352281 10.3389/fonc.2024.1352281 38826786 PMC11140414

309. Wang A.Y. Weiner H. Green M. Chang H. Fulton N. Larson R.A. Odenike O. Artz A.S. Bishop M.R. Godley L.A. A phase I study of selinexor in combination with high-dose cytarabine and mitoxantrone for remission induction in patients with acute myeloid leukemia J. Hematol. Oncol. 2018 11 4 10.1186/s13045-017-0550-8 29304833 PMC5756334

310. Garzon R. Savona M. Baz R. Andreeff M. Gabrail N. Gutierrez M. Savoie L. Mau-Sorensen P.M. Wagner-Johnston N. Yee K. A phase 1 clinical trial of single-agent selinexor in acute myeloid leukemia Blood 2017 129 3165 3174 10.1182/blood-2016-11-750158 28336527 PMC5524530

311. Kuruvilla J. Savona M. Baz R. Mau-Sorensen P.M. Gabrail N. Garzon R. Stone R. Wang M. Savoie L. Martin P. Selective inhibition of nuclear export with selinexor in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma Blood 2017 129 3175 3183 10.1182/blood-2016-11-750174 28468797

312. Kalakonda N. Maerevoet M. Cavallo F. Follows G. Goy A. Vermaat J.S.P. Casasnovas O. Hamad N. Zijlstra J.M. Bakhshi S. Selinexor in patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (SADAL): A single-arm, multinational, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial Lancet Haematol. 2020 7 e511 e522 10.1016/S2352-3026(20)30120-4 32589977

313. Kasamon Y.L. Price L.S.L. Okusanya O.O. Richardson N.C. Li R.J. Ma L. Wu Y.T. Theoret M. Pazdur R. Gormley N.J. FDA Approval Summary: Selinexor for Relapsed or Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Oncologist 2021 26 879 886 10.1002/onco.13859 34132444 PMC8488790

314. Lassman A.B. Wen P.Y. van den Bent M.J. Plotkin S.R. Walenkamp A.M.E. Green A.L. Li K. Walker C.J. Chang H. Tamir S. A Phase II Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Oral Selinexor in Recurrent Glioblastoma Clin. Cancer Res. 2022 28 452 460 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-2225 34728525 PMC8810630

315. Gavriatopoulou M. Chari A. Chen C. Bahlis N. Vogl D.T. Jakubowiak A. Dingli D. Cornell R.F. Hofmeister C.C. Siegel D. Integrated safety profile of selinexor in multiple myeloma: Experience from 437 patients enrolled in clinical trials Leukemia 2020 34 2430 2440 10.1038/s41375-020-0756-6 32094461 PMC7449872

316. Hashmi H. Green K. The 'comeback' of Selinexor: From toxic to tolerable Curr. Probl. Cancer 2022 46 100789 10.1016/j.currproblcancer.2021.100789 34479762

317. Emdal K.B. Palacio-Escat N. Wigerup C. Eguchi A. Nilsson H. Bekker-Jensen D.B. Ronnstrand L. Kazi J.U. Puissant A. Itzykson R. Phosphoproteomics of primary AML patient samples reveals rationale for AKT combination therapy and p53 context to overcome selinexor resistance Cell Rep. 2022 40 111177 10.1016/j.celrep.2022.111177 35947955 PMC9380259

318. Kwanten B. Deconick T. Walker C. Wang F. Landesman Y. Daelemans D. E3 ubiquitin ligase ASB8 promotes selinexor-induced proteasomal degradation of XPO1 Biomed. Pharmacother. 2023 160 114305 10.1016/j.biopha.2023.114305 36731340

319. Neggers J.E. Vanstreels E. Baloglu E. Shacham S. Landesman Y. Daelemans D. Heterozygous mutation of cysteine528 in XPO1 is sufficient for resistance to selective inhibitors of nuclear export Oncotarget 2016 7 68842 68850 10.18632/oncotarget.11995 27634897 PMC5356594

320. Restrepo P. Bhalla S. Ghodke-Puranik Y. Aleman A. Leshchenko V. Melnekoff D.T. Agte S. Jiang J. Madduri D. Richter J. A Three-Gene Signature Predicts Response to Selinexor in Multiple Myeloma JCO Precis. Oncol. 2022 6 e2200147 10.1200/PO.22.00147 35704796 PMC10530420

321. Totiger T.M. Chaudhry S. Musi E. Afaghani J. Montoya S. Owusu-Ansah F. Lee S. Schwartz G. Klimek V. Taylor J. Protein biomarkers for response to XPO1 inhibition in haematologic malignancies J. Cell. Mol. Med. 2023 27 587 590 10.1111/jcmm.17667 36722323 PMC9930413

322. Jimenez I. Carabia J. Bobillo S. Palacio C. Abrisqueta P. Pages C. Nieto J.C. Castellvi J. Martinez-Ricarte F. Escoda L. Repolarization of tumor infiltrating macrophages and increased survival in mouse primary CNS lymphomas after XPO1 and BTK inhibition J. Neurooncol. 2020 149 13 25 10.1007/s11060-020-03580-y 32691208 PMC7452938

323. Tyler P.M. Servos M.M. de Vries R.C. Klebanov B. Kashyap T. Sacham S. Landesman Y. Dougan M. Dougan S.K. Clinical Dosing Regimen of Selinexor Maintains Normal Immune Homeostasis and T-cell Effector Function in Mice: Implications for Combination with Immunotherapy Mol. Cancer Ther. 2017 16 428 439 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-16-0496 28148714 PMC5337137

324. Fisher J.G. Doyle A.D.P. Graham L.V. Sonar S. Sale B. Henderson I. Del Rio L. Johnson P.W.M. Landesman Y. Cragg M.S. XPO1 inhibition sensitises CLL cells to NK cell mediated cytotoxicity and overcomes HLA-E expression Leukemia 2023 37 2036 2049 10.1038/s41375-023-01984-z 37528310 PMC10539165

325. Fisher J.G. Bartlett L.G. Kashyap T. Walker C.J. Khakoo S.I. Blunt M.D. Modulation of anti-tumour immunity by XPO1 inhibitors Explor. Target. Anti-Tumor Ther. 2025 6 1002310 10.37349/etat.2025.1002310 PMC12022495 40291981

326. Wang D. Fu H. Que Y. Ruan H. Xu M. Long X. Yu Q. Li C. Li Z. Cai S. A novel two-step administration of XPO-1 inhibitor may enhance the effect of anti-BCMA CAR-T in relapsed/refractory extramedullary multiple myeloma J. Transl. Med. 2023 21 812 10.1186/s12967-023-04655-w 37964302 PMC10647128