Unraveling the Complex Regulatory Relationships Between Metabolism and Signal Transduction in Cancer

  • Michelle L. Wynn
  • Sofia D. Merajver
  • Santiago Schnell
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 736)

Abstract

Cancer cells exhibit an altered metabolic phenotype, known as the Warburg effect, which is characterized by high rates of glucose uptake and glycolysis, even under aerobic conditions. The Warburg effect appears to be an intrinsic component of most cancers and there is evidence linking cancer progression to mutations, translocations, and alternative splicing of genes that directly code for or have downstream effects on key metabolic enzymes. Many of the same signaling pathways are routinely dysregulated in cancer and a number of important oncogenic signaling pathways play important regulatory roles in central carbon metabolism. Unraveling the complex regulatory relationship between cancer metabolism and signaling requires the application of systems biology approaches. Here we discuss computational approaches for modeling protein signal transduction and metabolism as well as how the regulatory relationship between these two important cellular processes can be combined into hybrid models.

References

  1. 1.
    Warburg O (1956) On the origin of cancer cells. Science 123(3191):309–314PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    DeBerardinis RJ, Sayed N, Ditsworth D, Thompson CB (2008) Brick by brick: metabolism and tumor cell growth. Curr Opin Genet Dev 18(1):54–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nakajo M, Jinnouchi S, Inoue H, Otsuka M, Matsumoto T, Kukita T, Tanabe H, Tateno R, Nakajo M (2007) FDG PET findings of chronic myeloid leukemia in the chronic phase before and after treatment. Clin Nucl Med 32(10):775–778PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hsu PP, Sabatini DM (2008) Cancer cell metabolism: Warburg and beyond. Cell 134(5): 703–707PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vander Heiden MG, Cantley LC, Thompson CB (2009) Understanding the Warburg effect: the metabolic requirements of cell proliferation. Science 324(5930):1029–1033PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gillies RJ, Robey I, Gatenby RA (2008) Causes and consequences of increased glucose metabolism of cancers. J Nucl Med 49(Suppl 2):24S–42SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hitosugi T, Kang S, Vander Heiden MG, Chung TW, Elf S, Lythgoe K, Dong S, Lonial S, Wang X, Chen GZ, Xie J, Gu TL, Polakiewicz RD, Roesel JL, Boggon TJ, Khuri FR, Gilliland DG, Cantley LC, Kaufman J, Chen J (2009) Tyrosine phosphorylation inhibits PKM2 to promote the Warburg effect and tumor growth. Sci Signal 2(97):ra73Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Christofk HR, Vander Heiden MG, Wu N, Asara JM, Cantley LC (2008) Pyruvate kinase M2 is a phosphotyrosine-binding protein. Nature 452(7184):181–186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vogelstein B, Kinzler KW (2004) Cancer genes and the pathways they control. Nat Med 10(8):789–799PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vivanco I, Sawyers CL (2002) The phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase AKT pathway in human cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 2(7):489–501PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Buzzai M, Bauer DE, Jones RG, Deberardinis RJ, Hatzivassiliou G, Elstrom RL, Thompson CB (2005) The glucose dependence of Akt-transformed cells can be reversed by pharmacologic activation of fatty acid beta-oxidation. Oncogene 24(26):4165–4173PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Elstrom RL, Bauer DE, Buzzai M, Karnauskas R, Harris MH, Plas DR, Zhuang H, Cinalli RM, Alavi A, Rudin CM, Thompson CB (2004) Akt stimulates aerobic glycolysis in cancer cells. Cancer Res 64(11):3892–3899PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thompson CB (2009) Metabolic enzymes as oncogenes or tumor suppressors. New Engl J Med 360(8):813–815PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Christofk HR, Vander Heiden MG, Harris MH, Ramanathan A, Gerszten RE, Wei R, Fleming MD, Schreiber SL, Cantley LC (2008) The M2 splice isoform of pyruvate kinase is important for cancer metabolism and tumour growth. Nature 452(7184):230–233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zu XL, Guppy M (2004) Cancer metabolism: facts, fantasy, and fiction. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 313(3):459–465PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hanahan D, Weinberg RA (2011) Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 144(5):646–674PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Aldridge BB, Burke JM, Lauffenburger DA, Sorger PK (2006) Physicochemical modelling of cell signalling pathways. Nat Cell Biol 8(11):1195–1203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Turner TE, Schnell S, Burrage K (2004) Stochastic approaches for modelling in vivo reactions. Comput Biol Chem 28(3):165–178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cornish-Bowden A (2004) Fundamentals of enzyme kinetics, 3rd edn. Portland, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goldbeter A, Koshland DE Jr (1981) An amplified sensitivity arising from covalent modification in biological systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 78(11):6840–6844PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kholodenko BN (2006) Cell-signalling dynamics in time and space. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 7(3):165–176PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Flach EH, Schnell S (2006) Use and abuse of the quasi-steady-state approximation. Syst Biol 153(4):187–191Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Segel LA (1984) Modeling dynamic phenomena in molecular and cellular biology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gombert AK, Nielsen J (2000) Mathematical modelling of metabolism. Curr Opin Biotechnol 11(2):180–186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Heinrich R, Schuster S (1996) The regulation of cellular systems. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Albert I, Thakar J, Li S, Zhang R, Albert R (2008) Boolean network simulations for life scientists. Source Code Biol Med 3:16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Thomas R, D’Ari R (1990) Biological Feeback. CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Goldbeter A, Lefever R (1972) Dissipative structures for an allosteric model. Application to glycolytic oscillations. Biophys J 12(10):1302–1315Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sel’kov EE (1968) Self-oscillations in glycolysis. 1. A simple kinetic model. Eur J Biochem 4(1):79–86Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Heinrich R, Rapoport SM, Rapoport TA (1977) Metabolic regulation and mathematical models. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 32(1):1–82PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Heinrich R, Schuster S (1996) The regulation of cellular systems. Chapman & Hall, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fersht A (1999) Structure and mechanism in protein science: A guide to enzyme catalysis and protein folding. WH Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schnell S, Maini PK (2003) A century of enzyme kinetics: reliability of the K Mand v maxestimates. Comm Theor Biol 8(2–3):169–187Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cook PF, Cleland WW (2007) Enzyme kinetics and mechanism. Garland Science, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Savageau MA (1969) Biochemical systems analysis. I. Some mathematical properties of the rate law for the component enzymatic reactions. J Theor Biol 25(3):365–369Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Savageau MA (1969) Biochemical systems analysis. II. The steady-state solutions for an n-pool system using a power-law approximation. J Theor Biol 25(3):370–379Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Savageau MA (1970) Biochemical systems analysis. III. Dynamic solutions using a power-law approximation. J Theor Biol 26(2):215–226Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kacser H, Burns JA (1973) The control of flux. Symp Soc Exp Biol 27:65–104PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Heinrich R, Rapoport TA (1974) A linear steady state treatment of enzymatic chains: general properties, control and effector strength. Eur J Biochem 42(1):89–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Heinrich R, Rapoport TA (1974) A linear steady state treatment of enzymatic chains. Critique of the crossover theorem and a general procedure to identify interaction sites with an effector. Eur J Biochem 42(1):97–105Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Crabtree B, Newsholme EA (1978) Sensitivity of a near-equilibrium reaction in a metabolic pathway to changes in substrate concentration. Eur J Biochem 89(1):19–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Crabtree B, Newsholme EA (1985) A quantitative approach to metabolic control. Curr Top Cell Reg 25:21–76Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Crabtree B, Newsholme EA (1987) The derivation and interpretation of control coefficients. Biochem J 247(1):113–120PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Varma A, Morbidelli M, Wu H (1999) Parametric sensitivity in chemical systems. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Fell D (1997) Understanding the control of metabolism. Frontiers in metabolism. Portland, LondonGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Voit EO (2000) Computational analysis of biochemical systems: A practical guide for biochemists and molecular biologists. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Cornish-Bowden A, Cardenas ML (2005) Systems biology may work when we learn to understand the parts in terms of the whole. Biochem Soc Trans 33(3):516–519PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Piedrafita G, Montero F, Morán F, Cárdenas ML, Cornish-Bowden A (2010) A simple self-maintaining metabolic system: Robustness, autocatalysis, bistability. PLoS Comput Biol 6(8):e1000872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Rosen R (1991) Life itself: a comprenhensive inquiry into the nature of origin and fabrication of life. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Cornish-Bowden A, Cárdenas ML, Letelier JC, Soto-Andrade J (2007) Beyond reductionism: metabolic circularity as a guiding vision for a real biology of systems. Proteomics 7(6):839–845PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Letelier JC, Soto-Andrade J, Guíñez Abarzúa F, Cornish-Bowden A, Luz Cárdenas M (2006) Organizational invariance and metabolic closure: analysis in terms of (M, R) systems. J Theor Biol 238(4):949–961PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Huang CY, Ferrell JE Jr (1996) Ultrasensitivity in the mitogen-activated protein kinase cascade. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93(19):10078–10083PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ventura AC, Jiang P, Van Wassenhove L, Del Vecchio D, Merajver SD, Ninfa AJ (2010) Signaling properties of a covalent modification cycle are altered by a downstream target. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(22):10032–10037PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ventura AC, Sepulchre JA, Merajver SD (2008) A hidden feedback in signaling cascades is revealed. PLoS Comput Biol 4(3):e1000041PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Aldridge BB, Saez-Rodriguez J, Muhlich JL, Sorger PK, Lauffenburger DA (2009) Fuzzy logic analysis of kinase pathway crosstalk in TNF/EGF/insulin-induced signaling. PLoS Comput Biol 5(4):e1000340PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Albert R, Othmer HG (2003) The topology of the regulatory interactions predicts the expression pattern of the segment polarity genes in Drosophila melanogaster. J Theor Biol 223(1):1–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Li S, Assmann SM, Albert R (2006) Predicting essential components of signal transduction networks: a dynamic model of guard cell abscisic acid signaling. PLoS Biol 4(10):e312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Zhang R, Shah MV, Yang J, Nyland SB, Liu X, Yun JK, Albert R, Loughran TP Jr (2008) Network model of survival signaling in large granular lymphocyte leukemia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(42):16308–16313PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Anderson AR, Quaranta V (2008) Integrative mathematical oncology. Nat Rev Cancer 8(3):227–234PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Alarcon T, Byrne HM, Maini PK (2004) A multiple scale model for tumor growth. Multiscale Model Sim 3(2):440–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Ribba B, Colin T, Schnell S (2006) A multiscale mathematical model of cancer, and its use in analyzing irradiation therapies. Theor Biol Med Model 3:7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Ribba B, Saut O, Colin T, Bresch D, Grenier E, Boissel JP (2006) A multiscale mathematical model of avascular tumor growth to investigate the therapeutic benefit of anti-invasive agents. J Theor Biol 243(4):532–541PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Frieboes HB, Chaplain MA, Thompson AM, Bearer EL, Lowengrub JS, Cristini V (2011) Physical oncology: a bench-to-bedside quantitative and predictive approach. Cancer Res 71(2):298–302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Singhania R, Sramkoski RM, Jacobberger JW, Tyson JJ (2011) A hybrid model of mammalian cell cycle regulation. PLoS Comput Biol 7(2):e1001077PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Eden E, Geva-Zatorsky N, Issaeva I, Cohen A, Dekel E, Danon T, Cohen L, Mayo A, Alon U (2011) Proteome half-life dynamics in living human cells. Science 331(6018):764–768PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Berg JM, Tymoczko JL, Stryer L (2002) Biochemistry. 5th edn. WH Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michelle L. Wynn
    • 1
  • Sofia D. Merajver
    • 2
  • Santiago Schnell
    • 3
  1. 1.Center for Computational Medicine and BioinformaticsUniversity of Michigan Medical SchoolAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Department of Internal Medicine and Center for Computational Medicine and BioinformaticsUniversity of Michigan Medical SchoolAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.Department of Molecular and Integrative Physiology, Center for Computational Medicine and Bioinformatics and Brehm Center for Diabetes ResearchUniversity of Michigan Medical SchoolAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations