Multistage carcinogenesis process as molecular targets in cancer chemoprevention by epicatechin-3-gallate

Abstract

The consumption of green tea has long been associated with a reduced risk of cancer development. (−)-Epicatechin-3-gallate (ECG) or (−)-epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG) are the major antioxidative polyphenolic compounds of green tea. They have been shown to exert growth-inhibitory potential of various cancer cells in culture and antitumor activity in vivo models. ECG or EGCG could interact with various molecules like proteins, transcription factors, and enzymes, which block multiple stages of carcinogenesis via regulating intracellular signaling transduction pathways. Moreover, ECG and EGCG possess pharmacological and physiological properties including induction of phase II enzymes, mediation of anti-inflammation response, regulation of cell proliferation and apoptosis effects and prevention of tumor angiogenesis, invasion and metastasis. Numerous review articles have been focused on EGCG, however none have been focused on ECG despite many studies supporting the cancer preventive potential of ECG. To develop ECG as an anticarcinogenic agent, more clear understanding of the cell signaling pathways and the molecular targets responsible for chemopreventive and chemotherapeutic effects are needed. This review summarizes recent research on the ECG-induced cellular signal transduction events which implicate in cancer management.

---

1. Introduction

Tea beverages are brewed from the Camellia sinensis plant (leaves) and have been consumed in China for nearly 5000 years.¹ Of the total amount of tea undergone different manufacturing processes produced and consumed globally, 78% is black tea, 20% is green tea, and <2% is oolong tea.² Black tea is consumed primarily in Western and some Asian countries, whereas green tea is consumed primarily in China, Japan, India, and a few countries in North Africa and the Middle East. The production and consumption of oolong tea and pu-erh tea are confined to southeastern China and Taiwan.³ In recent years, many studies from our and other laboratories have shown that green tea, oolong tea, black tea and pu-erh tea contains several tea catechin components; the major catechins in tea are (−)-epicatechin (EC), (−)-epicatechin-3-gallate (ECG), (−)-epigallocatechin (EGC), and (−)-epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG).^4–7 It is generally agreed that much of the cancer chemopreventive effects of green tea are due to its catechin compounds. Besides tea leaves, litchi (Litchi chinensis Sonn.) peel also contains a large amount of catechins, such as EGC, EC and ECG.^8,9 Several studies indicated that litchi had good antioxidant¹⁰ and anticancer activities.^11,12 Although these studies did not give a direct link between the activities of ECG and litchi peel, however, there was a strong possibility that ECG might be a major contributor to the cancer preventive efficacy in litchi peel.

Vaidyanathan et al.¹³ have reported that ECG is absorbed by monocarboxylate transporter (MCT) resulting in accumulation of ECG in the lumen (75–300 μM) and this accumulated concentration is higher than EGCG or other catechins. It is known that only 0.1% of EGCG is bioavailable (absorbed) after an intragastric administration of green tea;¹⁴ on the other hand, ECG has higher hydrophobicity and preferentially accumulates in various cells compared with EGCG. Additionally, compared to EGCG, ECG is less cytotoxic, and relatively stable at the intracellular level.¹⁵ Thus, ECG may be more potent than EGCG in bioavailability and anti-cancer potential. Both EGCG and ECG are the most concentrated catechins in green tea, and are believed to be responsible for the anti-inflammatory/antioxidant activities of green tea.¹⁶ Green tea catechins have anticancer potential with multi-targets and multi-functions, and are non-toxic.¹⁷ Ravindranath et al. showed that the ECG inhibited the growth of human tumor cells with an equal or more potency than EGCG in gender-based carcinomas.^18,19 On the other hand, ECG has been shown to be more susceptible to degradation than EGCG during storage of tea leaves²⁰ and studies showed that ECG was not detected or detected at a very low level in human plasma and urine samples,²¹ suggesting that ECG could be conjugated with glucuronic acid and/or sulfate in plasma^22,23 in animal models.²⁴ Many literature and reviews display the cancer preventive effects of EGCG; only a few studies discussed the usefulness of ECG. Therefore, in this review, we focus on the potential anticarcinogenic and chemopreventive abilities of ECG, and discuss mechanisms on the modulation of cellular signaling events by ECG.

2. Chemopreventive potential of ECG in multi-stage carcinogenesis

Cancer is generally considered as uncontrolled cell division that results in the aggregation of cells to form tumors. There are many factors which are involved in the pathogenesis of cancer, such as: (1) individuals that engaged in risk-taking behaviors or lifestyles (e.g. smoking, use of snuff, and lack of proper diet like high in meat and low in fruits and vegetables);²⁵ (2) exposure to known carcinogens (e.g. heavy metals of chromium);²⁶ and (3) genetic mutations to the development of cancer (e.g. familial adenomatous polyposis,²⁷etc.) On this basis, cancer results from a multistage carcinogenesis process in which distinct molecular and cellular alterations that involves three stages: initiation (normal cell → transformed or initiated cell), promotion (initiated cell → preneoplastic cell), and progression (preneoplastic cell → neoplastic cell).

Initiation is a result of rather rapid and irreparable process to the cell, which includes the uptake of a carcinogenic agent and its distribution and transport to organs and tissues by its metabolic activation and the subsequent covalent interaction with target cell DNA, leading to stable genotoxic damage. The transformed cells undergo many changes to form preneoplastic cells. In contrast to initiation, tumor promotion process is not rapid, and oxidative stress and chronic inflammatory are key components in promoting tumor proliferation and angiogenesis which is necessary for solid tumor growth.²⁸ Progression involves the gradual conversion of tumor cells to the invasive cells, leading to increase metastatic potential. Each of these progression processes (angiogenesis→ invasion→ metastasis) involves rate-limiting steps that are influenced by non-malignant cells of the tumour microenvironment.²⁹

Tumour microenvironment involved many factors such as the reactive oxygen and nitrogen species (ROS and RNS), hypoxia, cytokines, growth factors, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and matrix metalloproteinase (MMP). The microenvironmental factors were produced by cancer cells, endothelial cells, stoma fibroblasts and a variety of bone marrow-derived cells (BMDCs).^29,30 It can be suggested that three major types of chemopreventive agents are: (1) inhibitors for the formation of various carcinogens; (2) blocking agents to activate detoxification, to induce antioxidant enzymes, to reduce inflammatory responses and to decrease tumor cell growth by inducing apoptosis and/or cell cycle arrest; (3) suppressing agents to restrain the tumor cells from promotion and progression by destroying one or more cell signaling pathways. Therefore, chemopreventive agent in addition to known mechanism of action, it should have the following characteristics of little or no toxic effects; high efficiency; capability of oral administration; and low cost.³¹ Overall, ECG is an ideal chemopreventive agent (Fig. 1) which is known to reverse various intracellular signal transduction pathways by blocking or modulating the molecular expression during carcinogenesis processes (Fig. 2).

Fig. 1 Chemoprevention and chemotherapy effect of ECG.

Fig. 2 Schematic represents of chemopreventive targets and efficiency of ECG on multiple stage carcinogenesis.

3. ECG block initiation stage in carcinogenesis process

Inhibition of metabolic and induction of phase II detoxifying/oxidant enzymes

Chemicals from dietary and environmental sources undergo oxidative metabolism by phase I enzymes, a major part of the cytochrome P450 monooxygenases superfamily, to get converted to polar (water-soluble) metabolites, which are subsequently excreted viaconjugation reactions catalyzed by phase II detoxifying enzymes, such as glutathione-S-transferase (GST), glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px), superoxide dismutase (SOD), heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1) and NAD(P)H:quinone oxidoreductase 1 (NQO1), thus preventing carcinogens attacking cellular DNA and initiating tumorigenesis.³² In the absence of phases II enzymes, the metabolically active carcinogens can form a covalent adduct with DNA, resulting irreversible genotoxic damages. Irreparable damage leads to mutations in critical genes involved in growth, proliferation, and apoptosis, resulting in initiation and subsequent development of cancer. Several studies have demonstrated that ECG inhibited CYP450 isoforms implicated in rat CYP1A1/2,³³ and human CYP3A4, CYP2A6, CYP2C19 and CYP2E1³⁴ in PB- or 3-methylcholanthrene-treated and B[a]P, PhIP and AFB1-treated CYP enzymes. Besides blocking the activation of CYP enzymes, ECG was shown to abrogate up to 50% benzo[a]pyrene (B[a]P)-diol epoxide-DNA adduct formation in B[a]P-treated BEAS-2B cells; inhibiting ODC activity and ∼20–30% free radical generation in 12-O-tetradecanoylphorbol-13-acetate (TPA)-stimulated 2C5 cells and HL-60 cells, respectively; increasing GST and NQO1 activity which could contribute to the inhibition of B[a]P-induced cell transformation ability in the anchorage-independent growth assay.³⁵ In hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂)-stimulated human bladder urothelial cells (TCCSUP and T24 BlCa), ECG could protect against oxidative stress/damage and cell death by reducing ROS production.³⁶ Moreover, ECG also inhibited H₂O₂ production and ERK phosphorylation that preventing UVA-induced damage in keratinocytes (HaCaT cells).³⁷ Besides, Chen et al. demonstrated that co-treatment with ECG and EGCG showed a synergistically protective effect compared to nongalloylated catechins by significantly increased cell viability, decreased lipid peroxidation and protected cell membrane against damage in lead-exposed HepG2 cells.³⁸ These data indicated that ECG would potentiate antioxidant and anti-ageing capability. Protecting cells from oxidative damage not only can directly scavenge reactive oxygen species (ROS) but also enhance the body's antioxidant enzymes by inducing de novo expression of genes that encode detoxifying/antioxidant enzymes. Recent studies have demonstrated that ECG suppressed cellular lipid peroxidation through decreased thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) accumulation, glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px) activity and GSSG content, and increased GSH level, as well as reduced cytotoxicity in tert-butylated hydroperoxide (t-BOOH)-exposed HepG2 cells.³⁹ It has been shown that the reduced oxidative stress by activation of nuclear factor erythroid 2 p45 (NF-E2)-related factor 2 (Nrf2) signaling could regulate antioxidant enzyme expression.⁴⁰ Therefore, Nrf2 signaling is considered as an important molecular target for cancer prevention.⁴¹ Although, ECG can increase phase II enzymes, it is not clear whether this effect is due to the modulation of Nrf2 signaling.

4. ECG block promotion stage in carcinogenesis process

Anti-inflammation efficacy

Chronic inflammation and infection are causally linked to multistage carcinogenic process.⁴² The inflammation processes lead to the up-regulation of a series of enzymes and signaling proteins in infected tissues and cells. These proinflammatory enzymes include the inducible forms of nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) and cyclooxygenase (COX-2), responsible for elevated levels of nitric oxide (NO) and prostaglandins (PGE₂), respectively, and pro-inflammatory cytokines such as interleukin-1 (IL-1), IL-6 and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), have been known to be involved directly or indirectly in carcinogenesis, especially in the promotion and progression stages.^43,44 In addition, more and more evidence suggests the role for chemokines in cancer development, such as the expression of adhesion molecules, the secretion of proteinases, inhibition of apoptosis, and angiogenesis.⁴⁵ Thus, blocking inflammation signaling is usually recognized as potential mode for chemoprevention. Hong et al. have reported that ECG suppresses COX-2 and LOX activity, PGE₂ production, and TBX and HHT formation in human colonic mucosa and tumor tissues.⁴⁶ECG revealed anti-inflammatory effects by decreasing H₂O₂-induced intracellular ROS generation and impeding the phosphorylation of EGFR and ERK1, and suppressing MUC5AC overexpression.⁴⁷ECG inhibited phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and ERK, and attenuated IL-17 receptor expression which results in preventing IL-17A-mediated CCL20 production.⁴⁸ Besides inhibiting 12-O-tetradecanoylphorbol-13-acetate (TPA)-induced inflammation (edema) in mouse ears,⁴⁹ECG was also shown to significantly reverse interleukin-6 (IL-6) and to reduce transthyretin (TTR) and retinol binding protein (RBP) synthesis and secretion that could also be dependent on their antioxidant activities in human hepatoma cell line HepG2.⁵⁰IL-6 is believed to modulate the acute-phase protein synthesis and to down-regulate the negative acute-phase protein levels (TTR and RBP) in various inflammatory states.^51,52 Studies have shown that antioxidants may attenuate the acute-phase response. The acute-phase response is a collective term referring to the constellation of host defense mechanisms induced in response to inflammation and infection.⁵³ Therefore, the inhibitory activity of ECG toward inflammation may include the activation of Nrf2 signaling pathways.

Cell cycle regulation and growth inhibition

The progression of the cell cycle is regulated by cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) molecules and cyclins, Cdk inhibitors (CDKIs), and check point kinases (Chk 1 and Chk 2), which drive the cell from one phase to the next and maintenance of cell growth and differentiation.⁵⁴ Uncontrolled cell proliferation is characteristic of transformed and malignant cells. Therefore, the modulation of cell cycle progression is one of the important strategies for chemoprevention in the multistage carcinogenesis. Most of earlier literature indicates that ECG treatment inhibited cell growth in various transformed cancer cell lines including prostate, pancreas, colon, liver, lung, breast, melanoma and tongue in a dose- and time-dependent manner.^18,55–61ECG has been reported to suppress abnormal cell growth and survival of lung tissues from B[a]P-induced lung carcinogenesis by blocking growth factor or inducing apoptosis-associated signal transduction molecular such as p53 and its downstream target genes such as Bcl-2, Bax, CDKI (p21 and p27), along with H-ras, c-myc, cyclinD1, at different time points.⁶² The anti-proliferation ability of ECG comes from arrest in G1 phase of the cell cycle progression via down-regulation of the β-catenin/T-cell factor (TCF)-mediated cyclin D1 gene transcription in SCC7cells.⁶³ECG has been reported to inhibit proliferation and growth of cancerous cells by down-regulating NUDT6 and hnRNP B1 mRNA expression in HCT116⁶⁴ and A549 cells,⁶⁵ respectively. Additionally, ECG may also inhibit 5 α-reductase⁶⁶ and fatty acid synthase (FAS)^67,68 activity that are important enzymes involved in cellular metabolism and growth regulation. The anti-proliferation effect not only modulates by proliferative gene, but also regulates through growth factor stimulation.⁶⁹ Most growth factors bind to specific receptors, like PDGF (platelet derived growth factor), fibroblast growth factor-2 (FGF-2) and epidermal growth factor (EGF), that can act, besides stimulation of many types of cells to divide, also stimulate cell growth, survival, differentiation, or migration, depending on the environment and the cell type.^70,71

Studies indicate that estrogen receptor (ER) cross-talks with growth factor resulting in induced tumor growth and survival via mediating intracellular kinase cascades and activating downstream transcription factors, which act coordinately to regulated target genes expression involved in multiple carcinogenesis processes.^72–74ECG has been shown to inhibit ER-dependent breast cancer cell proliferation (MCF-7) and retarded tumor growth in immature female C57BL/6 mice by blocking ER activity.⁷⁵ Moreover, ECG may also inhibit the PDGF-BB-induced tyrosine phosphorylation of PDGF β receptor (PDGF-Rβ) and colony formation on the anchorage-independent growth of A172 glioblastoma cells.⁷⁶ Recent reports indicated that activator protein 1 (AP-1) transcriptional activity can be stimulated by various signaling pathways that include external signals (i.e., growth factors and tyrosine kinase receptors) and cellular downstream kinase pathways such as mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPKs) of the extracellular-signal-regulated kinase (ERK), p38 and JUN amino-terminal kinase (JNK) families.⁷⁷ AP-1 transcription factor regulates variety of genes that play a critical role in various cellular functions including inflammation, proliferation, transformation, survival and cell death; AP-1 activity has been associated with tumorigenesis of various types of cancers.⁷⁸ Recently, ECG was shown to decrease AP-1 activity and cell proliferation in ras-transformed 30.7b cells.⁷⁹ Furthermore, recent data suggested that ECG might exert anti-proliferation effects by inhibiting P-glycoprotein (P-gp) efflux pump activity and enhancing intracellular accumulation of P-gp substrates (e.g.daunorubicin and rhodamine-123) in the multidrug-resistant cell lines CH(R) C5,⁸⁰ BEL-7404/DOX⁸¹ and KB-C2,⁸² and thereby increased anticancer efficiency.

Apoptosis mediation

Apoptosis (programmed cell death) is a multi-step, multi-pathway and highly ordered process that is a necessary part of the development and homeostasis of multicellular organisms. Apoptosis pathways can be initiated by a variety of stimuli, including genotoxic compounds and various environmental stresses (e.g. oxidative stress and irradiation) at the plasma membrane by death receptor ligation (extrinsic pathway) or at the mitochondria (intrinsic pathway). In both pathways, induction of apoptosis leads to activation of initiator caspases and then activate executioner caspases, which cleave the death substrates (like poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP)) and eventually result in DNA fragmentation.^83,84Induction of apoptosis serves as a protective mechanism against the development of diseases such as cancer by eliminating genetically damaged cells or unwanted cells that have improperly been induced to divide.⁸⁵ Cancerous cells escape from apoptosis through the overexpression of growth-promoting oncogenes and anti-apoptotic proteins such as Ras and Bcl-2 or by down-regulation or mutation of pro-apoptotic proteins such as p53 that promote neoplastic cell proliferation and tumorigenesis.⁸⁶ Therefore, the activation of pro-apoptotic protein in cancer cells is one of the important strategies for cancer prevention. ECG has been reported to induce apoptosis in NCI-H460 cells by increasing the expression of p53 and reducing the expression of Bcl-2, but protein levels of H-ras and c-Myc remained unchanged.⁸⁷

Several reports revealed that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) activated gene (NAG-1) is a pro-apoptotic and antitumorigenic gene,⁸⁸ which regulated by several transcription factors such as p53,^89,90 activating transcription factor 3 (ATF3)⁹¹ and early growth response gene-1 (EGR-1).⁹² In HCT116 cells, ECG enhanced NAG-1 expression via mediated ATF3 transcriptional activity and induced TSP1 expression resulting in PARP cleavage and apoptosis, suggesting that ECG acted by a p53-independent pathway.⁹³ Previous reports also indicated that EGR-1 acted as a tumor suppressor gene by directly binding to p53,⁹⁴NAG-1⁹⁵ and phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN)⁹⁶ promoters. Interestingly, ATF3 promoter activity is regulated by a variety of transcription factors, including NF-κB,⁹⁷ EGR-1⁹⁸ and ATF/CRE.⁹⁹ Similarly, ECG may also induce ATF3 and NAG-1 expression by increased EGR-1 transcriptional capability, these results displayed that ROS participated in the ECG-induced ATF3 expression but not ECG-induced NAG-1 expression.¹⁰⁰ Simon et al. have shown that intracellular accumulation of ROS induced apoptosis by stimulating cytochrome c release to the cytosol that triggered caspase activation in many biological systems.¹⁰¹ Accordingly, ROS and mitochondria play an important role in proapoptotic activity. Previously studies showed that ECG could increased ROS formation and mitochondrial depolarization, thereby inducing apoptosis in DU145 cells.¹⁰² Moreover, ECG also induced caspase-3 activity, DNA fragmentation, H₂O₂ generation and apoptosis in the carcinoma HSC-2 cells.¹⁰³ Therefore, recent studies suggested that ECG contributed to pro-oxidative activity which played an important role in proapoptotic pathways. In another study, ECG effectively suppressed the growth and survival of KATO III cells by blocking okadaic acid-induced tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) release and initiating apoptosis by inducing DNA fragmentation.¹⁰⁴ Accumulating studies exhibited that activation of TNF-α signaling pathway might lead to cell proliferation and anti-apoptosis through activated downstreamMAPK kinase and transcription factors such as NF-κB and AP-1.¹⁰⁵ Although ECG may induce apoptosis by triggering various molecules, this beneficial efficacy is still deficient in solid molecular mechanism and requires further investigation.

5. ECG blocks progression stage in carcinogenesis process

Anti-metastasis ability

Cancer cells migrate from the primary tumor to distant organs and proliferate at the metastatic sites, are not only promoting cancer progression but also the major cause of death for cancer patients.¹⁰⁶ At each metastatic step, the tumor cells can be modulated by microenvironmental factors, including interactions with variety of proteolytic enzymes (e.g. matrix metalloproteinases), growth factors (e.g.EGF), and cell-cell and cell-substrate adhesion molecules (e.g. ECM protein).²⁹ Therefore, prevention of cancer metastasis is considered novel targets for therapy in common malignancies. Collagenases (e.g. MMP-1, MMP-13) and gelatinases (e.g. MMP-2, MMP-9) are known as matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), which act as important mediators of ECM degradation involved in controlling tumor invasion.^107,108ECG has been reported to inhibit HT1080 cells invasion by blocking matrix metalloproteinases activity-9 (MMP-9) and -2 (MMP-2) activities in the absence of cytotoxicity.¹⁰⁹ Likewise, ECG also reduced thrombin-induced activation of MMP-2 by direct inhibiting membrane-type matrix metalloproteinases-1 (MT1-MMP) activity, which led to the inhibition of invasion of vascular smooth muscle cells (VSMCs).¹¹⁰ Moreover, ECG has stronger inhibitory effect than EGCG on both eukaryotic and prokaryotic cell-derived collagenase¹¹¹ and MMP-7 (Matrilysin)¹¹² activities.

Numerous laboratories have demonstrated that hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) plays a crucial role in cancer cell migration, matrix adhesion, invasion, proliferation and angiogenesis, via the phosphorylation of the c-met tyrosine kinase and activation of downstream signaling molecules including AKT, Ras/MAPK and the JAK/STAT pathway.^113–115ECG has been shown to inhibit HGF-induced cell motility and scattering by blocking HGF-stimulated Met, ERK and AKT phosphorylation.^116,117 According to a recent reports, EGCG may be more effective than ECG in preventing tumor cell angiogenesis through abolish nucleoside diphosphate kinase (NDPK-B)¹¹⁸ and ribonuclease A (RNase A)¹¹⁹ activities, which are associated with tumor-induced metastatic process.^120,121 Additionally, ECG could impair the adhering and/or spreading of mouse lung carcinoma 3LL and melanoma B16F10 cells to the fibronetin and endothelial cells,^122,123 which play a critical role in the process of metastatic tumor dissemination.¹²⁴ Taken together, these findings suggest that ECG possesses anti-metastasis property by regulating multiple intracellular signaling molecules.

6. Discussion

Table 1 summarizes various molecular targets of ECG as a cancer chemopreventive agent. The efficacy of ECG is also compared to EGCG in various systems. Several studies have demonstrated that EGCG and ECG reduced the carcinogenic formation by interacting with microsomal cytochrome P450 enzyme proteins and impairing electron transfer. The inhibition of carbon monoxide-reduced cytochrome P450 binding by EGCG was higher than ECG. Furthermore, EGCG and ECG were potent inducer of phase II enzymes. Activation of these enzymes was accompanied by significant attenuation of lipid peroxidation and against oxidative stress.

Table 1 Molecular targets of ECG as an anticarcinogenic agent

Molecular targets	Experimental models		Reference	¦ Outcomes
	Studied type	Dose
CYP enzymes
↓CYP45 activity	PB- or 3-methylcholanthrene-treated rats	0.2–100 mM	33	EGCG > ECG
↓CYP1A1/2, CYP3A4, CYP2A6, CYP2C19, and CYP2E1 activity	B[a]P, PhIP and AFB1 treated human CYP enzymes	IC50 = 20, 35, 30 μM	34	EGCG > ECG
Phase II detoxification and antioxidant enzymes
↓B[a]P DNA adduct formation;↓ODC activity; ↑NADPH:QR (NQO1);↑GST activity;↓Free radical	BEAS-2B cells; 2C5 cells; HL-60 cells, A427, RTE	0.0001–1 mM	35	EGCG = ECG
↓ROS (oxidative stress/damage)	H2O2-treated human bladder urothelial cells	10–40 μg ml^−1	36	ECG > EGCG
↓Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) production; ↓ERK1/2 phosphorylation	UVA-induced HaCaT keratinocyte	1–100 μM	37	ECG > EGCG
↓GSH-Px activity;↓GSSG and TBARS level;↑GSH content	t-BOOH-treated HepG2 cells	10–25 μM	39	EGCG > ECG
Pro-inflammatory mediators
↓COX and LOX activity;↓PGE2 production; ↓TBX and HHT formation	Colon mucosa and tumor from human	30 μg ml^−1	46	ECG > EGCG
↓ROS production;↓p-EGFR (tyr1068,1048,992 and 845); ↓Expression of protein and mRNA MUC5AC;↓p-ERK1/2	H2O2–induced Passage-2 NHNE cells	100 μM	47	ECG
↑TTR and RBP levels	IL-6-stimulated HepG2 cells	25 μM	50	EGCG > ECG
↓Edema	TPA-treated mouse ear	1 μmol	49	EGCG > ECG
↓Chemokine CCL20 production;↓IL-17R expression ↓p38 and p-ERK	IL-17A-stimulated HGF cells	50 μg ml^−1	48	EGCG > ECG
Growth inhibition and cell cycle arrest
↓NUDT6 expression	HCT-116 cells	50 μM	64	EGCG > ECG
↓hnRNP B1 mRNA level	A549 cells	IC50 = 50 μM	65	EGCG > ECG
↓AP-1 activity	30.7b Ras 12 cells	IC50 = 15 μM	79	EGCG > ECG
↓H-ras, c-myc, cyclinD1 and Bcl-2 expression; ↑p21, p27, p53 and Bax expression	B[a]P-induced lung carcinogenesis	4 μg	62	EGCG = ECG
↓P-glycoprotein (P-gp) efflux pump activity	BEL-7404/DOX; CHRC5 cells; KB-C2 cells	50–100 μM	80–82	EGCG > ECG
↓CyclinD1 expression;↓β-catenin activity	SCC7 cells	50 μM	63	ECG > EGCG
↓PDGF-Rβ tyrosine kinase activity	A172 glioblastoma cells	50 μM	76	ECG ≧ EGCG
↓ERβ activity;↑Uterine peroxidase activity	MCF-7, C57BL/6 mice	1 μM	75	ECG ≧ EGCG
↓5 α-reductase activity	Rat liver and rat-1A cells	IC50 = 12 μM	66	EGCG > ECG
↓Fatty acid synthase (FAS) activity	chicken liver FAS	IC50 = 42 μM	67,68	ECG > EGCG
Molecules of the apoptotic signaling pathway
↑p53 expression;↓Bcl-2 expression	NCI-H460 cells		87
↑Caspase-3 activity;↑H2O2 production	HSC-2 cells	125 μM	103	ECG > EGCG
↑NAG-1 and ATF3 expression;↑Egr-1 activity	HCT-116 cells	50 μM	100	EGCG = ECG
↑Expression of NAG-1 and TSP-1 protein and mRNA; ↑ATF3 activity;↑cleavage of PARP	HCT-116 cells	50 μM	93	ECG > EGCG
↑ROS production;↑mitochondrial depolarization	DU145 cells	100 μM	102	ECG > EGCG
↓TNF-α release	KATO III cells	26–500 μM	104	ECG > EGCG
Invasion and metastatic progression
↓MMP-2 and MMP9 activity	HT1080 cells	100 μg ml^−1	109	ECG > EGCG
↓MMP-2 and MT1-MMP activity	Thrombin-induced VSMCs	30 μM	110	ECG > EGCG
↓MMP-7 activity		IC50 = 0.47 μM	132	ECG > EGCG
↓↓phosphorylation of Met, ERK and Akt	MCF10A cells	0.6∼5 μM	116	EGCG > ECG
↓Phosphorylation of ERK and Akt	DU145 cells	1∼10 μM	117	EGCG = ECG
↓NDP kinase activity	MDA-MB-435 cells	−3.5 log M	118	EGCG > ECG
↓Adhesion and/or spreading	3LL or B16F10 cells		122,123
↓Ribonuclease A (RNase A) enzymatic activity	Cu(II)-ECG complex	4∼6.7 μM	119	EGCG > ECG
↓Collagenase activity	Prokaryotic and eukaryotic cell	100 μg ml^−1	111	ECG > EGCG

---

However, ECG strongly protected the cell damage, cytotoxicity and chronic inflammatory, induced by H₂O₂ and UVA. Adachi et al.¹²⁵ have reported that EGCG could suppress epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) activation by induce internalization of EGFRs into endosomes in colon cancer cells. In contrast, ECG may inhibit the dimerization or intracellular kinase phosphorylation and endocytosis of EGFR at the cell surface of NHNE cells, but does not change the number of cell surface-associated EGFR. Previous reports indicate that ECG has strong inhibitory effect on arachidonic acid metabolism in human colon mucosa and colon tumors, and prevention of inflammation-induced carcinogenesis. In inflammatory processes, EGCG treatment more effectively suppressed production of proinflammatory cytokines and phosphorylation of p38 and ERK compared to ECG treatment. In addition, EGCG can also potently enhance negative acute-phase protein (TTR and RBP) secretions and achieve anti-inflammation actions.

Several in vivo and in vitro studies revealed that EGCG and ECG could regulate growth inhibition and induce apoptosisvia modulation of different mechanisms. EGCG and ECG has been shown to reduce H-ras, c-myc, cyclinD1 and Bcl-2gene expression and increase p53 level in B[a]P-induced lung carcinogenesis, but no significant influence on H-ras and c-Myc expressions in a highly metastatic human lung cancer cell line NCI-H460. Moreover, some reports indicated that EGCG and ECG induced apoptosis was mediated via production of ROS (e.g.H₂O₂).

Although ECG has been shown to generate less H₂O₂ than EGCG, it is still found to have greater cytotoxicity to carcinoma HSC-2 cells than the normal HGF-2 fibroblasts. Comparisons with ECG, EGCG showed higher inhibition of cell growth and AP-1 activity due to the presence of a galloyl structure on the B ring. In other research, EGCG more markedly suppressed the proliferation and growth than ECGvia decreasing the proliferative gene NUDT6 level in HCT116 cells. However, ECG showed more effective in inducing apoptosis of DU145 and KATO III cells than EGCG by increasing ROS formation and TNF-α release, respectively. Besides, ECG seems to better inhibit cell growth by blocking β-catenin, PDGF-Rβ, ERβ and FAS activity in different experimental systems. In HCT116 cells, ECG showed stronger antitumorigenic activity than EGCG by activating transcription factors (e.g. Egr-1, ATF-3) mediated anti-cancer gene expression, including TSP-1 and NAG-1. Nevertheless, EGCG-induced NAG-1 expression is regulated by p53. Recently studies also indicate that ECG had the strongest anti-invasion activity by reducing MMP-2 and MMP-9 activity and their activation by a direct inhibition of MT1-MMP.

These studies suggest that ECG may be biologically more active than EGCG, and EGCG was not always the most potent chemopreventive agent among green tea catechins. While EGCG has been well studied and is known to have chemopreventive property in several cancer cells, but molecular mechanisms of ECG have not been well investigated. Therefore, research on the function of ECG is important for understanding its anti-tumor effect.

Previous studies found that ECG more effective than EGCG induced apoptosis and increased cell cycle arrest by inhibiting β-catenin signaling and cyclin D1 expression in SSC-7 cells.⁶³ Interestingly, EGCG may affect anti-tumorigenic activity in a cyclin D1-independent manner.¹²⁶EGCG induced apoptosis through increasing H₂O₂ generation, but not found in ECG-induced apoptosis in HSC-2 cells.¹⁰³ It has been found that treatment with EGCG caused G1 arrest and apoptosis in LoVo cells, whereas ECG triggers just the former process.¹²⁷ Another study displayed that ECG induced apoptosis of HCT116 cells by mediating NAG-1 expression viaATF3 in a p53-independent manner, but EGCG is involved in p53-induced NAG-1 expression.⁹³ These are suggested by resent results, ECG seems to better modulate cell apoptosis in p53 mutant tumor cells. Therefore, these results suggest that ECG and EGCG display differences in anti-tumor mechanisms.

7. Conclusions

In green tea extract, the percentages of the main catechins are EGCG 10–15%, EGC 6–10%, and ECG 2–3%.¹²⁸ However, high ECG (537.14 μg mL⁻¹) occurs in some pu-erh tea¹²⁹ and pu-erh green tea (EGCG 7.689% and ECG 9.890%, respectively).¹³⁰ It is clear that ECG can interfere with multiple cell signaling pathways and has multiple targets within the cells, which are likely to interact together to reduce the risk of carcinogenesis (initiation, promotion and progression stages). These mechanisms include (a) inhibition of phase 1 CYP enzymes, (b) induction of phase II detoxification and antioxidant enzymes, (c) anti-inflammatory efficacy (d) arrest of cell cycle progression, (e) regulation of pro-apoptotic properties and (f) mediation of metastasis processes (Fig. 2 and 3). Many of the anti-carcinogenic affects of ECG may be due to its direct and/or indirect interaction with numerous molecular targets,¹³¹ such as NAG-1, AP-1, 5α-reductase and PDGF. Importantly, these growth inhibitions of ECG have been shown to sensitize cancer cells, but not in normal cells. Despite the regulation of intracellular signaling pathways, ECG may also inhibit RNase A and MMPs enzymatic activity via chelating copper and zinc metals, which are important cofactors for angiogenesis and metastasis. Furthermore, structure function analysis revealed that the gallate moiety of ECG is important for mediating these inhibitory effects which these acts may enhance chemoprevention ability.

Fig. 3 Schematic representation of ECG mediated intracellular signaling transduction pathways on carcinogenesis processes. ▲ Induction of signaling cascades by ECG-regulated; ▼ inhibition of signaling cascades by ECG-regulated.

Abbreviations

AP-1	Activator protein-1
ATF3	Activating transcription factor 3
BMDCs	Bone marrow-derived cells
CAMs	Cell adhesion molecules
CDK	Cyclin-dependent kinase
CDKIs	Cdk inhibitors
Chk	Check point kinases
COX-2	Cyclooxygenase-2
EC	(−)-Epicatechin
ECG	Epicatechin-3-gallate
EGCG	(−)-Epigallocatechin-3-gallate
EGC	(−)-Epigallocatechin
EGF	Epidermal growth factor
EGFR	Epidermal growth factor receptor
EGR-1	Early growth response gene-1
ER	Estrogen receptor
ERK	Extracellular-signal-regulated kinase
FAS	Fatty acid synthase
FGF-2	Fibroblast growth factor-2
GSH-Px	Glutathione peroxidase
GST	Glutathione-S-transferase
HGF	Hepatocyte growth factor
hnRNPB1	Heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein B1
HO-1	Heme oxygenase-1
H2O2	Hydrogen peroxide
IL	Interleukin
iNOS	Inducible nitric oxide synthase
JNK	Jun amino-terminal kinase
MAPK	Mitogen activated protein kinase
MCT	Monocarboxylate transporter
MMP	Matrix metalloproteinase
MT1-MMP	Membrane-type matrix metalloproteinases-1
NAG-1	Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) activated gene-1
NDPK-B	Nucleoside diphosphate kinase
NF-κB	Nuclear factor-κB
NO	Nitric oxide
NQO1	NAD(P)H:quinone oxidoreductase 1
Nrf2	Nuclear factor erythroid 2 p45 (NF-E2)-related factor 2
NUDT6	Nudix (nucleoside diphosphate linked moiety X)-type motif 6
PDGF	Platelet-derived growth factor
PI3K	Phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase
PGs	Prostaglandins
P-gp	P-Glycoprotein
PARP	Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase
PTEN	Phosphatase and tensin homolog
RBP	Retinol binding protein
ROS	Reactive oxygen species
RNS	Reactive nitrogen species
RNase A	Ribonuclease A
SOD	Superoxide dismutase
TBARS	Thiobarbituric acid reactive substances
t-BOOH	tert-Butylated hydroperoxide
TCF	T-cell factor
TGF-β	Transforming growth factor- β
TIMP	Tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase
TNF-α	Tumor necrosis factor- α
TPA	12-O-Tetradecanoyl-phorbol-acetate
TTR	Transthyretin
VEGF	Vascular endothelial growth factor
VSMCs	Vascular smooth muscle cells

References

1. D. L. McKay and J. B. Blumberg, J. Am. Coll. Nutr., 2002, 21, 1.
2. J. Ju, G. Lu, J. D. Lambert and C. S. Yang, Semin. Cancer Biol., 2007, 17, 395.
3. C. Han and Y. Gong, Wei Sheng Yan Jiu, 1999, 28, 343.
4. M. H. Ravindranath, V. Ramasamy, S. Moon, C. Ruiz and S. Muthugounder, Evid. Based. Complement Alternat. Med., 2009, 6, 523.
5. T. Ohe, K. Marutani and S. Nakase, Mutat. Res., Genet. Toxicol. Environ. Mutagen., 2001, 496, 75.
6. K. M. Ku, J. Kim, H. J. Park, K. H. Liu and C. H. Lee, J. Agric. Food Chem., 2010, 58, 345.
7. T. D. Way, H. Y. Lin, D. H. Kuo, S. J. Tsai, J. C. Shieh, J. C. Wu, M. R. Lee and J. K. Lin, J. Agric. Food Chem., 2009, 57, 5257.
8. T. Kuzuhara, M. Suganuma and H. Fujiki, Cancer Lett., 2008, 261, 12.
9. P. C. Q. J. M. G. Donglin Zhang, Postharvest Biol. Technol., 2000, 19, 165.
10. X. Duan, G. Wu and Y. Jiang, Molecules, 2007, 12, 759.
11. X. Wang, Y. Wei, S. Yuan, G. Liu, Y. L. Zhang and W. Wang, Cancer Lett., 2006, 239, 144.
12. A. H. Xiong, W. J. Shen, L. Y. Xiao and J. H. Lv, Zhong Yao Cai, 2008, 31, 1533.
13. J. B. Vaidyanathan and T. Walle, J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., 2003, 307, 745.
14. L. Chen, M. J. Lee, H. Li and C. S. Yang, Drug Metab Dispos., 1997, 25, 1045.
15. Y. Kawai, H. Tanaka, K. Murota, M. Naito and J. Terao, Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun., 2008, 374, 527.
16. H. K. Na and Y. J. Surh, Food Chem. Toxicol., 2008, 46, 1271.
17. S. B. Moyers and N. B. Kumar, Nutr. Rev., 2004, 62, 204.
18. M. H. Ravindranath, T. S. Saravanan, C. C. Monteclaro, N. Presser, X. Ye, S. R. Selvan and S. Brosman, Evid. Based. Complement Alternat. Med., 2006, 3, 237.
19. M. H. Ravindranath, V. Ramasamy, S. Moon, C. Ruiz and S. Muthugounder, Evid. Based. Complement Alternat. Med., 2009, 6, 523.
20. M. Friedman, C. E. Levin, S. U. Lee and N. Kozukue, J. Food Sci., 2009, 74, H47.
21. M. J. Lee, Z. Y. Wang, H. Li, L. Chen, Y. Sun, S. Gobbo, D. A. Balentine and C. S. Yang, Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., 1995, 4, 393.
22. M. J. Lee, P. Maliakal, L. Chen, X. Meng, F. Y. Bondoc, S. Prabhu, G. Lambert, S. Mohr and C. S. Yang, Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., 2002, 11, 1025.
23. P. G. Pietta, P. Simonetti, C. Gardana, A. Brusamolino, P. Morazzoni and E. Bombardelli, BioFactors, 1998, 8, 111.
24. M. L. Mata-Bilbao, C. Andres-Lacueva, E. Roura, O. Jauregui, E. Escribano, C. Torre and R. M. Lamuela-Raventos, Br. J. Nutr., 2008, 100, 496.
25. V. J. de, D. S. Jonker-Termont, E. M. van Lieshout, M. B. Katan and M. R. van der, Carcinogenesis, 2005, 26, 387.
26. E. T. Snow, Pharmacol. Ther., 1992, 53, 31.
27. R. B. van der Luijt, C. M. Tops and H. F. Vasen, Ned. Tijdschr. Geneeskd., 2000, 144, 2007.
28. L. M. Coussens and Z. Werb, Nature, 2002, 420, 860.
29. J. A. Joyce and J. W. Pollard, Nat. Rev. Cancer, 2009, 9, 239.
30. J. A. Cook, D. Gius, D. A. Wink, M. C. Krishna, A. Russo and J. B. Mitchell, Semin. Radiat. Oncol., 2004, 14, 259.
31. M. A. Morse and G. D. Stoner, Carcinogenesis, 1993, 14, 1737.
32. A. N. Kong, E. Owuor, R. Yu, V. Hebbar, C. Chen, R. Hu and S. Mandlekar, Drug Metab. Rev., 2001, 33, 255.
33. Z. Y. Wang, M. Das, D. R. Bickers and H. Mukhtar, Drug Metab Dispos., 1988, 16, 98.
34. S. Muto, K. Fujita, Y. Yamazaki and T. Kamataki, Mutat. Res., Fundam. Mol. Mech. Mutagen., 2001, 479, 197.
35. V. E. Steele, G. J. Kelloff, D. Balentine, C. W. Boone, R. Mehta, D. Bagheri, C. C. Sigman, S. Zhu and S. Sharma, Carcinogenesis, 2000, 21, 63.
36. C. H. Coyle, B. J. Philips, S. N. Morrisroe, M. B. Chancellor and N. Yoshimura, Life Sci., 2008, 83, 12.
37. C. C. Huang, J. Y. Fang, W. B. Wu, H. S. Chiang, Y. J. Wei and C. F. Hung, Arch. Dermatol. Res., 2005, 296, 473.
38. L. Chen, X. Yang, H. Jiao and B. Zhao, Toxicol. Sci., 2002, 69, 149.
39. C. Murakami, Y. Hirakawa, H. Inui, Y. Nakano and H. Yoshida, Biosci., Biotechnol., Biochem., 2002, 66, 1559.
40. A. K. Jaiswal, Free Radical Biol. Med., 2004, 36, 1199.
41. J. S. Lee and Y. J. Surh, Cancer Lett., 2005, 224, 171.
42. H. Ohshima and H. Bartsch, Mutat. Res., Fundam. Mol. Mech. Mutagen., 1994, 305, 253.
43. C. Santangelo, R. Vari, B. Scazzocchio, B. R. Di, C. Filesi and R. Masella, Ann. Ist. Super. Sanita, 2007, 43, 394.
44. K. S. Zaenker, Contrib. Microbiol., 2006, 13, 232.
45. P. Proost, A. Wuyts and D. J. van, Int. J. Clin. Lab Res., 1996, 26, 211.
46. J. Hong, T. J. Smith, C. T. Ho, D. A. August and C. S. Yang, Biochem. Pharmacol., 2001, 62, 1175.
47. H. J. Kim, J. H. Ryu, C. H. Kim, J. W. Lim, U. Y. Moon, G. H. Lee, J. G. Lee, S. J. Baek and J. H. Yoon, Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Biol., 2009.
48. Y. Hosokawa, I. Hosokawa, K. Ozaki, T. Nakanishi, H. Nakae and T. Matsuo, Cell. Physiol. Biochem., 2009, 24, 391.
49. M. T. Huang, C. T. Ho, Z. Y. Wang, T. Ferraro, T. Finnegan-Olive, Y. R. Lou, J. M. Mitchell, J. D. Laskin, H. Newmark and C. S. Yang, Carcinogenesis, 1992, 13, 947.
50. M. A. el-Saadany, H. M. Rawel, J. Raila, M. S. el-Dashloty and F. J. Schweigert, Cell Biochem. Funct., 2008, 26, 95.
51. J. V. Castell, M. J. Gomez-Lechon, M. David, R. Fabra, R. Trullenque and P. C. Heinrich, Hepatology, 1990, 12, 1179.
52. P. C. Heinrich, J. V. Castell and T. Andus, Biochem. J., 1990, 265, 621.
53. F. Ceciliani, A. Giordano and V. Spagnolo, Protein Pept. Lett., 2002, 9, 211.
54. I. Collins and M. D. Garrett, Curr. Opin. Pharmacol., 2005, 5, 366.
55. X. Tan, D. Hu, S. Li, Y. Han, Y. Zhang and D. Zhou, Cancer Lett., 2000, 158, 1.
56. L. Chen, X. Yang, H. Jiao and B. Zhao, Toxicol. Sci., 2002, 69, 149.
57. C. Chen, R. Yu, E. D. Owuor and A. N. Kong, Arch. Pharmacal Res., 2000, 23, 605.
58. T. M. Elattar and A. S. Virji, Anticancer Res., 2000, 20, 3459.
59. G. Y. Yang, J. Liao, K. Kim, E. J. Yurkow and C. S. Yang, Carcinogenesis, 1998, 19, 611.
60. S. Okabe, M. Suganuma, M. Hayashi, E. Sueoka, A. Komori and H. Fujiki, Jpn. J. Cancer Res., 1997, 88, 639.
61. S. Valcic, B. N. Timmermann, D. S. Alberts, G. A. Wachter, M. Krutzsch, J. Wymer and J. M. Guillen, Anti-Cancer Drugs, 1996, 7, 461.
62. S. Manna, S. Mukherjee, A. Roy, S. Das and C. K. Panda, J. Nutr. Biochem., 2009, 20, 337.
63. Y. C. Lim, S. H. Lee, M. H. Song, K. Yamaguchi, J. H. Yoon, E. C. Choi and S. J. Baek, Eur. J. Cancer, 2006, 42, 3260.
64. M. Sukhthankar, C. K. Choi, A. English, J. S. Kim and S. J. Baek, J. Nutr. Biochem., 2010, 21, 98.
65. N. Fujimoto, N. Sueoka, E. Sueoka, S. Okabe, M. Suganuma, M. Harada and H. Fujiki, Int. J. Oncol., 2002, 20, 1233.
66. S. Liao and R. A. Hiipakka, Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun., 1995, 214, 833.
67. W. X. Tian, Curr. Med. Chem., 2006, 13, 967.
68. X. Wang, K. S. Song, Q. X. Guo and W. X. Tian, Biochem. Pharmacol., 2003, 66, 2039.
69. T. Kondo, S. Ezzat and S. L. Asa, Nat. Rev. Cancer, 2006, 6, 292.
70. R. D. Stanzel, S. Lourenssen, D. G. Nair and M. G. Blennerhassett, Am. J. Physiol Cell Physiol, 2010, 299, C805.
71. P. M. Comoglio, M. F. Di Renzo, G. Gaudino, C. Ponzetto and M. Prat, Am. Rev. Respir. Dis., 1990, 142, S16.
72. R. Schiff, S. A. Massarweh, J. Shou, L. Bharwani, S. K. Mohsin and C. K. Osborne, Clin. Cancer Res., 2004, 10, 331S.
73. H. Lu, J. Li, D. Zhang, G. D. Stoner and C. Huang, Nutr. Cancer, 2006, 54, 69.
74. D. P. Edwards and V. Boonyaratanakornkit, Mol. Interventions, 2003, 3, 12.
75. M. G. Goodin, K. C. Fertuck, T. R. Zacharewski and R. J. Rosengren, Toxicol. Sci., 2002, 69, 354.
76. A. Sachinidis, C. Seul, S. Seewald, H. Ahn, Y. Ko and H. Vetter, FEBS Lett., 2000, 471, 51.
77. R. Eferl and E. F. Wagner, Nat. Rev. Cancer, 2003, 3, 859.
78. E. Shaulian, Cell. Signalling, 2010, 22, 894.
79. J. Y. Chung, C. Huang, X. Meng, Z. Dong and C. S. Yang, Cancer Res., 1999, 59, 4610.
80. J. Jodoin, M. Demeule and R. Beliveau, Biochim. Biophys. Acta, Mol. Cell Res., 2002, 1542, 149.
81. G. Liang, A. Tang, X. Lin, L. Li, S. Zhang, Z. Huang, H. Tang and Q. Q. Li, Int. J. Oncol., 2010, 37, 111.
82. S. Kitagawa, T. Nabekura and S. Kamiyama, J. Pharm. Pharmacol., 2004, 56, 1001.
83. M. O. Hengartner, Nature, 2000, 407, 770.
84. S. Elmore, Toxicol. Pathol., 2007, 35, 495.
85. N. N. Danial and S. J. Korsmeyer, Cell, 2004, 116, 205.
86. G. Klein, Cell Death. Differ., 2004, 11, 13.
87. C. Ganguly, P. Saha, C. K. Panda and S. Das, Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev., 2005, 6, 326.
88. S. J. Baek, K. S. Kim, J. B. Nixon, L. C. Wilson and T. E. Eling, Mol. Pharmacol., 2001, 59, 901.
89. P. X. Li, J. Wong, A. Ayed, D. Ngo, A. M. Brade, C. Arrowsmith, R. C. Austin and H. J. Klamut, J. Biol. Chem., 2000, 275, 20127.
90. S. J. Baek, L. C. Wilson and T. E. Eling, Carcinogenesis, 2002, 23, 425.
91. S. H. Lee, K. Yamaguchi, J. S. Kim, T. E. Eling, S. Safe, Y. Park and S. J. Baek, Carcinogenesis, 2006, 27, 972.
92. J. H. Lim, J. W. Park, D. S. Min, J. S. Chang, Y. H. Lee, Y. B. Park, K. S. Choi and T. K. Kwon, Apoptosis, 2007, 12, 411.
93. S. J. Baek, J. S. Kim, F. R. Jackson, T. E. Eling, M. F. McEntee and S. H. Lee, Carcinogenesis, 2004, 25, 2425.
94. P. Nair, S. Muthukkumar, S. F. Sells, S. S. Han, V. P. Sukhatme and V. M. Rangnekar, J. Biol. Chem., 1997, 272, 20131.
95. S. J. Baek, J. S. Kim, S. M. Moore, S. H. Lee, J. Martinez and T. E. Eling, Mol. Pharmacol., 2005, 67, 356.
96. T. Virolle, E. D. Adamson, V. Baron, D. Birle, D. Mercola, T. Mustelin and I. de B, Nat. Cell Biol., 2001, 3, 1124.
97. W. Kaszubska, H. R. Hooft van, P. Ghersa, A. M. Raemy-Schenk, B. P. Chen, T. Hai, J. F. DeLamarter and J. Whelan, Mol. Cell Biol., 1993, 13, 7180.
98. F. G. Bottone, Jr., Y. Moon, B. ston-Mills and T. E. Eling, J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., 2005, 315, 668.
99. K. Tamura, B. Hua, S. Adachi, I. Guney, J. Kawauchi, M. Morioka, M. Tamamori-Adachi, Y. Tanaka, Y. Nakabeppu, M. Sunamori, J. M. Sedivy and S. Kitajima, EMBO J., 2005, 24, 2590.
100. K. N. Cho, M. Sukhthankar, S. H. Lee, J. H. Yoon and S. J. Baek, Eur. J. Cancer, 2007, 43, 2404.
101. H. U. Simon, A. Haj-Yehia and F. Levi-Schaffer, Apoptosis., 2000, 5, 415.
102. L. Y. Chung, T. C. Cheung, S. K. Kong, K. P. Fung, Y. M. Choy, Z. Y. Chan and T. T. Kwok, Life Sci., 2001, 68, 1207.
103. H. Babich, M. E. Krupka, H. A. Nissim and H. L. Zuckerbraun, Toxicol. in Vitro, 2005, 19, 231.
104. S. Okabe, Y. Ochiai, M. Aida, K. Park, S. J. Kim, T. Nomura, M. Suganuma and H. Fujiki, Jpn. J. Cancer Res., 1999, 90, 733.
105. U. Gaur and B. B. Aggarwal, Biochem. Pharmacol., 2003, 66, 1403.
106. P. S. Steeg, Nat. Rev. Cancer, 2003, 3, 55.
107. M. Egeblad and Z. Werb, Nat. Rev. Cancer, 2002, 2, 161.
108. L. A. Liotta, U. P. Thorgeirsson and S. Garbisa, Cancer Metastasis Rev., 1982, 1, 277.
109. M. Maeda-Yamamoto, H. Kawahara, N. Tahara, K. Tsuji, Y. Hara and M. Isemura, J. Agric. Food Chem., 1999, 47, 2350.
110. B. J. El, M. H. Oak, P. Anglard and V. B. Schini-Kerth, Cardiovasc. Res., 2005, 67, 317.
111. M. Makimura, M. Hirasawa, K. Kobayashi, J. Indo, S. Sakanaka, T. Taguchi and S. Otake, J. Periodontol., 1993, 64, 630.
112. H. Oneda, M. Shiihara and K. Inouye, J. Biochem., 2003, 133, 571.
113. C. Parr, G. Davies, T. Nakamura, K. Matsumoto, M. D. Mason and W. G. Jiang, Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun., 2001, 285, 1330.
114. H. Y. Zhou, Y. L. Pon and A. S. Wong, Endocrinology, 2007, 148, 5195.
115. U. S. Kammula, E. J. Kuntz, T. D. Francone, Z. Zeng, J. Shia, R. G. Landmann, P. B. Paty and M. R. Weiser, Cancer Lett., 2007, 248, 219.
116. R. L. Bigelow and J. A. Cardelli, Oncogene, 2006, 25, 1922.
117. D. Duhon, R. L. Bigelow, D. T. Coleman, J. J. Steffan, C. Yu, W. Langston, C. G. Kevil and J. A. Cardelli, Mol. Carcinog., 2010, 49, 739.
118. I. L. Buxton, Proc. West Pharmacol. Soc., 2008, 51, 30.
119. K. S. Ghosh, T. K. Maiti, A. Mandal and S. Dasgupta, FEBS Lett., 2006, 580, 4703.
120. S. M. Rumjahn, M. A. Javed, N. Wong, W. E. Law and I. L. Buxton, Br. J. Cancer, 2007, 97, 1372.
121. G. F. Hu, J. Protein Chem., 1997, 16, 669.
122. M. Isemura, Y. Suzuki, K. Satoh, K. Narumi and M. Motomiya, Cell Biol. Int., 1993, 17, 559.
123. K. Ogata, N. Mukae, Y. Suzuki, K. Satoh, K. Narumi, T. Nukiwa and M. Isemura, Planta Med., 1995, 61, 472.
124. T. Kawaguchi, Curr. Drug Targets. Cardiovasc. Haematol. Disord., 2005, 5, 39.
125. S. Adachi, T. Nagao, S. To, A. K. Joe, M. Shimizu, R. Matsushima-Nishiwaki, O. Kozawa, H. Moriwaki, F. R. Maxfield and I. B. Weinstein, Carcinogenesis, 2008, 29, 1986.
126. J. W. Kim, A. R. Amin and D. M. Shin, Cancer Prev. Res., 2010, 3, 900.
127. X. Tan, D. Hu, S. Li, Y. Han, Y. Zhang and D. Zhou, Cancer Lett., 2000, 158, 1.
128. T. Kuzuhara, M. Suganuma and H. Fujiki, Cancer Lett., 2008, 261, 12.
129. G. Xie, M. Ye, Y. Wang, Y. Ni, M. Su, H. Huang, M. Qiu, A. Zhao, X. Zheng, T. Chen and W. Jia, J. Agric. Food Chem., 2009, 57, 3046.
130. D. Wang, R. Xiao, X. Hu, K. Xu, Y. Hou, Y. Zhong, J. Meng, B. Fan and L. Liu, J. Agric. Food Chem., 2010, 58, 1350.
131. T. Kuzuhara, M. Suganuma and H. Fujiki, Cancer Lett., 2008, 261, 12.
132. H. Oneda, M. Shiihara and K. Inouye, J. Biochem., 2003, 133, 571.

---