Abstract
Succinate serves as an essential circulating metabolite within the tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle and functions as a substrate for succinate dehydrogenase (SDH), thereby contributing to energy production in fundamental mitochondrial metabolic pathways. Aberrant changes in succinate concentrations have been associated with pathological states, including chronic inflammation, ischemia/reperfusion (IR) injury, and cancer, resulting from the exaggerated response of specific immune cells, thereby rendering it a central area of investigation. Recent studies have elucidated the pivotal involvement of succinate and SDH in immunity beyond metabolic processes, particularly in the context of cancer. Current scientific endeavors are concentrated on comprehending the functional repercussions of metabolic modifications, specifically pertaining to succinate and SDH, in immune cells operating within a hypoxic milieu. The efficacy of targeting succinate and SDH alterations to manipulate immune cell functions in hypoxia-related diseases have been demonstrated. Consequently, a comprehensive understanding of succinate’s role in metabolism and the regulation of SDH is crucial for effectively targeting succinate and SDH as therapeutic interventions to influence the progression of specific diseases. This review provides a succinct overview of the latest advancements in comprehending the emerging functions of succinate and SDH in metabolic processes. Furthermore, it explores the involvement of succinate, an intermediary of the TCA cycle, in chronic inflammation, IR injury, and cancer, with particular emphasis on the mechanisms underlying succinate accumulation. This review critically assesses the potential of modulating succinate accumulation and metabolism within the hypoxic milieu as a means to combat various diseases. It explores potential targets for therapeutic interventions by focusing on succinate metabolism and the regulation of SDH in hypoxia-related disorders.
1 Introduction
Succinate and succinate dehydrogenase (SDH) are essential components of the tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle and are integral to the production of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) within mitochondria (Murphy and O'Neill, 2018). Additionally, succinate serves as a critical participant in various metabolic pathways, contributing to the regulation of numerous catabolic and anabolic processes within different stages of the cycle (Mills and O'Neill, 2014).
Over the past decade, there has been a growing recognition of the capacity of immune cells to adapt their metabolic processes in order to maintain immune homeostasis in hypoxic environments. These metabolic alterations have been found to have significant implications for the immune response to chronic inflammation, ischemia/reperfusion (IR) injury, and tumors (Fulcher and Katelaris, 1991; Murphy and Chouchani, 2022). Recent literature has increasingly highlighted the non-canonical functions of succinate levels and the regulation of SDH beyond their traditional role in metabolism. For instance, succinate has been found to stimulate dendritic cells (DCs) and stabilize hypoxia-inducible factor-1α (HIF-1α) via the succinate receptor, G protein-coupled receptor 91 (GPR91), in distinct tumors and activated macrophages (Mills and O'Neill, 2014; O'Neill and Pearce, 2016; Huang and Millar, 2013; Dalla Pozza et al., 2020). Furthermore, mutations in the SDH gene have been detected in various cancer types, suggesting potential mechanisms that lead to abnormal succinate accumulation (Peti-Peterdi, 2010). Succinate can function as an oncometabolite in tumorigenesis and cancer progression, and it can also induce post-translational modifications (PTMs) of proteins through succinylation (Mills and O'Neill, 2014; Mills et al., 2021). This review offers a comprehensive analysis of the roles played by succinate and the changes in SDH expression or activity that are linked to modifications in immune cell function during hypoxic conditions. Alongside summarizing the pathways leading to succinate accumulation, our objective is to elucidate potential therapeutic targets by focusing on succinate metabolism in the context of inflammation, IR injury, and cancer.
2 Succinate and SDH in metabolism
2.1 Biogenesis of succinate
Succinate, or butanedioic acid, was initially isolated and identified from amber through the process of dry distillation by Georgius Agricola, a German chemist, in 1,546 (Tretter et al., 2016). One of the most significant scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century was the elucidation of the TCA cycle, also known as the citric acid cycle, by Hans Adolf Krebs. In 1937, Krebs established that the succinate-fumarate-malate-oxaloacetate pathway constituted a vital component of the TCA cycle, with the inclusion of citrate, isocitrate, and α-ketoglutarate (α-KG) (Raju, 1999). For decades, the TCA cycle has been extensively employed in the microbial synthesis of citrates, glutamates, and succinates (Vuoristo et al., 2016). In the TCA cycle, succinate is synthesized through the catalytic action of succinyl-CoA synthetase from succinyl-CoA. Subsequently, succinate is promptly converted to fumarate by the enzyme SDH. In summary, succinate and SDH are of paramount importance in ATP generation and serve as pivotal cyclic pathways in metabolism, functioning as a reservoir for catabolic processes and as a point of origin for various anabolic processes (Chinopoulos, 2013).
2.2 Roles of SDH in the TCA cycle and ETC
Succinate and SDH exhibit a robust interconnection within the TCA cycle and electron transport chain (ETC.). SDH, referred to as complex II, facilitates the integration of two significant pathways within mitochondria, namely, the oxidation of succinate to fumarate as a vital constituent of the TCA cycle and the transformation of ubiquinone to ubiquinol in the mitochondrial, ETC. Both processes are indispensable for oxidative phosphorylation, which is responsible for ATP generation to sustain biogenesis (Gill, 2012; Tretter et al., 2016).
The structure of SDH is characterized by its intricate composition of multiple subunits, namely, SDHA, SDHB, SDHC, and SDHD. In addition, SDHAF1 and SDHAF2 function as assembly factors for the associated assembly process (Moosavi et al., 2019). Notably, SDHC and SDHD possess hydrophobic properties that enable their anchoring in the inner mitochondrial membrane (Her and Maher, 2015). Conversely, SDHA and SDHB extend into the matrix. SDHA is covalently linked to a flavin adenine dinucleotide (FAD) prosthetic group and harbors the binding site for succinate. In the presence of succinate, SDHA facilitates the oxidation of succinate to fumarate by bringing succinate into close proximity with the isoalloxazine ring of FAD (Hagerhall, 1997). SDHB serves as a connecting link between SDHA and SDHC and SDHD. Within SDHB, three Fe-S centers are present, which facilitate the transfer of electrons from succinate to ubiquinone for utilization in the aerobic and energy-generating respiratory chain in eukaryotic mitochondria and various prokaryotes (Yankovskaya et al., 2003). The Fe-S centers, as subunit components of SDH, offer new perspectives for the development of candidate vaccines aimed at inducing anti-embryonation and anti-fecundity immunity (Yu et al., 2007). The SDH complex is comprised of two ubiquinone-binding sites (Yankovskaya et al., 2003; Sun et al., 2005). Residues originating from SDHB, SDHC, and SDHD, which are situated in close proximity to the matrix side of the inner mitochondrial membrane, contribute to the formation of the high-affinity binding sites, thereby enhancing their efficiency (Silkin et al., 2007; Szeto et al., 2007). Conversely, the low-affinity binding site, located nearer to the intermembrane space of the inner mitochondrial membrane, is formed by SDHC and SDHD (Her and Maher, 2015). Consequently, the oxidation of succinate to fumarate by SDH results in the generation of flavin adenine dinucleotide, reduced (FADH2). In the, ETC., only SDH (complex II) is completely encoded in nuclear deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), and electrons from succinate oxidation are transferred to ubiquinone in the, ETC (Vuoristo et al., 2016).
Moreover, ATP can also be generated through substrate-level phosphorylation (SLP). Succinyl-CoA and adenosine diphosphate (ADP) [or guanosine diphosphate (GDP)] undergo catalysis by succinyl-CoA synthetase, resulting in the production of succinate, CoASH, and ATP [or guanosine triphosphate (GTP)]. This metabolic process, referred to as SLP, is predominantly utilized in mitochondria to generate ATP (Johnson et al., 1998). Notably, SLP in the TCA cycle, facilitated by succinyl-CoA ligase (SUCL), operates independently of the respiratory chain and the mitochondrial proton motive force. This ATP production mechanism is in addition to oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) and adenylate kinase (AK) reactions (Bruns and Regina, 1977; Johnson et al., 1998; Nobumoto et al., 1998; Panayiotou et al., 2014; Komlodi and Tretter, 2017). In hence, comprehending the significance of SDH and succinate in metabolic processes can offer novel perspectives for the formulation of therapeutic approaches aimed at addressing inflammation, IR injury, and cancer (Hagerhall, 1997).
3 Succinate as a metabolic signal in immuno-inflammatory response
Significant research findings intriguingly indicate that succinate may serve as a novel category of regulators in inflammation, acting as crucial signals to modulate the inflammatory process (Mills and O'Neill, 2014; Tannahill et al., 2013; Grimolizzi and Arranz, 2018; Palsson-McDermott and O'Neill, 2013). Succinate is increasingly recognized as a significant signal in the immuno-inflammatory response.
3.1 Stabilization of HIF-1α in inflammation
In hypoxic inflammatory microenvironments, the activation of immune cells, including macrophages and DCs, induces a metabolic shift towards glycolysis (Mills and O'Neill, 2014; Tannahill and O'Neill, 2011). This metabolic shift towards glycolysis in activated immune cells is thought to have a significant impact in low oxygen conditions, such as hypoxic inflammatory sites. The accumulation of succinate has the potential to enhance inflammatory signaling and greatly influence the immuno-inflammatory response. Various potential sources may contribute to the accumulation of succinate. Firstly, these studies have provided confirmation that succinate accumulation resulting from SDH mutations has the ability to stabilize HIF-1α in activated macrophages, particularly when the activity of the prolyl hydroxylase domain (PHD) enzyme is inhibited. This stabilization subsequently leads to the production of the proinflammatory cytokine interleukin 1β (IL-1β) through the signaling of HIF-1α (Mills and O'Neill, 2014; O'Neill and Pearce, 2016; Tannahill et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2021; Peace and O'Neill, 2022; Williams and O'Neill, 2018) (Figure 1). In addition, it has been observed that succinate accumulation can also occur in lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-activated macrophages through the process of glutamine metabolism, which facilitates the anaplerosis of α-KG into the TCA cycle (Rubic et al., 2008) (Figure 1). Subsequently, the “GABA shunt” pathway can lead to the accumulation of succinate, as it is stimulated by the increased levels of γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) and its transporters induced by LPS (Figure 1). This pathway can be hindered by vigabatrin which inhibits an essential enzyme of the GABA shunt, resulting in a reduction in succinate accumulation (Figure 1). Additionally, the inhibition of GABA transaminase (GABA-T), a critical enzyme of the GABA shunt, with vigabatrin can effectively prevent succinate accumulation (Tannahill et al., 2013; Ren et al., 2019) (Figure 1). Finally, succinate accumulation can arise from the inhibition of SDH activity during hypoxia and various other pathways. In addition to hypoxia, FAD-induced decrease in nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+) levels caused by LPS also hampers SDH activity (Wang et al., 2021) (Figure 1). NAD+ demonstrates multiple anti-inflammatory properties through the activation of sirtuins, a group of NAD+-dependent deacetylases. Specifically, sirtuin 1 (SIRT1) suppresses glycolysis and the activity of proinflammatory transcription factors such as nuclear factor-κB (NF-κB) and HIF-1α (Schug et al., 2010; Misawa et al., 2013), while also promoting autophagy-related gene function and oxidative metabolism. Conversely, the inactivation of SIRT3 has been observed to heighten the activation of the NOD-like receptor family, pyrin domain containing 3 (NLRP3) inflammasome (Schug et al., 2010; Misawa et al., 2013) (Figure 1).
FIGURE 1
Succinate additionally governs the immune functions of immune cells, specifically pertaining to immune cell migration, cytokine production, and augmentation of the ability of antigen-presenting cells (APCs) to elicit adaptive immune responses (Peace and O'Neill, 2022). For instance, succinate has been found to induce migration of monocyte-derived dendritic cells (MoDCs) in vitro and act as a chemokine, thereby promoting migration to draining lymph nodes in succinate-treated DCs (Rubic et al., 2008; Haffke et al., 2019). Succinate has been found to facilitate the production of cytokines through synergistic interactions with certain ligands, including tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) (Rubic et al., 2008). Furthermore, succinate stimulation with LPS has been shown to increase the expression of IL-1β in murine bone marrow-derived dendritic cells (BMDCs), in addition to TNF-α (Williams and O'Neill, 2018) (Figure 1). In addition to promoting cytokine generation, succinate can also enhance the ability of APCs to induce immune responses that result in inflammatory outcomes. Multiple studies have provided evidence of succinate’s capacity to hinder tumor growth, which will be further expounded upon in the subsequent section (Dalla Pozza et al., 2020). Of greater significance, the manipulation of succinate metabolism holds potential as a microbiological therapy in host-microbe interactions (Wei et al., 2023). These findings suggest that the manipulation of succinate metabolism could be employed to devise innovative therapeutics for the prevention and treatment of inflammation.
3.2 Succinate and SUCNR1 signaling during inflammation
There have been numerous studies demonstrating the interaction between the ligand-receptor pair succinate receptor 1 (SUCNR1) (formerly known as GPR91) and succinate, beyond its role as a metabolic signal in inflammation by stabilizing HIF-1α (de Castro Fonseca et al., 2016; Ristic et al., 2017). Wittenberger et al. initially discovered several G-protein coupled receptors, including SUCNR1 (Wittenberger et al., 2001). He et al. later identified succinate as a selective ligand of SUCNR1 (He et al., 2004). SUCNR1 was initially identified and studied in the renal system, subsequently revealing significant expression levels in the hepatic, splenic, and intestinal tissues (He et al., 2004; de Castro Fonseca et al., 2016; Gilissen et al., 2016). SUCNR1 expression has been observed in white adipocytes, hematopoietic progenitor cells (Rubic et al., 2008), as well as various blood and immune cell types (Macaulay et al., 2007; Hakak et al., 2009; de Castro Fonseca et al., 2016; Krzak et al., 2021). Succinate induces the activation of SUCNR1, which subsequently initiates signaling cascades via multiple pathways. Comparable to Gβ and Gγ signaling cascades, succinate stimulation results in the mobilization of calcium ions (Ca2+), accumulation of inositol trisphosphate (IP3), and phosphorylation involving extracellular regulated kinase (ERK) (He et al., 2004; Robben et al., 2009; Gilissen et al., 2016) (Figure 2). Gaining a comprehensive understanding of the signaling pathways triggered by the interaction between SUCNR1 and succinate can offer novel perspectives for the advancement of therapeutic approaches targeting specific diseases, particularly those associated with chronic inflammation.
FIGURE 2
Recent studies have provided evidence indicating the involvement of SUCNR1 in multiple succinate-dependent inflammatory processes in vivo. Firstly, it was observed that SUCNR1-deficient mice exhibited heightened migration of DCs in comparison to their wild-type counterparts. Secondly, the absence of SUCNR1 in DCs resulted in the absence of cytokine elevation, thereby supporting the notion that succinate functions as a conventional signal to enhance the antigen-presenting function of APCs. Lastly, solid organ transplantation from SUCNR1-deficient mice exhibited prolonged graft survival when compared to that from wild-type mice (Rubic et al., 2008). Peruzzotti-Jametti et al. have presented significant evidence demonstrating that the inhibition of SUCNR1 leads to a reduction in carrier-mediated succinate uptake. This suggests that the signaling of SUCNR1 promotes the expression of plasma membrane Na+-dependent dicarboxylic acid transporters, which facilitate the transportation of succinate across the membrane. These findings introduce intriguing possibilities regarding the involvement of succinate in the paracrine/autocrine regulation of disease development (Peruzzotti-Jametti et al., 2018). To sum up, the aforementioned findings have indicated that SUCNR1 plays a pivotal role in the immune-inflammatory response triggered by succinate. Consequently, the modulation of SUCNR1 signaling presents a promising therapeutic strategy for the management of inflammatory disorders.
3.3 Succinate and succinylation in signal transduction
Succinylation, a PTM mechanism, entails the incorporation of a succinyl group onto a protein residue, predominantly lysine residues, thereby influencing the functionality of amino groups (Hirschey and Zhao, 2015; Alleyn et al., 2018; Sreedhar et al., 2020; Chinopoulos, 2021). Recent investigations have concentrated on the succinylation modification, wherein succinyl CoA can form an amide bond with protein lysine (Zhao et al., 2023). The identification of elevated succinate levels in numerous proteins involved in the regulation of diverse cellular and biological processes underscores the significance of succinylation as a crucial biological function (Xie et al., 2012; Park et al., 2013; Hirschey and Zhao, 2015). The catalytic processes involved in succinylation mediated by multiple enzymes, remain poorly understood. Consequently, there is ongoing research aimed at elucidating these fundamental mechanisms in order to facilitate the development of innovative therapeutic interventions and associated pharmaceuticals. Numerous investigations have demonstrated that succinylation can occur in organisms through both enzymatic and non-enzymatic means. In fact, the majority of is known to occur through non-enzymatic processes, as extensively documented in the literature (Sreedhar et al., 2020; Shen et al., 2023; Zhao et al., 2023), particularly by Matthew D Hirschey et al., who have demonstrated the higher chemical reactivity of succinyl-CoA compared to other acyl-CoA species (Wagner et al., 2017). Non-enzymatic succinylation appears to be influenced by various factors, including the concentration-dependent levels of reactants within mitochondria, while the catalysis of enzymatic succinylation may be regulated by succinyl CoA. Enzymatic succinylation may be promoted via α-ketoglutarate dehydrogenase complex (KGDHC) and E1k [α-Ketoglutarate Dehydrogenase (KGDH)] beyond succinyl CoA (Yang and Gibson, 2019) (Figure 2). Succinylation is consistently mediated by KGDHC in the cytosol and nucleus. Enzymatic TCA cycle steps like succinyl-CoA synthetase (SCS) can also regulate succinyl-CoA levels, which then non-enyzmatically drive succinylation (Li et al., 2015; Carrico et al., 2018; Gut et al., 2020). The carnitine palmitoyltransferase 1A (CPT1A) G710E mutant has been observed to enhance cell proliferation in the presence of metabolic stress, while CPT1A increases lysine succinylation without any changes in succinyl CoA levels in mammalian cells (Kurmi et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2019). This finding suggests that the lysine succinyltransferase activity of CPT1A may succinylate downstream substrate proteins, thereby facilitating proliferation (Kurmi et al., 2018; Sreedhar et al., 2020). In contrast to the established mechanism of succinyl-CoA non-enzymatic lysine succinylation, the mechanism promoted by CPT1A remains controversial and has not been shown in vivo (Sreedhar et al., 2020; Shen et al., 2023). At best, this mechanism would account for a minor fraction of succinylation (Sreedhar et al., 2020). The potential impact of concentration-dependent acyl-CoA distribution on succinylation in certain tissues has been identified (Weinert et al., 2013). This finding implies that the tissue-specific regulation of acyl-CoA concentrations offers novel therapeutic strategies for modulating succinylation in certain diseases. Furthermore, the regulation of de-succinylation plays a crucial role in controlling various catalytic processes across all cellular compartments, with succinylation potentially exhibiting a balanced reciprocal relationship. Notably, the levels of NAD+-dependent SIRT5 have been found to influence dynamic changes in desuccinylase activity (Figure 2). Certain studies have provided evidence indicating that the inhibition of SIRT5 results in an elevation of succinylation in particular proteins, thereby contributing to the development and progression of cancer (Park et al., 2013). SIRT7, on the other hand, acts as a histone desuccinylase that is functionally associated with chromatin compaction and the maintenance of genome stability (Li et al., 2016) (Figure 2). The process of desuccinylation catalyzed by SIRT7 predominantly occurs within the nucleus and plays a crucial role in the DNA damage response and the survival of cells (Li et al., 2016).
As previously stated, the maintenance of a delicate equilibrium between succinylation and desuccinylation processes is of utmost importance for the regulation of physiological functions (Wang and Lin, 2021). Disruption of this equilibrium can lead to the development of various diseases, including inflammatory disorders, IR injury, and cancer (Choudhary et al., 2014; Sabari et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2017). The intricate involvement of SIRT5 in the process of carcinogenesis is currently under investigation by researchers (Yang et al., 2017) (Figure 2). It has been proposed that desuccinylation events facilitated by SIRT5 may play a role in the initiation and progression of tumorigenesis. The inhibition of SIRT5 has demonstrated a reduction in cell proliferation and tumor growth, implying that hyper-succinylation may exert similar effects on tumor growth by modulating SIRT5 (Li et al., 2015; Xiangyun et al., 2017). Furthermore, mounting evidence suggests that lysine succinylation is abnormally elevated during cancer development, indicating that succinylation regulates tumor energy metabolism (Song et al., 2017). Mutations in isocitrate dehydrogenase isoform 1 that impede SDH result in an elevated level of succinyl-CoA, thereby promoting cancerous metabolism (Li et al., 2015). The augmentation of succinylation under hypoxic conditions may potentially counteract the effects of IR injury in both cardiac and cerebral tissues. The proficient regulation of succinylation holds promise for unveiling novel therapeutic strategies for managing IR injury and potentially facilitating transplantation procedures (Murphy and O'Neill, 2018). In summary, comprehending the tissue-specific mechanisms implicated is imperative for the advancement of pharmacological interventions targeting succinylation and de-succinylation in hypoxia-related ailments such as inflammation, IR injury, and cancer.
4 Succinate and SDH in IR injury
IR injury is commonly observed when the blood supply to a solid organ, such as the heart, brain, lung, or kidney, is disrupted, subsequently followed by reperfusion in specific pathological conditions like heart attack, ischemic stroke, kidney IR injury, or organ transplantation (Kula-Alwar et al., 2019). The underlying mechanism of this injury primarily involves the generation of ROS by mitochondria, which triggers a cascade of events including aberrant immune responses, accumulation of succinate, and cellular harm (Yellon and Hausenloy, 2007; Murphy and Steenbergen, 2008; Burwell et al., 2009; Eltzschig and Eckle, 2011; Timmers et al., 2012) (Figure 1). During the state of ischemia, the absence of oxygen induces a reduction in mitochondrial respiration and a rise in the accumulation of succinate. Subsequent reperfusion prompts the swift oxidation of the accumulated succinate by SDH. Reverse electron transport (RET) through mitochondrial complex I allows some of the electrons in the mitochondria to break away from, ETC, leading to an inadequate reduction reaction of oxygen, which in turn drives the production of ROS that inflict oxidative harm upon cellular constituents such as lipids, proteins, and DNA (Figure 1). This oxidative damage serves to intensify the inflammatory response, thereby precipitating tissue injury and dysfunction. The significance of succinate and SDH’s involvement in the pathogenesis of IR injury underscores the potential of targeting succinate metabolism as a therapeutic strategy for the prevention and treatment of this condition (Panconesi et al., 2022). The development of pharmaceuticals that specifically target succinate metabolism may offer a novel approach to address the clinical challenge posed by IR injury.
SDH is a key enzyme involved in succinate formation during ischemia and its oxidation upon reperfusion (Davidson et al., 2019). Malonate, a competitive inhibitor of SDH, has emerged as a candidate therapy for selective SDH inhibition to reduce reperfusion injury. The protective effect of malonate was demonstrated using the malonate prodrug dimethyl malonate, which was effective when administered before and throughout ischemia (Chouchani et al., 2014). Adequate studies have shown that IR injury can be regulated through the accumulation of succinate during ischemia, which is subsequently re-oxidized by SDH to generate mitochondrial ROS (Chouchani et al., 2014). Succinate, therefore, acts as a metabolic signal of IR injury, responsible for generating mitochondrial ROS (Figure 1). Blocking ischemic succinate accumulation resulting from oxidation can abolish IR injury (Pell et al., 2016). Similar studies have demonstrated that preventing succinate from oxidation may decrease IR injury and increase tolerance in the process of liver transplantation (LT) from steatosis liver donors (Evans et al., 2008). By targeting succinate metabolism, malonate may provide additional therapeutic strategies for heart damage underlying chronic heart failure (Pell et al., 2016). In addition to malonate, it has been determined that ginsenoside Rb1 possesses the ability to mitigate myocardial IR injury by inhibiting the production of ROS originating from mitochondrial complex I according to a proteomic analysis (Jiang et al., 2021). The cerebral IR injury results in the ischemic accumulation of succinate, which subsequently induces Cdc42 succinylation and inhibits the proliferation of neural stem cells (Huang et al., 2023).
However, despite promising results in vitro and animal models, translation to human trials has proved challenging, with high failure rates due to low drug exposure at the target site or clinical safety issues. Translation failure in IR injury is likely caused by delivery difficulties or insufficient knowledge of the pathological mechanisms, leading to inappropriate drug targets. Therefore, further research is needed to develop effective and safe therapeutic strategies for targeting succinate metabolism in IR injury (Dambrova et al., 2021).
5 Succinate and SDH in tumor
Metabolites originating from the TCA cycle and respiratory enzymes, specifically succinate and SDH, have been found to have a significant impact on the initiation and progression of tumorigenesis (Mullen and DeBerardinis, 2012; Dalla Pozza et al., 2020; Kes et al., 2020). Notably, alterations in SDH activity leading to the accumulation of succinate, such as SDH mutations, have been observed (Dalla Pozza et al., 2020). Furthermore, extensive investigation has been conducted to elucidate the role of succinate in the development of cancer, encompassing its capacity to induce epigenetic and metabolic modifications, as well as its influence on cell migration, invasion, and angiogenesis.
5.1 Succinate and SDH in cancer-immune cycle
Succinate has garnered growing recognition for its multifaceted involvement in both immune and cancer-related processes, in addition to its established role in immuno-inflammatory responses. The cumulative evidence from numerous interconnected studies has consistently demonstrated that succinate possesses the capacity to regulate tumorigenesis within specific intrinsic microenvironments. Consequently, succinate is now acknowledged as a classical tumorigenic signal, alongside its well-established association with inflammation (Huang and Millar, 2013; Jiang and Yan, 2017).
SDH mutations and associated succinate pathways have been demonstrated to contribute to tumorigenesis (Bardella et al., 2011). Specifically, mutations in the SDH gene have been observed to expedite tumor development and can be detected in tumor tissues and cells (Pasini and Stratakis, 2009; Gaude and Frezza, 2014). The SDH enzyme plays a crucial role in the TCA cycle by facilitating the conversion of succinate to fumarate. Mutations in the SDH gene have been identified in various tumors, establishing SDH as a recognized tumor suppressor (Bardella et al., 2011; Wallace, 2012; Wu and Zhao, 2013; Jiang and Yan, 2017). However, mutations in this gene can result in succinate accumulation, which in turn stabilizes HIF-1α and fosters tumor growth (Selak et al., 2005) (Figure 1). Hence, it is imperative to engage in a comprehensive examination of succinate accumulation in the context of cancer. Succinate accumulation can manifest through diverse pathways that contribute to the development of tumors and immune responses. The regulation of SDH activity plays a crucial role in the buildup of succinate. Notably, the presence of a mutation in the gene responsible for encoding SDH in certain cancer types has been observed to diminish SDH activity, resulting in succinate accumulation and subsequent augmentation of mitochondrial ROS generation (Drose, 2013) (Figure 1). Hence, the functional deficiency of subunits in SDH resulting from mutation and carcinogenesis has garnered significant attention in numerous studies on metabolism (Tomitsuka et al., 2010). Furthermore, the function of SDH is reliant on the presence of oxidized FAD and NAD+ as cofactors (Gill, 2012). However, under conditions of hypoxia where these cofactors are predominantly in their reduced forms, SDH function is hindered, leading to the accumulation of succinate in the cancer-immunity cycle (Jiang and Yan, 2017). It is noteworthy to mention that the accumulation of succinate in M1 macrophages is closely associated with the activation of toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) signaling. Upon activation by LPS, TLR4 signaling is triggered, resulting in the disruption of the Krebs cycle (O'Neill and Pearce, 2016) (Figure 1). This disruption subsequently leads to metabolic reprogramming and the accumulation of succinate. Previous research has demonstrated that LPS-activated macrophages induce succinate accumulation by inhibiting the activity of the PHD enzyme, thereby stabilizing HIF-1α (Figure 1). The stabilization of target genes responsible for encoding glycolytic enzymes and the pro-inflammatory cytokine IL-1β, which can impede tumor cell growth, enhance tumor survival, and intensify inflammation, is facilitated by this process (O'Neill and Pearce, 2016; Selak et al., 2005; Liu et al., 2016; Aspuria et al., 2014) (Figure 1). Succinate, in aggregate, may possess two distinct functions in the development of tumors, either promoting or hindering tumor growth. Nevertheless, thus far, SDH has exclusively demonstrated its involvement in suppressing tumor growth and advancement.
In the context of the cancer-immune cycle, succinate has the potential to exert an influence on the immune responses of various immune cells, including APCs and T cells. Notably, succinate has been observed to enhance the antigen presentation capacity of DCs by eliciting an adaptive response and impeding tumor growth (Palucka and Banchereau, 2012). Furthermore, upon encountering a sequence of stimuli originating from antigens, heightened activation of antigen-specific T cells can result in the secretion of cytokines such as TNF-α and interferon-γ (IFN-γ) during immune activation (Cortese et al., 2014) (Figure 1). These cytokines possess the ability to impede the progression of cancer cells and extend the survival of patients (Hadrup et al., 2013; Jiang and Yan, 2016).
5.2 Succinate and SDH in tumorigenesis
Po-Lin Tseng et al. have provided evidence indicating an inverse correlation between the malignancy of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and the expression level of SDHB. Specifically, a higher degree of malignancy in HCC is associated with a lower expression of SDHB, which is significantly associated with advanced tumor stage and unfavorable prognosis (Tseng et al., 2018). Furthermore, in mouse models, experimental interventions involving the silencing and overexpression of SDHB have demonstrated the potential feasibility of regulating HCC growth and metastasis. Thus, the downregulation of SDHB expression in human HCC leads to a metabolic shift from aerobic respiration to glycolysis and the induction of the Warburg effect, ultimately facilitating tumor malignancy (Tseng et al., 2018). Studies have demonstrated that the reduction in SDH activity, resulting from the silencing of one of its subunits, promotes HCC cell proliferation and metastasis both in vitro and in vivo by increasing ROS and subsequently activating NF-κB signaling (Li et al., 2019). These findings suggest that SDH could potentially be targeted for therapeutic intervention in the treatment of HCC due to its tumor-suppressive role.
In addition to its association with HCC, the most closely correlated association with SDH is hereditary paraganglioma/phaeochromocytoma syndrome (HPGL/PCC), which is characterized by the presence of germline loss-of-function mutations in SDH genes (Brière et al., 2005). Various mechanisms of carcinogenesis have been suggested, as patients with HPGL/PCC have been found to harbor germline mutations in SDHB, SDHC, and SDHD (Eniafe and Jiang, 2021; Takács-Vellai et al., 2021). In addition to HPGL/PCC, a multitude of neuroendocrine and non-neuroendocrine neoplasms, such as gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), renal tumors, and thyroid tumors, have been discovered to exhibit a significant correlation with SDH gene mutations, alongside HPGL/PCC. The growing body of research highlights the tumor suppressor function of SDH and the oncogenic role of succinate as a metabolite in the progression of cancer (Neppala et al., 2019; Ibrahim and Chopra, 2020; Yong et al., 2020). The current research focuses on investigating the genetic and molecular mechanisms that lead to succinate accumulation as a result of SDH mutations, and how these mutations initiate neoplasm invasion and metastasis. Additionally, variants of SDH genes have been identified in thyroid C-cell hyperplasia and papillary thyroid cancers, independent of SDH mutations. Nevertheless, the importance of succinate and SDH in the development of cancer has been firmly established, resulting in the classification of succinate as an oncometabolite and SDH as a tumor suppressor.
6 Succinate and SDH as cancer biomarkers and treatment strategies
As previously stated, succinate serves as an oncometabolite, suggesting that the identification of these oncometabolites in cancer specimens from patients holds the potential to facilitate cancer detection, tumor screening, and comprehensive follow-up during the early phases of cancer (Semeraro et al., 2018). Furthermore, mass spectrometry and nuclear magnetic resonance technologies present promising methodologies that clinical practitioners can use to identify the buildup of succinate. Moreover, the utilization of immunohistochemistry (IHC) presents an opportunity to assess oncometabolites as potential cancer biomarkers in individuals afflicted with cancer (Yong et al., 2020). The abnormal expression of SDH, specifically the loss of the B subunit (SDHB), is implicated in the pathogenesis of neuroendocrine tumors as a prognostic factor, likely due to the accumulation of succinate in cancer (Hwang et al., 2014; Milione et al., 2017). A 2020 review by Dalla Pozza et al. provided a comprehensive summary of the detection of succinate and SDH as cancer biomarkers across various tissues (Dalla Pozza et al., 2020).
The deregulation of Complex II has the potential to result in an overabundance of ROS, which can induce apoptotic cell death in a manner specific to tumors. Consequently, numerous compounds that impact SDH activity have been examined for their potential as anticancer agents (Kluckova et al., 2013; Hwang et al., 2014) (Table 1). These compounds exhibit the ability to selectively target cancer cells by promoting apoptosis mediated by ROS, while preserving normal cells. Nevertheless, further investigation is necessary to comprehensively comprehend the underlying mechanisms and ascertain the effectiveness and safety of these compounds as potential anticancer treatments.
TABLE 1
| Compound | Target | Mechanism of action | Functions in cancer | Diseases | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| α-TOS | SDHC&SDHD | Interacting with both proximal (Qp) and distal (Qd) UbQ sites | Inducing cancer cells apoptosis via ROS | Colon cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, lung cancer, mesotheliomas, melanomas | Neuzil et al. (2001); Malafa et al. (2002); Weber et al. (2002); Kline et al. (2004); Tomasetti et al. (2004); Quin et al. (2005); Stapelberg et al. (2005); Malafa et al. (2006); Neuzil et al. (2006); Wang et al. (2007); Dong et al. (2008); Dong et al. (2009) |
| MitoVES | SDH | Qp site | Inducing cancer cells apoptosis via ROS | Breast carcinoma, colon cancer | Dong et al. (2011a); Dong et al. (2011b) |
| 3-BP | HK | Causing cancer cells death by the fast depletion of ATP | Advanced cancers Fibrolamellar | Ko et al. (2004); Mathupala et al. (2006); Pereira da Silva et al. (2009); Ko et al. (2012); Pedersen (2012); Rodrigues-Ferreira et al. (2012) | |
| SDH | Inhibiting SDH activity | HCC | |||
| 3NP | SDH | Inducing ROS and apoptosis | Neuroblastoma, PD, HD | Huang et al. (2006); Gomez-Lazaro et al. (2007) | |
| TTFA | SDHC&SDHD | Interfering with the UbQ-binding site | Inducing apoptosis and trigger superoxide/hydrogen peroxide and increase Ca2+ levels | Leishmania spp infection | Mehta and Shaha (2004) |
| Troglitazone | SDH | Interfering with SDH activity; Inducing cancer cell cycle arrest, differentiation, and apoptosis | Liposarcomas, prostate cancer, colorectal cancer | Demetri et al. (1999); Hisatake et al. (2000); Gupta et al. (2001); Kopelovich et al. (2002); Koeffler (2003); Soller et al. (2007); Wei et al. (2009) | |
| Atpenins | SDH | UbQ | Interfering with the UbQ site, prevents reduction of UbQ and induces ROS | IR injury | Miyadera et al. (2003); Horsefield et al. (2006); Wojtovich and Brookes (2009); Ralph et al. (2011); Quinlan et al. (2012) |
| LND | SDHC&SDHD | Transferring electrons from the iron sulfur clusters to ubiquinone | Inducing ROS and cancer cell death | Melanoma | Guo et al. (2016) |
| DT-010 | Complex II | Inducing ROS generation, cytotoxicity and promoting cell arrest | Breast cancer | Wang et al. (2016) | |
| Chrysin | Complex II | Inhibiting SDH activity and increasing ROS generation associated to apoptosis | CLL | Salimi et al. (2017) | |
| Dimethyl malonate | SDH | Inducing ROS with calcium dysregulation and ATP depletion via inhibiting SDH | IR injury (heart attack, ischemic stroke), tissue damage, and inflammation | Chouchani et al. (2014); Xu et al. (2018); Kula-Alwar et al. (2019) | |
| Ginsenoside Rb1 | Complex I | Inhibiting ROS production | Myocardial IR injury | Jiang et al. (2021) | |
| 3-BrPA | SDH | Decreasing SDH expression; Cancer cell cycle arrest and apoptotic induction via suppressing aerobic glycolysis | HCC, PC, endometrial cancer, Staphylococcus aureus infection; metastatic prostate cancer | Liu et al. (2009); Pereira da Silva et al. (2009); Cardaci et al. (2012); Birsoy et al. (2013); Byrne et al. (2014); Chapiro et al. (2014); Yadav et al. (2017); Abdel-Wahab et al. (2019); Pichla et al. (2019); Visca et al. (2019); Sun et al. (2020); Yu et al. (2021) | |
| Compound 968, CB-839 and JQ1 | Succinate | Inhibiting glutaminase 1 and BET | Suppressing the growth of the SDHB knockout cells | Colon cancer | Kitazawa et al. (2017); Godel et al. (2021) |
Several compounds affecting SDH activity have been tested for their anticancer properties, IR injury and anti-inflammatory effects.
α-TOS, α-tocopheryl succinate; SDH, succinate dehydrogenase; ROS, reactive oxygen species; MitoVES, mitochondrially targeted vitamin E succinate; 3-BP, 3-Bromopyruvate; HK, hexokinase; ATP, adenosine triphosphate; 3NP, 3-nitropropionic acid; TTFA, thenoyltrifluoroacetone; LND, lonidamine; DT-010, a conjugate of danshensu (DSS) and tetramethylpyrazine (TMP); 3-BrPA, 3-bromopyruvate; IR, injury, ischemia/reperfusion injury; PD, Parkinson’s disease; HD, Huntington’s disease; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; PC, pancreatic cancer; BET, bromodomain and extra-terminal; CLL, chronic lymphocytic leukemia; Compound 968 and CB-839, glutaminase 1 inhibitor; JQ1, a BET, inhibitor.
The identification of diverse pathways contributing to succinate accumulation presents promising avenues for the regulation of succinate levels and the modulation of tumorigenesis. The manipulation of succinate levels holds potential for the development of innovative cancer therapies. By comprehending the underlying molecular mechanisms governing succinate accumulation and its consequential impact on tumorigenesis, it becomes feasible to devise novel therapeutic approaches that specifically target succinate metabolism in malignant cells. These therapeutic interventions have the potential to enhance patient prognoses and offer efficacious treatment alternatives for diverse cancer types. Further investigation is warranted to comprehensively elucidate the precise involvement of succinate in cancer and to devise targeted therapeutic approaches that proficiently modulate its concentrations.
7 Conclusion and future perspectives
Historically, succinate and SDH have been recognized as pivotal contributors to ATP generation in the context of mitochondrial energy metabolism. Nevertheless, it has become evident that comprehending their extensive involvement in IR injury, immuno-inflammatory responses, and tumorigenesis could offer innovative and potent insights into disease control (Grimolizzi and Arranz, 2018). The diverse mechanisms involving succinate and SDH in the process of neoplasm invasion and metastasis imply that the identification of succinate as an oncometabolite could serve as a valuable diagnostic indicator for tracking tumors, whereas SDH, acting as a tumor suppressor, may present a promising target for anticancer treatment. Nevertheless, despite the potential of succinate accumulation and abnormal succinylation expression as diagnostic markers, the majority of existing studies have been conducted in laboratory settings, and it is crucial to validate ideal and efficacious molecular markers in vivo. On the other hand, despite the evident effectiveness of numerous compounds in vitro and animal models in targeting succinate to prevent ischemia-reperfusion injury and tumorigenesis, the translation of these findings from laboratory experiments to clinical application is fraught with challenges. Primarily, the attainment of the necessary concentrations of these compounds for protective and preventive purposes may present difficulties. Additionally, the development of strategies to enhance the delivery of succinate metabolism-targeting therapies to cells will be crucial in overcoming these obstacles (Gupta et al., 2021). The precise timing of targeted therapy administration holds significant importance in mitigating adverse reactions and ensuring optimal drug concentration within the affected tissue. Additionally, comprehending the pharmacokinetics of succinate-based medications during administration is crucial for establishing appropriate drug delivery schedules. Moreover, attaining selectivity towards specific tissues is imperative to prevent off-target effects. Overcoming these challenges is indispensable for the successful transition of succinate-based therapeutics from experimental settings to clinical application in the foreseeable future.
To summarize, there has been a comprehensive discourse on the role of succinate and SDH in the aforementioned areas of interest. Future investigations should persist in exploring potential diagnostic and therapeutic strategies that focus on succinate metabolism for inflammation, ischemia-reperfusion injury, and tumors. Additional research is imperative to validate the associations and underlying mechanisms between succinate and SDH in metabolic alterations as signaling pathways in the regulation of immune cells, potentially paving the way for innovative therapeutic interventions.
Statements
Author contributions
WZ: Investigation, Supervision, Visualization, Writing–original draft, Writing–review and editing. RL: Validation, Visualization, Writing–original draft, Writing–review and editing, Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Resources, Supervision.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge use of the drawing platform “Figuredraw” for the production of figures in our manuscript.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
Abdel-WahabA. F.MahmoudW.Al-HarizyR. M. (2019). Targeting glucose metabolism to suppress cancer progression: prospective of anti-glycolytic cancer therapy. Pharmacol. Res.150, 104511. 10.1016/j.phrs.2019.104511
2
AlleynM.BreitzigM.LockeyR.KolliputiN. (2018). The dawn of succinylation: a posttranslational modification. Am. J. Physiol. Cell Physiol.314 (2), C228–c232. 10.1152/ajpcell.00148.2017
3
AspuriaP. P.LuntS. Y.VaremoL.VergnesL.GozoM.BeachJ. A.et al (2014). Succinate dehydrogenase inhibition leads to epithelial-mesenchymal transition and reprogrammed carbon metabolism. Cancer Metab.2, 21. 10.1186/2049-3002-2-21
4
BardellaC.PollardP. J.TomlinsonI. (2011). SDH mutations in cancer. Biochim. Biophys. Acta1807 (11), 1432–1443. 10.1016/j.bbabio.2011.07.003
5
BirsoyK.WangT.PossematoR.YilmazO. H.KochC. E.ChenW. W.et al (2013). MCT1-mediated transport of a toxic molecule is an effective strategy for targeting glycolytic tumors. Nat. Genet.45 (1), 104–108. 10.1038/ng.2471
6
BrièreJ. J.FavierJ.El GhouzziV.DjouadiF.BénitP.GimenezA. P.et al (2005). Succinate dehydrogenase deficiency in human. Cell Mol. Life Sci.62 (19-20), 2317–2324. 10.1007/s00018-005-5237-6
7
BrunsG. A.ReginaV. M. (1977). Adenylate kinase 2, a mitochondrial enzyme. Biochem. Genet.15 (5-6), 477–486. 10.1007/bf00520192
8
BurwellL. S.NadtochiyS. M.BrookesP. S. (2009). Cardioprotection by metabolic shut-down and gradual wake-up. J. Mol. Cell Cardiol.46 (6), 804–810. 10.1016/j.yjmcc.2009.02.026
9
ByrneF. L.PoonI. K.ModesittS. C.TomsigJ. L.ChowJ. D.HealyM. E.et al (2014). Metabolic vulnerabilities in endometrial cancer. Cancer Res.74 (20), 5832–5845. 10.1158/0008-5472.Can-14-0254
10
CardaciS.RizzaS.FilomeniG.BernardiniR.BertocchiF.MatteiM.et al (2012). Glutamine deprivation enhances antitumor activity of 3-bromopyruvate through the stabilization of monocarboxylate transporter-1. Cancer Res.72 (17), 4526–4536. 10.1158/0008-5472.Can-12-1741
11
CarricoC.MeyerJ. G.HeW.GibsonB. W.VerdinE. (2018). The mitochondrial acylome emerges: proteomics, regulation by sirtuins, and metabolic and disease implications. Cell Metab.27 (3), 497–512. 10.1016/j.cmet.2018.01.016
12
ChapiroJ.SurS.SavicL. J.Ganapathy-KanniappanS.ReyesJ.DuranR.et al (2014). Systemic delivery of microencapsulated 3-bromopyruvate for the therapy of pancreatic cancer. Clin. Cancer Res.20 (24), 6406–6417. 10.1158/1078-0432.Ccr-14-1271
13
ChinopoulosC. (2021). The mystery of extramitochondrial proteins lysine succinylation. Int. J. Mol. Sci.22 (11), 6085. 10.3390/ijms22116085
14
ChinopoulosC. (2013). Which way does the citric acid cycle turn during hypoxia? The critical role of alpha-ketoglutarate dehydrogenase complex. J. Neurosci. Res.91 (8), 1030–1043. 10.1002/jnr.23196
15
ChouchaniE. T.PellV. R.GaudeE.AksentijevicD.SundierS. Y.RobbE. L.et al (2014). Ischaemic accumulation of succinate controls reperfusion injury through mitochondrial ROS. Nature515 (7527), 431–435. 10.1038/nature13909
16
ChoudharyC.WeinertB. T.NishidaY.VerdinE.MannM. (2014). The growing landscape of lysine acetylation links metabolism and cell signalling. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol.15 (8), 536–550. 10.1038/nrm3841
17
CorteseM.SinclairC.PulendranB. (2014). Translating glycolytic metabolism to innate immunity in dendritic cells. Cell Metab.19 (5), 737–739. 10.1016/j.cmet.2014.04.012
18
Dalla PozzaE.DandoI.PacchianaR.LiboiE.ScupoliM. T.DonadelliM.et al (2020). Regulation of succinate dehydrogenase and role of succinate in cancer. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol.98, 4–14. 10.1016/j.semcdb.2019.04.013
19
DambrovaM.ZuurbierC. J.BorutaiteV.LiepinshE.Makrecka-KukaM. (2021). Energy substrate metabolism and mitochondrial oxidative stress in cardiac ischemia/reperfusion injury. Free Radic. Biol. Med.165, 24–37. 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2021.01.036
20
DavidsonS. M.FerdinandyP.AndreadouI.BøtkerH. E.HeuschG.IbáñezB.et al (2019). Multitarget strategies to reduce myocardial ischemia/reperfusion injury: JACC review topic of the week. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.73 (1), 89–99. 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.09.086
21
de Castro FonsecaM.AguiarC. J.da Rocha FrancoJ. A.GingoldR. N.LeiteM. F. (2016). GPR91: expanding the frontiers of Krebs cycle intermediates. Cell Commun. Signal14, 3. 10.1186/s12964-016-0126-1
22
DemetriG. D.FletcherC. D.MuellerE.SarrafP.NaujoksR.CampbellN.et al (1999). Induction of solid tumor differentiation by the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma ligand troglitazone in patients with liposarcoma. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.96 (7), 3951–3956. 10.1073/pnas.96.7.3951
23
DongL. F.FreemanR.LiuJ.ZobalovaR.Marin-HernandezA.StanticM.et al (2009). Suppression of tumor growth in vivo by the mitocan alpha-tocopheryl succinate requires respiratory complex II. Clin. Cancer Res.15 (5), 1593–1600. 10.1158/1078-0432.Ccr-08-2439
24
DongL. F.JamesonV. J.TillyD.CernyJ.MahdavianE.Marín-HernándezA.et al (2011a). Mitochondrial targeting of vitamin E succinate enhances its pro-apoptotic and anti-cancer activity via mitochondrial complex II. J. Biol. Chem.286 (5), 3717–3728. 10.1074/jbc.M110.186643
25
DongL. F.JamesonV. J.TillyD.ProchazkaL.RohlenaJ.ValisK.et al (2011b). Mitochondrial targeting of α-tocopheryl succinate enhances its pro-apoptotic efficacy: a new paradigm for effective cancer therapy. Free Radic. Biol. Med.50 (11), 1546–1555. 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2011.02.032
26
DongL. F.LowP.DyasonJ. C.WangX. F.ProchazkaL.WittingP. K.et al (2008). alpha-tocopheryl succinate induces apoptosis by targeting ubiquinone-binding sites in mitochondrial respiratory complex II. Oncogene27 (31), 4324–4335. 10.1038/onc.2008.69
27
DroseS. (2013). Differential effects of complex II on mitochondrial ROS production and their relation to cardioprotective pre- and postconditioning. Biochim. Biophys. Acta1827 (5), 578–587. 10.1016/j.bbabio.2013.01.004
28
EltzschigH. K.EckleT. (2011). Ischemia and reperfusion-from mechanism to translation. Nat. Med.17 (11), 1391–1401. 10.1038/nm.2507
29
EniafeJ.JiangS. (2021). The functional roles of TCA cycle metabolites in cancer. Oncogene40 (19), 3351–3363. 10.1038/s41388-020-01639-8
30
EvansZ. P.EllettJ. D.FarissM. W.SchnellmannR. G.SchmidtM. G.ChavinK. (2008). Vitamin E succinate reduces ischemia/reperfusion injury in steatotic livers. Transpl. Proc.40 (10), 3327–3329. 10.1016/j.transproceed.2008.06.076
31
FulcherD. A.KatelarisC. H. (1991). Anaphylactoid reaction to intravenous hydrocortisone sodium succinate: a case report and literature review. Med. J. Aust.154 (3), 210–214. 10.5694/j.1326-5377.1991.tb121038.x
32
GaudeE.FrezzaC. (2014). Defects in mitochondrial metabolism and cancer. Cancer Metab.2, 10. 10.1186/2049-3002-2-10
33
GilissenJ.JouretF.PirotteB.HansonJ. (2016). Insight into SUCNR1 (GPR91) structure and function. Pharmacol. Ther.159, 56–65. 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2016.01.008
34
GillA. J. (2012). Succinate dehydrogenase (SDH) and mitochondrial driven neoplasia. Pathology44 (4), 285–292. 10.1097/PAT.0b013e3283539932
35
GodelM.OrtoneG.AnobileD. P.PasinoM.RandazzoG.RigantiC.et al (2021). Targeting mitochondrial oncometabolites: A new approach to overcome drug resistance in cancer. Pharmaceutics13 (5), 762. 10.3390/pharmaceutics13050762
36
Gomez-LazaroM.GalindoM. F.Melero-Fernandez de MeraR. M.Fernandez-GómezF. J.ConcannonC. G.SeguraM. F.et al (2007). Reactive oxygen species and p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase activate Bax to induce mitochondrial cytochrome c release and apoptosis in response to malonate. Mol. Pharmacol.71 (3), 736–743. 10.1124/mol.106.030718
37
GrimolizziF.ArranzL. (2018). Multiple faces of succinate beyond metabolism in blood. Haematologica103 (10), 1586–1592. 10.3324/haematol.2018.196097
38
GuoL.ShestovA. A.WorthA. J.NathK.NelsonD. S.LeeperD. B.et al (2016). Inhibition of mitochondrial complex II by the anticancer agent lonidamine. J. Biol. Chem.291 (1), 42–57. 10.1074/jbc.M115.697516
39
GuptaP. K.GahtoriR.GovarthananK.SharmaV.PappuruS.PanditS.et al (2021). Recent trends in biodegradable polyester nanomaterials for cancer therapy. Mater Sci. Eng. C Mater Biol. Appl.127, 112198. 10.1016/j.msec.2021.112198
40
GuptaR. A.BrockmanJ. A.SarrafP.WillsonT. M.DuBoisR. N. (2001). Target genes of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma in colorectal cancer cells. J. Biol. Chem.276 (32), 29681–29687. 10.1074/jbc.M103779200
41
GutP.MatilainenS.MeyerJ. G.PällijeffP.RichardJ.CarrollC. J.et al (2020). SUCLA2 mutations cause global protein succinylation contributing to the pathomechanism of a hereditary mitochondrial disease. Nat. Commun.11 (1), 5927. 10.1038/s41467-020-19743-4
42
HadrupS.DoniaM.Thor StratenP. (2013). Effector CD4 and CD8 T cells and their role in the tumor microenvironment. Cancer Microenviron.6 (2), 123–133. 10.1007/s12307-012-0127-6
43
HaffkeM.FehlmannD.RummelG.BoivineauJ.DuckelyM.GommermannN.et al (2019). Structural basis of species-selective antagonist binding to the succinate receptor. Nature574 (7779), 581–585. 10.1038/s41586-019-1663-8
44
HagerhallC. (1997). Succinate: quinone oxidoreductases. Variations on a conserved theme. Biochim. Biophys. Acta1320 (2), 107–141. 10.1016/s0005-2728(97)00019-4
45
HakakY.Lehmann-BruinsmaK.PhillipsS.LeT.LiawC.ConnollyD. T.et al (2009). The role of the GPR91 ligand succinate in hematopoiesis. J. Leukoc. Biol.85 (5), 837–843. 10.1189/jlb.1008618
46
HeW.MiaoF. J.LinD. C.SchwandnerR. T.WangZ.GaoJ.et al (2004). Citric acid cycle intermediates as ligands for orphan G-protein-coupled receptors. Nature429 (6988), 188–193. 10.1038/nature02488
47
HerY. F.MaherL. J.3rd (2015). Succinate dehydrogenase loss in familial paraganglioma: biochemistry, genetics, and epigenetics. Int. J. Endocrinol.2015, 296167. 10.1155/2015/296167
48
HirscheyM. D.ZhaoY. (2015). Metabolic regulation by lysine malonylation, succinylation, and glutarylation. Mol. Cell Proteomics14 (9), 2308–2315. 10.1074/mcp.R114.046664
49
HisatakeJ. I.IkezoeT.CareyM.HoldenS.TomoyasuS.KoefflerH. P. (2000). Down-Regulation of prostate-specific antigen expression by ligands for peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma in human prostate cancer. Cancer Res.60 (19), 5494–5498.
50
HorsefieldR.YankovskayaV.SextonG.WhittinghamW.ShiomiK.OmuraS.et al (2006). Structural and computational analysis of the quinone-binding site of complex II (succinate-ubiquinone oxidoreductase): a mechanism of electron transfer and proton conduction during ubiquinone reduction. J. Biol. Chem.281 (11), 7309–7316. 10.1074/jbc.M508173200
51
HuangL. S.SunG.CobessiD.WangA. C.ShenJ. T.TungE. Y.et al (2006). 3-nitropropionic acid is a suicide inhibitor of mitochondrial respiration that, upon oxidation by complex II, forms a covalent adduct with a catalytic base arginine in the active site of the enzyme. J. Biol. Chem.281 (9), 5965–5972. 10.1074/jbc.M511270200
52
HuangL. Y.MaJ. Y.SongJ. X.XuJ. J.HongR.FanH. D.et al (2023). Ischemic accumulation of succinate induces Cdc42 succinylation and inhibits neural stem cell proliferation after cerebral ischemia/reperfusion. Neural Regen. Res.18 (5), 1040–1045. 10.4103/1673-5374.355821
53
HuangS.MillarA. H. (2013). Succinate dehydrogenase: the complex roles of a simple enzyme. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol.16 (3), 344–349. 10.1016/j.pbi.2013.02.007
54
HwangM. S.RohlenaJ.DongL. F.NeuzilJ.GrimmS. (2014). Powerhouse down: complex II dissociation in the respiratory chain. Mitochondrion19 Pt A, 20–28. 10.1016/j.mito.2014.06.001
55
IbrahimA.ChopraS. (2020). Succinate dehydrogenase-deficient gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med.144 (5), 655–660. 10.5858/arpa.2018-0370-RS
56
JiangL.YinX.ChenY. H.ChenY.JiangW.ZhengH.et al (2021). Proteomic analysis reveals ginsenoside Rb1 attenuates myocardial ischemia/reperfusion injury through inhibiting ROS production from mitochondrial complex I. Theranostics11 (4), 1703–1720. 10.7150/thno.43895
57
JiangS.YanW. (2017). Succinate in the cancer-immune cycle. Cancer Lett.390, 45–47. 10.1016/j.canlet.2017.01.019
58
JiangS.YanW. (2016). T-cell immunometabolism against cancer. Cancer Lett.382 (2), 255–258. 10.1016/j.canlet.2016.09.003
59
JohnsonJ. D.MehusJ. G.TewsK.MilavetzB. I.LambethD. O. (1998). Genetic evidence for the expression of ATP- and GTP-specific succinyl-CoA synthetases in multicellular eucaryotes. J. Biol. Chem.273 (42), 27580–27586. 10.1074/jbc.273.42.27580
60
KesM. M. G.Van den BosscheJ.GriffioenA. W.HuijbersE. J. M. (2020). Oncometabolites lactate and succinate drive pro-angiogenic macrophage response in tumors. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Rev. Cancer1874 (2), 188427. 10.1016/j.bbcan.2020.188427
61
KitazawaS.EbaraS.AndoA.BabaY.SatomiY.SogaT.et al (2017). Succinate dehydrogenase B-deficient cancer cells are highly sensitive to bromodomain and extra-terminal inhibitors. Oncotarget8 (17), 28922–28938. 10.18632/oncotarget.15959
62
KlineK.YuW.SandersB. G. (2004). Vitamin E and breast cancer. J. Nutr.134 (12), 3458S–3462s. 10.1093/jn/134.12.3458S
63
KluckovaK.Bezawork-GeletaA.RohlenaJ.DongL.NeuzilJ. (2013). Mitochondrial complex II, a novel target for anti-cancer agents. Biochim. Biophys. Acta1827 (5), 552–564. 10.1016/j.bbabio.2012.10.015
64
KoY. H.SmithB. L.WangY.PomperM. G.RiniD. A.TorbensonM. S.et al (2004). Advanced cancers: eradication in all cases using 3-bromopyruvate therapy to deplete ATP. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun.324 (1), 269–275. 10.1016/j.bbrc.2004.09.047
65
KoY. H.VerhoevenH. A.LeeM. J.CorbinD. J.VoglT. J.PedersenP. L. (2012). A translational study "case report" on the small molecule "energy blocker" 3-bromopyruvate (3BP) as a potent anticancer agent: from bench side to bedside. J. Bioenerg. Biomembr.44 (1), 163–170. 10.1007/s10863-012-9417-4
66
KoefflerH. P. (2003). Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma and cancers. Clin. Cancer Res.9 (1), 1–9.
67
KomlodiT.TretterL. (2017). Methylene blue stimulates substrate-level phosphorylation catalysed by succinyl-CoA ligase in the citric acid cycle. Neuropharmacology123, 287–298. 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2017.05.009
68
KopelovichL.FayJ. R.GlazerR. I.CrowellJ. A. (2002). Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor modulators as potential chemopreventive agents. Mol. Cancer Ther.1 (5), 357–363.
69
KrzakG.WillisC. M.SmithJ. A.PluchinoS.Peruzzotti-JamettiL. (2021). Succinate receptor 1: an emerging regulator of myeloid cell function in inflammation. Trends Immunol.42 (1), 45–58. 10.1016/j.it.2020.11.004
70
Kula-AlwarD.PragH. A.KriegT. (2019). Targeting succinate metabolism in ischemia/reperfusion injury. Circulation140 (24), 1968–1970. 10.1161/circulationaha.119.042791
71
KurmiK.HitosugiS.WieseE. K.Boakye-AgyemanF.GonsalvesW. I.LouZ.et al (2018). Carnitine palmitoyltransferase 1A has a lysine succinyltransferase activity. Cell Rep.22 (6), 1365–1373. 10.1016/j.celrep.2018.01.030
72
LiF.HeX.YeD.LinY.YuH.YaoC.et al (2015). NADP(+)-IDH mutations promote hypersuccinylation that impairs mitochondria respiration and induces apoptosis resistance. Mol. Cell60 (4), 661–675. 10.1016/j.molcel.2015.10.017
73
LiJ.LiangN.LongX.ZhaoJ.YangJ.DuX.et al (2019). SDHC-related deficiency of SDH complex activity promotes growth and metastasis of hepatocellular carcinoma via ROS/NFκB signaling. Cancer Lett.461, 44–55. 10.1016/j.canlet.2019.07.001
74
LiL.ShiL.YangS.YanR.ZhangD.YangJ.et al (2016). SIRT7 is a histone desuccinylase that functionally links to chromatin compaction and genome stability. Nat. Commun.7, 12235. 10.1038/ncomms12235
75
LiuL.LuY.MartinezJ.BiY.LianG.WangT.et al (2016). Proinflammatory signal suppresses proliferation and shifts macrophage metabolism from Myc-dependent to HIF1α-dependent. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.113 (6), 1564–1569. 10.1073/pnas.1518000113
76
LiuX. H.ZhengX. F.WangY. L. (2009). Inhibitive effect of 3-bromopyruvic acid on human breast cancer MCF-7 cells involves cell cycle arrest and apoptotic induction. Chin. Med. J. Engl.122 (14), 1681–1685.
77
MacaulayI. C.TijssenM. R.Thijssen-TimmerD. C.GusnantoA.StewardM.BurnsP.et al (2007). Comparative gene expression profiling of in vitro differentiated megakaryocytes and erythroblasts identifies novel activatory and inhibitory platelet membrane proteins. Blood109 (8), 3260–3269. 10.1182/blood-2006-07-036269
78
MalafaM. P.FokumF. D.AndohJ.NeitzelL. T.BandyopadhyayS.ZhanR.et al (2006). Vitamin E succinate suppresses prostate tumor growth by inducing apoptosis. Int. J. Cancer118 (10), 2441–2447. 10.1002/ijc.21689
79
MalafaM. P.FokumF. D.MowlaviA.AbusiefM.KingM. (2002). Vitamin E inhibits melanoma growth in mice. Surgery131 (1), 85–91. 10.1067/msy.2002.119191
80
MathupalaS. P.KoY. H.PedersenP. L. (2006). Hexokinase II: cancer's double-edged sword acting as both facilitator and gatekeeper of malignancy when bound to mitochondria. Oncogene25 (34), 4777–4786. 10.1038/sj.onc.1209603
81
MehtaA.ShahaC. (2004). Apoptotic death in leishmania donovani promastigotes in response to respiratory chain inhibition: complex II inhibition results in increased pentamidine cytotoxicity. J. Biol. Chem.279 (12), 11798–11813. 10.1074/jbc.M309341200
82
MilioneM.MaisonneuveP.PellegrinelliA.PuscedduS.CentonzeG.DominoniF.et al (2017). Loss of succinate dehydrogenase subunit B (SDHB) as a prognostic factor in advanced ileal well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors. Endocrine57 (3), 512–517. 10.1007/s12020-016-1180-6
83
MillsE. L.HarmonC.JedrychowskiM. P.XiaoH.GarrityR.TranN. V.et al (2021). UCP1 governs liver extracellular succinate and inflammatory pathogenesis. Nat. Metab.3 (5), 604–617. 10.1038/s42255-021-00389-5
84
MillsE.O'NeillL. A. (2014). Succinate: a metabolic signal in inflammation. Trends Cell Biol.24 (5), 313–320. 10.1016/j.tcb.2013.11.008
85
MisawaT.TakahamaM.KozakiT.LeeH.ZouJ.SaitohT.et al (2013). Microtubule-driven spatial arrangement of mitochondria promotes activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome. Nat. Immunol.14 (5), 454–460. 10.1038/ni.2550
86
MiyaderaH.ShiomiK.UiH.YamaguchiY.MasumaR.TomodaH.et al (2003). Atpenins, potent and specific inhibitors of mitochondrial complex II (succinate-ubiquinone oxidoreductase). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.100 (2), 473–477. 10.1073/pnas.0237315100
87
MoosaviB.BerryE. A.ZhuX. L.YangW. C.YangG. F. (2019). The assembly of succinate dehydrogenase: a key enzyme in bioenergetics. Cell Mol. Life Sci.76 (20), 4023–4042. 10.1007/s00018-019-03200-7
88
MullenA. R.DeBerardinisR. J. (2012). Genetically-defined metabolic reprogramming in cancer. Trends Endocrinol. Metab.23 (11), 552–559. 10.1016/j.tem.2012.06.009
89
MurphyE.SteenbergenC. (2008). Mechanisms underlying acute protection from cardiac ischemia-reperfusion injury. Physiol. Rev.88 (2), 581–609. 10.1152/physrev.00024.2007
90
MurphyM. P.ChouchaniE. T. (2022). Why succinate? Physiological regulation by a mitochondrial coenzyme Q sentinel. Nat. Chem. Biol.18 (5), 461–469. 10.1038/s41589-022-01004-8
91
MurphyM. P.O'NeillL. A. J. (2018). Krebs cycle reimagined: the emerging roles of succinate and itaconate as signal transducers. Cell174 (4), 780–784. 10.1016/j.cell.2018.07.030
92
NeppalaP.BanerjeeS.FantaP. T.YerbaM.PorrasK. A.BurgoyneA. M.et al (2019). Current management of succinate dehydrogenase-deficient gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Cancer Metastasis Rev.38 (3), 525–535. 10.1007/s10555-019-09818-0
93
NeuzilJ.WangX. F.DongL. F.LowP.RalphS. J. (2006). Molecular mechanism of 'mitocan'-induced apoptosis in cancer cells epitomizes the multiple roles of reactive oxygen species and Bcl-2 family proteins. FEBS Lett.580 (22), 5125–5129. 10.1016/j.febslet.2006.05.072
94
NeuzilJ.WeberT.TermanA.WeberC.BrunkU. T. (2001). Vitamin E analogues as inducers of apoptosis: implications for their potential antineoplastic role. Redox Rep.6 (3), 143–151. 10.1179/135100001101536247
95
NobumotoM.YamadaM.SongS.InouyeS.NakazawaA. (1998). Mechanism of mitochondrial import of adenylate kinase isozymes. J. Biochem.123 (1), 128–135. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jbchem.a021899
96
O'NeillL. A.PearceE. J. (2016). Immunometabolism governs dendritic cell and macrophage function. J. Exp. Med.213 (1), 15–23. 10.1084/jem.20151570
97
Palsson-McDermottE. M.O'NeillL. A. (2013). The Warburg effect then and now: from cancer to inflammatory diseases. Bioessays35 (11), 965–973. 10.1002/bies.201300084
98
PaluckaK.BanchereauJ. (2012). Cancer immunotherapy via dendritic cells. Nat. Rev. Cancer12 (4), 265–277. 10.1038/nrc3258
99
PanayiotouC.SolaroliN.KarlssonA. (2014). The many isoforms of human adenylate kinases. Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol.49, 75–83. 10.1016/j.biocel.2014.01.014
100
PanconesiR.WidmerJ.CarvalhoM. F.EdenJ.DondossolaD.DutkowskiP.et al (2022). Mitochondria and ischemia reperfusion injury. Curr. Opin. Organ Transpl.27 (5), 434–445. 10.1097/mot.0000000000001015
101
ParkJ.ChenY.TishkoffD. X.PengC.TanM. J.DaiL. Z.et al (2013). SIRT5-Mediated lysine desuccinylation impacts diverse metabolic pathways. Mol. Cell50 (6), 919–930. 10.1016/j.molcel.2013.06.001
102
PasiniB.StratakisC. A. (2009). SDH mutations in tumorigenesis and inherited endocrine tumours: lesson from the phaeochromocytoma-paraganglioma syndromes. J. Intern. Med.266 (1), 19–42. 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2009.02111.x
103
PeaceC. G.O'NeillL. A. (2022). The role of itaconate in host defense and inflammation. J. Clin. Invest.132 (2), e148548. 10.1172/jci148548
104
PedersenP. L. (2012). 3-Bromopyruvate (3BP) a fast acting, promising, powerful, specific, and effective "small molecule" anti-cancer agent taken from labside to bedside: introduction to a special issue. J. Bioenerg. Biomembr.44 (1), 1–6. 10.1007/s10863-012-9425-4
105
PellV. R.ChouchaniE. T.FrezzaC.MurphyM. P.KriegT. (2016). Succinate metabolism: a new therapeutic target for myocardial reperfusion injury. Cardiovasc Res.111 (2), 134–141. 10.1093/cvr/cvw100
106
Pereira da SilvaA. P.El-BachaT.KyawN.dos SantosR. S.da-SilvaW. S.AlmeidaF. C.et al (2009). Inhibition of energy-producing pathways of HepG2 cells by 3-bromopyruvate. Biochem. J.417 (3), 717–726. 10.1042/bj20080805
107
Peruzzotti-JamettiL.BernstockJ. D.VicarioN.CostaA. S. H.KwokC. K.LeonardiT.et al (2018). Macrophage-derived extracellular succinate licenses neural stem cells to suppress chronic neuroinflammation. Cell Stem Cell22 (3), 355–368. 10.1016/j.stem.2018.01.020
108
Peti-PeterdiJ. (2010). High glucose and renin release: the role of succinate and GPR91. Kidney Int.78 (12), 1214–1217. 10.1038/ki.2010.333
109
PichlaM.SrokaJ.PienkowskaN.PiwowarczykK.MadejaZ.BartoszG.et al (2019). Metastatic prostate cancer cells are highly sensitive to 3-bromopyruvic acid. Life Sci.227, 212–223. 10.1016/j.lfs.2019.03.066
110
QuinJ.EngleD.LitwillerA.PeraltaE.GraschA.BoleyT.et al (2005). Vitamin E succinate decreases lung cancer tumor growth in mice. J. Surg. Res.127 (2), 139–143. 10.1016/j.jss.2005.01.014
111
QuinlanC. L.OrrA. L.PerevoshchikovaI. V.TrebergJ. R.AckrellB. A.BrandM. D. (2012). Mitochondrial complex II can generate reactive oxygen species at high rates in both the forward and reverse reactions. J. Biol. Chem.287 (32), 27255–27264. 10.1074/jbc.M112.374629
112
RajuT. N. (1999). The nobel chronicles. 1953: hans Adolf Krebs (1900-81) and fritz albert lipmann (1899-1986). Lancet353 (9164), 1628. 10.1016/s0140-6736(05)75758-5
113
RalphS. J.Moreno-SánchezR.NeuzilJ.Rodríguez-EnríquezS. (2011). Inhibitors of succinate: quinone reductase/complex II regulate production of mitochondrial reactive oxygen species and protect normal cells from ischemic damage but induce specific cancer cell death. Pharm. Res.28 (11), 2695–2730. 10.1007/s11095-011-0566-7
114
RenW.XiaY.ChenS.WuG.BazerF. W.ZhouB.et al (2019). Glutamine metabolism in macrophages: A novel target for obesity/type 2 diabetes. Adv. Nutr.10 (2), 321–330. 10.1093/advances/nmy084
115
RisticB.BhutiaY. D.GanapathyV. (2017). Cell-surface G-protein-coupled receptors for tumor-associated metabolites: A direct link to mitochondrial dysfunction in cancer. Biochimica Biophysica Acta-Reviews Cancer1868 (1), 246–257. 10.1016/j.bbcan.2017.05.003
116
RobbenJ. H.FentonR. A.VargasS. L.SchweerH.Peti-PeterdiJ.DeenP. M.et al (2009). Localization of the succinate receptor in the distal nephron and its signaling in polarized MDCK cells. Kidney Int.76 (12), 1258–1267. 10.1038/ki.2009.360
117
Rodrigues-FerreiraC.da SilvaA. P.GalinaA. (2012). Effect of the antitumoral alkylating agent 3-bromopyruvate on mitochondrial respiration: role of mitochondrially bound hexokinase. J. Bioenerg. Biomembr.44 (1), 39–49. 10.1007/s10863-012-9413-8
118
RubicT.LametschwandtnerG.JostS.HintereggerS.KundJ.Carballido-PerrigN.et al (2008). Triggering the succinate receptor GPR91 on dendritic cells enhances immunity. Nat. Immunol.9 (11), 1261–1269. 10.1038/ni.1657
119
SabariB. R.ZhangD.AllisC. D.ZhaoY. (2017). Metabolic regulation of gene expression through histone acylations. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol.18 (2), 90–101. 10.1038/nrm.2016.140
120
SalimiA.RoudkenarM. H.SeydiE.SadeghiL.MohseniA.PirahmadiN.et al (2017). Chrysin as an anti-cancer agent exerts selective toxicity by directly inhibiting mitochondrial complex II and V in CLL B-lymphocytes. Cancer Invest.35 (3), 174–186. 10.1080/07357907.2016.1276187
121
SchugT. T.XuQ.GaoH.Peres-da-SilvaA.DraperD. W.FesslerM. B.et al (2010). Myeloid deletion of SIRT1 induces inflammatory signaling in response to environmental stress. Mol. Cell Biol.30 (19), 4712–4721. 10.1128/mcb.00657-10
122
SelakM. A.ArmourS. M.MacKenzieE. D.BoulahbelH.WatsonD. G.MansfieldK. D.et al (2005). Succinate links TCA cycle dysfunction to oncogenesis by inhibiting HIF-alpha prolyl hydroxylase. Cancer Cell7 (1), 77–85. 10.1016/j.ccr.2004.11.022
123
SemeraroM.BoenziS.CarrozzoR.DiodatoD.MartinelliD.OlivieriG.et al (2018). The urinary organic acids profile in single large-scale mitochondrial DNA deletion disorders. Clin. Chim. Acta481, 156–160. 10.1016/j.cca.2018.03.002
124
ShenR.RuanH.LinS.LiuB.SongH.LiL.et al (2023). Lysine succinylation, the metabolic bridge between cancer and immunity. Genes Dis.10 (6), 2470–2478. 10.1016/j.gendis.2022.10.028
125
SilkinY.OyedotunK. S.LemireB. D. (2007). The role of Sdh4p Tyr-89 in ubiquinone reduction by the Saccharomyces cerevisiae succinate dehydrogenase. Biochim. Biophys. Acta1767 (2), 143–150. 10.1016/j.bbabio.2006.11.017
126
SollerM.DröseS.BrandtU.BrüneB.von KnethenA. (2007). Mechanism of thiazolidinedione-dependent cell death in Jurkat T cells. Mol. Pharmacol.71 (6), 1535–1544. 10.1124/mol.107.034371
127
SongY.WangJ.ChengZ.GaoP.SunJ.ChenX.et al (2017). Quantitative global proteome and lysine succinylome analyses provide insights into metabolic regulation and lymph node metastasis in gastric cancer. Sci. Rep.7, 42053. 10.1038/srep42053
128
SreedharA.WieseE. K.HitosugiT. (2020). Enzymatic and metabolic regulation of lysine succinylation. Genes Dis.7 (2), 166–171. 10.1016/j.gendis.2019.09.011
129
StapelbergM.GellertN.SwettenhamE.TomasettiM.WittingP. K.ProcopioA.et al (2005). Alpha-tocopheryl succinate inhibits malignant mesothelioma by disrupting the fibroblast growth factor autocrine loop: mechanism and the role of oxidative stress. J. Biol. Chem.280 (27), 25369–25376. 10.1074/jbc.M414498200
130
SunF.HuoX.ZhaiY. J.WangA. J.XuJ. X.SuD.et al (2005). Crystal structure of mitochondrial respiratory membrane protein complex II. Cell121 (7), 1043–1057. 10.1016/j.cell.2005.05.025
131
SunX.SunG.HuangY.HaoY.TangX.ZhangN.et al (2020). 3-Bromopyruvate regulates the status of glycolysis and BCNU sensitivity in human hepatocellular carcinoma cells. Biochem. Pharmacol.177, 113988. 10.1016/j.bcp.2020.113988
132
SzetoS. S. W.ReinkeS. N.SykesB. D.LemireB. D. (2007). Ubiquinone-binding site mutations in the Saccharomyces cerevisiae succinate dehydrogenase generate superoxide and lead to the accumulation of succinate. J. Biol. Chem.282 (37), 27518–27526. 10.1074/jbc.M700601200
133
Takács-VellaiK.FarkasZ.ŐszF.StewartG. W. (2021). Model systems in SDHx-related pheochromocytoma/paraganglioma. Cancer Metastasis Rev.40 (4), 1177–1201. 10.1007/s10555-021-10009-z
134
TannahillG.CurtisA.AdamikJ.Palsson-McDermottE.McGettrickA.GoelG.et al (2013). Succinate is an inflammatory signal that induces IL-1β through HIF-1α. HIF-1α496 (7444), 238–242. 10.1038/nature11986
135
TannahillG. M.O'NeillL. A. (2011). The emerging role of metabolic regulation in the functioning of Toll-like receptors and the NOD-like receptor Nlrp3. FEBS Lett.585 (11), 1568–1572. 10.1016/j.febslet.2011.05.008
136
TimmersL.PasterkampG.de HoogV. C.ArslanF.AppelmanY.de KleijnD. P. (2012). The innate immune response in reperfused myocardium. Cardiovasc Res.94 (2), 276–283. 10.1093/cvr/cvs018
137
TomasettiM.GellertN.ProcopioA.NeuzilJ. (2004). A vitamin E analogue suppresses malignant mesothelioma in a preclinical model: a future drug against a fatal neoplastic disease?Int. J. Cancer109 (5), 641–642. 10.1002/ijc.20062
138
TomitsukaE.KitaK.EsumiH. (2010). The NADH-fumarate reductase system, a novel mitochondrial energy metabolism, is a new target for anticancer therapy in tumor microenvironments. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.1201, 44–49. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05620.x
139
TretterL.PatocsA.ChinopoulosC. (2016). Succinate, an intermediate in metabolism, signal transduction, ROS, hypoxia, and tumorigenesis. Biochim. Biophys. Acta1857 (8), 1086–1101. 10.1016/j.bbabio.2016.03.012
140
TsengP. L.WuW. H.HuT. H.ChenC. W.ChengH. C.LiC. F.et al (2018). Decreased succinate dehydrogenase B in human hepatocellular carcinoma accelerates tumor malignancy by inducing the Warburg effect. Sci. Rep.8 (1), 3081. 10.1038/s41598-018-21361-6
141
ViscaP.PisaF.ImperiF. (2019). The antimetabolite 3-bromopyruvate selectively inhibits Staphylococcus aureus. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents53 (4), 449–455. 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2018.11.008
142
VuoristoK. S.MarsA. E.SandersJ. P. M.EgginkG.WeusthuisR. A. (2016). Metabolic engineering of TCA cycle for production of chemicals. Trends Biotechnol.34 (3), 191–197. 10.1016/j.tibtech.2015.11.002
143
WagnerG. R.BhattD. P.O'ConnellT. M.ThompsonJ. W.DuboisL. G.BackosD. S.et al (2017). A class of reactive acyl-CoA species reveals the non-enzymatic origins of protein acylation. Cell Metab.25 (4), 823–837. 10.1016/j.cmet.2017.03.006
144
WallaceD. C. (2012). Mitochondria and cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer12 (10), 685–698. 10.1038/nrc3365
145
WangC.WangY.ShenL. (2021). Mitochondrial proteins in heart failure: the role of deacetylation by SIRT3. Pharmacol. Res.172, 105802. 10.1016/j.phrs.2021.105802
146
WangC.ZhangC.LiX.ShenJ.XuY.ShiH.et al (2019). CPT1A-mediated succinylation of S100A10 increases human gastric cancer invasion. J. Cell Mol. Med.23 (1), 293–305. 10.1111/jcmm.13920
147
WangL.ZhangX.CuiG.ChanJ. Y.WangL.LiC.et al (2016). A novel agent exerts antitumor activity in breast cancer cells by targeting mitochondrial complex II. Oncotarget7 (22), 32054–32064. 10.18632/oncotarget.8410
148
WangM.LinH. (2021). Understanding the function of mammalian sirtuins and protein lysine acylation. Annu. Rev. Biochem.90, 245–285. 10.1146/annurev-biochem-082520-125411
149
WangX. F.BirringerM.DongL. F.VeprekP.LowP.SwettenhamE.et al (2007). A peptide conjugate of vitamin E succinate targets breast cancer cells with high ErbB2 expression. Cancer Res.67 (7), 3337–3344. 10.1158/0008-5472.Can-06-2480
150
WeberT.LuM.AnderaL.LahmH.GellertN.FarissM. W.et al (2002). Vitamin E succinate is a potent novel antineoplastic agent with high selectivity and cooperativity with tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (Apo2 ligand) in vivo. Clin. Cancer Res.8 (3), 863–869.
151
WeiS.YangJ.LeeS. L.KulpS. K.ChenC. S. (2009). PPARgamma-independent antitumor effects of thiazolidinediones. Cancer Lett.276 (2), 119–124. 10.1016/j.canlet.2008.08.008
152
WeiY. H.MaX.ZhaoJ. C.WangX. Q.GaoC. Q. (2023). Succinate metabolism and its regulation of host-microbe interactions. Gut Microbes15 (1), 2190300. 10.1080/19490976.2023.2190300
153
WeinertB. T.ScholzC.WagnerS. A.IesmantaviciusV.SuD.DanielJ. A.et al (2013). Lysine succinylation is a frequently occurring modification in prokaryotes and eukaryotes and extensively overlaps with acetylation. Cell Rep.4 (4), 842–851. 10.1016/j.celrep.2013.07.024
154
WilliamsN. C.O'NeillL. A. J. (2018). A role for the Krebs cycle intermediate citrate in metabolic reprogramming in innate immunity and inflammation. Front. Immunol.9, 141. 10.3389/fimmu.2018.00141
155
WittenbergerT.SchallerH. C.HellebrandS. (2001). An expressed sequence tag (EST) data mining strategy succeeding in the discovery of new G-protein coupled receptors. J. Mol. Biol.307 (3), 799–813. 10.1006/jmbi.2001.4520
156
WojtovichA. P.BrookesP. S. (2009). The complex II inhibitor atpenin A5 protects against cardiac ischemia-reperfusion injury via activation of mitochondrial KATP channels. Basic Res. Cardiol.104 (2), 121–129. 10.1007/s00395-009-0001-y
157
WuW.ZhaoS. (2013). Metabolic changes in cancer: beyond the Warburg effect. Acta Biochim. Biophys. Sin. (Shanghai)45 (1), 18–26. 10.1093/abbs/gms104
158
XiangyunY.XiaominN.LinpingG.YunhuaX.ZimingL.YongfengY.et al (2017). Desuccinylation of pyruvate kinase M2 by SIRT5 contributes to antioxidant response and tumor growth. Oncotarget8 (4), 6984–6993. 10.18632/oncotarget.14346
159
XieZ.DaiJ.DaiL.TanM.ChengZ.WuY.et al (2012). Lysine succinylation and lysine malonylation in histones. Mol. Cell Proteomics11 (5), 100–107. 10.1074/mcp.M111.015875
160
XuJ.PanH.XieX.ZhangJ.WangY.YangG. (2018). Inhibiting succinate dehydrogenase by dimethyl malonate alleviates Brain damage in a rat model of cardiac arrest. Neuroscience393, 24–32. 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2018.09.041
161
YadavS.PandeyS. K.KumarA.KujurP. K.SinghR. P.SinghS. M. (2017). Antitumor and chemosensitizing action of 3-bromopyruvate: implication of deregulated metabolism. Chem. Biol. Interact.270, 73–89. 10.1016/j.cbi.2017.04.015
162
YangL.MaX.HeY.YuanC.ChenQ.LiG.et al (2017). Sirtuin 5: a review of structure, known inhibitors and clues for developing new inhibitors. Sci. China Life Sci.60 (3), 249–256. 10.1007/s11427-016-0060-7
163
YangY.GibsonG. E. (2019). Succinylation links metabolism to protein functions. Neurochem. Res.44 (10), 2346–2359. 10.1007/s11064-019-02780-x
164
YankovskayaV.HorsefieldR.TornrothS.Luna-ChavezC.MiyoshiH.LegerC.et al (2003). Architecture of succinate dehydrogenase and reactive oxygen species generation. Science299 (5607), 700–704. 10.1126/science.1079605
165
YellonD. M.HausenloyD. J. (2007). Myocardial reperfusion injury. N. Engl. J. Med.357 (11), 1121–1135. 10.1056/NEJMra071667
166
YongC.StewartG. D.FrezzaC. (2020). Oncometabolites in renal cancer. Nat. Rev. Nephrol.16 (3), 156–172. 10.1038/s41581-019-0210-z
167
YuH.ZhuJ.ChangL.LiangC.LiX.WangW. (2021). 3-Bromopyruvate decreased kidney fibrosis and fibroblast activation by suppressing aerobic glycolysis in unilateral ureteral obstruction mice model. Life Sci.272, 119206. 10.1016/j.lfs.2021.119206
168
YuJ.WangS.LiW.DaiG.XuS.HeZ.et al (2007). Cloning, expression and protective immunity evaluation of the full-length cDNA encoding succinate dehydrogenase iron-sulfur protein of Schistosoma japonicum. Sci. China C Life Sci.50 (2), 221–227. 10.1007/s11427-007-0035-z
169
ZhangW.LiuZ.XuX. (2021). Navigating immune cell immunometabolism after liver transplantation. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol.160, 103227. 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2021.103227
170
ZhaoG.ZhenJ.LiuX.GuoJ.LiD.XieJ.et al (2023). Protein post-translational modification by lysine succinylation: biochemistry, biological implications, and therapeutic opportunities. Genes Dis.10 (4), 1242–1262. 10.1016/j.gendis.2022.03.009
Summary
Keywords
succinate, succinate dehydrogenase (SDH), immune cells, inflammation, ischemia/reperfusion (IR) injury, cancer
Citation
Zhang W and Lang R (2023) Succinate metabolism: a promising therapeutic target for inflammation, ischemia/reperfusion injury and cancer. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 11:1266973. doi: 10.3389/fcell.2023.1266973
Received
07 August 2023
Accepted
15 September 2023
Published
22 September 2023
Volume
11 - 2023
Edited by
De-Li Shi, Sorbonne Université, France
Reviewed by
Thomas Blacker, University College London, United Kingdom
Eric Stephen Goetzman, University of Pittsburgh, United States
Updates
Copyright
© 2023 Zhang and Lang.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Ren Lang, dr_langren@126.com
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.