Mitochondrial stress is considered as a factor that reprograms the mitochondrial biogenesis and metabolism. As known, SUMOylation occurs through a series of stress-induced biochemical reactions. During the process of SUMOylation, the small ubiquitin-like modifier (SUMO) and its specific proteases (SENPs) are key signal molecules. Furthermore, they are considered as novel mitochondrial stress sensors that respond to the signals produced by various stresses. The responses are critical for mitochondrial homeostasis. The scope of this review is to provide an overview of the function of SUMOylation in the mitochondrial stress response, to delineate a SUMOylation-involved signal network diagram, and to highlight a number of key questions that remain answered.

T cells rewire their metabolic activities to meet the demand of immune responses, but how to coordinate the immune response by metabolic regulators in activated T cells is unknown. Here, we identified autocrine VEGF-B as a metabolic regulator to control lipid synthesis and maintain the integrity of the mitochondrial inner membrane for the survival of activated T cells. Disruption of autocrine VEGF-B signaling in T cells reduced cardiolipin mass, resulting in mitochondrial damage, with increased apoptosis and reduced memory development. The addition of cardiolipin or modulating VEGF-B signaling improved T cell mitochondrial fitness and survival. Autocrine VEGF-B signaling through GA-binding protein α (GABPα) induced sentrin/SUMO-specific protease 2 (SENP2) expression, which further de-SUMOylated PPARγ and enhanced phospholipid synthesis, leading to a cardiolipin increase in activated T cells. These data suggest that autocrine VEGF-B mediates a signal to coordinate lipid synthesis and mitochondrial fitness with T cell activation for survival and immune response. Moreover, autocrine VEGF-B signaling in T cells provides a therapeutic target against infection and tumors as well as an avenue for the treatment of autoimmune diseases.

Background: The posterior-inferior border of symphysis (PIBS) point system is a novel vaginal dose-reporting method and is a simple and reliable method proposed by the Medical University of Vienna proposed for both external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and brachytherapy (BT). In this multicenter study, we sought to first evaluate the vaginal radiation dose in Chinese cervical cancer patients according to the PIBS point system and then to analyze the factors influencing the dose distribution. Methods: We collected data from the medical records of 936 cervical cancer patients who underwent concurrent radiochemotherapy at 13 different institutions in China. Radiation doses at points A, PIBS+ 2 cm, PIBS and PIBS-2 cm, International Commission on Radiation Units (ICRU)-R and ICRU-B were measured. Results: The median total doses in EQD2_{α/β = 3} at points PIBS+ 2 cm, PIBS and PIBS-2 cm were 82.5 (52.7–392.1) Gy, 56.2 (51.4–82.1) Gy and 2.6 (0.9–7.4) Gy, respectively. The median total doses in EQD2_{α/β = 3} at ICRU-R and ICRU-B were 77.5 (54.8–132.4) Gy and 79.9 (60.7–133.7) Gy, respectively. The mean vaginal reference length (VRL) was 4.6 ± 1.0 cm (median, 4.5 cm). In patients with VRL ≤4.5 cm, the mean total doses in EQD2_{α/β = 3} at points PIBS+ 2 cm, PIBS and PIBS-2 cm were 128.5, 60.7 and 0.8 Gy, respectively. In patients with VRL > 4.5 cm, the mean total doses at these three points were 68.9, 0.5 and 54.5 Gy, respectively. Classification of patients revealed significant differences (P < 0.05) between these two groups. Conclusions: With the PIBS point system, Chinese patients with a shorter VRL of < 4.5 cm received higher radiation doses at the PIBS+ 2 cm, PIBS and PIBS-2 cm points than European and American patients. Further studies are required to establish the dose–effect relationships with these points as references. The study was registered as a clinical trial (NCT03257475) on August 22, 2017.

For stage I to II high-risk endometrioid adenocarcinoma patients, the optimal adjuvant radiotherapy modality remains controversial. The present study sought to optimize the treatment of pelvic external beam radiation (EBRT) with/or vaginal brachytherapy (VBT) for high-risk endometrioid adenocarcinoma patients in multiple radiation oncology centers across China. This article retrospectively reviewed stage I to II patients with resected endometrioid adenocarcinoma treated at 13 radiation centers from 1999 to 2015. Patients were eligible if they had high-risk features (stage IB Grade 3 disease or stage II Grade 1–3 disease) on the basis of ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO risk group consensus. A total of 218 patients were included. Fifty-one patients received EBRT, 25 patients received VBT, and 142 patients were administered EBRT combined with VBT. The three groups were comparable in baseline characteristics, except the proportion of stage IB and Grade 3 disease in the VBT group was significantly higher and their age was older. Survival analysis showed that OS, DFS, LRFS and DMFS were significantly different among the three groups. Two out of three groups were compared with each other, and results demonstrated that DFS, LRFS and DMFS were worse in the VBT group than in the EBRT or EBRT + VBT group. The 3-year OS rates were 95.2, 85.2 and 95.1% in the EBRT, VBT and EBRT + VBT groups, respectively (p = 0.043). There was no significant difference in survival outcomes between EBRT group and EBRT + VBT group. A propensity matching analysis was performed to eliminate group differences. The results demonstrated that DFS and LRFS were significantly improved in the pelvic radiation group compared to the VBT group. Distant failure accounted for most of the failure patterns. Patients in the VBT group had significantly increased local and regional recurrence rates than patients in the EBRT or EBRT + VBT group. Acute and chronic radiation-induced toxicities were well tolerated for all patients. For patients with postoperative stage I to II high-risk endometrioid adenocarcinoma, compared with VBT alone, radiotherapy modalities including EBRT significantly improved DFS, LRFS and DMFS with tolerable adverse effects. Overall survival was not significantly different between EBRT and EBRT + VBT modalities.