Alexander E. Kabakov

Dr. Alexander E. Kabakov

Department of Radiation Biochemistry, A. Tsyb Medical Radiological Research Center, Obninsk, Russian Federation
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

25Years (2002-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
4 March 2021 in Cancers
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
AKAlexander E. Kabakov
Alexander E. Kabakov
AYAnna Yakimova
Anna Yakimova
Within aggressive malignancies, there usually are the “hypoxic zones”—poorly vascularized regions where tumor cells undergo oxygen deficiency through inadequate blood supply. Besides, hypoxia may arise in tumors as a result of antiangiogenic therapy or transarterial embolization. Adapting to hypoxia, tumor cells acquire a hypoxia-resistant phenotype with the characteristic alterations in signaling, gene expression and metabolism. Both the lack of oxygen by itself and the hypoxia-responsive phenotypic modulations render tumor cells more radioresistant, so that hypoxic tumors are a serious challenge for radiotherapy. An understanding of causes of the radioresistance of hypoxic tumors would help to develop novel ways for overcoming this challenge. Molecular targets for and various approaches to radiosensitizing hypoxic tumors are considered in the present review. It is here analyzed how the hypoxia-induced cellular responses involving hypoxia-inducible factor-1, heat shock transcription factor 1, heat shock proteins, glucose-regulated proteins, epigenetic regulators, autophagy, energy metabolism reprogramming, epithelial–mesenchymal transition and exosome generation contribute to the radioresistance of hypoxic tumors or may be inhibited for attenuating this radioresistance. The pretreatments with a multitarget inhibition of the cancer cell adaptation to hypoxia seem to be a promising approach to sensitizing hypoxic carcinomas, gliomas, lymphomas, sarcomas to radiotherapy and, also, liver tumors to radioembolization.

26 November 2017
Verified
Book Chapter
Closed access
PDF file
AKAlexander E. Kabakov
Alexander E. Kabakov
VGVladimir L. Gabai
Vladimir L. Gabai

6 April 2020 in Cells
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
AKAlexander E. Kabakov
Alexander E. Kabakov
AYAnna Yakimova
Anna Yakimova
OMOlga Matchuk
Olga Matchuk
Cancer stem cells (CSCs) are a great challenge in the fight against cancer because these self-renewing tumorigenic cell fractions are thought to be responsible for metastasis dissemination and cases of tumor recurrence. In comparison with non-stem cancer cells, CSCs are known to be more resistant to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and immunotherapy. Elucidation of mechanisms and factors that promote the emergence and existence of CSCs and their high resistance to cytotoxic treatments would help to develop effective CSC-targeting therapeutics. The present review is dedicated to the implication of molecular chaperones (protein regulators of polypeptide chain folding) in both the formation/maintenance of the CSC phenotype and cytoprotective machinery allowing CSCs to survive after drug or radiation exposure and evade immune attack. The major cellular chaperones, namely heat shock proteins (HSP90, HSP70, HSP40, HSP27), glucose-regulated proteins (GRP94, GRP78, GRP75), tumor necrosis factor receptor-associated protein 1 (TRAP1), peptidyl-prolyl isomerases, protein disulfide isomerases, calreticulin, and also a transcription heat shock factor 1 (HSF1) initiating HSP gene expression are here considered as determinants of the cancer cell stemness and potential targets for a therapeutic attack on CSCs. Various approaches and agents are discussed that may be used for inhibiting the chaperone-dependent development/manifestations of cancer cell stemness.

1 August 2002 in American Journal of Physiology-Cell Physiology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
AKAlexander E. Kabakov
Alexander E. Kabakov
KBKarina R. Budagova
Karina R. Budagova
DLDavid S. Latchman
David S. Latchman
HKHarm Kampinga
Harm Kampinga
Rat H9c2 myoblasts were preconditioned by heat or metabolic stress followed by recovery under normal conditions. Cells were then subjected to severe ATP depletion, and stress-associated proteotoxicity was assessed on 1) the increase in a Triton X-100-insoluble component of total cellular protein and 2) the rate of inactivation and insolubilization of transfected luciferase with cytoplasmic or nuclear localization. Both heat and metabolic preconditioning elevated the intracellular heat shock protein 70 (HSP70) level and reduced cell death after sustained ATP depletion without affecting the rate and extent of ATP decrease. Each preconditioning attenuated the stress-induced insolubility among total cellular protein as well as the inactivation and insolubilization of cytoplasmic and nuclear luciferase. Transient overexpression of human HSP70 in cells also attenuated both the cytotoxic and proteotoxic effects of ATP depletion. Quercetin, a blocker of stress-responsive HSP expression, abolished the effects of stressful preconditioning but did not influence the effects of overexpressed HSP70. Analyses of the cellular fractions revealed that both the stress-preconditioned and HSP70-overexpressing cells retain the soluble pool of HSP70 longer during ATP depletion. Larger amounts of other proteins coimmunoprecipitated with excess HSP70 compared with control cells deprived of ATP. This is the first demonstration of positive correlation between chaperone activity within cells and their viability in the context of ischemia-like stress.

14 March 2017 in PLOS ONE
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
VKVladimir A. Kudryavtsev
Vladimir A. Kudryavtsev
AKAnna V. Khokhlova
Anna V. Khokhlova
VMVera A. Mosina
Vera A. Mosina
ESElena I. Selivanova
Elena I. Selivanova
AKAlexander E. Kabakov
Alexander E. Kabakov
We studied a role of the inducible heat shock protein 70 (Hsp70) in cellular response to radiosensitizing treatments with inhibitors of the heat shock protein 90 (Hsp90) chaperone activity. Cell lines derived from solid tumors of different origin were treated with the Hsp90 inhibitors (17AAG, geldanamycin, radicicol, NVP-AUY922) or/and γ-photon radiation. For comparison, human cells of the non-cancerous origin were subjected to the same treatments. We found that the Hsp90 inhibitors yielded considerable radiosensitization only when they cause early and pronounced Hsp70 induction; moreover, a magnitude of radiosensitization was positively correlated with the level of Hsp70 induction. The quantification of Hsp70 levels in Hsp90 inhibitor-treated normal and cancer cells enabled to predict which of them will be susceptible to any Hsp90-inhibiting radiosensitizer as well as what concentrations of the inhibitors ensure the preferential cytotoxicity in the irradiated tumors without aggravating radiation damage to adjacent normal tissues. Importantly, the Hsp70 induction in the Hsp90 inhibitor-treated cancer cells appears to be their protective response that alleviates the tumor-sensitizing effects of the Hsp90 inactivation. Combination of the Hsp70-inducing inhibitors of Hsp90 with known inhibitors of the Hsp induction such as quercetin, triptolide, KNK437, NZ28 prevented up-regulation of Hsp70 in the cancer cells thereby increasing their post-radiation apoptotic/necrotic death and decreasing their post-radiation viability/clonogenicity. Similarly, co-treatment with the two inhibitors conferred the enhanced radiosensitization of proliferating rather than quiescent human vascular endothelial cells which may be used for suppressing the tumor-stimulated angiogenesis. Thus, the easily immunodetectable Hsp70 induction can be a useful marker for predicting effects of Hsp90-inhibiting radiosensitizers on tumors and normal tissues exposed to ionizing radiation. Moreover, targeting the Hsp70 induction in Hsp90 inhibitor-treated cancer cells and tumor vasculature cells may beneficially enhance the radiosensitizing effect.

28 November 2009 in Journal of Molecular Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
AKAlexander E. Kabakov
Alexander E. Kabakov
VKVladimir A. Kudryavtsev
Vladimir A. Kudryavtsev
VGVladimir L. Gabai
Vladimir L. Gabai