BACKGROUND: Cachexia, a multifactorial syndrome affecting more than 50% of patients with advanced cancer and responsible for ~20% of cancer-associated deaths, is still a poorly understood process without a standard cure available. Skeletal muscle atrophy caused by systemic inflammation is a major clinical feature of cachexia, leading to weight loss, dampening patients' quality of life, and reducing patients' response to anticancer therapy. RAGE (receptor for advanced glycation end-products) is a multiligand receptor of the immunoglobulin superfamily and a mediator of muscle regeneration, inflammation, and cancer. METHODS: mice were injected with TNFα/IFNγ or S100B in a tumour-free environment. RESULTS: We demonstrate that RAGE is determinant to activate signalling pathways leading to muscle protein degradation in the presence of proinflammatory cytokines and/or tumour-derived cachexia-inducing factors. We identify the RAGE ligand, S100B, as a novel factor able to induce muscle atrophy per se via a p38 MAPK (p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase)/myogenin axis and STAT3 (signal transducer and activator of transcription 3)-dependent MyoD (myoblast determination protein 1) degradation. Lastly, we found that in cancer conditions, an increase in serum levels of tumour-derived S100B and HMGB1 (high mobility group box 1) occurs leading to chronic activation/overexpression of RAGE, which induces hallmarks of cancer cachexia (i.e. muscle wasting, systemic inflammation, and release of tumour-derived pro-cachectic factors). Absence of RAGE in mice translates into reduced serum levels of cachexia-inducing factors, delayed loss of muscle mass and strength, reduced tumour progression, and increased survival. CONCLUSIONS: RAGE is a molecular determinant in inducing the hallmarks of cancer cachexia, and molecular targeting of RAGE might represent a therapeutic strategy to prevent or counteract the cachectic syndrome.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chiappalupi et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: