Abstract
Modern medicinal plant drug discovery has provided pharmacologically active compounds targeted against a multitude of conditions and diseases, such as infection, inflammation, and cancer. To date, natural products from medicinal plants remain a solid niche as a source from which cancer therapies can be derived. Among other properties, one favorable characteristic of an anticancer drug is its ability to block the uncontrollable process of cell division, as cancer cells are notorious for their abnormal cell division. There are numerous other documented works on the potential anticancer activity of drugs derived from medicinal plants, and their effects on cell division are an attractive and growing therapeutic target. Despite this, there remains a vast number of unidentified natural products that are potentially promising sources for medical applications. This mini review aims to revise the current knowledge of the effects of natural plant products on cell division.
Keywords: cell division, cancer, medicinal plants, microtubule, natural products
Introduction
Human beings have long used plants as a medicinal source. Their use has grown more sophisticated with modern chemists using compounds isolated from plants as a basis for generating novel compounds with additional benefits, such as its lower toxicity and potential for combating drug-resistant diseases. Between 1981 and 2010, naturally derived products and their mimics composed an estimated 70% of new chemical compounds reported.1 Naturally derived compounds with anticancer activity have also been used as the basis for original synthetic analogs, forming their own novel class of chemical compounds.2
Mammalian microtubules appear to be a common target for naturally occurring toxic molecules produced by a large number of flora, presumably with the original intent of self-defense. Microtubules are a component of the cytoskeleton, found throughout the cell cytoplasm, which is important in the process of mitosis (ie, cell division). Most microtubule-targeting compounds have been discovered in large-scale screens of natural products3,4 (Table 1). Approximately 75% of the available anticancer drugs between 1940 and 2010 were naturally derived products or their mimics. Additionally, of the seven anticancer drugs approved in 2010, almost half of them exert their effects by binding onto microtubules.1
Table 1.
Selected compounds originally isolated from natural sources that act on microtubules.
| BIOLOGICALLY ACTIVE COMPOUND(S)AND THEIR STRUCTURE | SCIENTIFIC NAME(S) OF NATURAL SOURCE | MECHANISM OF ACTION ON MICROTUBULES | STATUS AS ANTI-CANCER DRUG | TESTED CANCER TYPES | REFERENCES |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Paclitaxel | Taxus brevifolia | Stabilizes microtubules | In clinical use | Ovarian cancer, breast cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, advanced Kaposi sarcoma | 47,48 |
| Vinblastine Vincristine | Catharanthus roseus | Destabilizes microtubules | In clinical use | Acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, breast cancer, choriocarcinoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, Kaposi sarcoma, Mycosis fungoides, Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, testicular cancer, neuroblastoma, rhaddomycosarcoma, Wilms tumour, bladder cancer, testicular cancer, breast cancer, choriocarcinoma, lung cancer, multiple myeloma, soft tissue sarcoma, brain tumours. Leukaemia, head and neck cancers | 10,11,49,50 |
| Colchicine | Colchicum autumnale | Destabilizes microtubules | Failed anti-cancer trials due to toxicity; in clinical use for gout therapy | Hepatocellular carcinoma, multiple myeloma, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, chronic lymphatic leukaemia, breast cancer, lung cancer, chronic lymphocytic leukaemia | 51–53 |
| Podophyllotoxin | Podophyllum spp. | Destabilizes microtubules | In use for the topical treatment of external genital warts | None | 43,54,55 |
| Combretastatins | Combretum caffrum | Destabilizes microtubules | Phase I, II clinical trials; Semi-synthetic derivative in Phase III clinical trials | Acute myeloid leukaemia, myelodysplastic syndrome, thyroid cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, various solid tumours | 56 |
| Noscapine | Papaveraceae spp. | Suppresses microtubule dynamics | Phase II clinical trials | Multiple myeloma | 57 |
Note: Data in this table were obtained from a combination of NCI Drug Dictionary (http://www.cancer.gov/drugdictionary), published literature, and company web sites.
One of the biggest success stories of microtubule-targeted compounds from a naturally derived source is Paclitaxel (commercially known as Taxol), a member of the Taxane family. Paclitaxel is extracted from the bark of the Pacific yew tree (Taxus brevifolia) and acts as an antimitotic drug, by binding to microtubules, thus stabilizing them and arresting cells in mitosis.5–9 Taxol and its derivatives have successfully been used clinically to treat ovarian cancer, breast cancer, and non-small cell lung cancer for almost 40 years, making Taxol the best-selling anticancer drug currently manufactured. Its success has sparked the search for similar microtubule-stabilizing compounds.
Another class of microtubule-targeted compounds from a naturally derived source is the vinca alkaloids, vincristine and vinblastine, which were initially isolated from the Madagascar periwinkle plant (Catharanthus roseus).10 The vinca alkaloids are microtubule destabilizers and have proven to be particularly effective against hematological malignancies,11 and their success has generated several semisynthetic derivatives. Semisynthetic and synthetic derivatives may offer advantages over a fully natural source, as the bioactive natural compound may be present only in trace amounts. Natural compounds may instead act as lead compounds, where analogs with higher potencies and lower toxicities may be developed12,13 (Table 2). Natural products are ideal as lead compounds as their chemical structures are complex and diverse (Table 3). The biggest study looking into the isolation of compounds with clinical bioactivity, specifically anticancer activity, from natural sources was done by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) of the National Institute of Health in USA from 1960 to 1980.14 However, it is estimated that >90% of plant species worldwide remain understudied. Discovery of drug molecules has been limited because of genomic instability and drug resistance characteristics in certain cancer cells.15 Therefore, modern drug discovery has shifted to personalized treatment of patients, where drugs are selected for specific molecular targets, taking advantage of the vulnerabilities of cancer in a particular patient, leading to increased interest in studying traditional herbs as an alternative source of anticancer drugs because of its multitargeted characteristic.16
Table 2.
Selected synthetic and semisynthetic compounds originally isolated from natural sources that act on microtubules.
| COMPOUND AND STRUCTURE | ORIGINAL COMPOUND | MECHANISM OF ACTION ON MICROTUBULES | STATUS AS ANTICANCER DRUG | TESTED CANCER TYPES | REFERENCES |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vindesine | Vinca alkaloids | Destabilizes microtubules | In clinical use | Various lung cancers, various haematological malignancies, melanoma, renal cancer, colorectal cancer and breast cancer. Currently in clinical trials for other cancer types | 58 |
| Vinorelbine | Vinca alkaloids | Destabilizes microtubules | In clinical use | non-small cell lung cancer, meta-static breast cancer, renal cancer | 42,59,60 |
| Vinflunine | Vinca alkaloids | Destabilizes microtubules | In clinical use | Bladder cancer, urethral cancer, ureteral cancer, cancer of the renal pelvis | 42 |
| Docetaxel | Paclitaxel | stabilizes microtubules | In clinical use | Breast cancer, gastric cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, prostrate cancer, squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, stomach cancer | 61 |
| Cabazitaxel | Paclitaxel | stabilizes microtubules | In clinical use | Metastatic prostrate cancer | 62,63 |
| Larotaxel | Paclitaxel | stabilizes microtubules | Phase III clinical trials | Breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, urothelial tract cancer, bladder cancer, various solid tumours | 63 |
| Tesetaxel | Paclitaxel | stabilizes microtubules | Phase II clinical trials | Gastric cancer, melanoma, bladder cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, various solid tumours | 63 |
| Ombrabulin | Combrestatin | Destabilizes microtubules | Discontinued, due to insufficient clinical benefit | Soft tissue sarcoma, non-small cell lung cancer, ovarian cancer, various solid tumours | 55,64 |
| Fosbretabulin | Combrestatin | Destabilizes microtubules | Phase I and phase II clinical trials | Ovarian cancer, gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumours, ovarian epithelial, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancers, gliomas, thyroid cancer | 65 |
| Crolibulin | Combrestatin | Destabilizes microtubules | Phase I and phase II clinical trials | Thyroid cancer | 66 |
| Verubulin | Combrestatin | Destabilizes microtubules | Phase I and phase II clinical trials | Glioblastoma | 66–68 |
Note: Data in this table were obtained from a combination of NCI Drug Dictionary (http://www.cancer.gov/drugdictionary), published literature, and company web sites.
Table 3.
Chemical structures of natural microtubule-targeting compounds and their synthetic and semisynthetic derivatives.
|
|
|
The Role of the Microtubule in Cell Division
Microtubules are a class of the cytoskeletal proteins present in all eukaryotic cells. They form long, filamentous, polymeric structures within the cell, composed of α- and β-tubulin heterodimers, of which there are several isotypes.17 The different isotypes of tubulin in human beings are summarized in Table 4. Microtubules play many roles in eukaryotic cells, including development and maintenance of cell shape,18 intracellular transport,19 cell motility,20,21 cell signaling,22 and cell division.23
Table 4.
subtypes and isoforms of microtubules.
| TUBULIN SUBTYPE | ISOTYPE | GENE | LENGTH (AMINO ACIDS) | TISSUE DISTRIBUTION | PUTATIVE FUNCTION (IF ANY) | ALTERED EXPRESSION IN CANCERS? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| α | 1A | TUBA1A | 451 | Ubiquitous | No | |
| 1B | TUBA1B | 451 | Ubiquitous | No | ||
| 1C | TUBA1C | 449 | Ubiquitous | No | ||
| 3C | TUBA3C | 450 | Enriched expression in testis, fallopian tube, soft tissues, central nervous system and other selected tissues | Variable expression | ||
| 3D | TUBA3D | 450 | Enriched expression in testis, fallopian tube, soft tissues, central nervous system and other selected tissues | No isoform-specific function identified | Decreased | |
| 3E | TUBA3E | 448 | Enriched expression in testis, fallopian tube, soft tissues, central nervous system and other selected tissues | Decreased | ||
| 4A | TUBA4A | 446 | Ubiquitous | No | ||
| 8 | TUBA8 | 449 | Ubiquitous, but enriched in heart muscle, skeletal muscle and testis | Decreased | ||
| β | 1 | TUBB1 | 451 | Enriched in haematopoietic cells | May play a role in microtubule stability, as well as interaction with actin | Increased on exposure to microtubule-targeting drugs |
| 2A | TUBB2A | 445 | Ubiquitous, enriched in brain | May play a role in neuronal differentation | Increased in microtubule-targeting drug-resistant cancers | |
| 2B | TUBB2B | 445 | Ubiquitous, enriched in brain | May play a role in neuronal differentation | No | |
| 3 | TUBB3 | 450 | Mostly expressed in central and peripheral nervous system | May play a role in neuronal differentiation. May help cells cope with oxidative stress | Overexpressed in aggressive tumours | |
| 4A | TUBB4A | 444 | Highly expressed in brain, moderate levels in testis, very low levels in other tissues | Occurs in axonemes, may be required for determination of axonemal microtubule structure | Increased on exposure to microtubule-targeting drugs | |
| 4B | TUBB4B | 445 | Ubiquitous | Occurs in axonemes, may be required for determination of axonemal microtubule structure | No | |
| 5 | TUBB | 444 | Ubiquitously expressed with highest levels in spleen, thymus and immature brain | Unknown | Unknown | |
| 6 | TUBB6 | 446 | Ubiquitous, with highest expression in the breast and lung | Unknown | Largely decreased | |
| 8 | TUBB8 | 444 | Ubiquitous, enriched in cliliated cells and lymphoid tissue | Unknown | Unknown | |
| γ | 1 | TUBG1 | 451 | Ubiquitous | Important for nucleation and polarity of microtubules, mostly found in microtubule-organising centres | Unknown |
| 2 | TUBG2 | 451 | Ubiquitous | Important for nucleation and polarity of microtubules, mostly found in microtubule-organising centres | Unknown | |
| δ | – | TUBD1 | 453 | Ubiquitous | Sperm differentiation | Decreased |
| ε | – | TUBE1 | 475 | Majority of tissues | Centrosome cycle | Decreased |
Notes: Data in this table were obtained from Uniprot (http://www.uniprot.org) and Proteinatlas (http://www.proteinatlas.org).
Cell division, or mitosis, is a crucial event in the cell cycle that results in the division of a single cell into two identical daughter cells with the equal distribution of genetic materials (Fig. 1). During mitosis, the cytoskeleton forms a superstructure called the mitotic spindle, which facilitates many of the cell division processes. Mitosis involves a series of stages. The initial prophase and prometaphase stages are where there is condensation of chromosomes, which then attaches to the mitotic spindle. The chromosomes then align at the equator of the mitotic spindle (metaphase) before the sister chromosomes segregate into daughter cells (anaphase). The final stage is where the chromosomes decondense and the cells divide fully into two daughter cells (telophase). All the stages of mitosis must be regulated for the proper development and function of a multicellular organism. Central to the function of microtubules is the regulation of microtubule dynamics. Microtubule filaments are able to polymerize and depolymerize stochastically within a cell, in what is termed as microtubule dynamicity.24 Microtubule dynamics are tightly regulated within cells, through the binding of various regulatory proteins, expression of different tubulin isotypes, and posttranslational modifications of tubulin subunits.25,26 Dynamic microtubules have a very short half-life of a few minutes, or even seconds, whereas stable microtubules have half-lives of minutes to hours.27
Figure 1.
The process of cell division in mammalian cells. This figure illustrates the different microtubule structures present during different stages of the cell cycle. In the interphase stage of the cell cycle, microtubules (green) emanate out from the microtubule-organizing center, the centrosome (dark blue circle), forming an array that extends toward the cell periphery. During the mitotic stage of the cell cycle, the centrosomes are duplicated and separated to form spindle poles, while the microtubule cytoskeleton is reorganized to form a superstructure called the mitotic spindle. The mitotic spindle is responsible for mitotic events such as chromosome congression and chromosome segregation. Two stages of the mitotic stage of the cell cycle are illustrated—metaphase and anaphase. At metaphase, the mitotic spindle holds sister chromatids (blue) together at the cell equator. At anaphase, the cell elongates the spindle poles move further apart and the sister chromatids move toward the opposite poles. Black arrows indicate the path normally followed by a cell in a cell cycle. When the cell cycle is disrupted at mitosis by tubulin-binding agents, the cell is unable to complete mitosis and follows an alternative pathway (red arrows) where it undergoes mitotic arrest and eventually cell death. All stages of mitosis must be regulated for proper development and function of a multicellular organism. Unregulated mitosis may lead to an overgrowth of cells, as in cancer. The ability to carry out an infinite number of cell divisions is one of the hallmarks of cancer. Blockage of any stage of mitosis may not allow the cells to complete mitosis, resulting in cell cycle arrest and ultimately, cell death.
During mitosis, microtubules are the main components of the mitotic spindle, where microtubule dynamics are increased significantly.27,28 Dynamic microtubules are required for all stages of mitosis: from capturing and congressing chromosomes to the metaphase plate,29 pulling chromosomes toward opposite poles and initiating anaphase,30 and finally cytokinesis to complete mitosis.31,32 Microtubule-binding compounds may either stabilize microtubules (promoting growth and not supporting shrinkage of the microtubule filament) or destabilize microtubules (promoting shrinkage and not supporting growth of the microtubule filament). Any alterations in microtubule dynamics will affect the different events in mitosis. For example, if microtubule dynamics are suppressed, chromosomes may not be able to congress to the metaphase plate.33,34 The presence of a single uncongressed chromosome is enough to induce mitotic arrest.1 Accordingly, altered microtubule dynamics is among the major causes of mitotic arrest. A cell that is arrested in mitosis for a prolonged time may eventually undergo apoptosis, or programed cell death.35 At present, most of the drugs used to treat cancer target microtubule dynamics in order to arrest cancerous cells in mitosis.
Microtubules—A Potential Target for Cancer Therapy
Unregulated cell division may lead to an overgrowth of cells, as in cancer. The ability to carry out an infinite number of cell divisions is one of the hallmarks of cancer.36 Blockage of any stage of mitosis may not allow the cells to complete mitosis, resulting in cell cycle arrest and ultimately, cell death. Microtubules represent the best and most successful target thus far identified in cancer treatment.37–39 Cancer cells are sensitive to microtubule poisons that arrest cells in mitosis because they undergo mitosis more frequently than normal cells. At high concentrations, anticancer drugs that target microtubules may act in one of the two ways. Each approach has different effects, including affecting the polymerized microtubule mass, destabilization of microtubules (decreases microtubule mass), and stabilization of microtubules (increases microtubule mass), dependent on the site of binding on the microtubule lattice.40 The effects of each compound on microtubules are indicated in both Tables 1 and 2.
Currently, there are two main classes of microtubule-binding anticancer drugs. These are the microtubule destabilizers, such as the Vinca alkaloids,41–44 and microtubule stabilizers that prevent microtubule disassembly without affecting their polymerization, such as the taxanes.6 However, studies have shown that various microtubule-targeting drugs, irrespective of their effects on polymerized microtubule mass at high concentrations, all suppress microtubule dynamics at lower concentrations, ie, prevent the growth or shrinkage of microtubules without changing the microtubule polymer mass6,8,33,34,42–45 (Fig. 2). In this way, changes in microtubule dynamics can be used as an indicator of the efficacy of the anticancer activities of a naturally derived compound.
Figure 2.

Microtubule dynamic instability. The figure illustrates the growth and shrinkage of a single microtubule, with each row representative of a single time point. Microtubules are composed of stable αβ-tubulin heterodimers that are arranged in a head-to-tail fashion, forming a polar structure. Each heterodimer is illustrated as a single circle. Microtubules therefore consist of two distinct ends: the plus (+) end and the minus (−) end. In vivo, the—ends are anchored at the microtubule-organizing centers. The + ends are more dynamic than the—ends, with the microtubule end constantly switching between growth and shrinkage in what is termed dynamic instability. Microtubules are normally very dynamic (top), with tubulin subunits randomly added or lost from both ends. In vivo, microtubule elongation usually occurs in the plus end. When microtubule dynamics are suppressed (for example, through the action of tubulin-binding agents) (bottom), tubulin subunits are rarely added or lost from the microtubule ends.
Conversely, tumors can acquire resistance to microtubule-targeting drugs. Although a discussion on the resistance mechanisms to these drugs is beyond the scope of this review, the possible methods of resistance include multidrug resistance pumps, altered drug binding, altered microtubule assembly, altered tubulin synthesis, and alterations in microtubule-interacting proteins (refer to Fojo and Menefee46 for a more extensive review).
As with all drugs, the toxic side effects of microtubule-targeting agents must be taken into account. Owing to the physiological functions of microtubules, treatment with microtubule-targeting agents often exhibits myelo-suppression and peripheral neuropathy. The specificity of each compound must therefore be tested. The cancers identified to be susceptible to each drug are illustrated in Tables 1 and 2.
Conclusion
Mitosis is an important stage of the cell cycle, which is deregulated in cancer, leading to uncontrolled cancer growth. An important facilitator of mitosis is the microtubule cytoskeleton. Hence, many anticancer drugs target the microtubule skeleton in order to arrest cancer cells in mitosis, which eventually leads to cell death. Most of these microtubule-targeting drugs act by suppressing microtubule dynamics, which is particularly important for the microtubule function in mitosis. Interestingly, many of the microtubule-binding anticancer drugs are derived from natural sources, including Taxol and the vinca alkaloids, two very successful classes of anticancer drugs. Therefore, there is great potential for the isolation of compounds with similar microtubule-targeting activities from medicinal plants. Future aims for the development of novel microtubule-binding agents are the development of compounds specific to cancer cells, thereby reducing potential toxic side effects, as well as the development of compounds that are able to overcome current drug-resistant cancers.
Footnotes
ACADEMIC EDITOR: Anuj Chauhan, Editor in Chief
FUNDING: We would like to thank the Universiti Brunei Darussalam (UBD) Research Grant (UBCD/PNC2/2/RG/1(322)) for funding this research. The authors confirm that the funder had no influence over the study design, content of the article, or selection of this journal.
COMPETING INTERESTS: Authors disclose no potential conflicts of interest.
Paper subject to independent expert blind peer review by minimum of two reviewers. All editorial decisions made by independent academic editor. Upon submission manuscript was subject to anti-plagiarism scanning. Prior to publication all authors have given signed confirmation of agreement to article publication and compliance with all applicable ethical and legal requirements, including the accuracy of author and contributor information, disclosure of competing interests and funding sources, compliance with ethical requirements relating to human and animal study participants, and compliance with any copyright requirements of third parties. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Author Contributions
Prepared the first draft of the manuscript: INZ. Contributed to the writing of the manuscript: SRD, RR, and AI. Jointly developed the structure and arguments for the paper: INZ, SRD, RR, and AI. Made critical revisions and approved the final version: AI. All the authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.
REFERENCES
- 1.Newman DJ, Cragg GM. Natural products as sources of new drugs over the 30 years from 1981 to 2010. J Nat Prod. 2012;75(3):311–335. doi: 10.1021/np200906s. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Loong HH, Yeo W. Microtubule-targeting agents in oncology and therapeutic potential in hepatocellular carcinoma. Onco Targets Ther. 2014;7:575–585. doi: 10.2147/OTT.S46019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Balunas MJ, Kinghorn AD. Drug discovery from medicinal plants. Life Sci. 2005;78(5):431–441. doi: 10.1016/j.lfs.2005.09.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Gurib-Fakim A. Medicinal plants: traditions of yesterday and drugs of tomorrow. Mol Aspects Med. 2006;27(1):1–93. doi: 10.1016/j.mam.2005.07.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Arnal I, Wade RH. How does taxol stabilize microtubules? Curr Biol. 1995;5(8):900–908. doi: 10.1016/s0960-9822(95)00180-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Jordan MA, Toso RJ, Thrower D, Wilson L. Mechanism of mitotic block and inhibition of cell proliferation by taxol at low concentrations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993;90(20):9552–9556. doi: 10.1073/pnas.90.20.9552. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Xiao H, Wang H, Zhang X, et al. Structural evidence for cooperative microtubule stabilization by taxol and the endogenous dynamics regulator MAP4. ACS Chem Biol. 2012;7(4):744–752. doi: 10.1021/cb200403x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Yvon AM, Wadsworth P, Jordan MA. Taxol suppresses dynamics of individual microtubules in living human tumor cells. Mol Biol Cell. 1999;10(4):947–959. doi: 10.1091/mbc.10.4.947. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Wani MC, Taylor HL, Wall ME, Coggon P, McPhail AT. Plant antitumor agents. VI. The isolation and structure of taxol, a novel antileukemic and antitumor agent from Taxus brevifolia. J Am Chem Soc. 1971;93(9):2325–2327. doi: 10.1021/ja00738a045. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Noble RL. The discovery of the Vinca alkaloids—chemotherapeutic agents against cancer. Biochem Cell Biol. 1990;68(12):1344–1351. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Gidding CE, Kellie SJ, Kamps WA, de Graaf SS. Vincristine revisited. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 1999;29(3):267–287. doi: 10.1016/s1040-8428(98)00023-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Chin Y-W, Balunas MJ, Chai HB, Kinghorn AD. Drug discovery from natural sources. AAPS J. 2006;8(2):E239–E253. doi: 10.1007/BF02854894. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Lahlou M. The success of natural products in drug discovery. Pharmacol Pharm. 2013;4(3A):17–31. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Cragg GM, Boyd MR, Cardellina JH, II, Newman DJ, Snader KM, McCloud TG. Ethnobotany and drug discovery: the experience of the US National Cancer Institute. Ciba Found Symp. 1994;185:178–190. doi: 10.1002/9780470514634.ch13. [discussion 176–190] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Tyagi A, Prasad S. Drug discovery inspired by mother nature for cancer therapy. Biochem Physiol. 2015;4:e128. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Hoelder S, Clarke PA, Workman P. Discovery of small molecule cancer drugs: successes, challenges and opportunities. Mol Oncol. 2012;6(2):155–176. doi: 10.1016/j.molonc.2012.02.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Downing KH, Nogales E. Tubulin structure: insights into microtubule properties and functions. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 1998;8(6):785–791. doi: 10.1016/s0959-440x(98)80099-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Mogilner A, Keren K. The shape of motile cells. Curr Biol. 2009;19(17):R762–R771. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2009.06.053. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Vale RD. Intracellular transport using microtubule-based motors. Annu Rev Cell Biol. 1987;3:347–378. doi: 10.1146/annurev.cb.03.110187.002023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Ridley AJ, Schwartz MA, Burridge K, et al. Cell migration: integrating signals from front to back. Science. 2003;302(5651):1704–1709. doi: 10.1126/science.1092053. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Stehbens S, Wittmann T. Targeting and transport: how microtubules control focal adhesion dynamics. J Cell Biol. 2012;198(4):481–489. doi: 10.1083/jcb.201206050. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Gundersen GG, Cook TA. Microtubules and signal transduction. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 1999;11(1):81–94. doi: 10.1016/s0955-0674(99)80010-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Khodjakov A, Rieder CL. Mitosis: too much of a good thing (can be bad) Curr Biol. 2009;19(22):R1032–R1034. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2009.10.013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Mitchison T, Kirschner M. Dynamic instability of microtubule growth. Nature. 1984;312(5991):237–242. doi: 10.1038/312237a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Etienne-Manneville S. From signaling pathways to microtubule dynamics: the key players. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2010;22(1):104–111. doi: 10.1016/j.ceb.2009.11.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.van der Vaart B, Akhmanova A, Straube A. Regulation of microtubule dynamic instability. Biochem Soc Trans. 2009;37(pt 5):1007–1013. doi: 10.1042/BST0371007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Saxton WM, Stemple DL, Leslie RJ, Salmon ED, Zavortink M, McIntosh JR. Tubulin dynamics in cultured mammalian cells. J Cell Biol. 1984;99(6):2175–2186. doi: 10.1083/jcb.99.6.2175. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Salmon ED, Leslie RJ, Saxton WM, Karow ML, McIntosh JR. Spindle micro-tubule dynamics in sea urchin embryos: analysis using a fluorescein-labeled tubulin and measurements of fluorescence redistribution after laser photobleaching. J Cell Biol. 1984;99(6):2165–2174. doi: 10.1083/jcb.99.6.2165. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Kapoor TM, Compton DA. Searching for the middle ground: mechanisms of chromosome alignment during mitosis. J Cell Biol. 2002;157(4):551–556. doi: 10.1083/jcb.200202073. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Gorbsky GJ, Sammak PJ, Borisy GG. Chromosomes move poleward in anaphase along stationary microtubules that coordinately disassemble from their kinetochore ends. J Cell Biol. 1987;104(1):9–18. doi: 10.1083/jcb.104.1.9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Strickland LI, Wen Y, Gundersen GG, Burgess DR. Interaction between EB1 and p150glued is required for anaphase astral microtubule elongation and stimulation of cytokinesis. Curr Biol. 2005;15(24):2249–2255. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2005.10.073. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Ferreira JG, Pereira AJ, Akhmanova A, Maiato H. Aurora B spatially regulates EB3 phosphorylation to coordinate daughter cell adhesion with cytokinesis. J Cell Biol. 2013;201(5):709–724. doi: 10.1083/jcb.201301131. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Honore S, Kamath K, Braguer D, Wilson L, Briand C, Jordan MA. Suppression of microtubule dynamics by discodermolide by a novel mechanism is associated with mitotic arrest and inhibition of tumor cell proliferation. Mol Cancer Ther. 2003;2(12):1303–1311. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Kamath K, Okouneva T, Larson G, Panda D, Wilson L, Jordan MA. 2-Methoxyestradiol suppresses microtubule dynamics and arrests mitosis without depolymerizing microtubules. Mol Cancer Ther. 2006;5(9):2225–2233. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-06-0113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Gascoigne KE, Taylor SS. How do anti-mitotic drugs kill cancer cells? J Cell Sci. 2009;122(pt 15):2579–2585. doi: 10.1242/jcs.039719. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell. 2011;144(5):646–674. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Jordan MA, Wilson L. Microtubules as a target for anticancer drugs. Nat Rev Cancer. 2004;4(4):253–265. doi: 10.1038/nrc1317. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Pasquier E, Kavallaris M. Microtubules: a dynamic target in cancer therapy. IUBMB Life. 2008;60(3):165–170. doi: 10.1002/iub.25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Dumontet C, Jordan MA. Microtubule-binding agents: a dynamic field of cancer therapeutics. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9(10):790–803. doi: 10.1038/nrd3253. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Yue Q-X, Liu X, Guo DA. Microtubule-binding natural products for cancer therapy. Planta Med. 2010;76(11):1037. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1250073. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Jordan MA, Thrower D, Wilson L. Mechanism of inhibition of cell proliferation by Vinca alkaloids. Cancer Res. 1991;51(8):2212–2222. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Ngan VK, Bellman K, Hill BT, Wilson L, Jordan MA. Mechanism of mitotic block and inhibition of cell proliferation by the semisynthetic Vinca alkaloids vinorelbine and its newer derivative vinflunine. Mol Pharmacol. 2001;60(1):225–232. doi: 10.1124/mol.60.1.225. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Jordan MA, Thrower D, Wilson L. Effects of vinblastine, podophyllotoxin and nocodazole on mitotic spindles. Implications for the role of microtubule dynamics in mitosis. J Cell Sci. 1992;102(pt 3):401–416. doi: 10.1242/jcs.102.3.401. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Dhamodharan R, Jordan MA, Thrower D, Wilson L, Wadsworth P. Vinblastine suppresses dynamics of individual microtubules in living interphase cells. Mol Biol Cell. 1995;6(9):1215–1229. doi: 10.1091/mbc.6.9.1215. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Gan PP, McCarroll JA, Po’uha ST, Kamath K, Jordan MA, Kavallaris M. Microtubule dynamics, mitotic arrest, and apoptosis: drug-induced differential effects of betaIII-tubulin. Mol Cancer Ther. 2010;9(5):1339–1348. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-09-0679. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Fojo T, Menefee M. Mechanisms of multidrug resistance: the potential role of microtubule-stabilizing agents. Ann Oncol. 2007;18(suppl 5):v3–v8. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdm172. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Schiff PB, Horwitz SB. Taxol stabilizes microtubules in mouse fibroblast cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1980;77(3):1561–1565. doi: 10.1073/pnas.77.3.1561. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Manfredi JJ, Parness J, Horwitz SB. Taxol binds to cellular microtubules. J Cell Biol. 1982;94(3):688–696. doi: 10.1083/jcb.94.3.688. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Panda D, Jordan MA, Chu KC, Wilson L. Differential effects of vinblastine on polymerization and dynamics at opposite microtubule ends. J Biol Chem. 1996;271(47):29807–29812. doi: 10.1074/jbc.271.47.29807. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Prakash V, Timasheff SN. The interaction of vincristine with calf brain tubulin. J Biol Chem. 1983;258(3):1689–1697. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Vandecandelaere A, Martin SR, Engelborghs Y. Response of microtubules to the addition of colchicine and tubulin-colchicine: evaluation of models for the interaction of drugs with microtubules. Biochem J. 1997;323(pt 1):189–196. doi: 10.1042/bj3230189. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Taylor EW. The mechanism of colchicine inhibition of mitosis. I. Kinetics of inhibition and the binding of H3-colchicine. J Cell Biol. 1965;25(suppl):145–160. doi: 10.1083/jcb.25.1.145. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Tangutoori S, Ohta A, Gatley S, Campbell R. Repurposing an erstwhile cancer drug: a quantitative and therapeutic evaluation of alternative nanosystems for the delivery of colchicine to solid tumors. J Cancer Sci Ther. 2014;6:236–246. [Google Scholar]
- 54.Schilstra MJ, Martin SR, Bayley PM. The effect of podophyllotoxin on microtubule dynamics. J Biol Chem. 1989;264(15):8827–8834. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Bruschi M, Rindone B, Tollpa EL, et al. Podophyllotoxin and Antitumor Synthetic Aryltetralines. Toward A Biomimetic Preparation. Croatia: INTECH Open Access Publisher; 2010. [Google Scholar]
- 56.Tozer GM, Kanthou C, Parkins CS, Hill SA. The biology of the combretastatins as tumour vascular targeting agents. Int J Exp Pathol. 2002;83(1):21–38. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2613.2002.00211.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Landen JW, Lang R, McMahon SJ, et al. Noscapine alters microtubule dynamics in living cells and inhibits the progression of melanoma. Cancer Res. 2002;62(14):4109–4114. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Jordan MA, Himes RH, Wilson L. Comparison of the effects of vinblastine, vincristine, vindesine, and vinepidine on microtubule dynamics and cell proliferation in vitro. Cancer Res. 1985;45(6):2741–2747. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Klotz DM, Nelson SA, Kroboth K, et al. The microtubule poison vinorelbine kills cells independently of mitotic arrest and targets cells lacking the APC tumour suppressor more effectively. J Cell Sci. 2012;125(pt 4):887–895. doi: 10.1242/jcs.091843. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Zhang J, Qi HW, Zheng H, et al. Etoposide-cisplatin alternating with vinorelbine-cisplatin versus etoposide-cisplatin alone in patients with extensive disease combined with small cell lung cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15(10):4159. doi: 10.7314/apjcp.2014.15.10.4159. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Garcia P, Braguer D, Carles G, et al. Comparative effects of taxol and Taxotere on two different human carcinoma cell lines. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1994;34(4):335–343. doi: 10.1007/BF00686042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Kunos CA, Stefan T, Jacobberger JW. Cabazitaxel-induced stabilization of microtubules enhances radiosensitivity in ovarian cancer cells. Front Oncol. 2013;3:226. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2013.00226. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Yared JA, Tkaczuk KH. Update on taxane development: new analogs and new formulations. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2012;6:371–384. doi: 10.2147/DDDT.S28997. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Nihei Y, Suzuki M, Okano A, et al. Evaluation of antivascular and antimitotic effects of tubulin binding agents in solid tumor therapy. Jpn J Cancer Res. 1999;90(12):1387–1395. doi: 10.1111/j.1349-7006.1999.tb00724.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Mooney CJ, Nagaiah G, Fu P, et al. A phase II trial of fosbretabulin in advanced anaplastic thyroid carcinoma and correlation of baseline serum-soluble intracellular adhesion molecule-1 with outcome. Thyroid. 2009;19(3):233–240. doi: 10.1089/thy.2008.0321. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Subbiah IM, Lenihan DJ, Tsimberidou AM. Cardiovascular toxicity profiles of vascular-disrupting agents. Oncologist. 2011;16(8):1120–1130. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2010-0432. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Grossmann KF, Colman H, Akerley WA, et al. Phase I trial of verubulin (MPC-6827) plus carboplatin in patients with relapsed glioblastoma multiforme. J Neurooncol. 2012;110(2):257–264. doi: 10.1007/s11060-012-0964-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Mahal K, Resch M, Ficner R, Schobert R, Biersack B, Mueller T. Effects of the tumor-vasculature-disrupting agent verubulin and two heteroaryl analogues on cancer cells, endothelial cells, and blood vessels. Chem Med Chem. 2014;9(4):847–854. doi: 10.1002/cmdc.201300531. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

