Peer review process
Not revised: This Reviewed Preprint includes the authors’ original preprint (without revision), an eLife assessment, and public reviews.
Read more about eLife’s peer review process.Editors
- Reviewing EditorQing ZhangUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States of America
- Senior EditorCaigang LiuShengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China
Reviewer #1 (Public review):
In this paper, the authors reveal that the MK2 inhibitor CMPD1 can inhibit the growth, migration, and invasion of breast cancer cells both in vitro and in vivo by inducing microtubule depolymerization, preferentially at the microtubule plus-end, leading to cell division arrest, mitotic defects, and apoptotic cell death. They also showed that CMPD1 treatment upregulates genes associated with cell migration and cell death, and downregulates genes related to mitosis and chromosome segregation in breast cancer cells, suggesting a potential mechanism of CMPD1 inhibition in breast cancer. Besides, they used the combination of an MK2-specific inhibitor, MK2-IN-3, with the microtubule depolymerizer vinblastine to simultaneously disrupt both the MK2 signaling pathway and microtubule dynamics, and they claim that inhibiting the p38-MK2 pathway may help to enhance the efficacy of MTAs in the treatment of breast cancer. However, there are a few concerns, including:
(1) What is the effect of CMPD1 on breast cancer metastasis?
(2) The mechanism is lacking as to how MK2 inhibitors enhance the efficacy of MTAs.
Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Summary:
This study explores the potential of inhibiting the p38-MK2 signaling pathway to enhance the efficacy of microtubule-targeting agents (MTAs) in breast cancer treatment using a dual-target inhibitor.
Strengths:
The study identifies the p38-MK2 pathway as a promising target to enhance the efficacy of microtubule-targeting agents (MTAs), offering a novel therapeutic strategy for breast cancer treatment. In addition, the study employs a wide range of techniques, especially live-cell imaging, to assess the microtubule dynamics in TNBC cells.
Weaknesses:
The study primarily uses RPE1 cells as the control for normal cells, which may not fully capture the response of normal mammary epithelial cells. While CMPD1 is shown to be effective in suppressing tumor growth in MDA-MB-231 xenograft, the study lacks detailed toxicity data to confirm its safety profile in vivo.
Reviewer #3 (Public review):
Summary:
The authors demonstrated MK2i could enhance the therapeutic efficacy of MTAs. With Tumor xenograft and migration assay, the author suggested that the p38-MK2 pathway may serve as a promising therapeutic target in combination with MTAs in cancer treatment.
Strengths:
The authors provided a potential treatment for breast cancer.
Weaknesses:
(1) In Figure 2, the authors used a human retinal pigment epithelial-1 (RPE1) cell line to show that breast cancer cells are more sensitive to CMPD1 treatment. MCF10A cells would be suggested here as a suitable control. Besides, to compare the sensitivity, IC50 indifferent cell lines should be measured.
(2) The data of MDA-MB-231 in Figure 1D is not consistent with CAL-51 and T47D, also not consistent with the data in Figures 2B-C.
(3) To support the authors' conclusion in Figure 5, an additional animal experiment performed by tail vein injection would be helpful.
(4) Page 14, to evaluate the combination result of MK2i and vinblastine, an in vivo animal assay must be performed.
(5) The authors used RNA-seq to show some pathways affected by CMPD1. What are the key/top genes that were affected? How about the mechanism?
(6) Line 127, more experiments should be involved to support the conclusion.