Skip to content
naulon

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 20, 2026.

Targeting lysosomes in human disease: from basic research to clinical applications

Mengdie Cao, Xiangyuan Luo, Kongming Wu and 1 more

Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy · 2021 · Review · CC BY

doi:10.1038/s41392-021-00778-y

Abstract

In recent years, accumulating evidence has elucidated the role of lysosomes in dynamically regulating cellular and organismal homeostasis. Lysosomal changes and dysfunction have been correlated with the development of numerous diseases. In this review, we interpreted the key biological functions of lysosomes in four areas: cellular metabolism, cell proliferation and differentiation, immunity, and cell death. More importantly, we actively sought to determine the characteristic changes and dysfunction of lysosomes in cells affected by these diseases, the causes of these changes and dysfunction, and their significance to the development and treatment of human disease. Furthermore, we outlined currently available targeting strategies: (1) targeting lysosomal acidification; (2) targeting lysosomal cathepsins; (3) targeting lysosomal membrane permeability and integrity; (4) targeting lysosomal calcium signaling; (5) targeting mTOR signaling; and (6) emerging potential targeting strategies. Moreover, we systematically summarized the corresponding drugs and their application in clinical trials. By integrating basic research with clinical findings, we discussed the current opportunities and challenges of targeting lysosomes in human disease.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 20, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

Introduction

Since Christian de Duve discovered and named lysosomes in 1955, great progress has been made in understanding the structure and function of lysosomes and how they can be harnessed to improve clinical outcomes (Fig. 1).– The richness in hydrolytic enzymes is an obvious feature that distinguishes lysosomes from other organelles.,, More than 60 acid hydrolases, which break down cell components and complex macromolecules into their constituent building blocks, have been identified in lysosomes.,, Therefore, lysosomes have long been regarded as “suicide bags” and the “garbage-disposal system” for cells., Nevertheless, in recent years, researchers have gained a better understanding of lysosomes by combining genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, bioinformatics, and other methods and found that their functions are far more than digestion. Lysosomes are now regarded as regulators of cell and organismal homeostasis that mediate signal transduction, metabolic adaptation, cell proliferation, cell differentiation, cell secretion, and the quality control of proteins and organelles.,,

Lysosomal changes and dysfunction are have profound implications for the development of numerous human diseases., The prevalence of neurodegenerative and cardiovascular diseases in the elderly was thought to be closely related to the decline in lysosomal function with age., In contrast, cancer cells upregulate their metabolism by modulating lysosomal quantity, composition, and activity to meet their needs for cell growth and proliferation., Besides, the translocation and abnormal secretion of lysosomes are conducive to the invasion and metastasis of cancer cells, and upregulated autophagy is considered a vital means by which cancer cells develop resistance to chemotherapy and radiotherapy.,,, Growing attention has been paid to the role of lysosomes in immunity. The abnormal degradation of major histocompatibility complex (MHC) molecules and immune checkpoints by lysosomes in cancer cells, as well as the defects in selective autophagy of tumor-infiltrating T lymphocytes, together contribute to tumor immune escape.– In the cells of patients with autoimmune diseases, changes in lysosomal biogenesis, acidification and cathepsin activity have also been confirmed, and such changes are thought to be closely related to disease activity and progression.–

These lysosomal changes and dysfunction play a crucial role in the development of diseases, but they may also provide a therapeutic window for treatment.,, For example, increases in lysosomal size and capacity facilitate cell metabolism but also reduce the stability of lysosomal membranes, making cells more vulnerable to death., In addition to correcting these changes and abnormalities, we may also be able to use them to combat pathological cells.,, In this review, we summarized and discussed recent studies that clarified and supported the idea of targeting lysosomes in human disease and further explored the feasibility, opportunities, and challenges of such efforts by combining basic research with clinical research progress.

Lysosomal structure, biogenesis, and function

The lysosome is a membrane-enclosed vesicular organelle that contains two classes of proteins essential for the maintenance of structure and function: soluble lysosomal hydrolases that performs digestive functions and lysosomal membrane proteins with more complex functions, such as acting as proton pump and promoting intercellular interaction (Fig. 2).,, More than 60 acid hydrolases, including proteases, lipases, nucleases, have been found within the lysosome, and they require an acidic (pH ~4.5) environment maintained by the cooperation of an ATP-driven proton pump called the vacuolar H + -adenosine triphosphatase (v-ATPase) with other ion channels., A variety of lysosomal membrane proteins of mammalian cell have been identified, such as lysosome-associated membrane protein 1(LAMP1), LAMP2, lysosome integral membrane protein 2 (LIMP2; also known as SCARB2), v-ATPase, and acid sphingomyelinase (ASM).,, Of these proteins, LAMP1 and LAMP2 are the most abundant (accounting for 50% of all) lysosomal membrane proteins and are essential for metabolism, biogenesis, signal transduction, and cell homeostasis.,,

Lysosomal biogenesis is a combination of cellular biosynthesis and endocytosis pathways (Fig. 3)., The expression of lysosomal genes is triggered by the binding of transcription factors (TFs) of microphthalmia/transcription factor E (MiT/TFE) family to the coordinated lysosomal expression and regulation (CLEAR) elements.,, Among these TFs, transcription factor EB (TFEB) is the first and most thoroughly studied TF known to directly bind to the CLEAR element.,, Transient receptor potential mucolipin channel (TRPML1), calcineurin, protein phosphatase 2A (PP2A), and mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) jointly regulate the activation and nuclear translocation of TFEB by modulating its phosphorylation status.,,– After being synthesized in endoplasmic reticulum (ER), lysosomal proteins are transported to trans-Golgi network (TGN) and then be secreted to plasma membrane for subsequent endocytosis, or transmitted directly to the endo-lysosomal system. Sorting events in endo-lysosomal system eventually cause these compartments to be rich in lysosomal membrane proteins and lysosomal hydrolases, which constitute the major components of lysosomes.,

Lysosomes in cellular metabolism

Lysosomes are responsible for breaking down and recycling intracellular materials (through autophagy) and extracellular materials (through endocytosis and phagocytosis), which are then used to generate new cellular components and nutrients to meet the needs of cell metabolism and growth (Fig. 2).,,,

Lysosomes serve as the platforms for proper recruitment, assembly, and activation of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) complex 1 (mTORC1), the mediator that coordinates the balance between anabolism and catabolism (Fig. 2)., When nutrients are abundant, the stimulation of amino acids such as arginine and glutamine induce the activation of RAS-related GTP-binding proteins (RAGs), which interact with Ragulator and then trigger the recruitment of mTORC1 to lysosomal surface.,, Through the PI3K-AKT pathway, growth factors such as insulin activate Rheb, which binds to mTORC1 on the lysosomal surface and results in its activation.,, In return, mTORC1 inhibits lysosomal biogenesis though phosphorylating TFEB at Ser211 and inhibiting its nuclear transudtion– and inhibits autophagy initiation by phosphorylating Unc-51-like kinase 1 (ULK1) at Ser757., The activated mTORC1 signaling also inhibits the lysosomal catabolism of extracellular proteins taken up through the macropinocytosis pathway, a nonselective form of endocytosis.,

When cells are deficient in nutrients, the inactivation of mTOR signaling and the formulation of the AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) complex contribute the upregulation of catabolism pathways. The deficiency of glucose sensed by aldolase promotes the interaction of axis inhibition protein 1 (AXIN)-live kinase B1 (LKB1) complex with v-ATPase and Ragulator, which then activates AMPK signaling (Fig. 2).– Concurrently, AXIN cause the dissociation and inactivation of mTORC1 by interfering with the interaction between RAGs and the Ragulator, and the inactivation of mTORC1 restores lysosome biogenesis and autophagy. The activated AMPK not only promotes autophagy by phosphorylating the Ser317 and Ser777 of ULK1 but also inhibits mTOR pathway through phosphorylating the Raptor of mTORC1 and activating tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC2), which inhibits Rheb.,, As a scavenging pathway of extracellular proteins, the macropinocytosis pathway was also identified to be upregulated when inhibiting mTORC1., The amino acids obtained through catabolism pathways are then transported out of lysosomes by the lysosomal transmembrane protein called SLC38A9 in an arginine-regulated manner., By interacting with RAGs and Ragulator, SLC38A9 acts as an amino sensor essential for the activation the mTORC1 pathway., The increase of nutrients can lead to the reactivation of mTORC1, thereby inhibiting the catabolic pathway and promoting substance synthesis and cell growth and proliferation.,, When nutrients are scarce, the mTOR signaling is suppressed again.,, Therefore, mTOR signaling coordinates the activity of cell anabolism and catabolism and keeps them in a dynamic balance to meet the needs of cell growth and proliferation.

Taken together, these findings indicate that lysosomes not only play a great role in cellular catabolism, which supplies nutrients for cell growth but also function as a platform for nutrient sensing and metabolic signal transduction (Fig. 2).

Lysosomes in cell proliferation and differentiation

In addition to mediating the adaptation of cell metabolism to meet the needs for cell growth and proliferation, lysosomes also mediate the turnover of cell surface receptors and other elements crucial to proliferation and differentiation signaling.,, Take epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), one of the most well-studied receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs), as an example. After binding with ligands and activating downstream pathways, the clathrin adaptor protein complex AP2, growth factor receptor-bound protein 2 (Grb2), epsin, and eps15 together contribute to the endocytosis of EGFR, which then is and sorted for recycling or degradation. Suppressor of T-cell receptor (TCR) signaling (Sts)-1 and Sts-2 have been found to inhibit the endocytosis of activated EGFR through interacting with ubiquitin ligase Cbl. Besides, autophagy was reported to facilitate the recycling of EGFR by regulating early endosome homeostasis. Cells lacking ATG7 or ATG16L1, pivotal autophagy genes, were found to have an accumulation of early endosomal antigen-1 (EEA1)-positive endosomes resulting in the stalled trafficking of EGFR. Recently, Weber et al. used unbiased genetic screens and found that lysosomal acidity influenced cell proliferation by maintaining iron homeostasis. While mTORC1 facilitates cell growth and proliferation through promoting cell anabolism, mTORC2 mediates proliferation more directly by phosphorylating and activating the members the AGC (PKA/PKG/PKC) protein kinases, such as AKT, PKCα, PKCδ, PKCγ, and PKCε., It is worth noting that both mTORC2 and AKT signaling were found to be influenced by lysosome positioning.

It has been proved that mTOR signaling (both mTORC1 and mTORC2) plays a pivotal role in the regulation of differentiation and function of numerous immune cells, such as T lymphocytes, macrophages, dendritic cells (DCs), and adipocytes.– Mtor−/−T cells have been shown to be unable to differentiate into Th1, Th2 and Th17 cells, despite having normal activation markers and levels of IL-2 production under T-cell receptor (TCR) stimulation. Although mTOR signaling facilitates cell growth and proliferation, sustained activation of mTOR signaling has been found to result to the terminal differentiation and reduced proliferative capacity of T cells.– Besides, auophagy plays different roles in cell differentiation, which may be correlated with the difference of stimulation and the stage of cell differentiation.,, While the differentiation of peripheral blood monocytes into macrophages induced by colony stimulating factor 1(CSF-1) was identified highly dependent on autophagy, Zhang et al. found that the inhibition of autophagy promoted the macrophagic differentiation of myeloid hematopoietic progenitor cells.,

Taken together, these findings suggest that the lysosome is a crucial regulatory hub for multiple pathways involved in cell proliferation and differentiation (Fig. 2).

Lysosomes in immunity

It is well-established that exogenous antigens are primarily processed into peptides by lysosomal proteases and loaded onto MHC-II molecules for recognition., In recent years, the high expression of MHC-II molecules has also been found to be correlated with a favorable prognosis of cancer patients. While autophagy facilitates the loading of MHC class II molecules by delivering cytoplasmic components to lysosomes, it also interferes with antigen presentation by MHC-I molecules through competing ubiquitinated proteins with proteasomes and degrading proteasomes.– Expansion of the volume and protein levels of lysosomes and endosomes in phagocytes was found to promote antigen presentation in the immune response, and lysosomal recruitment and secretion was identified to facilitate the antigen extraction and the full activation of B lymphocytes.– In addition to their role in antigen processing and presentation, lysosomes are responsible for the degradation and membrane presentation of immune checkpoints such as programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1),, cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4), and CD70., Abnormalities in the degradation and presentation of immune checkpoints are closely associated with the progression and treatment failure of many diseases, especially cancer.,, After antigen stimulation, mTOR signaling is activated and then programs the differentiation of immune cells into functionally distinct lineages, such as Th1, Th2, Th17, Treg, cytotoxic CD8 + T cells, and memory CD8 + T cells.,,

Lysosomes act as bilateral switches that regulate inflammatory process, an important part of the immune response that has both protective and disease-driving roles.,,– On the one hand, lysosomes mediate the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines from immune cells, and the release of lysosomal hydrolase are of great benefit to the initiation and development of inflammation., Lysosomes have also been found to promote inflammation by degrading glucocorticoid receptors, which bind with glucocorticoid to modulate the expression of and inflammatory and pro-inflammatory factors., On the other hand, lysosomes mediate the release of anti-inflammatory cytokines and are responsible for breaking down inflammatory cytokines and elements such as PYCARD/ASC, a critical component of inflammasome.,,

Taken together, these findings show that lysosomes are closely involved in the immune response and its strength modulation, and serve as the two-way switches that regulate inflammation (Fig. 2).

Lysosomes in cell death

Lysosomes mediate cell death at several levels. Under some unfavorable conditions, autophagy is activated to avoid cell death by degrading death-promoting factors such as (p53 upregulated modulator of apoptosis) PUMA and receptor-interacting protein kinases-1 (RIPK1) and promoting autophagy-dependent mitochondrial homeostasis.,, When exposed to extreme stress, lysosomal membrane permeability (LMP) occurs, and the leakage of cathepsins, reactive oxygen species (ROS), and Fe2+/3+ triggers multiple forms of cell death, such as apoptosis, necrosis, pyroptosis, ferroptosis, and lysosome-dependent cell death (LDCD) (Fig. 2).,,, For instance, while cathepsins leaked from lysosomes can promote apoptosis through activating BID proteins or BAX channels, robust lysosomal cathepsin activities lead to cell necrosis by rapidly degrading essential cell components., Different from chaotic and drastic degradation of cell components that occurs in necrosis, LDCD was defined by the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death (NCCD) as the regulated cell death demarcated by primary LMP and precipitated by cathepsins with or without the involvement of caspases and mitochondrial outer membrane permeabilization (MOMP).

Although autophagy acts as a cytoprotective process most of the time, the pathway and its key components also participate lethal signaling.,,, For example, it has been acknowledged that selective autophagy can promote ferroptosis through degrading ferritin and intracellular lipid droplets, causing iron accumulation and lipid peroxidation.– Although much remains unclear, it has been confirmed that lysosomes play a crucial role in resisting and triggering cell death and the terminal clearance stage of cell death (Fig. 2).

Characteristic changes and dysfunction of lysosomes in human disease

Given the important roles of lysosomes in cell metabolism, cell proliferation and differentiation, immunity, and cell death, any lysosomal change or dysfunction may disrupt original cell and organismal homeostasis, causing or deteriorating human disease. As early as the 1960s, H.G. Hers discovered the relationship between the deficiency in lysosomal α‑glucosidase and Pompe disease and first proposed the concept of inborn lysosomal disease, the prototype of lysosomal storage disorders (LSDs) (Fig. 1)., LSD are a group of rare metabolic disorders caused by inherited defects in genes that encode proteins involved in lysosomal homeostasis, such as lysosomal hydrolases or membrane proteins., In addition to LSDs, the initiation and development of numerous diseases, such as cancer, autoimmune disorders, neurodegenerative diseases, and cardiovascular diseases, have also been identified to have a close correlation with lysosomal changes and dysfunction.– In this section, we started with several diseases and studied their lysosomal changes and dysfunction to lay the foundation for the selection of targeted strategies.

Cancer

Cancer cells always upregulate their metabolism by changing the quantity, localization, and activity of lysosomes to meet their needs for cell growth and proliferation., These changes have been correlated with the overexpression of some lysosomal proteins and lysosome-related proteins, such as lysosome catalase, lysosomal glycosidase, and kinesins.,– The abnormal activation of classical oncogenes, such as Kras and MYC, was found to increase the expression of lysosome catalase and glycosidase. Furthermore, several types of cancer, such as pancreatic adenocarcinoma,, renal-cell carcinoma, melanoma,, and breast cancer, have been found to have an overexpression of MIT/TFE genes, the TFs that facilitate the expression of lysosomal proteins.

These lysosomal changes have profound effects on the proliferation, migration, and invasion of cancer cells, as well as their resistance to radiotherapy and chemotherapy.,, Upregulated nutrients-scavenging pathways such as autophagy and endocytosis allow cancer cells to compete for available nutrients and survive in unfavorable conditions, such as tumors with poor vascularization or undergoing radiotherapy or chemotherapy. Nutrients brought by upregulated nutrient-scavenging pathways activate mTOR signaling and promote cell synthesis of amino acids, glucose, nucleotides, fatty acids, and lipids, which are essential for cell proliferation.,, Aberrant hyperactivation of both catabolic and anabolic pathways facilitates the metabolism and proliferation of cancer cells. MTORC1 signaling and TFEB modulation constitute a feedback loop that coordinates the balance between lysosomal catabolism and anabolism to adapt to different metabolic conditions. In addition, lysosomes have also been found to contribute to the chemoresistance of cancer cells by sequestering drugs to prevent their action outside lysosomes. Besides, the upregulated autophagy pathway favors the invasion and metastasis of cancer cells through degrading epithelial-derived molecules such as E-cadherin., Furthermore, the redistribution of lysosomes to the periphery of cancer cells and their exocytosis of cathepsins, heparinase, and Neu1 also benefit cancer invasion, metastasis, and angiogenesis by affecting cell morphology and degrading their extracellular matrix and basement membrane.,

Lysosomal changes and dysfunction also play an important role in the escape of cancer cells from the host immune system. Lysosomal degradation is not only responsible for antigen processing but also controls the presentation of MHC-I at cell membrane.– It has been reported that lysosomal degradation of MHC-I through autophagy-dependent pathways accounts for the decreased expression of MHC-I on the cell surface of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The co-location of MHC-I with autophagosomes and lysosomes was observed in PDAC cells, and autophagy inhibition was identified to restore MHC-I levels and promote T-cell responses in mouse models. Besides, the deficiency or blockade of costimulatory molecules of tumor cells is one of the important mechanisms of tumor immune escape, and lysosomes are responsible for not only the degradation but also the membrane transportation and presentation of immune checkpoints such as CTLA-4, PD-L1, and CD47.,, The colocalization of CKLF-like MARVEL transmembrane domain-containing 6 (CMTM6) with PD-L1 in cell membrane and recycling endosomes was found to inhibit the lysosomal degradation of PD-L1, which interacts with PD-1 on T cells to evade T-cell-mediated immunosurveillance. Recently, the decreased activity of mitophagy, a type of selective autophagy, has been reported to lead to the accumulation of depolarized mitochondria in tumor-infiltrating T lymphocytes (TILs). The persistent metabolic insufficiency caused by defective mitophagy was thought to cause TLR exhaustion. These factors together contribute to the low immune response in tumors.

However, the changes mentioned above not only benefit cancer development but also lead to the reduced stability of lysosomal membranes and make lysosomes in cancer cells more susceptible to LMP, which may provide the therapeutic windows we seek.,,, Considering the great role of these changes and dysfunctions in lysosomes in cancer cells, it is feasible to develop strategies targeting lysosomes to treat cancer (Fig. 4).

Autoimmune disorders

Given that lysosomes play a crucial role in multiple stages of immunity, we took a close look at what happened to the lysosomes in the cells of patients with autoimmune disorders. Here, we take three kinds of rheumatic autoimmune disorders as examples to explain lysosomal changes and dysfunction in autoimmune disorders and the significance of these changes and dysfunction for the deterioration of these disorders.

One of the most obvious changes in the cells of autoimmune disorders is the upregulated expression and activity of cathepsins and their abnormal secretion (The details are provided in Table 1).,–, The overexpression of cathepsin S, an enzyme responsible for degrading antigens, has been reported in all three diseases, and its inhibitors have been shown to be effective in mouse models.,–, In addition, cathepsin S and L were found to have significant correlations with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)-associated autoantibodies, which may account for the chronic inflammatory response and destruction of human tissues. More directly, cathepsin B present in synovial fluid of the joint of patients with RA has been found to destroy joints by degrading bone collagen.

Another change that greatly arouses our attention is the dysregulation of autophagy. Enhanced activation of autophagy within autoreactive cells and inflammatory cells is common in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), RA, and Sjögren’s syndrome (SS).,– It has been found that autophagy is not only the survival mechanism of autoreactive B cells in SLE patients, but also the key to plasmablast differentiation and the long-term autoantibody secretion of plasma cells., In patients with RA, upregulated autophagy was found to regulate the bone resorption of osteoclasts and promote the survival of fibroblast-like synovial cells, the main actor in RA pathogenesis.,,, Upregulated autophagy was also observed in T and B cells that infiltrated minor salivary glands in SS, and was associated with histological severity.,, However, there are different views regarding the activation status of the autophagy pathway in the T cells of RA patients., While Yang et al. identified the autophagy defect associated with PFKFB3 deficiency in CD4 + T cells of RA patients, van Loosdregt et al. reported that autophagy in CD4 + T cells of RA patients was upregulated and promoted hyperactivation and apoptosis resistance of T cells. It is important to point out that the former study used naive CD4 + T cells while the latter used total CD4 + T cells. Therefore, the differences in the cell type might contribute to the difference in the results. In addition, Gros et al. supported the view that autophagy was upregulated in T cells, and believed that the reason for the difference in results might be the imperfect experimental design of the former study.

In theory, upregulated lysosomal biogenesis and reduced lysosomal pH are required for the maintenance of cathepsin activity and autophagy activation. Consistent with our expectation, the monocytes, B cells, and DCs from female SLE patients showed lower lysosomal pH than those of normal people., Nevertheless, while upregulated autophagy in macrophages has been reported to contribute to murine lupus, another study reported that macrophages from lupus-prone MRL/lpr mice exhibited impaired lysosomal maturation and acidification., Currently, there are few reports on the changes on lysosomal biogenesis and pH, and more research results are needed to clarify these issues.

Although much is still unknown about the lysosomal changes that occur in the cells of patients with autoimmune disorders, several lysosomal targeting agents have been shown to be effective in preclinical and clinical trials, such as P140, hydroxychloroquine, and RO5461111 (Fig. 4 and Supplementary Table S1).,,, Therefore, targeting lysosomes in autoimmune disorders is still of great feasibility and potential.

Neurodegenerative diseases

The accumulation of modified or misfolded proteins is common in neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease (AD), Parkinson’s disease (PD), and Huntington’s disease (HD)., These proteins not only deposit in neurons, causing synapse destruction and neuronal death, but also impair lysosomal function, which aggravates their accumulation.– For instance, α-synuclein, the main component of Lewy bodies in PD, has been reported to reduce lysosomal degradation capacity by disrupting hydrolase trafficking., In addition, increased oxidative and nitrative modifications of v-ATPase with age, as well as mutations in PS1, ATP6AP2, and ATP13A2/PARK9 have been identified to promote neurodegenerative diseases by impairing lysosomal acidification and autophagy (reviewed elsewhere.,) Genetic or pharmacological activation of TFEB was shown to partially restore the degradation of misfolded proteins and ameliorate disease progression of AD,– PD,, and HD., In addition, chaperone-mediated autophagy (CMA) has been found to act as a compensatory pathway of macroautophagy that is activated in response to macroautophagy failure.–

The expression of cathepsins, the important executors of lysosomal degradation, was deregulated in cells of neurodegenerative diseases, and they showed reduced efficiency in degrading misfolded proteins and deregulated expression., For example, cathepsin D, the hydrolase responsible for degrading HTT, was identified to be less effective in degrading mHTT, the aggregation- prone HTT mutant in HD., It is worth noting that cathepsins do not always play a protective role. The accumulation of Aβ peptides and hyperphosphorylated Tau are hallmarks of AD, and cathepsin D is responsible for the generation of Aβ peptides and be correlated with the hyperphosphorylation of Tau.,, In addition, elevated cathepsin B in the serum has been shown to be identified significant correlated with cognitive dysfunction in patents with AD.,

Taken together, increasing evidence indicates the great role of lysosomal changes and dysfunction in the pathogenesis of neurodegenerative diseases. Therefore, they may serve as targets for the treatment neurodegenerative diseases.

Cardiovascular diseases

Accumulating studies have provided insights into lysosomal changes and dysfunction in cardiovascular diseases.– During acute myocardial ischemia, upregulated autophagy protects cardiomyocytes from death in response to extreme hypoxia and nutritional stress. However, an increased abundance of autophagosome has been reported to contribute to cardiomyocyte death during ischemia reperfusion. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) released during the restoration of blood flow are thought to induce LAMP2 decline and BECLIN-1 upregulation, resulting in the impaired autophagosome clearance. Impaired autophagic flux and inadequate autophagosome clearance have also been confirmed to promote atherosclerosis,, maladaptive post-infarction remodeling,, and heart failure (reviewed elsewhere.,) In addition, the restoration of autophagosome clearance through forcing TFEB expression have been found to attenuate BNIP3-induced cardiomyocyte death. Upregulation of cathepsin D induced by myocardial infarction was reported to protect against cardiac remodeling and heart failure through promoting autophagic flux.

Lysosome changes and dysfunction have also been characterized in hereditary cardiomyopathy and drug-induced cardiomyopathy. In the hearts of patients with Danon disease, an X-linked lysosomal storage disease characterized by life-threatening hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, cardiomyocytes showed a dramatically increase in autophagic vacuoles. It is generally believed that this increase in vacuoles is due to the loss-of-function mutations in the LAMP2 gene, which encodes the protein required for the maturation of autophagosomes. Drug-induced cardiotoxicity remains a major cause of concern in the application of numerous medicines. In recent years, a large number of studies have confirmed that the cardiotoxicity caused by doxorubicin, a classical chemotherapeutic drug, is related to its inhibition of cardiac autophagy via the impairment of lysosomal acidification and the suppression of TFEB expression.– Li et al. posited that ROS accumulation resulting from compromised autophagy accounts for doxorubicin-induced cardiomyocyte injury.

In summary, many cardiovascular diseases have been recognized to be closely related to lysosomal alterations and dysfunction, which are mainly manifested as maladaptive autophagy. Exogenous supplementation with lysosomal enzymes or efforts to increase the expression of TFEB may be means to treat these diseases.

Overall, lysosomes in cancer cells, autoimmune disease cells, heart disease cells and neurodegenerative disease cells undergo some changes and disfunction, which are extremely important for the development of these disease. Lysosomal acidification, lysosomal cathepsins, lysosomal biogenesis and autophagy may serve as good targets for the treatment of these diseases.

Target lysosomal acidification

The acidic environment in lysosomes is not only their structural characteristics but also the basis of their activities and functions.,, While low lysosomal pH is required for cancer cells to maintain their high metabolic state and is associated with the overactivation of autoimmune cells in autoimmune disorders, cells in neurodegenerative and cardiovascular disease always exhibit impaired lysosomal acidification and autophagy.,, Therefore, suitable targeting measures can be selected according to different lysosomal acidification states.

At present, agents inhibiting lysosomal acidification can be roughly divided into two categories: v-ATPase inhibitors and antimalarials and their derivatives (Fig. 4). The v-ATPase contains two essential domains, V0 and V1 domian, which function together to pump protons into the late endosome/lysosome., v-ATPase inhibitors including bafilomycin A1, concanamycin, archazolid A, and INDOL0 all exhibit great performance, but they compete with one another because they all work through interacting with V0 subunit c of v-ATPase.,, In addition, bafilomycin A1 was found to block autophagosome-lysosome fusion by targeting endoplasmic reticulum (ER) calcium pump Ca-P60A independent of v-ATPase-mediated lysosomal acidification., Salicylihalamide A acts through inhibiting the V0 domain and causing a dramatic redistribution of the V1 domain, allowing it to combine with the former class inhibitors to achieve better inhibition., The next generation of inhibitors including VoPQ, NiK12192, and FR177995 also exhibit effective v-ATPase inhibition, but their inhibition efficiency has only been confirmed in yeast cells.,

Another class of inhibitors is antimalarials and their derivatives, the only class of autophagy inhibitors that is currently available for clinical application., As representative cationic amphiphilic drugs (CADs), CQ and its derivatives share a common structure of a side-chain with a cationic amine group, which allows them to accumulate within lysosomes after protonation, resulting in lysosomal deacidification.,, In addition, CQ and HCQ have shown a strong ability of blocking the fusion of autophagosomes with lysosomes, which may be their main mechanism of autophagy inhibition., Nevertheless, their widespread application is restricted by their excessive dose-dependent effects, limited single-agent activity, and ocular toxicity at high doses or with long-term use.,,, Quinacrine, another drug originally used for antimalarial therapy, show a 60-fold higher potency of lysosomal deacidification than CQ and may be a better candidate for autophagy inhibition. Their analogs and derivatives exhibit more potent abilities of lysosomal localization and autophagy inhibition than their prototype, and some derivatives, such as DQ661 and DC661, show additional mTORC1 inhibition.,,,– More importantly, Ravi K. Amaravadi et al. identified a target shared by monomeric and dimeric CQ derivatives called palmitoyl-protein thioesterase 1 (PPT1) and demonstrated that targeting PPT1 produced dramatic lysosomal deacidification and mTOR inhibition by modulating the lysosomal localization of v-ATPase subunits and disrupting the interaction between subunit V1A of v-ATPase and the Ragulator component called p18., Intriguingly, there are many similarities between retinopathy caused by long-term use of CQ and HCQ and retinopathy caused by PPT1 deficiency, such as maculopathy with pigmentary alterations and the presence of auto-fluorescent material throughout the retina., Therefore, there is a question of whether the use of these derivatives will cause more serious ocular side effects due to their stronger inhibition of PPT1.

The restoration of lysosomal acidification in cells with impaired autophagy can be achieved by targeting molecules that impede lysosomal acidification or exogenously supplementing acid., As we described above, mutated PS1 impaired lysosomal acidification through impeding V0a1 subunit of v-ATPase complex, which is one of the main causes of early-onset familial AD. Therefore, targeting mutated PS1 may partially restore lysosomal acidity and autophagy. Besides, Bourdenx et al. demonstrated that poly(DL-lactide-co-glycolide) acidic nanoparticles (PLGA-aNPs) were internalized into lysosomes within 24 h after the treatment and restored defective lysosomal acidification and autophagy-lysosomal pathways in three different pathological PD models, including fibroblasts from PD patients with ATP13A2 mutations, fibroblasts from PD patients with glucocerebrosidase (GBA) mutations, and BE-M17 cells with ATP13A2 knockdown.

In brief, lysosomal acidification plays different roles in different diseases, and suitable targeting measures can be chosen according to the lysosomal acidification state.

Target lysosomal cathepsins

Lysosomal cathepsins are among the most important components and functional executors of lysosomes., Accumulating findings have acknowledged that lysosomal cathepsins facilitate the proliferation, invasion, angiogenesis, and chemotherapy-resistance of cancer cells, and their expression and activities are frequently upregulated in leukemia and various solid tumors, such as melanoma, breast cancer, gastrointestinal cancer.,, In addition, as mentioned above, deregulated cathepsins also play a great role in the development and progression of autoimmune disorders and neurodegenerative diseases. Therefore, cathepsins have been proposed as good targets for the treatment of cancers, autoimmune disorders, and neurodegenerative diseases.,,,

Three families and 15 classes of cathepsins have been found in humans, and cathepsin B, cathepsin D, cathepsin K, cathepsin L, and cathepsin S are well-studied in the treatment disease.,,,,, A variety of endogenous and reversible inhibitors show therapeutic potential in regulating cathepsins, such as stefin A and cystatin C., Besides, while the inhibitory effect of most synthesized cathepsin inhibitors is broad-spectrum and irreversible (shown in Fig. 4 and Supplementary Table S1), inhibitors such as CA074, odanacatib (MK-0822), KGP94, CLIK-148, and CLIK-195, are designed to have better specificity and efficiency., Cathepsin K is highly effective at degrading collagens of bone matrix, and its inhibitor odanacatib was once regarded as the most promising candidate for the treatment of bone destruction caused by inflammatory diseases and cancers., However, the development of odanacatib for the treatment of osteoporosis was finally terminated by the study’s sponsor because of its serious cardio-cerebrovascular adverse reactions observed in the phase III clinical trial of postmenopausal osteoporosis., The use of cathepsin antibodies or targeting cathepsin secretion also holds great promise as therapeutic agents to target abnormal activities of lysosomal cathepsins.,,,, For example, the nonreceptor tyrosine kinases Abl and Arg (Abl/Arg) were reported to promote the secretion of cathepsin B and cathepsin L, which facilitate melanoma invasion and metastasis by cleaving or degrading extracellular matrix proteins.

As we described above, cathepsin D plays a protective role in HT and cardiac remodeling, so forced expression or exogenously supplementation of cathepsin D may be helpful for the alleviation of these diseases., Two studies in neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis, a group of rare recessive lysosomal storage disorders with impaired lysosome-autophagy pathways, have provided some direction., The injection of adeno-associated virus encoding mouse cathepsin D into both cerebral ventricles and peritoneum have been proved to increase the lifespan of cathepsin D-knockout mice (Ctsd−/− mice). In addition, André R. A. Marques administered 25 mg/kg recombinant human pro-cathepsin D to Ctsd−/− mice through the tail vein and found a correction of lysosomal storage accumulation and impaired autophagic flux in their viscera and central nervous system. The lifespans of these mice were also longer than those of the control group. These data support the feasibility and efficiency of restoring lysosomal cathepsins in diseases characterized by reduced cathepsin efficiency.

In recent years, a variety of drugs have been synthesized, but few of them have been used in clinical studies (summarized in the clinical trial section). The complexity of the cathepsin web and our inadequate understanding of the integration and functionality of cathepsins within the web make it difficult to target cathepsins for clinical application.,, In addition, enzyme replacement therapy is not yet mature, and it is difficult to achieve accurate and efficient delivery of cathepsins to specific organs.

Target lysosomal membrane permeability and integrity

Under stress conditions, lysosomal membrane permeabilization (LMP) or full rupture of lysosomes occurs, and the leakage of lysosomal contents into the cytoplasm triggers inflammatory responses and cell death.,, Therefore, defective membrane permeability and integrity may act not only causes of inflammatory diseases but also tools that we can use to treat cancer., Unlike other organelles, lysosomes lack antioxidant enzymes such as superoxide dismutase, which makes their membrane more vulnerable to the damage of ROS and the hydroxyl radicals they produce., Although ROS act as the byproduct of traditional chemotherapies in most cases, they can also be induced intentionally in lysosomes by photodynamic therapy or iron regulation., For example, sequestering iron in lysosomes with ironomycin (AM5) or enhancing the lysosomal degradation of ferritin and the release of iron by artemisinin compounds can evoke the ROS generation and LMP in cancer cells.– Direct disrupting LAMP2, the constitutive protein of lysosomal membrane, with mycotoxin enniatin B1 may also be a good strategy to induce LMP.

Furthermore, targeting acid sphingomyelinase (ASM) and its supporter, heat shock protein 70 (Hsp70), can induce LMP by causing sphingomyelin accumulation.,, Direct inhibitors of ASM such as zoledronic acid and Riccardin D-N, as well as functional inhibitors such as cationic amphiphilic drugs (CADs), all show highly efficient ASM inhibition and LMP induction.,, CADs are a wide group of chemicals that can permeate lysosomal membranes and accumulate within lysosomes after protonation, and antimalarials, antidepressants, antihistamines all fall into the CAD category.,,, In addition to siramesine, CADs like terfenadine and amitriptyline have also been acknowledged to have a great inhibition of ASM and induce LMP in targeted cells (shown in Fig. 4 and Supplementary Table S1).,, The most significant advantages of this category of drugs are the safety and accessibility established by their long-term clinical use. HSP70 inhibitors such as 2-Phenylethynesulfonamide (PES),, quercetin, triptolide, and etoposide show great performance in HSP70 inhibition and LMP induction, but none of them can specifically target lysosomal HSP70.,, Therefore, although these HSP70 inhibitors are of great significance for inducing LMP and subsequent cell death, they may also cause serious adverse reactions because of the simultaneous inhibition of cytoplasmic and membrane HSP70.

Cells have developed numerous defensive mechanisms against lysosomal rupture and subsequent inflammatory responses and cell death.,, It is now generally believed that limited permeabilization of the lysosomal membrane can be repaired through the endosomal sorting complex required for transport (ESCRT) machinery, while badly damaged lysosomes can be engulfed and cleared through the lysophagy machinery, a selective autophagy process triggered by the ubiquitination of lysosomal proteins.,, Three subcomplexes with different functions (ESCRT-I, -II, and -III) have been identified to be involved in the ESCRT mechanism, and the recruitment and translocation of their components have been found heavily dependent on calcium (Ca2+) outflowing from lysosomes.,,, The ubiquitination required for lysophagy is induced the exposure of lysosomal glycans, which are sensed by cytosolic lectins or ubiquitination enzymes. While cytosolic lectins bind the autophagy receptor NDP52 (nuclear dot protein 52 kDa) and recruit autophagic membranes, ubiquitination enzymes such as ubiquitin conjugating enzyme E2 Q family like 1 (UBE2QL1) and F-box protein 27 (FBXO27) directly mediate the ubiquitination of damaged lysosomal proteins.,– Recently, Gupta et al. used proteomic-based organelle profiling and identified the selective and high enrichment of myoferlin (MYOF) on the lysosomal membranes of pancreatic cancer cells. They suggested that MYOF provided early-acting protection against membrane damage by stabilizing the lipid bilayer or promoting the fusion of lysosomes with other vesicles acting as membrane donors rather than through the ESCRT machinery. Lysosomal dysfunction induced by knocking out MYOF was demonstrated to impair tumor growth both in vitro and in vivo in this study. It is possible to modulate the stability and integrity of lysosomal membranes by using these key molecules to intervene in the protective mechanism of lysosomal membranes.

In addition, targeting the microtubule cytoskeleton and inducing mitochondrial membrane permeabilization (MMP) were also found to induce LMP and cell death. However, the effectiveness of these two approaches seems to be ambiguous because the main cause-and-effect relationship is unclear.,, For example, although there are reports that microtubule regulators, including paclitaxel, vincristine, Deox b7, 4, and BpV (phen), can induce LMP and apoptosis, it is difficult to determine whether cell death is caused by LMP or the disruption of the mitotic spindle, a critical transition in the cell cycle.,, In addition, possible crosstalk between autophagy and LMP offers more options for targeting LMP. Trehalose, an effective autophagy inducer, was found to act by inducing lysosomal enlargement and LMP, while knocking down autophagy protein 5 (Atg5) ameliorated IMB-6G-induced LMP and apoptosis.,

Target lysosomal calcium signaling

While lysosomes are the main organelles that store intracellular calcium (Ca2+), Ca2+ mediates the mechanism of lysosomal biogenesis, acidification maintenance, reorganization, and almost all vesicle movements involving lysosomes such as autophagy and endocytosis.,– Growing attention has been paid to the role of lysosomes in the development of cancer and neurodegenerative diseases.– Among the Ca2+ channels that have been verified in the lysosomal membranes of mammalian cells, there are two groups that are good targets because of their specific localization on the membranes of endo-lysosomal system: transient receptor potential mucolipin channels (TRPMLs) and two-pore channels (TPCs).,,

TRPMLs (TRPML1-3) are six-transmembrane domain channels encoded respectively by Mucolipin (MCOLN) 1-3., TRPML1 is the best-studied channel and is correlated with lysosome biogenesis and various membrane fusion processes, such as lysosome-autophagosome fusion and plasma membrane repair.,,– However, its role in cancer progression is much more ambiguous due to its heterogeneous expression., Cancers such as bladder urothelial carcinoma, melanoma, and triple-negative breast cancer, have an upregulated expression of TRPML1., However, there are several examples of cancers with low expression of TRPML1 whose viability can be inhibited by TRPML1 agonists, such as non-small-cell lung carcinoma and glioblastoma., The role of TRPML2 in chemokine trafficking and secretion in murine macrophages was identified, and a bioinformatics analysis correlated the gene encoding TRPML3 with the progression, aggressiveness, and prognosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma., Some inhibitors and activators with less selectivity for these channels have also been acknowledged or synthesized, such as phosphatidyl-(3,5)-bisphosphate (PI(3,5)P2), ML-SA1, MK6-83, and ML2-SA1 (Fig. 4 and Supplementary Table S1)., Besides, agents that target PIKfyve, a phosphoinositide kinase phosphorylates PI(3)P to form PI(3,5)P2, showed good performance in inhibiting the malignant phenotype of autophagy-dependent cancer cells, such as apilimod, YM201636, WX8-family.–

TPCs are voltage-gated ion channels in the endo-lysosomal system that mediate Ca2+ signals through the Ca2+-mobilizing messenger nicotinic acid adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NAADP). Ned-19 and tetrandrine work by targeting NAADP and have shown a great performance in reducing the migration and adhesion of cancer cells such as T24, HUH7, and 4T1-Luc., Besides, Ned-19 and its analog Ned-K were also reported to correct morphological defects in lysosomes in PD caused by LRRK2 mutations.

Although the important role of Ca2+ in neurodegenerative diseases has been established, the corresponding abnormalities in calcium channels have not been established in most neurodegenerative diseases.,, Therefore, it is difficult to select an appropriate calcium channel modulator. The unclear causes and effects of the heterogeneous expression in cancer cells and the lack of drugs with specific targeting also make it difficult to target calcium signaling for cancer therapy.

Target mTOR signaling

Lysosomes serve as platforms for the proper recruitment, assembly, and activation of mTOR signaling elements, and mTOR acts as a nutrient sensor that regulates the degradation activities of lysosomes., Functionally, lysosomes and mTOR form a tightly connected metabolic complex., While factors such as RAGs, Ragulator, and Rheb contribute to the recruitment of mTOR to lysosomes and its activation, the release of galectin-8 as a result of lysosomal injury leads to the dissociation and activity inhibition of mTOR.,,,, MTOR signaling, which modulates cell metabolism and proliferation, is frequently activated in cancer, so mTOR inhibitors can be applied to treat cancer., Since the inhibition of mTOR can induce lysosomal biogenesis and autophagy pathways, mTOR inhibitors can also be used in some diseases with impaired autophagy, such as neurodegenerative diseases (shown in Fig. 4 and Supplementary Table S1).–,

While rapamycin (sirolimus) and its analogs (temsirolimus, everolimus, and ridaforolimus) mainly inhibit mTORC1, catalytic mTOR inhibitors (AZD2014, CC-223, TAK-228) inhibit both mTORC1 and mTORC2 through suppressing the catalytic activity of mTOR (shown in Fig. 4 and Supplementary Table S1)., Since the PI3K-AKT pathway is involved in the activation and function of both mTOR1 and mTORC2, targeting PI3K or AKT can also achieve simultaneous inhibition of mTORC1 and mTORC2., Considerable progress has been made in the development of drugs targeting PI3K and AKT, and many of them show strong anti-tumor activity both in vivo and vitro, such as buparlisib (BKM120), pictilisib (GDC-0941), MK-2206, Ipatasertib (GDC-0068), and Capivasertib.– However, it is worth noting that PI3K and AKT regulates multiple metabolic pathways, so the effect of targeting PI3K or AKT may not depend mainly on mTOR.

Selective inhibition of mTORC1 can be achieved by targeting the unique effector nodes responsible for its recruitment and activation, such as Ragulator, Rheb, and Raptor.,– As a guanine nucleotide exchange factor (GEF) for RAG GTPases, Ragulator signals amino acid levels and recruits mTORC1, and knocking out its essential component, p18, or disrupting its interaction with RAGs by overexpressing c17orf59 has been proven to attenuate aberrant mTORC1 activation., Furthermore, a small molecule called NR1 was reported to bind the switch II domain of Rheb and block mTORC1 signaling potently and selectively. In addition, a member of the MAP kinase (MAPK) subfamily called Nemo-like kinase (NLK) can phosphorylate Raptor, a distinctive component of mTORC1, resulting in the inhibition of the lysosomal localization of mTORC1 and its subsequent activation.

Attention to the role of mTORC2 in cancer progression is emerging, but it has also been proposed that adverse reactions to the long-term application of mTOR inhibitors are the result of simultaneous mTORC2 inhibition.,, Autophagy induction was once thought to be responsible for weakening the tumor-inhibiting effect of mTORC1 inhibitors, but it now allows the use of rapamycin to treat diseases with impaired autophagy.,

Emerging potential targeting strategies

New insights into the mechanisms of the initiation and progression of human diseases associated with autophagic or lysosomal dysfunction have spawned several new targeting strategies. Here, we list several targeting strategies that we believe have great potential, but the lack of drugs with high specificity and efficiency curtails the application of most of these strategies.

Since lysosomal dysfunction is closely correlated with weakened immune signals in the cancer immune response, growing attention has been paid to improving the cancer immune response by targeting disturbed lysosomal degradation.,, While CMTM6 was reported to prevent the lysosomal degradation of PD-L1, which contributes to immune escape, Huntingtin-interacting protein 1 related protein (HIP1R) was found to interact with the conserved domain (771-867) of PD-L1 and transmit it to lysosomal degradation., Huanbin et al. designed and constructed a peptide called PD-LYSO that consists of the PD-L1-binding sequence and the lysosome sorting sequence of HIP1R and demonstrated that this peptide accelerated the lysosomal degradation of PD-L1. Besides, the proteolysis that targets chimeras called P22 has been identified to restored the immune response in an immunosuppressed coculture model of Hep3B/OS-8/hPD-L1 and CD3 T cells by inhibiting PD-L1 and promoting the lysosomal degradation of PD-L1. Furthermore, an aloperine derivative called SA-49 was found to decrease the expression of PD-L1 in non-small cell lung cancer cells though promoting the biogenesis of lysosomes and melanogenesis-associated transcription factor (MITF)-dependent lysosomal degradation of PD-L1. The application of SA-49 was proven to enhance the immune response of cocultured T and NK cells to cancer cells and to suppress the growth of Lewis tumor xenografts in C57BL/6 mice. Since autophagy was observed to promote the immune evasion of PDAC by degrading MHC-I, scientists tried to combine immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) therapy with autophagy inhibition. The addition of CQ to anti-PD1 and anti-CTLA-4 antibodies was proven to enhance achieved enhanced anti-tumor immune response in mice with orthotopic tumors.

Targeting TFEB, the transcription factor that regulates the lysosomal–autophagic pathway, has been proved effective for slowing the progression of lysosome-related diseases such as cancer,– neurodegenerative diseases,– and cardiovascular diseases., Trehalose was found to induce autophagy through promoting the nuclear translocation of TFEB, and this induced autophagy showed protective effects against neurodegenerative diseases, atherosclerosis, and cisplatin-induced acute kidney injury. In addition, a recent review summarized a series of compounds that have been found to regulate the expression or nuclear translocation of TFEB in recent years, such as 3,4-dimethoxychalcone (3,4-DC), 2-Hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin (HPβCD), and Digoxin., However, most of these compounds are the modulators of Ca2+ signaling or pathways such as mTOR, AKT, and PKC, so it is difficult to determine whether the ultimate effect of these drugs occurs primarily through their effects on TFEB.

Accumulating evidence has acknowledged the contributions of chaperone-mediated autophagy (CMA) to the development of cancers and autoimmune disorders, as well as the protective role of CMA in neurodegenerative diseases.–,, While knocking down LAMP2A was demonstrated to reduce cell proliferation of numerous cancer cells, reduced transcription of heat shock cognate protein 70 (HSC70) and LAMP2A was reported to aggravate the accumulation of pathological proteins of neurodegenerative diseases, such as α-synuclein, mHTT, and Tau.,,– In addition, a peptide called P140 was found to inhibit CMA in lupus-prone mice by reducing the expression of both LAMP2A and HSC70 and impairing the refolding properties of HSC70.– It has been acknowledged that this inhibition of CMA affected the processing and presentation of autoantigens in B cells and accounts for a decrease in autoreactive T cells.,

Targeting Rab GTPases (Rabs) is attractive, because they are extensively involved in the biogenesis and function of endo-lysosomal systems., For example, the application of CID1067700, a receptor antagonist of Rab7 GTPase, was identified to inhibit reactive astrogliosis and attenuate brain atrophy of astrocytic injury models though inhibiting excessive transportation of cathepsin B from late endosomes to lysosomes. However, most Rabs lack specific inhibitors due to their low affinity for nucleotide-based competitive inhibitors and high similarity with each other in structure. Agents that target their post-translational modification or GTPase–GEF interactions may achieve indirect but efficient inhibition of rabs, such as psoromic acid (PA), 3-(3-pyridyl)-2-hydroxy-2-phosphonopropanoic acid (3-PEHPC), StRIP3.,

Although research into the measures and their mechanisms for targeting lysosomes in cancer is still in the primary stage, continuous progress and increasing interest in lysosome research may result in profound developments in this field.

Representative clinical trials of the targeting strategies

The encouraging results of lysosome-related preclinical studies have aroused growing interest in the clinical transformation and application of targeting lysosomes in cancer. In fact, most of the targeting strategies and corresponding drugs that we summarized above have been tested or are being tested in clinical trials.

In malignancies

The clinical response to these targeting strategies varies greatly depending on the cancer type, cancer stage, drug type, combination efficacy, the expression of some cancer markers, and the lysosome profile that may have been previously overlooked (Table 2).

With incomparable easy-accessibility and safety as a result of long-term clinical use in antimalarial therapy, CQ and HCQ have been rapidly and widely repurposed as agents targeting lysosome acidification in anticancer clinical trials., However, their effectiveness as single drugs against cancer is very limited in practice, so researchers are now using them as sensitizers in combination with radiotherapy and chemotherapy drugs such as taxane, carboplatin, gemcitabine, temozolomide, and metformin.– In a search of the ClinicalTrials.gov website, we found that numerous clinical trials (almost half) used glioblastomas or tumors with brain metastases as cancer targets for CQ, and most of the trials showed improved results, which might indicate the superiority and specificity of CQ in the treatment of cerebral tumors (Table 2)., For example, adding CQ to whole-brain irradiation was confirmed to play a great role in the treatment of patients with brain metastases, with a 1-year progression-free survival rate of 83.9% compared with 55.1% in the control group.

However, a trial that combined HCQ with temozolomide and radiotherapy to treat newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme ended up with no significant improvement. Some scholars believed that the inconsistent levels of autophagy inhibition were the main reasons for the unsatisfactory results. Besides, researchers are trying to use this effective sensitizer in the treatment of pancreatic cancer, a highly lethal cancer that requires high autophagy level to maintain metabolism and resist therapy.,– While adding HCQ to gemcitabine or gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel was determined to improve prognosis-related serum biomarker (CA19-9), opinions were divided regarding its ability to promote overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) (Table 2).– There are two clinical trials that respectively used SQSTM1/p62 and LC3-II as the marker of effective inhibition of autophagy, and one of the trials measured both markers, which showed inconsistent levels of autophagy inhibition., Consequently, the latter trial may not have achieved effective autophagy inhibition, which indicates the lack of a unified standard for autophagy inhibition. In addition, the imbalance in KRAS mutations between the experimental group and the control group may also affect the experimental results. Although the clinical response to HCQ is not always satisfactory, it remains the most widely used antimalarial drug in clinical anti-tumor research.

Temsirolimus and everolimus are mTOR inhibitors that have been approved by the US FDA for cancer treatment.– In the treatment of advanced renal-cell carcinoma, using temsirolimus as a single agent has been identified to achieve longer OS and PFS than interferon monotherapy, and showed no significant difference in OS compared with the combination-therapy of temsirolimus and interferon (Table 2). This clinical trial data was thought to contribute to the US FDA’s approval of temsirolimus for the treatment of advanced renal-cell carcinoma. Temsirolimus also showed great efficiency in metastatic endometrial cancer (Table 2). Although everolimus was approved by the US FDA for the treatment of numerous cancers, it was found to have very limited efficacy when used as a single agent (Table 2)., Since the activities of mTORC2 may compensate for the inhibition of mTORC1, a series of inhibitors that simultaneously target mTORC1 and mTORC2 have been developed, such as vistusertib (AZD2014), CC-223, and TAK-228 (MLN0128). Among these drugs, vistusertib is the most clinically used, but it was shown to result in lower OS and PFS improvement than everolimus. The efficacy of TAK-228 in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer was also reported to be limited, and eight of nine patients discontinued the treatment early because of radiographic progression, drug toxicity, or investigator discretion. CC-223 was proven effective and safe for the treatment of non-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, and clinical trials of this drug in other cancers are underway.

Although inhibitors of the PI3K-AKT pathway showed great efficiency in cancer therapy, mTOR signaling is not its only downstream signaling pathway, and the activation status of mTOR signaling was not reported in these clinical trials.– Since the inhibition of mTOR always acts as a potent inducer of cytoprotective autophagy that greatly compromises therapeutic effects, researchers have tried to combine mTOR inhibitors with autophagy inhibitors.,, Temsirolimus was tolerable and efficient when combined with HCQ in the treatment of melanoma and multiple advanced solid tumors, and the combination of everolimus with HCQ in patients with renal-cell carcinoma also achieved the primary endpoint without dose-limiting toxicity observed.,

Inducing LMP directly leads to cell death in preclinical experiments, but the effectiveness of most drugs used for this strategy are not satisfactory. For example, little improvement has been achieved in the application of CADs for cancer therapy, except for antimalarials., Amitriptyline, a tricyclic antidepressant, failed to decrease chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) symptoms in cancer survivors, and a trial of desipramine for the treatment of patients with small cell lung cancer was terminated early because of intolerable doses and a lack of clinical activity., Although mountains of HSP70 inhibitors have been synthesized and identified to be effective in vitro, few HSP70 inhibitors have been tested in clinical trials. MKT-077 is possibly the only Hsp70 inhibitor that has been tested in clinical trials against cancer currently, but the trial was halted because of irreversible renal toxicity. ASM inhibitors and agents that target microtubules, the other two classes of LMP inducers, have been much more widely used in clinical studies with good results.,,, Among them, ZA, paclitaxel, and vincristine have been used as standard treatments for many cancers.,, Nevertheless, It is worth noting that their therapeutic effects in the treatment of cancers are not confined to their direct effects in lysosomes, and their induction of LMP in cancer cells is seldom examined in clinical trials.,,

Few cathepsin inhibitors have been used in clinical trials, and only one trial of the cathepsin K inhibitor odanacatib in cancer therapy has been completed. Although odanacatib achieved bone resorption inhibition comparable to that of ZA in the treatment of patients with bone metastases of breast cancer, there were some limitations in this trial, such as the relatively small sample size and the lack of clinical outcomes as efficacy endpoints. In a multicenter phase 3 clinical trial of osteoporosis, the long-term use of odanacatib (median follow-up 47.6 months) was found to significantly increase the risk of cardio-cerebrovascular events, especially stroke. Therefore, the study’s sponsor decided not to develop it as a treatment for osteoporosis (in 2019). Since then, there have been no clinical trials or applications for clinical trials of odanacatib for cancer treatment. However, we still believe that this drug has potential for treating cancer bone metastases because patients diagnosed with cancer bone metastases generally have a short survival period and will not take the medication for such long periods.

The understanding of lysosomal calcium channels is still in the primary stage, and there is an urgent need for targeted drugs with high specificity. The emerging targeting strategies that we summarized above faced run into similar dilemmas. More highly effective drugs and corresponding clinical trials are needed to judge the effectiveness, safety, and feasibility of these targeting strategies.

In non-malignant diseases

With milder gastrointestinal and skin complications than CQ, HCQ has been more widely used clinically and in clinical trials. According to the management recommendation of European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) published in 2019, HCQ is recommended for all patients with SLE. In a clinical trial, patients with higher blood levels of HCQ (≥1000 ng/ml) were reported to be less likely to develop active SLE. Nevertheless, both EULAR and American Academy of Ophthalmology recommend that the daily dose of HCQ should not exceed 5 mg/kg actual body weight., Using HCQ as either a single or a combinatorial therapy has been proven to be effective in the treatment of RA, but the addition of HCQ has been found to decrease maximum concentration of methotrexate (MTX) and increase the risk of MTX-induced toxicities (Table 3)., In a prospective, multicenter observational study of 4905 RA patients, Mary Wasko et al. found that using hydroxychloroquine was correlated with a low risk of suffering diabetes. However, in a clinical trial, RA patients who received HCQ 6.5 mg/kg daily for 8 weeks showed no difference in insulin resistance and a slight improvement in lipid levels (total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein) compared with controls. A possible reason for the different conclusions of the trial may be the short observation time, and a longer trial time may make the improvement more obvious. Since HCQ may improve lipid metabolism in human body, some scholars believe that the use of HCQ in RA patients can reduce the frequency of cardiovascular events.–

P140, a phosphopetide that can inhibit CMA, was found to decrease the levels of IgG anti-dsDNA antibody in patients with SLE and effectively improve their SLE disease activity index (SLEDAI) score with no adverse effects. Intriguingly, in another phase 2 clinical trial of patients with SLE, the subcutaneous injection of 200 μg of P140 every 4 weeks was found to achieve a better SLE responder index (SRI) response at 12 weeks than the same dose given every 2 weeks or a placebo control. However, a phase III clinical trial reported that the SRI response rate of patients treated with P140 (200 μg every 4 weeks) showed no significant difference (52.5% vs. 44.6%, p = 0.2631) from that of the control group at week 52. Therefore, P140 is safe and well tolerated for the treatment of SLE, but its efficacy in achieving long-term remission and control of SLE may require further experimental evidence.–

Growing attention has been paid to the role of T cells in autoimmune diseases., As described above, mTOR signaling is involved in modulating the differentiation of T cells, so a number of clinical trials have been conducted to test the efficacy of its inhibitor in the treatment of autoimmune diseases.,,, Low-dose sirolimus, an inhibitor that mainly acts on mTOC1, has been found to selectively upregulate Tregs and achieve better control of the disease activity of RA (Table 3). In patients with SLE, sirolimus was also effective for controlling disease activity and correcting pro-inflammatory T-cell lineage specification (Table 3). However, there are two issues that attract our attention. First, the use of mTOR inhibitors may induce autophagy, which is always activated in immune cells in autoimmune diseases and is closely related to disease development., Further studies are needed to determine autophagy activation at these doses and the necessity of combing sirolimus with autophagy inhibitors., Second, while the upregulation of nonselective IgG or autoantibodies is common in SLE, the promotion of Th2 cell differentiation as a result of mTORC1 inhibition may facilitate humoral immunity and aggravate the accumulation of autoimmune complexes.,,

As we explained previously, mTORC1 inhibitors can also be used as autophagy inducers to treat neurodegenerative diseases. Several clinical trials of mTOR inhibitors for the treatment of PD and AD are actively recruiting, such as NCT04629495, NCT04200911, and NCT04127578. Trehalose, which induces autophagy via TFEB activation, are also testing in the clinical trial of AD (NCT04663854). These drugs may be valuable candidates for the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases.

Numerous cathepsin inhibitors have been developed, but few of them have been tested in clinical trials. A trial assessing the efficacy of RO5459072 in patients with primary SS was completed, but no significant improvement in the EULAR Sjogren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI) score was observed in the RO5459072 group. Other targeting strategies have only come to the forefront in recent years, and their corresponding drugs are still in development or undergoing preclinical testing.

Conclusion and perspectives

Although targeted lysosomes show great promise for treating human diseases such as malignancies, autoimmune diseases, neurodegenerative diseases and cardiovascular diseases, there are still many questions waiting to be answered. A key question that needs to be answered first is how to selectively target lysosomes, especially lysosomes in pathological cells. CADs, including CQ, have good lysosomal aggregation characteristics, but they may result to indiscriminate inhibition or deletion of all lysosomal function. Although lysosomal changes in diseases are the foundation of our targeting strategies, there is no clinical evidence that these changes allow currently available therapies to strike fatal blows to pathological cells far more often than to normal cells., Luckily, metabolic glycoengineering of unnatural sugars provides a powerful tool for selectively labeling cancer cells, and antibody-drug conjugates restrict the systemic delivery of antineoplastic agents to cells that express certain antigens., In addition, nanoscale drug delivery systems, such as cathepsin-sensitive drug delivery systems, possess the unique ability to penetrate cell barriers and locate in certain organelles such as lysosomes., These emerging approaches offer the possibility of specifically targeting lysosomes, especially lysosomes in pathological cells.

Another question arises from the heterogeneity and complexity of lysosomes and their associated pathways. Several commonly targeted molecules or pathways exert dual effects on cancer progression and adapt with time, and the broad-spectrum and complete suppression of these molecules and pathways may lead to unpredictable and irreparable side effects.,,, Therefore, it is necessary to develop precise personalized treatment regimens and monitor the functional status of lysosomes in cancer patients in real-time. The expression of some specific molecules can be used to evaluate the activation of the pathways, and the introduction of microfluidic single-cell analysis technology is expected to achieve lysosomal level accuracy in the future.,, However, these methods have not currently achieved the real-time monitoring of lysosomal number and function in individuals. In addition, tremendous work is needed to develop uniform and implementable guidelines for standardizing research and diagnosis., For instance, a trial that evaluated both SQSTM1/p62 and LC3-II found inconsistent levels of autophagy inhibition, making it difficult to determine whether autophagy was effectively suppressed.

The issue of drug specificity and efficacy also requires attention. The structural and functional similarities among molecules in the same family make it difficult to target specific molecules, and the complementary effects of these molecules may weaken the targeting effect., For example, when cathepsin L is inhibited, cathepsin B activity increases compensatively and partially offsets the effect of cathepsin L inhibition. However, if both are inhibited simultaneously, other related pathways of cathepsin B will be affected. Future research needs to not only develop targeting agents with high selectivity but also clarify the necessity and extent of the inhibition of compensatory molecules. In addition, many targeting agents have limited therapeutic effects as single agents and need to be used in combination.–,, Although combination-therapy can improve the efficacy of these compounds, it may also increase the side effects of the drugs and aggravate the metabolic burden on patients’ liver and kidneys. Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop more potent drugs and identify the tumors that are sensitive to them.

In conclusion, there are still many difficulties and challenges to be overcome, but they are not completely unsolvable considering the improvement of lysosome-targeted drugs and the optimization of research instruments and methods. Lysosomes are important regulators of cell and organismal homeostasis that mediate energy metabolism, cell proliferation and differentiation, immunity, and cell death. The lysosomes of a variety of disease cells have been found to undergo some lysosomal changes and dysfunction that have a profound effect on disease progression. Lysosomal acidification, lysosomal cathepsins, lysosomal membrane permeability and integrity, lysosomal calcium signaling, mTOR signaling, lysosomal degradation of immune signals, TFEB, noncanonical autophagy, and vesicle movement are all promising targets for lysosomes, and some of these targeted drugs have been tested clinically effective and safe. Therefore, targeting lysosomes in human disease is a feasible, effective, and safe targeted strategy, and we can look forward to developing it as an excellent therapeutic intervention.

References 414

  1. 1.

    De Duve C, Pressman BC, Gianetto R, Wattiaux R, Appelmans F. Tissue fractionation studies. 6. Intracellular distribution patterns of enzymes in rat-liver tissue. Biochem. J. 1955;60:604-617.

    Not in our library10.1042/bj0600604

  2. 2.

    Ballabio A, Bonifacino JS. Lysosomes as dynamic regulators of cell and organismal homeostasis. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2020;21:101-118.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41580-019-0185-4

  3. 3.

    Sardiello M, et al. A gene network regulating lysosomal biogenesis and function. Science. 2009;325:473-477.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1174447

  4. 4.

    Sancak Y, et al. Ragulator-Rag complex targets mTORC1 to the lysosomal surface and is necessary for its activation by amino acids. Cell. 2010;141:290-303.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2010.02.024

  5. 5.

    Levy JMM, Towers CG, Thorburn A. Targeting autophagy in cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2017;17:528-542.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrc.2017.53

  6. 6.

    Piao S, Amaravadi RK. Targeting the lysosome in cancer. Ann. N. Y Acad. Sci. 2016;1371:45-54.

    Not in our library10.1111/nyas.12953

  7. 7.

    Lawrence RE, Zoncu R. The lysosome as a cellular centre for signalling, metabolism and quality control. Nat. Cell Biol. 2019;21:133-142.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41556-018-0244-7

  8. 8.

    Perera RM, Zoncu R. The lysosome as a regulatory hub. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 2016;32:223-253.

    Not in our library10.1146/annurev-cellbio-111315-125125

  9. 9.

    Peng W, Minakaki G, Nguyen M, Krainc D. Preserving lysosomal function in the aging brain: insights from neurodegeneration. Neurotherapeutics. 2019;16:611-634.

    Not in our library10.1007/s13311-019-00742-3

  10. 10.
  11. 11.

    Sciarretta S, Maejima Y, Zablocki D, Sadoshima J. The Role of Autophagy in the Heart. Annu. Rev. Physiol. 2018;80:1-26.

    Not in our library10.1146/annurev-physiol-021317-121427

  12. 12.

    Geisslinger F, Müller M, Vollmar AM, Bartel K. Targeting lysosomes in cancer as promising strategy to overcome chemoresistance-a mini review. Front. Oncol. 2020;10:1156.

    Not in our library10.3389/fonc.2020.01156

  13. 13.

    Zhang X, Wang J, Li X, Wang D. Lysosomes contribute to radioresistance in cancer. Cancer Lett. 2018;439:39-46.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.canlet.2018.08.029

  14. 14.

    Bonam SR, Wang F, Muller S. Lysosomes as a therapeutic target. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2019;18:923-948.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41573-019-0036-1

  15. 15.

    Xu J, Brosseau JP, Shi H. Targeted degradation of immune checkpoint proteins: emerging strategies for cancer immunotherapy. Oncogene. 2020;39:7106-7113.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41388-020-01491-w

  16. 16.

    Burr ML, et al. CMTM6 maintains the expression of PD-L1 and regulates anti-tumour immunity. Nature. 2017;549:101-105.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature23643

  17. 17.

    Yu YR, et al. Disturbed mitochondrial dynamics in CD8(+) TILs reinforce T cell exhaustion. Nat. Immunol. 2020;21:1540-1551.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41590-020-0793-3

  18. 18.

    Karami J, et al. Role of autophagy in the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis: Latest evidence and therapeutic approaches. Life Sci. 2020;254:117734.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.lfs.2020.117734

  19. 19.

    Colafrancesco S, et al. Autophagy occurs in lymphocytes infiltrating Sjögren’s syndrome minor salivary glands and correlates with histological severity of salivary gland lesions. Arthritis Res. Ther. 2020;22:238.

    Not in our library10.1186/s13075-020-02317-6

  20. 20.

    Qi YY, Zhou XJ, Zhang H. Autophagy and immunological aberrations in systemic lupus erythematosus. Eur. J. Immunol. 2019;49:523-533.

    Not in our library10.1002/eji.201847679

  21. 21.
  22. 22.

    Tato M, et al. Cathepsin S inhibition combines control of systemic and peripheral pathomechanisms of autoimmune tissue injury. Sci. Rep. 2017;7:2775.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41598-017-01894-y

  23. 23.

    Kim SJ, et al. Increased cathepsin S in Prdm1(−/−) dendritic cells alters the T(FH) cell repertoire and contributes to lupus. Nat. Immunol. 2017;18:1016-1024.

    Not in our library10.1038/ni.3793

  24. 24.

    Wang F, Gomez-Sintes R, Boya P. Lysosomal membrane permeabilization and cell death. Traffic. 2018;19:918-931.

    Not in our library10.1111/tra.12613

  25. 25.

    Boya P. Lysosomal function and dysfunction: mechanism and disease. Antioxid. Redox Signal. 2012;17:766-774.

    Not in our library10.1089/ars.2011.4405

  26. 26.

    Serrano-Puebla A, Boya P. Lysosomal membrane permeabilization as a cell death mechanism in cancer cells. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 2018;46:207-215.

    Not in our library10.1042/bst20170130

  27. 27.

    Davidson SM, Vander, Heiden MG. Critical functions of the lysosome in cancer biology. Annu Rev. Pharm. Toxicol. 2017;57:481-507.

    Not in our library10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010715-103101

  28. 28.

    Saftig P, Klumperman J. Lysosome biogenesis and lysosomal membrane proteins: trafficking meets function. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2009;10:623-635.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrm2745

  29. 29.

    Cui L, et al. The lysosomal membrane protein lamp2 alleviates lysosomal cell death by promoting autophagic flux in ischemic cardiomyocytes. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2020;8:31.

    Not in our library10.3389/fcell.2020.00031

  30. 30.

    Brady OA, Martina JA, Puertollano R. Emerging roles for TFEB in the immune response and inflammation. Autophagy. 2018;14:181-189.

    Not in our library10.1080/15548627.2017.1313943

  31. 31.

    Raben N, Puertollano R. TFEB and TFE3: linking lysosomes to cellular adaptation to stress. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 2016;32:255-278.

    Not in our library10.1146/annurev-cellbio-111315-125407

  32. 32.

    Medina DL, et al. Lysosomal calcium signalling regulates autophagy through calcineurin and TFEB. Nat. Cell Biol. 2015;17:288-299.

    Not in our library10.1038/ncb3114

  33. 33.

    Medina DL, et al. Transcriptional activation of lysosomal exocytosis promotes cellular clearance. Dev. Cell. 2011;21:421-430.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.devcel.2011.07.016

  34. 34.

    Martina JA, Puertollano R. Protein phosphatase 2A stimulates activation of TFEB and TFE3 transcription factors in response to oxidative stress. J. Biol. Chem. 2018;293:12525-12534.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.ra118.003471

  35. 35.

    Palm W, Thompson CB. Nutrient acquisition strategies of mammalian cells. Nature. 2017;546:234-242.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature22379

  36. 36.

    Settembre C, Fraldi A, Medina DL, Ballabio A. Signals from the lysosome: a control centre for cellular clearance and energy metabolism. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2013;14:283-296.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrm3565

  37. 37.

    Mossmann D, Park S, Hall MN. mTOR signalling and cellular metabolism are mutual determinants in cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2018;18:744-757.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41568-018-0074-8

  38. 38.

    Saxton RA, Sabatini DM. mTOR signaling in growth, metabolism, and disease. Cell. 2017;168:960-976.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2017.02.004

  39. 39.

    Lawrence RE, et al. A nutrient-induced affinity switch controls mTORC1 activation by its Rag GTPase-Ragulator lysosomal scaffold. Nat. Cell Biol. 2018;20:1052-1063.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41556-018-0148-6

  40. 40.

    Inoki K, Li Y, Xu T, Guan KL. Rheb GTPase is a direct target of TSC2 GAP activity and regulates mTOR signaling. Genes Dev. 2003;17:1829-1834.

    Not in our library10.1101/gad.1110003

  41. 41.

    Hoxhaj G, Manning BD. The PI3K-AKT network at the interface of oncogenic signalling and cancer metabolism. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2020;20:74-88.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41568-019-0216-7

  42. 42.

    Peña-Llopis S, et al. Regulation of TFEB and V-ATPases by mTORC1. Embo J. 2011;30:3242-3258.

    Not in our library10.1038/emboj.2011.257

  43. 43.

    Martina JA, Chen Y, Gucek M, Puertollano R. MTORC1 functions as a transcriptional regulator of autophagy by preventing nuclear transport of TFEB. Autophagy. 2012;8:903-914.

    Not in our library10.4161/auto.19653

  44. 44.

    Settembre C, et al. A lysosome-to-nucleus signalling mechanism senses and regulates the lysosome via mTOR and TFEB. Embo J. 2012;31:1095-1108.

    Not in our library10.1038/emboj.2012.32

  45. 45.

    Kim J, Kundu M, Viollet B, Guan KLAMPK. and mTOR regulate autophagy through direct phosphorylation of Ulk1. Nat. Cell Biol. 2011;13:132-141.

    Not in our library10.1038/ncb2152

  46. 46.

    Florey O, Overholtzer M. Macropinocytosis and autophagy crosstalk in nutrient scavenging. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2019;374:20180154.

    Not in our library10.1098/rstb.2018.0154

  47. 47.

    Palm W, et al. The utilization of extracellular proteins as nutrients is suppressed by mTORC1. Cell. 2015;162:259-270.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2015.06.017

  48. 48.

    González A, Hall MN, Lin SC, Hardie DG. AMPK and TOR: The Yin and Yang of cellular nutrient sensing and growth control. Cell Metab. 2020;31:472-492.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cmet.2020.01.015

  49. 49.

    Zhang CS, et al. Fructose-1,6-bisphosphate and aldolase mediate glucose sensing by AMPK. Nature. 2017;548:112-116.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature23275

  50. 50.

    Zhang CS, et al. The lysosomal v-ATPase-Ragulator complex is a common activator for AMPK and mTORC1, acting as a switch between catabolism and anabolism. Cell Metab. 2014;20:526-540.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cmet.2014.06.014

  51. 51.

    Van Nostrand JL, et al. AMPK regulation of Raptor and TSC2 mediate metformin effects on transcriptional control of anabolism and inflammation. Genes Dev. 2020;34:1330-1344.

    Not in our library10.1101/gad.339895.120

  52. 52.

    Rogala KB, et al. Structural basis for the docking of mTORC1 on the lysosomal surface. Science. 2019;366:468-475.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.aay0166

  53. 53.

    Nofal M, Zhang K, Han S, Rabinowitz JD. mTOR inhibition restores amino acid balance in cells dependent on catabolism of extracellular protein. Mol. Cell. 2017;67:936-46.e5.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.molcel.2017.08.011

  54. 54.

    Wang S, et al. Metabolism. Lysosomal amino acid transporter SLC38A9 signals arginine sufficiency to mTORC1. Science. 2015;347:188-194.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1257132

  55. 55.

    Wyant GA, et al. mTORC1 activator SLC38A9 is required to efflux essential amino acids from lysosomes and use protein as a nutrient. Cell. 2017;171:642-54.e12.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2017.09.046

  56. 56.

    Rebsamen M, et al. SLC38A9 is a component of the lysosomal amino acid sensing machinery that controls mTORC1. Nature. 2015;519:477-481.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature14107

  57. 57.

    Fujimaki K, et al. Graded regulation of cellular quiescence depth between proliferation and senescence by a lysosomal dimmer switch. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2019;116:22624-22634.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1915905116

  58. 58.
  59. 59.

    Kowanetz K, et al. Suppressors of T-cell receptor signaling Sts-1 and Sts-2 bind to Cbl and inhibit endocytosis of receptor tyrosine kinases. J. Biol. Chem. 2004;279:32786-32795.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m403759200

  60. 60.

    Fraser J, et al. Targeting of early endosomes by autophagy facilitates EGFR recycling and signalling. EMBO Rep. 2019;20:e47734.

    Not in our library10.15252/embr.201947734

  61. 61.

    Weber RA, et al. Maintaining iron homeostasis is the key role of lysosomal acidity for cell proliferation. Mol. Cell. 2020;77:645-55.e7.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.molcel.2020.01.003

  62. 62.

    Sarbassov DD, Guertin DA, Ali SM, Sabatini DM. Phosphorylation and regulation of Akt/PKB by the rictor-mTOR complex. Science. 2005;307:1098-1101.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1106148

  63. 63.

    Jia R, Bonifacino JS. Lysosome positioning influences mTORC2 and AKT signaling. Mol. Cell. 2019;75:26-38.e3.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.molcel.2019.05.009

  64. 64.

    Chi H. Regulation and function of mTOR signalling in T cell fate decisions. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2012;12:325-338.

    Not in our library10.1038/nri3198

  65. 65.

    Waickman AT, Powell JD. mTOR, metabolism, and the regulation of T-cell differentiation and function. Immunol. Rev. 2012;249:43-58.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1600-065x.2012.01152.x

  66. 66.

    Fernandez-Veledo S, Vazquez-Carballo A, Vila-Bedmar R, Ceperuelo-Mallafre V, Vendrell J. Role of energy- and nutrient-sensing kinases AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) in adipocyte differentiation. IUBMB Life. 2013;65:572-583.

    Not in our library10.1002/iub.1170

  67. 67.

    Sukhbaatar N, Hengstschlager M, Weichhart T. mTOR-mediated regulation of dendritic cell differentiation and function. Trends Immunol. 2016;37:778-789.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.it.2016.08.009

  68. 68.

    Zeng H, Chi H. mTOR signaling in the differentiation and function of regulatory and effector T cells. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 2017;46:103-111.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.coi.2017.04.005

  69. 69.

    Zhang M, et al. The MTOR signaling pathway regulates macrophage differentiation from mouse myeloid progenitors by inhibiting autophagy. Autophagy. 2019;15:1150-1162.

    Not in our library10.1080/15548627.2019.1578040

  70. 70.
  71. 71.

    Delgoffe GM, et al. The mTOR kinase differentially regulates effector and regulatory T cell lineage commitment. Immunity. 2009;30:832-844.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2009.04.014

  72. 72.

    Rao RR, Li Q, Odunsi K, Shrikant PA. The mTOR kinase determines effector versus memory CD8 + T cell fate by regulating the expression of transcription factors T-bet and Eomesodermin. Immunity. 2010;32:67-78.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2009.10.010

  73. 73.

    Volkl S, et al. Hyperactive mTOR pathway promotes lymphoproliferation and abnormal differentiation in autoimmune lymphoproliferative syndrome. Blood. 2016;128:227-238.

    Not in our library10.1182/blood-2015-11-685024

  74. 74.

    Schietinger A, Greenberg PD. Tolerance and exhaustion: defining mechanisms of T cell dysfunction. Trends Immunol. 2014;35:51-60.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.it.2013.10.001

  75. 75.

    Akbar AN, Henson SM. Are senescence and exhaustion intertwined or unrelated processes that compromise immunity? Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2011;11:289-295.

    Not in our library10.1038/nri2959

  76. 76.

    Jacquel A, et al. Autophagy is required for CSF-1-induced macrophagic differentiation and acquisition of phagocytic functions. Blood. 2012;119:4527-4531.

    Not in our library10.1182/blood-2011-11-392167

  77. 77.

    Obba S, et al. The PRKAA1/AMPKα1 pathway triggers autophagy during CSF1-induced human monocyte differentiation and is a potential target in CMML. Autophagy. 2015;11:1114-1129.

    Not in our library10.1080/15548627.2015.1034406

  78. 78.

    Germic N, Frangez Z, Yousefi S, Simon HU. Regulation of the innate immune system by autophagy: monocytes, macrophages, dendritic cells and antigen presentation. Cell Death Differ. 2019;26:715-727.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41418-019-0297-6

  79. 79.

    Axelrod ML, Cook RS, Johnson DB, Balko JM. Biological consequences of MHC-II expression by tumor cells in cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 2019;25:2392-2402.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-18-3200

  80. 80.

    Schmid D, Pypaert M, Münz C. Antigen-loading compartments for major histocompatibility complex class II molecules continuously receive input from autophagosomes. Immunity. 2007;26:79-92.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2006.10.018

  81. 81.

    Wenger T, et al. Autophagy inhibition promotes defective neosynthesized proteins storage in ALIS, and induces redirection toward proteasome processing and MHCI-restricted presentation. Autophagy. 2012;8:350-363.

    Not in our library10.4161/auto.18806

  82. 82.

    Marshall RS, Li F, Gemperline DC, Book AJ, Vierstra RD. Autophagic degradation of the 26 S proteasome is mediated by the dual ATG8/ubiquitin receptor RPN10 in arabidopsis. Mol. Cell. 2015;58:1053-1066.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.molcel.2015.04.023

  83. 83.

    Münz C. Autophagy proteins in antigen processing for presentation on MHC molecules. Immunol. Rev. 2016;272:17-27.

    Not in our library10.1111/imr.12422

  84. 84.

    Hipolito VEB, et al. Enhanced translation expands the endo-lysosome size and promotes antigen presentation during phagocyte activation. PLoS Biol. 2019;17:e3000535.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pbio.3000535

  85. 85.

    Saez JJ, et al. The exocyst controls lysosome secretion and antigen extraction at the immune synapse of B cells. J. Cell Biol. 2019;218:2247-2264.

    Not in our library10.1083/jcb.201811131

  86. 86.

    Ibanez-Vega J, Del Valle Batalla F, Saez JJ, Soza A, Yuseff MI. Proteasome dependent actin remodeling facilitates antigen extraction at the immune synapse of B Cells. Front. Immunol. 2019;10:225.

    Not in our library10.3389/fimmu.2019.00225

  87. 87.

    Wang H, et al. HIP1R targets PD-L1 to lysosomal degradation to alter T cell-mediated cytotoxicity. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2019;15:42-50.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41589-018-0161-x

  88. 88.

    Wang H, Han X, Xu J. Lysosome as the Black Hole for Checkpoint Molecules. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 2020;1248:325-346.

    Not in our library10.1007/978-981-15-3266-5_14

  89. 89.

    Feng M, et al. Phagocytosis checkpoints as new targets for cancer immunotherapy. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2019;19:568-586.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41568-019-0183-z

  90. 90.

    Rostamzadeh D, et al. mTOR signaling pathway as a master regulator of memory CD8(+) T-cells, Th17, and NK cells development and their functional properties. J. Cell Physiol. 2019;234:12353-12368.

    Not in our library10.1002/jcp.28042

  91. 91.

    Greten FR, Grivennikov SI. Inflammation and cancer: triggers, mechanisms, and consequences. Immunity. 2019;51:27-41.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2019.06.025

  92. 92.

    Sendler M, et al. Cathepsin B-Mediated Activation of Trypsinogen in Endocytosing Macrophages Increases Severity of Pancreatitis in Mice. Gastroenterology. 2018;154:704-718.e10.

    Not in our library10.1053/j.gastro.2017.10.018

  93. 93.

    Hou J, Karin M, Sun B. Targeting cancer-promoting inflammation-have anti-inflammatory therapies come of age? Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2021;18:261-279.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41571-020-00459-9

  94. 94.

    He Y, et al. Identification of a lysosomal pathway that modulates glucocorticoid signaling and the inflammatory response. Sci. Signal. 2011;4:ra44.

    Not in our library10.1126/scisignal.2001450

  95. 95.

    Ge W, Li D, Gao Y, Cao X. The roles of lysosomes in inflammation and autoimmune diseases. Int. Rev. Immunol. 2015;34:415-431.

    Not in our library10.3109/08830185.2014.936587

  96. 96.

    Shi CS, et al. Activation of autophagy by inflammatory signals limits IL-1β production by targeting ubiquitinated inflammasomes for destruction. Nat. Immunol. 2012;13:255-263.

    Not in our library10.1038/ni.2215

  97. 97.

    Amaravadi R, Kimmelman AC, White E. Recent insights into the function of autophagy in cancer. Genes Dev. 2016;30:1913-1930.

    Not in our library10.1101/gad.287524.116

  98. 98.

    Napoletano F, Baron O, Vandenabeele P, Mollereau B, Fanto M. Intersections between regulated cell death and autophagy. Trends Cell Biol. 2019;29:323-338.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.tcb.2018.12.007

  99. 99.

    Holland LKK, Nielsen IO, Maeda K, Jaattela M. SnapShot: lysosomal functions. Cell. 2020;181:748-e1.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2020.03.043

  100. 100.

    Kroemer G, Jaattela M. Lysosomes and autophagy in cell death control. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2005;5:886-897.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrc1738

  101. 101.

    Carneiro BA, El-Deiry WS. Targeting apoptosis in cancer therapy. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2020;17:395-417.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41571-020-0341-y

  102. 102.

    Galluzzi L, et al. Molecular mechanisms of cell death: recommendations of the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death 2018. Cell Death Differ. 2018;25:486-541.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41418-017-0012-4

  103. 103.

    Zhou B, et al. Ferroptosis is a type of autophagy-dependent cell death. Semin Cancer Biol. 2020;66:89-100.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.semcancer.2019.03.002

  104. 104.

    Hou W, et al. Autophagy promotes ferroptosis by degradation of ferritin. Autophagy. 2016;12:1425-1428.

    Not in our library10.1080/15548627.2016.1187366

  105. 105.

    Bai Y, et al. Lipid storage and lipophagy regulates ferroptosis. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2019;508:997-1003.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.bbrc.2018.12.039

  106. 106.

    Raivio KO, Seegmiller JE. Genetic diseases of metabolism. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 1972;41:543-576.

    Not in our library10.1146/annurev.bi.41.070172.002551

  107. 107.

    Lieberman AP, et al. Autophagy in lysosomal storage disorders. Autophagy. 2012;8:719-730.

    Not in our library10.4161/auto.19469

  108. 108.

    Platt FM. Emptying the stores: lysosomal diseases and therapeutic strategies. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2018;17:133-150.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrd.2017.214

  109. 109.

    Myerowitz R, Puertollano R, Raben N. Impaired autophagy: The collateral damage of lysosomal storage disorders. Ebiomedicine. 2021;63:103166.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.103166

  110. 110.

    Di Malta C, et al. Transcriptional activation of RagD GTPase controls mTORC1 and promotes cancer growth. Science. 2017;356:1188-1192.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.aag2553

  111. 111.

    Perera RM, et al. Transcriptional control of autophagy-lysosome function drives pancreatic cancer metabolism. Nature. 2015;524:361-365.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature14587

  112. 112.

    Ballesteros-Álvarez J, et al. MITF and TFEB cross-regulation in melanoma cells. PLoS ONE. 2020;15:e0238546.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0238546

  113. 113.

    Li Y, et al. TFEB is a master regulator of tumor-associated macrophages in breast cancer. J. Immunother. Cancer. 2020;8:e000543.

    Not in our library10.1136/jitc-2020-000543

  114. 114.

    Hamm-Alvarez SF, et al. Tear cathepsin S as a candidate biomarker for Sjögren’s syndrome. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2014;66:1872-1881.

    Not in our library10.1002/art.38633

  115. 115.

    Rupanagudi KV, et al. Cathepsin S inhibition suppresses systemic lupus erythematosus and lupus nephritis because cathepsin S is essential for MHC class II-mediated CD4 T cell and B cell priming. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2015;74:452-463.

    Not in our library10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-203717

  116. 116.

    Bernard NJ. Connective tissue diseases. Inhibiting cathepsin S to treat SLE and lupus nephritis. Nat. Rev. Rheumatol. 2014;10:66.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrrheum.2013.207

  117. 117.

    Klinngam W, et al. Inhibition of cathepsin S reduces lacrimal gland inflammation and increases tear flow in a mouse model of sjögren’s syndrome. Sci. Rep. 2019;9:9559.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41598-019-45966-7

  118. 118.

    Edman MC, et al. Increased Cathepsin S activity associated with decreased protease inhibitory capacity contributes to altered tear proteins in Sjögren’s Syndrome patients. Sci. Rep. 2018;8:11044.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41598-018-29411-9

  119. 119.

    Meng Z, et al. Imbalanced Rab3D versus Rab27 increases cathepsin S secretion from lacrimal acini in a mouse model of Sjögren’s Syndrome. Am. J. Physiol. Cell Physiol. 2016;310:C942-C954.

    Not in our library10.1152/ajpcell.00275.2015

  120. 120.

    Lee JH, et al. Lysosomal proteolysis and autophagy require presenilin 1 and are disrupted by Alzheimer-related PS1 mutations. Cell. 2010;141:1146-1158.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2010.05.008

  121. 121.

    Korvatska O, et al. Altered splicing of ATP6AP2 causes X-linked parkinsonism with spasticity (XPDS). Hum. Mol. Genet. 2013;22:3259-3268.

    Not in our library10.1093/hmg/ddt180

  122. 122.

    Tsunemi T, Krainc D. Zn2+ dyshomeostasis caused by loss of ATP13A2/PARK9 leads to lysosomal dysfunction and alpha-synuclein accumulation. Hum. Mol. Genet. 2014;23:2791-2801.

    Not in our library10.1093/hmg/ddt572

  123. 123.

    Gustafsson AB, Gottlieb RA. Autophagy in ischemic heart disease. Circ. Res. 2009;104:150-158.

    Not in our library10.1161/circresaha.108.187427

  124. 124.

    Ma X, et al. Impaired autophagosome clearance contributes to cardiomyocyte death in ischemia/reperfusion injury. Circulation. 2012;125:3170-3181.

    Not in our library10.1161/circulationaha.111.041814

  125. 125.

    Michiels CF, Fransen P, De Munck DG, De Meyer GR, Martinet W. Defective autophagy in vascular smooth muscle cells alters contractility and Ca2+ homeostasis in mice. Am. J. Physiol. Heart Circulatory Physiol. 2015;308:H557-H567.

    Not in our library10.1152/ajpheart.00659.2014

  126. 126.

    Osonoi Y, et al. Defective autophagy in vascular smooth muscle cells enhances cell death and atherosclerosis. Autophagy. 2018;14:1991-2006.

    Not in our library10.1080/15548627.2018.1501132

  127. 127.
  128. 128.

    Kubli DA, et al. Parkin protein deficiency exacerbates cardiac injury and reduces survival following myocardial infarction. J. Biol. Chem. 2013;288:915-926.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m112.411363

  129. 129.

    Gottlieb RA, Mentzer RM. Autophagy: an affair of the heart. Heart Fail Rev. 2013;18:575-584.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10741-012-9367-2

  130. 130.

    Cardoso CM, et al. Depletion of kinesin 5B affects lysosomal distribution and stability and induces peri-nuclear accumulation of autophagosomes in cancer cells. PLoS ONE. 2009;4:e4424.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0004424

  131. 131.

    Li TF, et al. Overexpression of kinesin superfamily members as prognostic biomarkers of breast cancer. Cancer Cell Int. 2020;20:123.

    Not in our library10.1186/s12935-020-01191-1

  132. 132.

    Olson OC, Joyce JA. Cysteine cathepsin proteases: regulators of cancer progression and therapeutic response. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2015;15:712-729.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrc4027

  133. 133.

    Finicle BT, Jayashankar V, Edinger AL. Nutrient scavenging in cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2018;18:619-633.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41568-018-0048-x

  134. 134.

    Chen DS, Mellman I. Elements of cancer immunity and the cancer-immune set point. Nature. 2017;541:321-330.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature21349

  135. 135.

    Yamamoto K, et al. Autophagy promotes immune evasion of pancreatic cancer by degrading MHC-I. Nature. 2020;581:100-105.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41586-020-2229-5

  136. 136.

    Yamamoto K, Venida A, Perera RM, Kimmelman AC. Selective autophagy of MHC-I promotes immune evasion of pancreatic cancer. Autophagy. 2020;16:1524-1525.

    Not in our library10.1080/15548627.2020.1769973

  137. 137.

    Bernard D, et al. Select microtubule inhibitors increase lysosome acidity and promote lysosomal disruption in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) cells. Apoptosis. 2015;20:948-959.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10495-015-1123-3

  138. 138.

    Cheng L, et al. POS0458 IDENTIFICATION OF HUB GENES AND MOLECULAR PATHWAYS IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS BY BIOINFORMATICS ANALYSIS. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2021;80:460.

    Not in our library

  139. 139.

    Weitoft T, et al. Cathepsin S and cathepsin L in serum and synovial fluid in rheumatoid arthritis with and without autoantibodies. Rheumatol. (Oxf., Engl.). 2015;54:1923-1928.

    Not in our library10.1093/rheumatology/keu486

  140. 140.

    Hashimoto Y, et al. Significance of cathepsin B accumulation in synovial fluid of rheumatoid arthritis. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2001;283:334-339.

    Not in our library10.1006/bbrc.2001.4787

  141. 141.
  142. 142.

    Li B, Yue Y, Dong C, Shi Y, Xiong S. Blockade of macrophage autophagy ameliorates activated lymphocytes-derived DNA induced murine lupus possibly via inhibition of proinflammatory cytokine production. Clin. Exp. Rheumatol. 2014;32:705-714.

    Not in our library

  143. 143.

    Shin YJ, et al. Autophagy induction and CHOP under-expression promotes survival of fibroblasts from rheumatoid arthritis patients under endoplasmic reticulum stress. Arthritis Res. Ther. 2010;12:R19.

    Not in our library10.1186/ar2921

  144. 144.

    Xu K, et al. Autophagy induction contributes to the resistance to methotrexate treatment in rheumatoid arthritis fibroblast-like synovial cells through high mobility group box chromosomal protein 1. Arthritis Res. Ther. 2015;17:374.

    Not in our library10.1186/s13075-015-0892-y

  145. 145.

    An Q, Yan W, Zhao Y, Yu K. Enhanced neutrophil autophagy and increased concentrations of IL-6, IL-8, IL-10 and MCP-1 in rheumatoid arthritis. Int. Immunopharmacol. 2018;65:119-128.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.intimp.2018.09.011

  146. 146.

    Alessandri C, et al. CD4 T lymphocyte autophagy is upregulated in the salivary glands of primary Sjögren’s syndrome patients and correlates with focus score and disease activity. Arthritis Res. Ther. 2017;19:178.

    Not in our library10.1186/s13075-017-1385-y

  147. 147.

    Colafrancesco S, et al. SAT0004 EVALUATION OF AUTOPHAGY IN INFILTRATING AND CIRCULATINGLYMPHOCYTES FROM PATIENTS WITH SJOGREN’S SYNDROME. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2019;78:1066-1067.

    Not in our library

  148. 148.

    Wilhelm M, et al. Implication of a lysosomal antigen in the pathogenesis of lupus erythematosus. J. Autoimmun. 2021;120:102633.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jaut.2021.102633

  149. 149.

    Lin NY, et al. Autophagy regulates TNFα-mediated joint destruction in experimental arthritis. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2013;72:761-768.

    Not in our library10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-201671

  150. 150.
  151. 151.

    van Loosdregt J, et al. Increased autophagy in CD4(+) T cells of rheumatoid arthritis patients results in T-cell hyperactivation and apoptosis resistance. Eur. J. Immunol. 2016;46:2862-2870.

    Not in our library10.1002/eji.201646375

  152. 152.

    Yang Z, Fujii H, Mohan SV, Goronzy JJ, Weyand CM. Phosphofructokinase deficiency impairs ATP generation, autophagy, and redox balance in rheumatoid arthritis T cells. J. Exp. Med. 2013;210:2119-2134.

    Not in our library10.1084/jem.20130252

  153. 153.

    Gros F, Muller S. Pharmacological regulators of autophagy and their link with modulators of lupus disease. Br. J. Pharm. 2014;171:4337-4359.

    Not in our library10.1111/bph.12792

  154. 154.

    Harris VM, et al. Characterization of cxorf21 provides molecular insight into female-bias immune response in SLE pathogenesis. Front. Immunol. 2019;10:2160.

    Not in our library10.3389/fimmu.2019.02160

  155. 155.

    Monteith AJ, et al. Defects in lysosomal maturation facilitate the activation of innate sensors in systemic lupus erythematosus. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2016;113:E2142-E2151.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1513943113

  156. 156.
  157. 157.

    Hansson O. Biomarkers for neurodegenerative diseases. Nat. Med. 2021;27:954-963.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41591-021-01382-x

  158. 158.

    Bloom GS. Amyloid-β and tau: the trigger and bullet in Alzheimer disease pathogenesis. Jama Neurol. 2014;71:505-508.

    Not in our library10.1001/jamaneurol.2013.5847

  159. 159.

    Rui YN, et al. Huntingtin functions as a scaffold for selective macroautophagy. Nat. Cell Biol. 2015;17:262-275.

    Not in our library10.1038/ncb3101

  160. 160.
  161. 161.

    del Toro D, et al. Mutant huntingtin impairs post-Golgi trafficking to lysosomes by delocalizing optineurin/Rab8 complex from the Golgi apparatus. Mol. Biol. Cell. 2009;20:1478-1492.

    Not in our library10.1091/mbc.e08-07-0726

  162. 162.

    Mazzulli JR, Zunke F, Isacson O, Studer L, Krainc D. α-Synuclein-induced lysosomal dysfunction occurs through disruptions in protein trafficking in human midbrain synucleinopathy models. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2016;113:1931-1936.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1520335113

  163. 163.

    Colacurcio DJ, Nixon RA. Disorders of lysosomal acidification-the emerging role of v-ATPase in aging and neurodegenerative disease. Ageing Res. Rev. 2016;32:75-88.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.arr.2016.05.004

  164. 164.
  165. 165.

    Xiao Q, et al. Neuronal-Targeted TFEB Accelerates Lysosomal Degradation of APP, Reducing Aβ Generation and Amyloid Plaque Pathogenesis. J. Neurosci. 2015;35:12137-12151.

    Not in our library10.1523/jneurosci.0705-15.2015

  166. 166.

    Xiao Q, et al. Enhancing astrocytic lysosome biogenesis facilitates Aβ clearance and attenuates amyloid plaque pathogenesis. J. Neurosci. 2014;34:9607-9620.

    Not in our library10.1523/jneurosci.3788-13.2014

  167. 167.

    Decressac M, et al. TFEB-mediated autophagy rescues midbrain dopamine neurons from α-synuclein toxicity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2013;110:E1817-E1826.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1305623110

  168. 168.
  169. 169.

    Tsunemi T, et al. PGC-1α rescues Huntington’s disease proteotoxicity by preventing oxidative stress and promoting TFEB function. Sci. Transl. Med. 2012;4:142ra97.

    Not in our library10.1126/scitranslmed.3003799

  170. 170.

    Napolitano G, Ballabio A. TFEB at a glance. J. Cell Sci. 2016;129:2475-2481.

    Not in our library10.1242/jcs.146365

  171. 171.

    Koga H, Martinez-Vicente M, Macian F, Verkhusha VV, Cuervo AM. A photoconvertible fluorescent reporter to track chaperone-mediated autophagy. Nat. Commun. 2011;2:386.

    Not in our library10.1038/ncomms1393

  172. 172.
  173. 173.
  174. 174.

    Cuervo AM, Stefanis L, Fredenburg R, Lansbury PT, Sulzer D. Impaired degradation of mutant alpha-synuclein by chaperone-mediated autophagy. Science. 2004;305:1292-1295.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1101738

  175. 175.

    Hook V, et al. Cathepsin B in neurodegeneration of Alzheimer’s disease, traumatic brain injury, and related brain disorders. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Proteins Proteom. 2020;1868:140428.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.bbapap.2020.140428

  176. 176.

    Qin ZH, et al. Autophagy regulates the processing of amino terminal huntingtin fragments. Hum. Mol. Genet. 2003;12:3231-3244.

    Not in our library10.1093/hmg/ddg346

  177. 177.

    Siman R, et al. Processing of the beta-amyloid precursor. Multiple proteases generate and degrade potentially amyloidogenic fragments. J. Biol. Chem. 1993;268:16602-16609.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0021-9258(19)85462-5

  178. 178.

    Bi X, et al. Novel cathepsin D inhibitors block the formation of hyperphosphorylated tau fragments in hippocampus. J. Neurochem. 2000;74:1469-1477.

    Not in our library10.1046/j.1471-4159.2000.0741469.x

  179. 179.

    Sun Y, et al. Translational study of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) biomarkers from brain tissues in AβPP/PS1 mice and serum of AD patients. J. Alzheimers Dis. 2015;45:269-282.

    Not in our library10.3233/jad-142805

  180. 180.

    Mialet-Perez J, Vindis C. Autophagy in health and disease: focus on the cardiovascular system. Essays Biochem. 2017;61:721-732.

    Not in our library10.1042/ebc20170022

  181. 181.

    Ma X, Godar RJ, Liu H, Diwan A. Enhancing lysosome biogenesis attenuates BNIP3-induced cardiomyocyte death. Autophagy. 2012;8:297-309.

    Not in our library10.4161/auto.18658

  182. 182.

    Wu P, et al. Myocardial upregulation of cathepsin D by ischemic heart disease promotes autophagic flux and protects against cardiac remodeling and heart failure. Circ. Heart Fail. 2017;10:e004044.

    Not in our library10.1161/circheartfailure.117.004044

  183. 183.

    Endo Y, Furuta A, Nishino I. Danon disease: a phenotypic expression of LAMP-2 deficiency. Acta Neuropathol. 2015;129:391-398.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00401-015-1385-4

  184. 184.

    Ferdinandy P, et al. Definition of hidden drug cardiotoxicity: paradigm change in cardiac safety testing and its clinical implications. Eur Heart J. 2019;40:1771-1777.

    Not in our library10.1093/eurheartj/ehy365

  185. 185.

    Li DL, et al. Doxorubicin blocks cardiomyocyte autophagic flux by inhibiting lysosome acidification. Circulation. 2016;133:1668-1687.

    Not in our library10.1161/circulationaha.115.017443

  186. 186.

    Pizarro M, et al. Basal autophagy protects cardiomyocytes from doxorubicin-induced toxicity. Toxicology. 2016;370:41-48.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.tox.2016.09.011

  187. 187.

    Bartlett JJ, Trivedi PC, Yeung P, Kienesberger PC, Pulinilkunnil T. Doxorubicin impairs cardiomyocyte viability by suppressing transcription factor EB expression and disrupting autophagy. Biochem. J. 2016;473:3769-3789.

    Not in our library10.1042/bcj20160385

  188. 188.

    Liu B, et al. STAT3 associates with vacuolar H(+)-ATPase and regulates cytosolic and lysosomal pH. Cell Res. 2018;28:996-1012.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41422-018-0080-0

  189. 189.

    Perez-Sayans M, Somoza-Martin JM, Barros-Angueira F, Rey JM, Garcia-Garcia A. V-ATPase inhibitors and implication in cancer treatment. Cancer Treat. Rev. 2009;35:707-713.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ctrv.2009.08.003

  190. 190.

    Santos-Pereira C, Rodrigues LR, Côrte-Real M. Emerging insights on the role of V-ATPase in human diseases: Therapeutic challenges and opportunities. Med. Res. Rev. 2021;41:1927-1964.

    Not in our library10.1002/med.21782

  191. 191.

    Wiedmann RM, et al. The V-ATPase-inhibitor archazolid abrogates tumor metastasis via inhibition of endocytic activation of the Rho-GTPase Rac1. Cancer Res. 2012;72:5976-5987.

    Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-12-1772

  192. 192.

    Dixon N, et al. Interaction of spin-labeled inhibitors of the vacuolar H + -ATPase with the transmembrane Vo-sector. Biophys. J. 2008;94:506-514.

    Not in our library10.1529/biophysj.107.111781

  193. 193.
  194. 194.

    Mauvezin C, Neufeld TP. Bafilomycin A1 disrupts autophagic flux by inhibiting both V-ATPase-dependent acidification and Ca-P60A/SERCA-dependent autophagosome-lysosome fusion. Autophagy. 2015;11:1437-1438.

    Not in our library10.1080/15548627.2015.1066957

  195. 195.

    Xie XS, et al. Salicylihalamide A inhibits the V0 sector of the V-ATPase through a mechanism distinct from bafilomycin A1. J. Biol. Chem. 2004;279:19755-19763.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m313796200

  196. 196.

    Peng W, et al. A distinct inhibitory mechanism of the V-ATPase by Vibrio VopQ revealed by cryo-EM. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2020;27:589-597.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41594-020-0429-1

  197. 197.

    Amaravadi RK, Winkler JD. Lys05: a new lysosomal autophagy inhibitor. Autophagy. 2012;8:1383-1384.

    Not in our library10.4161/auto.20958

  198. 198.

    Salata C, Calistri A, Parolin C, Baritussio A, Palù G. Antiviral activity of cationic amphiphilic drugs. Expert Rev. Anti Infect. Ther. 2017;15:483-492.

    Not in our library10.1080/14787210.2017.1305888

  199. 199.

    Mauthe M, et al. Chloroquine inhibits autophagic flux by decreasing autophagosome-lysosome fusion. Autophagy. 2018;14:1435-1455.

    Not in our library10.1080/15548627.2018.1474314

  200. 200.

    Pascolo S. Time to use a dose of Chloroquine as an adjuvant to anti-cancer chemotherapies. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 2016;771:139-144.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ejphar.2015.12.017

  201. 201.

    Marmor MF, Kellner U, Lai TY, Melles RB, Mieler WF. Recommendations on screening for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine retinopathy (2016 Revision). Ophthalmology. 2016;123:1386-1394.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.01.058

  202. 202.

    Goodall ML, et al. Development of potent autophagy inhibitors that sensitize oncogenic BRAF V600E mutant melanoma tumor cells to vemurafenib. Autophagy. 2014;10:1120-1136.

    Not in our library10.4161/auto.28594

  203. 203.

    Rebecca VW, et al. A unified approach to targeting the lysosome’s degradative and growth signaling roles. Cancer Discov. 2017;7:1266-1283.

    Not in our library10.1158/2159-8290.cd-17-0741

  204. 204.

    Rebecca VW, et al. PPT1 promotes tumor growth and is the molecular target of chloroquine derivatives in cancer. Cancer Discov. 2019;9:220-229.

    Not in our library10.1158/2159-8290.cd-18-0706

  205. 205.

    Atiskova Y, et al. Mice deficient in the lysosomal enzyme palmitoyl-protein thioesterase 1 (PPT1) display a complex retinal phenotype. Sci. Rep. 2019;9:14185.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41598-019-50726-8

  206. 206.

    Bourdenx M, et al. Nanoparticles restore lysosomal acidification defects: Implications for Parkinson and other lysosomal-related diseases. Autophagy. 2016;12:472-483.

    Not in our library10.1080/15548627.2015.1136769

  207. 207.

    Khaket TP, Kwon TK, Kang SC. Cathepsins: potent regulators in carcinogenesis. Pharmacol. Therapeut. 2019;198:1-19.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.pharmthera.2019.02.003

  208. 208.

    Hadad EH, et al. Prognostic role and therapeutic susceptibility of cathepsin in various types of solid tumor and leukemia: a systematic review. J. Cell Physiol. 2020;235:7709-7730.

    Not in our library10.1002/jcp.29710

  209. 209.

    Breznik B, Mitrović A, T Lah T, Kos J. Cystatins in cancer progression: More than just cathepsin inhibitors. Biochimie. 2019;166:233-250.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biochi.2019.05.002

  210. 210.

    Stoka V, Turk V, Turk B. Lysosomal cathepsins and their regulation in aging and neurodegeneration. Ageing Res. Rev. 2016;32:22-37.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.arr.2016.04.010

  211. 211.

    Patel S, Homaei A, El-Seedi HR, Akhtar N. Cathepsins: Proteases that are vital for survival but can also be fatal. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2018;105:526-532.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biopha.2018.05.148

  212. 212.
  213. 213.

    Sudhan DR, Siemann DW. Cathepsin L targeting in cancer treatment. Pharmacol. Therapeut. 2015;155:105-116.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.pharmthera.2015.08.007

  214. 214.

    Patel S, Homaei A, El-Seedi HR, Akhtar N. Cathepsins: Proteases that are vital for survival but can also be fatal. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2018;105:526-532.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biopha.2018.05.148

  215. 215.
  216. 216.

    McClung MR, et al. Odanacatib for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis: results of the LOFT multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial and LOFT Extension study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019;7:899-911.

    Not in our library10.1016/s2213-8587(19)30346-8

  217. 217.

    Lopez T, et al. Functional selection of protease inhibitory antibodies. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2019;116:16314-16319.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1903330116

  218. 218.

    Tripathi R, et al. Abl and Arg mediate cysteine cathepsin secretion to facilitate melanoma invasion and metastasis. Sci. Signal. 2018;11:eaao0422.

    Not in our library10.1126/scisignal.aao0422

  219. 219.

    Pike LS, et al. Imaging gene delivery in a mouse model of congenital neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis. Gene Ther. 2011;18:1173-1178.

    Not in our library10.1038/gt.2011.118

  220. 220.

    Marques ARA, et al. Enzyme replacement therapy with recombinant pro-CTSD (cathepsin D) corrects defective proteolysis and autophagy in neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis. Autophagy. 2020;16:811-825.

    Not in our library10.1080/15548627.2019.1637200

  221. 221.

    Kravic B, Behrends C, Meyer H. Regulation of lysosome integrity and lysophagy by the ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme UBE2QL1. Autophagy. 2020;16:179-180.

    Not in our library10.1080/15548627.2019.1687217

  222. 222.

    Gabandé-Rodríguez, E. et al. Lipid-induced lysosomal damage after demyelination corrupts microglia protective function in lysosomal storage disorders. Embo J. 38, (2019).

    Not in our library10.15252/embj.201899553

  223. 223.

    Cash TP, et al. Induction of lysosome membrane permeabilization as a therapeutic strategy to target pancreatic cancer stem cells. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12:1790.

    Not in our library10.3390/cancers12071790

  224. 224.

    Krenn MA, et al. Ferritin-stimulated lipid peroxidation, lysosomal leak, and macroautophagy promote lysosomal “metastability” in primary hepatocytes determining in vitro cell survival. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 2015;80:48-58.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2014.12.007

  225. 225.

    Huang T, et al. Growth inhibition of a novel iron chelator, DpdtC, against hepatoma carcinoma cell lines partly attributed to ferritinophagy-mediated lysosomal ROS generation. Oxid. Med. Cell Longev. 2018;2018:4928703.

    Not in our library10.1155/2018/4928703

  226. 226.

    Martins WK, et al. Parallel damage in mitochondria and lysosomes is an efficient way to photoinduce cell death. Autophagy. 2019;15:259-279.

    Not in our library10.1080/15548627.2018.1515609

  227. 227.

    Mai TT, et al. Salinomycin kills cancer stem cells by sequestering iron in lysosomes. Nat Chem. 2017;9:1025-1033.

    Not in our library10.1038/nchem.2778

  228. 228.

    Sun X, et al. Targeting autophagy enhances the anticancer effect of artemisinin and its derivatives. Med. Res. Rev. 2019;39:2172-2193.

    Not in our library10.1002/med.21580

  229. 229.

    Huang L, et al. An artemisinin-mediated ROS evolving and dual protease light-up nanocapsule for real-time imaging of lysosomal tumor cell death. BIosens Bioelectron. 2017;92:724-732.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.bios.2016.10.004

  230. 230.

    Oliveira CAF, Ivanova L, Solhaug A, Fæste CK. Enniatin B-induced lysosomal membrane permeabilization in mouse embryonic fibroblasts. Mycotoxin. Res. 2020;36:23-30.

    Not in our library10.1007/s12550-019-00366-8

  231. 231.

    Balogi Z, et al. Hsp70 interactions with membrane lipids regulate cellular functions in health and disease. Prog Lipid Res. 2019;74:18-30.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.plipres.2019.01.004

  232. 232.

    Nylandsted J, et al. Heat shock protein 70 promotes cell survival by inhibiting lysosomal membrane permeabilization. J. Exp. Med. 2004;200:425-435.

    Not in our library10.1084/jem.20040531

  233. 233.

    Mitrofan LM, Castells FB, Pelkonen J, Mönkkönen J. Lysosomal-mitochondrial axis in zoledronic acid-induced apoptosis in human follicular lymphoma cells. J. Biol. Chem. 2010;285:1967-1979.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m109.038935

  234. 234.

    Li L, et al. Riccardin D-N induces lysosomal membrane permeabilization by inhibiting acid sphingomyelinase and interfering with sphingomyelin metabolism in vivo. Toxicol. Appl. Pharm. 2016;310:175-184.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.taap.2016.09.014

  235. 235.

    Petersen NHT, et al. Transformation-associated changes in sphingolipid metabolism sensitize cells to lysosomal cell death induced by inhibitors of acid sphingomyelinase. Cancer Cell. 2013;24:379-393.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ccr.2013.08.003

  236. 236.

    Domagala A, et al. Typical and atypical inducers of lysosomal cell death: a promising anticancer strategy. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018;19:2256.

    Not in our library10.3390/ijms19082256

  237. 237.

    Kornhuber J, et al. Lipophilic cationic drugs increase the permeability of lysosomal membranes in a cell culture system. J. CELL PHYSIOL. 2010;224:152-164.

    Not in our library10.1002/jcp.22112

  238. 238.

    Fucho R, et al. ASMase regulates autophagy and lysosomal membrane permeabilization and its inhibition prevents early stage non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. J. Hepatol. 2014;61:1126-1134.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jhep.2014.06.009

  239. 239.

    Canals D, Perry DM, Jenkins RW, Hannun YA. Drug targeting of sphingolipid metabolism: sphingomyelinases and ceramidases. Brit. J. Pharmacol. 2011;163:694-712.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1476-5381.2011.01279.x

  240. 240.

    Elmallah MIY, et al. Membrane-anchored heat-shock protein 70 (Hsp70) in cancer. Cancer Lett. 2020;469:134-141.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.canlet.2019.10.037

  241. 241.

    Granato M, et al. HSP70 inhibition by 2-phenylethynesulfonamide induces lysosomal cathepsin D release and immunogenic cell death in primary effusion lymphoma. Cell Death Dis. 2013;4:e730.

    Not in our library10.1038/cddis.2013.263

  242. 242.

    Dudeja V, et al. Heat shock protein 70 inhibits apoptosis in cancer cells through simultaneous and independent mechanisms. Gastroenterology. 2009;136:1772-1782.

    Not in our library10.1053/j.gastro.2009.01.070

  243. 243.

    Tanimura S, et al. Anticancer drugs up-regulate HspBP1 and thereby antagonize the prosurvival function of Hsp70 in tumor cells. J. Biol. Chem. 2007;282:35430-35439.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m707547200

  244. 244.

    Radulovic M, et al. ESCRT-mediated lysosome repair precedes lysophagy and promotes cell survival. Embo J. 2018;37:e99753.

    Not in our library10.15252/embj.201899753

  245. 245.

    Papadopoulos C, Kravic B, Meyer H. Repair or lysophagy: dealing with damaged lysosomes. J. Mol. Biol. 2020;432:231-239.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jmb.2019.08.010

  246. 246.

    Klionsky DJ, et al. Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)(1). Autophagy. 2021;17:1-382.

    Not in our library10.1080/15548627.2020.1797280

  247. 247.

    Repnik U, et al. L-leucyl-L-leucine methyl ester does not release cysteine cathepsins to the cytosol but inactivates them in transiently permeabilized lysosomes. J. Cell Sci. 2017;130:3124-3140.

    Not in our library10.1242/jcs.204529

  248. 248.

    Vietri M, Radulovic M, Stenmark H. The many functions of ESCRTs. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2020;21:25-42.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41580-019-0177-4

  249. 249.

    Skowyra ML, Schlesinger PH, Naismith TV, Hanson PI. Triggered recruitment of ESCRT machinery promotes endolysosomal repair. Science. 2018;360:eaar5078.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.aar5078

  250. 250.

    Thurston TL, Wandel MP, von Muhlinen N, Foeglein A, Randow F. Galectin 8 targets damaged vesicles for autophagy to defend cells against bacterial invasion. Nature. 2012;482:414-418.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature10744

  251. 251.

    Fiskin E, Bionda T, Dikic I, Behrends C. Global analysis of host and bacterial ubiquitinome in response to Salmonella typhimurium infection. Mol. Cell. 2016;62:967-981.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.molcel.2016.04.015

  252. 252.

    Mizushima N. The ubiquitin E2 enzyme UBE2QL1 mediates lysophagy. EMBO Rep. 2019;20:e49104.

    Not in our library10.15252/embr.201949104

  253. 253.
  254. 254.

    Gupta S, et al. Lysosomal retargeting of Myoferlin mitigates membrane stress to enable pancreatic cancer growth. Nat. Cell Biol. 2021;23:232-242.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41556-021-00644-7

  255. 255.

    Corona AK, Jackson WT. Finding the middle ground for autophagic fusion requirements. Trends Cell Biol. 2018;28:869-881.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.tcb.2018.07.001

  256. 256.

    Liu X, et al. The role of lysosomes in BDE 47-mediated activation of mitochondrial apoptotic pathway in HepG2 cells. Chemosphere. 2015;124:10-21.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.10.054

  257. 257.

    Chen Q, et al. Potassium bisperoxo(1,10-phenanthroline)oxovanadate (bpV(phen)) induces apoptosis and pyroptosis and disrupts the P62-HDAC6 protein interaction to suppress the acetylated microtubule-dependent degradation of autophagosomes. J. Biol. Chem. 2015;290:26051-26058.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m115.653568

  258. 258.

    Rusmini P, et al. Trehalose induces autophagy via lysosomal-mediated TFEB activation in models of motoneuron degeneration. Autophagy. 2019;15:631-651.

    Not in our library10.1080/15548627.2018.1535292

  259. 259.

    Liu L, et al. Lysosomal dysfunction and autophagy blockade contribute to IMB-6G-induced apoptosis in pancreatic cancer cells. Sci. Rep.-UK. 2017;7:41862.

    Not in our library10.1038/srep41862

  260. 260.

    Rosato AS, Tang R, Grimm C. Two-pore and TRPML cation channels: regulators of phagocytosis, autophagy and lysosomal exocytosis. Pharm. Ther. 2021;220:107713.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.pharmthera.2020.107713

  261. 261.

    Lloyd-Evans E, Waller-Evans H. Lysosomal Ca(2+) homeostasis and signaling in health and disease. Cold Spring Harbor. Perspect. Biol. 2020;12:a035311.

    Not in our library10.1101/cshperspect.a035311

  262. 262.

    Wu Y., Huang P. & Dong X. P. Lysosomal Calcium Channels in Autophagy and Cancer. Cancers (Basel). 13, (2021).

    Not in our library10.3390/cancers13061299

  263. 263.

    Schöndorf DC, et al. iPSC-derived neurons from GBA1-associated Parkinson’s disease patients show autophagic defects and impaired calcium homeostasis. Nat. Commun. 2014;5:4028.

    Not in our library10.1038/ncomms5028

  264. 264.

    Gómez-Suaga P, Hilfiker S. LRRK2 as a modulator of lysosomal calcium homeostasis with downstream effects on autophagy. Autophagy. 2012;8:692-693.

    Not in our library10.4161/auto.19305

  265. 265.

    Li P, Gu M, Xu H. Lysosomal ion channels as decoders of cellular signals. Trends Biochem. Sci. 2019;44:110-124.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.tibs.2018.10.006

  266. 266.

    Nguyen ON, et al. Two-pore channel function is crucial for the migration of invasive cancer cells. Cancer Res. 2017;77:1427-1438.

    Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-16-0852

  267. 267.

    Boudewyn LC, Walkley SU. Current concepts in the neuropathogenesis of mucolipidosis type IV. J. Neurochem. 2019;148:669-689.

    Not in our library10.1111/jnc.14462

  268. 268.

    Santoni G, Santoni M, Maggi F, Marinelli O, Morelli MB. Emerging role of mucolipins TRPML channels in cancer. Front. Oncol. 2020;10:659.

    Not in our library10.3389/fonc.2020.00659

  269. 269.

    Cheng X, Shen D, Samie M, Xu H. Mucolipins: intracellular TRPML1-3 channels. Febs Lett. 2010;584:2013-2021.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.febslet.2009.12.056

  270. 270.

    Reddy A, Caler EV, Andrews NW. Plasma membrane repair is mediated by Ca(2+)-regulated exocytosis of lysosomes. Cell. 2001;106:157-169.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0092-8674(01)00421-4

  271. 271.

    Morelli MB, et al. Transient receptor potential mucolipin-1 channels in glioblastoma: role in patient’s survival. Cancers (Basel). 2019;11:525.

    Not in our library10.3390/cancers11040525

  272. 272.

    Plesch, E. et al. Selective agonist of TRPML2 reveals direct role in chemokine release from innate immune cells. Elife7, (2018).

    Not in our library10.7554/elife.39720

  273. 273.
  274. 274.

    Gayle S, et al. Identification of apilimod as a first-in-class PIKfyve kinase inhibitor for treatment of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood. 2017;129:1768-1778.

    Not in our library10.1182/blood-2016-09-736892

  275. 275.

    Hou J-Z, et al. Inhibition of PIKfyve using YM201636 suppresses the growth of liver cancer via the induction of autophagy. Oncol. Rep. 2019;41:1971-1979.

    Not in our library10.3892/or.2018.6928

  276. 276.

    Sharma G, et al. A family of PIKFYVE inhibitors with therapeutic potential against autophagy-dependent cancer cells disrupt multiple events in lysosome homeostasis. Autophagy. 2019;15:1694-1718.

    Not in our library10.1080/15548627.2019.1586257

  277. 277.
  278. 278.

    Jia J, et al. Galectins control MTOR and AMPK in response to lysosomal damage to induce autophagy. Autophagy. 2019;15:169-171.

    Not in our library10.1080/15548627.2018.1505155

  279. 279.

    Guertin DA, Sabatini DM. Defining the role of mTOR in cancer. Cancer Cell. 2007;12:9-22.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ccr.2007.05.008

  280. 280.

    Yu L, et al. Termination of autophagy and reformation of lysosomes regulated by mTOR. Nature. 2010;465:942-946.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature09076

  281. 281.

    LoRusso PM. Inhibition of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR Pathway in Solid Tumors. J. Clin. Oncol. 2016;34:3803-3815.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2014.59.0018

  282. 282.
  283. 283.

    McKenna M, McGarrigle S, Pidgeon GP. The next generation of PI3K-Akt-mTOR pathway inhibitors in breast cancer cohorts. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Rev. Cancer. 2018;1870:185-197.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.bbcan.2018.08.001

  284. 284.

    Revathidevi S, Munirajan AK. Akt in cancer: mediator and more. Semin. Cancer Biol. 2019;59:80-91.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.semcancer.2019.06.002

  285. 285.

    Yao Y, et al. Role of ragulator in the regulation of mechanistic target of rapamycin signaling in podocytes and glomerular function. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2016;27:3653-3665.

    Not in our library10.1681/asn.2015010032

  286. 286.

    Schweitzer LD, Comb WC, Bar-Peled L, Sabatini DM. Disruption of the rag-ragulator complex by c17orf59 Inhibits mTORC1. Cell Rep. 2015;12:1445-1455.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.celrep.2015.07.052

  287. 287.

    Bar-Peled L, Schweitzer LD, Zoncu R, Sabatini DM. Ragulator is a GEF for the rag GTPases that signal amino acid levels to mTORC1. Cell. 2012;150:1196-1208.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2012.07.032

  288. 288.
  289. 289.

    Yuan H-X, et al. NLK phosphorylates Raptor to mediate stress-induced mTORC1 inhibition. Genes Dev. 2015;29:2362-2376.

    Not in our library10.1101/gad.265116.115

  290. 290.

    Dumas SN, Lamming DW. Next generation strategies for geroprotection via mTORC1 inhibition. J. Gerontol. Ser. A, Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 2020;75:14-23.

    Not in our library10.1093/gerona/glz056

  291. 291.

    Kaeberlein M, Galvan V. Rapamycin and Alzheimer’s disease: time for a clinical trial? Sci. Transl. Med. 2019;11:eaar4289.

    Not in our library10.1126/scitranslmed.aar4289

  292. 292.

    Mao Z, et al. CSN6 promotes the migration and invasion of cervical cancer cells by inhibiting autophagic degradation of cathepsin L. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 2019;15:1310-1324.

    Not in our library10.7150/ijbs.32987

  293. 293.

    Cheng B, Ren Y, Cao H, Chen J. Discovery of novel resorcinol diphenyl ether-based PROTAC-like molecules as dual inhibitors and degraders of PD-L1. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2020;199:112377.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ejmech.2020.112377

  294. 294.

    Zhang N, et al. SA-49, a novel aloperine derivative, induces MITF-dependent lysosomal degradation of PD-L1. Ebiomedicine. 2019;40:151-162.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ebiom.2019.01.054

  295. 295.
  296. 296.

    Liang J, Jia X, Wang K, Zhao N. High expression of TFEB is associated with aggressive clinical features in colorectal cancer. Onco Targets Ther. 2018;11:8089-8098.

    Not in our library10.2147/ott.s180112

  297. 297.

    Giatromanolaki A, et al. Increased expression of transcription factor EB (TFEB) is associated with autophagy, migratory phenotype and poor prognosis in non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2015;90:98-105.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.lungcan.2015.07.008

  298. 298.

    Lu H, Sun J, Hamblin MH, Chen YE, Fan Y. Transcription factor EB regulates cardiovascular homeostasis. Ebiomedicine. 2021;63:103207.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.103207

  299. 299.

    Rusmini P, et al. Trehalose induces autophagy via lysosomal-mediated TFEB activation in models of motoneuron degeneration. Autophagy. 2019;15:631-651.

    Not in our library10.1080/15548627.2018.1535292

  300. 300.

    Evans TD, Jeong SJ, Zhang X, Sergin I, Razani B. TFEB and trehalose drive the macrophage autophagy-lysosome system to protect against atherosclerosis. Autophagy. 2018;14:724-726.

    Not in our library10.1080/15548627.2018.1434373

  301. 301.
  302. 302.

    Chen G, et al. 3,4-Dimethoxychalcone induces autophagy through activation of the transcription factors TFE3 and TFEB. Embo Mol. Med. 2019;11:e10469.

    Not in our library10.15252/emmm.201910469

  303. 303.

    Song W, Wang F, Lotfi P, Sardiello M, Segatori L. 2-Hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin promotes transcription factor EB-mediated activation of autophagy: implications for therapy. J. Biol. Chem. 2014;289:10211-10222.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m113.506246

  304. 304.
  305. 305.

    Arias E, Cuervo AM. Pros and cons of chaperone-mediated autophagy in cancer biology. Trends Endocrinol. Metab. 2020;31:53-66.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.tem.2019.09.007

  306. 306.

    Kaushik S, Cuervo AM. The coming of age of chaperone-mediated autophagy. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2018;19:365-381.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41580-018-0001-6

  307. 307.

    Kon M, et al. Chaperone-mediated autophagy is required for tumor growth. Sci. Transl. Med. 2011;3:109ra17.

    Not in our library10.1126/scitranslmed.3003182

  308. 308.

    Zhou J, et al. Chaperone-mediated autophagy regulates proliferation by targeting RND3 in gastric cancer. Autophagy. 2016;12:515-528.

    Not in our library10.1080/15548627.2015.1136770

  309. 309.

    Saha T. LAMP2A overexpression in breast tumors promotes cancer cell survival via chaperone-mediated autophagy. Autophagy. 2012;8:1643-1656.

    Not in our library10.4161/auto.21654

  310. 310.

    Page N, et al. HSC70 blockade by the therapeutic peptide P140 affects autophagic processes and endogenous MHCII presentation in murine lupus. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2011;70:837-843.

    Not in our library10.1136/ard.2010.139832

  311. 311.

    Wang F, Tasset I, Cuervo AM, Muller S. In vivo remodeling of altered autophagy-lysosomal pathway by a phosphopeptide in lupus. Cells. 2020;9:2328.

    Not in our library10.3390/cells9102328

  312. 312.

    Macri C, et al. Modulation of deregulated chaperone-mediated autophagy by a phosphopeptide. Autophagy. 2015;11:472-486.

    Not in our library10.1080/15548627.2015.1017179

  313. 313.

    Langemeyer L, Fröhlich F, Ungermann C. Rab GTPase Function in endosome and lysosome biogenesis. Trends Cell Biol. 2018;28:957-970.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.tcb.2018.06.007

  314. 314.

    Qin X, et al. Targeting Rabs as a novel therapeutic strategy for cancer therapy. Drug Discov. Today. 2017;22:1139-1147.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.drudis.2017.03.012

  315. 315.

    Qin Y, et al. CID1067700, a late endosome GTPase Rab7 receptor antagonist, attenuates brain atrophy, improves neurologic deficits and inhibits reactive astrogliosis in rat ischemic stroke. Acta Pharm. Sin. 2019;40:724-736.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41401-018-0166-8

  316. 316.

    Deraeve C, et al. Psoromic acid is a selective and covalent Rab-prenylation inhibitor targeting autoinhibited RabGGTase. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012;134:7384-7391.

    Not in our library10.1021/ja211305j

  317. 317.

    Spiegel J, et al. Direct targeting of Rab-GTPase-effector interactions. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 2014;53:2498-2503.

    Not in our library10.1002/anie.201308568

  318. 318.

    Wolpin BM, et al. Phase II and pharmacodynamic study of autophagy inhibition using hydroxychloroquine in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Oncologist. 2014;19:637-638.

    Not in our library10.1634/theoncologist.2014-0086

  319. 319.

    Rojas-Puentes LL, et al. Phase II randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of whole-brain irradiation with concomitant chloroquine for brain metastases. Radiat. Oncol. 2013;8:209.

    Not in our library10.1186/1748-717x-8-209

  320. 320.

    Karasic TB, et al. Effect of gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel with or without hydroxychloroquine on patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a phase 2 randomized clinical trial. Jama Oncol. 2019;5:993-998.

    Not in our library10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0684

  321. 321.

    Zeh HJ, et al. A randomized phase II preoperative study of autophagy inhibition with high-dose hydroxychloroquine and gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel in pancreatic cancer patients. Clin. Cancer Res. 2020;26:3126-3134.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-19-4042

  322. 322.

    Boone BA, et al. Safety and biologic response of pre-operative autophagy inhibition in combination with gemcitabine in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2015;22:4402-4410.

    Not in our library10.1245/s10434-015-4566-4

  323. 323.

    Sotelo J, Briceño E, López-González MA. Adding chloroquine to conventional treatment for glioblastoma multiforme: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Ann. Intern. Med. 2006;144:337-343.

    Not in our library10.7326/0003-4819-144-5-200603070-00008

  324. 324.

    Rosenfeld MR, et al. A phase I/II trial of hydroxychloroquine in conjunction with radiation therapy and concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme. Autophagy. 2014;10:1359-1368.

    Not in our library10.4161/auto.28984

  325. 325.

    Huang Z, et al. Clinical efficacy of mTOR inhibitors in solid tumors: a systematic review. Future Oncol. 2015;11:1687-1699.

    Not in our library10.2217/fon.15.70

  326. 326.

    U.S. food & drug administration. 2018 First Generic Drug Approvals. U.S. food & drug administration. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/first-generic-drug-approvals/2018-first-generic-drug-approvals (accessed August 5th 2021)

    Not in our library

  327. 327.

    U.S. food & drug administration. 2019 First Generic Drug Approvals. U.S. food & drug administration. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/first-generic-drug-approvals/2018-first-generic-drug-approvals (accessed August 5th 2021)

    Not in our library

  328. 328.

    Hudes G, et al. Temsirolimus, interferon alfa, or both for advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2007;356:2271-2281.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa066838

  329. 329.

    Oza AM, et al. Phase II study of temsirolimus in women with recurrent or metastatic endometrial cancer: a trial of the NCIC Clinical Trials Group. J. Clin. Oncol. 2011;29:3278-3285.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2010.34.1578

  330. 330.

    Ohtsu A, et al. Everolimus for previously treated advanced gastric cancer: results of the randomized, double-blind, phase III GRANITE-1 study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2013;31:3935-3943.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2012.48.3552

  331. 331.

    Powles T, et al. A randomised phase 2 study of AZD2014 versus everolimus in patients with VEGF-refractory metastatic clear cell renal cancer. Eur. Urol. 2016;69:450-456.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.035

  332. 332.

    Wolin E, et al. A phase 2 study of an oral mTORC1/mTORC2 kinase inhibitor (CC-223) for non-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors with or without carcinoid symptoms. PLoS ONE. 2019;14:e0221994.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0221994

  333. 333.

    Graham L, et al. A phase II study of the dual mTOR inhibitor MLN0128 in patients with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer. Invest. N. Drugs. 2018;36:458-467.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10637-018-0578-9

  334. 334.

    Baselga J, et al. Buparlisib plus fulvestrant versus placebo plus fulvestrant in postmenopausal, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer (BELLE-2): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:904-916.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(17)30376-5

  335. 335.

    Yap TA, et al. Interrogating two schedules of the AKT inhibitor MK-2206 in patients with advanced solid tumors incorporating novel pharmacodynamic and functional imaging biomarkers. Clin. Cancer Res. 2014;20:5672-5685.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-14-0868

  336. 336.

    de Bono JS, et al. Randomized phase II study evaluating Akt blockade with ipatasertib, in combination with abiraterone, in patients with metastatic prostate cancer with and without PTEN Loss. Clin. Cancer Res. 2019;25:928-936.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-18-0981

  337. 337.
  338. 338.

    André F, et al. Alpelisib for -mutated, hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019;380:1929-1940.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1813904

  339. 339.

    Dent S, et al. Phase III randomized study of taselisib or placebo with fulvestrant in estrogen receptor-positive, PIK3CA-mutant, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer: the SANDPIPER trial. Ann. Oncol. 2021;32:197-207.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.annonc.2020.10.596

  340. 340.

    Rangwala R, et al. Combined MTOR and autophagy inhibition: phase I trial of hydroxychloroquine and temsirolimus in patients with advanced solid tumors and melanoma. Autophagy. 2014;10:1391-1402.

    Not in our library10.4161/auto.29119

  341. 341.

    Haas NB, et al. Autophagy inhibition to augment mtor inhibition: a phase I/II trial of everolimus and hydroxychloroquine in patients with previously treated renal cell carcinoma. Clin. Cancer Res. 2019;25:2080-2087.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-18-2204

  342. 342.

    Gewandter JS, et al. A phase III randomized, placebo-controlled study of topical amitriptyline and ketamine for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN): a University of Rochester CCOP study of 462 cancer survivors. Support Care Cancer. 2014;22:1807-1814.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00520-014-2158-7

  343. 343.

    Joel, N. & Stanford U. Phase 2a Desipramine in Small Cell Lung Cancer and Other High-Grade Neuroendocrine Tumors. ClinicalTrials.gov. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT01719861 (2017).

    Not in our library

  344. 344.

    Propper DJ, et al. Phase I trial of the selective mitochondrial toxin MKT077 in chemo-resistant solid tumours. Ann. Oncol. 1999;10:923-927.

    Not in our library10.1023/a:1008336904585

  345. 345.

    Coleman R, et al. Zoledronic acid (zoledronate) for postmenopausal women with early breast cancer receiving adjuvant letrozole (ZO-FAST study): final 60-month results. Ann. Oncol. 2013;24:398-405.

    Not in our library10.1093/annonc/mds277

  346. 346.

    Terpos E, et al. Treatment of multiple myeloma-related bone disease: recommendations from the Bone Working Group of the International Myeloma Working Group. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22:e119-e130.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(20)30559-3

  347. 347.

    Studies found for cathepsin and cancer. ClinicalTrials.gov Search Results. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=Cancer&term=cathepsin&cntry=&state=&city=&dist= (accessed August 4th 2021).

    Not in our library

  348. 348.

    Jensen AB, et al. The cathepsin K inhibitor odanacatib suppresses bone resorption in women with breast cancer and established bone metastases: results of a 4-week, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Clin. Breast Cancer. 2010;10:452-458.

    Not in our library10.3816/cbc.2010.n.059

  349. 349.
  350. 350.

    Fanouriakis A, et al. 2019 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2019;78:736-745.

    Not in our library10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-215089

  351. 351.

    Costedoat-Chalumeau N, et al. Hydroxychloroquine in systemic lupus erythematosus: results of a French multicentre controlled trial (PLUS Study). Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2013;72:1786-1792.

    Not in our library10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-202322

  352. 352.

    Marmor MF, et al. Recommendations on screening for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine retinopathy (2016 Revision). Ophthalmology. 2016;123:1386-1394.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.01.058

  353. 353.

    Clark P, et al. Hydroxychloroquine compared with placebo in rheumatoid arthritis. A randomized controlled trial. Ann. Intern. Med. 1993;119:1067-1071.

    Not in our library10.7326/0003-4819-119-11-199312010-00002

  354. 354.

    Carmichael SJ, Beal J, Day RO, Tett SE. Combination therapy with methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine for rheumatoid arthritis increases exposure to methotrexate. J. Rheumatol. 2002;29:2077-2083.

    Not in our library

  355. 355.

    Wasko MC, et al. Hydroxychloroquine and risk of diabetes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. JAMA. 2007;298:187-193.

    Not in our library10.1001/jama.298.2.187

  356. 356.

    Solomon DH, et al. Effect of hydroxychloroquine on insulin sensitivity and lipid parameters in rheumatoid arthritis patients without diabetes mellitus: a randomized, blinded crossover trial. Arthritis Care Res. (Hoboken). 2014;66:1246-1251.

    Not in our library10.1002/acr.22285

  357. 357.

    Rempenault C, et al. Metabolic and cardiovascular benefits of hydroxychloroquine in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2018;77:98-103.

    Not in our library10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-211836

  358. 358.

    Liu D, et al. Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are associated with reduced cardiovascular risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Drug Des. Dev. Ther. 2018;12:1685-1695.

    Not in our library10.2147/dddt.s166893

  359. 359.

    Kerr G, et al. Associations of hydroxychloroquine use with lipid profiles in rheumatoid arthritis: pharmacologic implications. Arthritis Care Res. (Hoboken). 2014;66:1619-1626.

    Not in our library10.1002/acr.22341

  360. 360.

    Morris SJ, et al. Hydroxychloroquine use associated with improvement in lipid profiles in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Arthritis Care Res. (Hoboken). 2011;63:530-534.

    Not in our library10.1002/acr.20393

  361. 361.

    Muller S, et al. Spliceosomal peptide P140 for immunotherapy of systemic lupus erythematosus: results of an early phase II clinical trial. Arthritis Rheumatism. 2008;58:3873-3883.

    Not in our library10.1002/art.24027

  362. 362.

    ClinicalTrials.gov. A 52-Week, Randomized, Double-blind, Parallel-group, Placebo-controlled Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of a 200-mcg Dose of IPP-201101 Plus Standard of Care in Patients With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. ClinicalTrials.gov. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT02504645 (2019).

    Not in our library

  363. 363.

    Zimmer R, Scherbarth HR, Rillo OL, Gomez-Reino JJ, Muller S. Lupuzor/P140 peptide in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase IIb clinical trial. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2013;72:1830-1835.

    Not in our library10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-202460

  364. 364.

    Komatsu N, Takayanagi H. Arthritogenic T cells in autoimmune arthritis. Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 2015;58:92-96.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biocel.2014.11.008

  365. 365.

    Noack M, Miossec P. Th17 and regulatory T cell balance in autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. Autoimmun. Rev. 2014;13:668-677.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.autrev.2013.12.004

  366. 366.

    Wen HY, et al. Low-dose sirolimus immunoregulation therapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: a 24-week follow-up of the randomized, open-label, parallel-controlled trial. J. Immunol. Res. 2019;2019:7684352.

    Not in our library10.1155/2019/7684352

  367. 367.

    Lai ZW, et al. Sirolimus in patients with clinically active systemic lupus erythematosus resistant to, or intolerant of, conventional medications: a single-arm, open-label, phase 1/2 trial. Lancet. 2018;391:1186-1196.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(18)30485-9

  368. 368.
  369. 369.

    Lee K, et al. Mammalian target of rapamycin protein complex 2 regulates differentiation of Th1 and Th2 cell subsets via distinct signaling pathways. Immunity. 2010;32:743-753.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2010.06.002

  370. 370.

    Hoffmann-La, R. A study to assess the efficacy of RO5459072 in participants with primary Sjogren’s syndrome. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT02701985 (2018).

    Not in our library

  371. 371.

    Wang H, et al. Selective in vivo metabolic cell-labeling-mediated cancer targeting. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2017;13:415-424.

    Not in our library10.1038/nchembio.2297

  372. 372.

    Drago JZ, Modi S, Chandarlapaty S. Unlocking the potential of antibody-drug conjugates for cancer therapy. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2021;18:327-344.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41571-021-00470-8

  373. 373.

    Dheer D, Nicolas J, Shankar R. Cathepsin-sensitive nanoscale drug delivery systems for cancer therapy and other diseases. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2019;151-152:130-151.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.addr.2019.01.010

  374. 374.
  375. 375.

    Zhou Y, et al. Cathepsin K deficiency ameliorates systemic lupus erythematosus-like manifestations in Fas(lpr) mice. J. Immunol. 2017;198:1846-1854.

    Not in our library10.4049/jimmunol.1501145

  376. 376.

    Gros F, et al. Macroautophagy is deregulated in murine and human lupus T lymphocytes. Autophagy. 2012;8:1113-1123.

    Not in our library10.4161/auto.20275

  377. 377.

    Zhou XJ, Klionsky DJ, Zhang H. Podocytes and autophagy: a potential therapeutic target in lupus nephritis. Autophagy. 2019;15:908-912.

    Not in our library10.1080/15548627.2019.1580512

  378. 378.

    Qi YY, et al. Increased autophagy is cytoprotective against podocyte injury induced by antibody and interferon-α in lupus nephritis. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2018;77:1799-1809.

    Not in our library10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-213028

  379. 379.

    Martinez J, et al. Noncanonical autophagy inhibits the autoinflammatory, lupus-like response to dying cells. Nature. 2016;533:115-119.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature17950

  380. 380.

    Wei W, et al. Inhibition of Ctsk modulates periodontitis with arthritis via downregulation of TLR9 and autophagy. Cell Prolif. 2020;53:e12722.

    Not in our library10.1111/cpr.12722

  381. 381.

    Hummel KM, et al. Cysteine proteinase cathepsin K mRNA is expressed in synovium of patients with rheumatoid arthritis and is detected at sites of synovial bone destruction. J. Rheumatol. 1998;25:1887-1894.

    Not in our library

  382. 382.

    Miyata J, et al. Cathepsin G: the significance in rheumatoid arthritis as a monocyte chemoattractant. Rheumatol. Int. 2007;27:375-382.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00296-006-0210-8

  383. 383.

    Zhu L, et al. The autophagy level is increased in the synovial tissues of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and is correlated with disease severity. Mediators Inflamm. 2017;2017:7623145.

    Not in our library10.1155/2017/7623145

  384. 384.

    Steinfeld S, et al. Prolactin up-regulates cathepsin B and D expression in minor salivary glands of patients with Sjögren’s syndrome. Lab. Invest. 2000;80:1711-1720.

    Not in our library10.1038/labinvest.3780181

  385. 385.

    Li B, Wang F, Schall N, Muller S. Rescue of autophagy and lysosome defects in salivary glands of MRL/lpr mice by a therapeutic phosphopeptide. J. Autoimmun. 2018;90:132-145.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jaut.2018.02.005

  386. 386.

    Gnant M, et al. Zoledronic acid combined with adjuvant endocrine therapy of tamoxifen versus anastrozol plus ovarian function suppression in premenopausal early breast cancer: final analysis of the Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group Trial 12. Ann. Oncol. 2015;26:313-320.

    Not in our library10.1093/annonc/mdu544

  387. 387.

    Yokogawa N, et al. Effects of hydroxychloroquine in patients with cutaneous lupus erythematosus: a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group trial. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2017;69:791-799.

    Not in our library10.1002/art.40018

  388. 388.

    Wasko MC, et al. Antidiabetogenic effects of hydroxychloroquine on insulin sensitivity and beta cell function: a randomised trial. Diabetologia. 2015;58:2336-2343.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00125-015-3689-2

  389. 389.

    Merk H, et al. Inhibition of the V-ATPase by Archazolid A: a new strategy to inhibit EMT. Mol. Cancer Ther. 2017;16:2329-2339.

    Not in our library10.1158/1535-7163.mct-17-0129

  390. 390.

    Peng W, et al. A distinct inhibitory mechanism of the V-ATPase by Vibrio VopQ revealed by cryo-EM. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2020;27:589-597.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41594-020-0429-1

  391. 391.

    Sreelatha A, et al. Vibrio effector protein, VopQ, forms a lysosomal gated channel that disrupts host ion homeostasis and autophagic flux. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2013;110:11559-11564.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1307032110

  392. 392.

    Sreelatha A, et al. Vibrio effector protein VopQ inhibits fusion of V-ATPase-containing membranes. Proc. Natl Acad Sci. USA. 2015;112:100-105.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1413764111

  393. 393.

    McAfee Q, et al. Autophagy inhibitor Lys05 has single-agent antitumor activity and reproduces the phenotype of a genetic autophagy deficiency. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2012;109:8253-8258.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1118193109

  394. 394.

    Colella R, et al. Induction of cell death in neuroblastoma by inhibition of cathepsins B and L. Cancer Lett. 2010;294:195-203.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.canlet.2010.01.037

  395. 395.

    Bell-McGuinn KM, Garfall AL, Bogyo M, Hanahan D, Joyce JA. Inhibition of cysteine cathepsin protease activity enhances chemotherapy regimens by decreasing tumor growth and invasiveness in a mouse model of multistage cancer. Cancer Res. 2007;67:7378-7385.

    Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-07-0602

  396. 396.

    Schurigt U, et al. Trial of the cysteine cathepsin inhibitor JPM-OEt on early and advanced mammary cancer stages in the MMTV-PyMT-transgenic mouse model. Biol. Chem. 2008;389:1067-1074.

    Not in our library10.1515/bc.2008.115

  397. 397.

    Mirković B, et al. Nitroxoline impairs tumor progression in vitro and in vivo by regulating cathepsin B activity. Oncotarget. 2015;6:19027-19042.

    Not in our library10.18632/oncotarget.3699

  398. 398.

    Maynadier M, et al. Dipeptide mimic oligomer transporter mediates intracellular delivery of Cathepsin D inhibitors: a potential target for cancer therapy. J. Control. Release. 2013;171:251-257.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jconrel.2013.07.017

  399. 399.

    Duong LT, Wesolowski GA, Leung P, Oballa R, Pickarski M. Efficacy of a cathepsin K inhibitor in a preclinical model for prevention and treatment of breast cancer bone metastasis. Mol. Cancer Ther. 2014;13:2898-2909.

    Not in our library10.1158/1535-7163.mct-14-0253

  400. 400.

    Jerome C, Missbach M, Gamse R. Balicatib, a cathepsin K inhibitor, stimulates periosteal bone formation in monkeys. Osteoporos. Int. 2012;23:339-349.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00198-011-1593-2

  401. 401.

    Jakoš T, Pišlar A, Pečar Fonović U, Švajger U, Kos J. Cysteine cathepsins L and X differentially modulate interactions between myeloid-derived suppressor cells and tumor cells. Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 2020;69:1869-1880.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00262-020-02592-x

  402. 402.

    Chavarria GE, et al. Initial evaluation of the antitumour activity of KGP94, a functionalized benzophenone thiosemicarbazone inhibitor of cathepsin L. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2012;58:568-572.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ejmech.2012.10.039

  403. 403.

    Zheng X, et al. Cathepsin L inhibition suppresses drug resistance in vitro and in vivo: a putative mechanism. Am. J. Physiol. Cell Physiol. 2009;296:C65-C74.

    Not in our library10.1152/ajpcell.00082.2008

  404. 404.

    Vázquez R, et al. Fsn0503h antibody-mediated blockade of cathepsin S as a potential therapeutic strategy for the treatment of solid tumors. Biochimie. 2015;108:101-107.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biochi.2014.10.025

  405. 405.
  406. 406.

    Mitrofan LM, Castells FB, Pelkonen J, Mönkkönen J. Lysosomal-mitochondrial axis in zoledronic acid-induced apoptosis in human follicular lymphoma cells. J. Biol. Chem. 2010;285:1967-1979.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m109.038935

  407. 407.
  408. 408.

    Groth-Pedersen L, Ostenfeld MS, Hoyer-Hansen M, Nylandsted J, Jaattela M. Vincristine induces dramatic lysosomal changes and sensitizes cancer cells to lysosome-destabilizing siramesine. Cancer Res. 2007;67:2217-2225.

    Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-06-3520

  409. 409.

    Li D, et al. Sulforaphane activates a lysosome-dependent transcriptional program to mitigate oxidative stress. Autophagy. 2021;17:872-887.

    Not in our library10.1080/15548627.2020.1739442

  410. 410.

    Lyu L, et al. TBBPA regulates calcium-mediated lysosomal exocytosis and thereby promotes invasion and migration in hepatocellular carcinoma. Ecotox. Environ. SAFE. 2020;192:110255.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.110255

  411. 411.
  412. 412.

    Mortensen DS, et al. CC-223, a potent and selective inhibitor of mTOR kinase: in vitro and in vivo characterization. Mol. Cancer Ther. 2015;14:1295-1305.

    Not in our library10.1158/1535-7163.mct-14-1052

  413. 413.
  414. 414.

    Caza TN, et al. HRES-1/Rab4-mediated depletion of Drp1 impairs mitochondrial homeostasis and represents a target for treatment in SLE. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2014;73:1888-1897.

    Not in our library10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-203794

Cited by papers we hold 4

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.