Energy metabolism of cancer: Glycolysis versus oxidative phosphorylation (Review)

  • Authors:
    • Jie Zheng
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: September 20, 2012     https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2012.928
  • Pages: 1151-1157
Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )


Abstract

Metabolic activities in normal cells rely primarily on mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) to generate ATP for energy. Unlike in normal cells, glycolysis is enhanced and OXPHOS capacity is reduced in various cancer cells. It has long been believed that the glycolytic phenotype in cancer is due to a permanent impairment of mitochondrial OXPHOS, as proposed by Otto Warburg. This view is challenged by recent investigations which find that the function of mitochondrial OXPHOS in most cancers is intact. Aerobic glycolysis in many cancers is the combined result of various factors such as oncogenes, tumor suppressors, a hypoxic microenvironment, mtDNA mutations, genetic background and others. Understanding the features and complexity of the cancer energy metabolism will help to develop new approaches in early diagnosis and effectively target therapy of cancer.
View Figures
View References

Related Articles

Journal Cover

December 2012
Volume 4 Issue 6

Print ISSN: 1792-1074
Online ISSN:1792-1082

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
x
Spandidos Publications style
Zheng J: Energy metabolism of cancer: Glycolysis versus oxidative phosphorylation (Review). Oncol Lett 4: 1151-1157, 2012.
APA
Zheng, J. (2012). Energy metabolism of cancer: Glycolysis versus oxidative phosphorylation (Review). Oncology Letters, 4, 1151-1157. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2012.928
MLA
Zheng, J."Energy metabolism of cancer: Glycolysis versus oxidative phosphorylation (Review)". Oncology Letters 4.6 (2012): 1151-1157.
Chicago
Zheng, J."Energy metabolism of cancer: Glycolysis versus oxidative phosphorylation (Review)". Oncology Letters 4, no. 6 (2012): 1151-1157. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2012.928