Next Article in Journal
The Potential of Volatilomics as Female Fertilization Biomarkers in Assisted Reproductive Techniques
Previous Article in Journal
Gothelf’s Haplotype of COMT in Parkinson’s Disease: A Case–Control Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Biomedicines
Volume 14
Issue 2
10.3390/biomedicines14020263
biomedicines-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Targeting the Endoplasmic Reticulum Oxidoreductin-1 Alpha–Protein Disulfide Isomerase Redox Interface as a Therapeutic Strategy in Cancer

by
Kamilla Khojayeva
1,
Aiym Zhussipbekkyzy
1,
Dilbara Balkybayeva
1,
Karakat Sabit
1,
Lucia Rossetti Lopes
2,
Kamila Sagatbekova
1,
Assem Zhakupova
1 and
Mohamad Aljofan
1,*
1
Department of Biomedical Sciences, School of Medicine, Nazarbayev University, Astana 010000, Kazakhstan
2
Department of Pharmacology, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, University of São Paulo, São Paulo 05508-900, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Biomedicines 2026, 14(2), 263; https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines14020263
Submission received: 6 December 2025 / Revised: 20 January 2026 / Accepted: 21 January 2026 / Published: 23 January 2026
(This article belongs to the Section Cancer Biology and Oncology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The endoplasmic reticulum (ER) is critical in aiding cells in ensuring that proteins are folded and processed correctly, particularly during stressful situations. ER oxidoreductin-1 alpha (ERO1α) is an enzyme that is responsible for the formation of disulfide bonds during protein folding, along with protein disulfide isomerase (PDI). This redox pathway is often highly upregulated in cancer cells, allowing tumors to survive harsh conditions such as hypoxia and nutrient deprivation. This review discusses the role of the ERO1α–PDI system in cancer development through the regulation of oxidative stress, redox homeostasis, and tumor plasticity. It further shows the therapeutic potential of interrupting the ERO1α–PDI axis, which could lead to protein misfolding; enhanced generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS); and, eventually, cancer cell death.

1. Introduction

The endoplasmic reticulum (ER) is an organelle that plays a key role in protein folding and maturation of eukaryotic cells [1]. To be stable and active, many of the secreted and membrane proteins need disulfide bonds, which are covalent linkages between cysteine residues that stabilize tertiary and quaternary structures [2]. The formation of these bonds is a highly regulated process that is largely dependent on the oxidative environment of the ER and the coordinated action of specialized enzymes. Among these, ER oxidoreductin-1 alpha (ERO1α) and protein disulfide isomerases (PDIs) form a critical redox interface that ensures proper disulfide bond formation, thereby maintaining proteostasis within the ER [3].
Cancer cells are characterized by rapid proliferation, heightened metabolic demands, and an increased load of protein synthesis, all of which challenge the protein-folding capacity of the ER. To cope with this stress, cancer cells often upregulate components of the ER protein-folding machinery, including ERO1α and PDIs [4]. This adaptive response is a form of “non-oncogene addiction”, where tumor cells become dependent on non-mutated genes that are not classical oncogenes but are essential for maintaining malignant phenotypes under stressed conditions [5]. Elevated ERO1α expression has been observed in various cancers, including breast, lung, and cervical tumors, and correlates with poor prognosis [6]. Similarly, PDIs have been implicated in promoting tumor survival and angiogenesis [7].
Beyond protein folding, ERO1α activity generates reactive oxygen species (ROS)—primarily hydrogen peroxide (H2O2)—as by-products of disulfide bond formation [8]. Importantly, ROS can have dual roles in cancer: at moderate levels, H2O2 acts as a secondary signaling molecule, modulating pathways involved in proliferation, migration, and angiogenesis; at higher levels, ROS can overwhelm antioxidant defenses, causing oxidative damage and apoptosis [9]. Distinguishing these effects is crucial, as the direct impact of ERO1α on protein folding underpins proteostasis, whereas H2O2-mediated signaling represents a secondary consequence that can influence tumor behavior.
In this context, a detailed understanding of the molecular and structural basis of the ERO1α–PDI interaction, as well as its regulation under physiological and pathological conditions, is crucial for designing effective therapeutic strategies. This review explores the role of the ERO1α–PDI redox interface in cancer biology, summarizes recent advances in targeting this pathway, and discusses future perspectives for translating these insights into clinically viable treatments. By focusing on this unique vulnerability of cancer cells, novel therapies targeting ER oxidative protein folding hold the potential to complement existing anti-cancer treatment and improve patient outcomes.

2. Physiological Roles of PDI, ERO1α, and Their Redox Interface

2.1. Protein Disulfide Isomerases (PDIs)

The first PDI was identified in the early 1960s. This enzyme was found to be capable of oxidizing reduced bovine pancreatic ribonuclease and was first isolated from rat liver and pigeon and chicken pancreas [10]. PDIs constitute a large and functionally diverse family of thioredoxin superfamily proteins, comprising at least 21 members in mammals [11].
Protein disulfide isomerase A1 (PDIA1) was the first member of the PDI family to be identified. It comprises four domains—designated as a, b, b′, and a′—that are organized into a U-shaped conformation [12]. PDIA1 facilitates the formation, rearrangement, and reduction of disulfide bonds between cysteine residues in substrate proteins [13]. PDIA1 exhibits broad substrate specificity, likely due to an expansive substrate-binding surface within its b′ domain, while other PDI family members, such as ERp57 (PDIA3) and ERp72 (PDIA4), perform more specialized functions. The primary function of PDIA3 is to facilitate glycoprotein folding within the ER. In cooperation with lectin chaperones calnexin and calreticulin, PDIA3 controls the folding of newly synthesized cysteine-rich glycoproteins by catalyzing the formation and rearrangement of disulfide bonds between cysteine residues [14]. In contrast, PDIA4 has been proposed to compensate for PDIA3 deficiency in knockout cell models and is induced in ER stress [15]. The physiological roles and substrate selectivity of many PDIs remain poorly defined [11].
The primary role of PDIs in the endoplasmic reticulum is to catalyze oxidative protein folding by introducing, reshuffling, and reducing disulfide bonds in newly synthesized polypeptides. Through these thiol–disulfide exchange reactions, PDIs ensure that secretory and membrane proteins attain their correct three-dimensional structure and functional stability [16]. In addition to their enzymatic activity, PDIs act as molecular chaperones that prevent aggregation of unfolded or misfolded proteins, thereby safeguarding ER proteostasis [17]. PDIs dynamically cycle between oxidized and reduced states, enabling them to function as oxidases, reductases, or isomerases depending on cellular redox conditions and substrate requirements [18].

2.2. Endoplasmic Reticulum Oxidoreductin 1α (ERO1α)

ERO1α is a membrane-associated flavoprotein. ERO1α reoxidizes PDIs via thiol disulfide exchanges and is reoxidized by molecular oxygen via its FAD cofactor [19]. Humans also express ER oxidoreductin-1 beta (ERO1β), though ERO1α is more broadly expressed and responsive to stress signals. Patient cohort analyses suggest that ERO1α is more frequently upregulated than ERO1β in malignancies and, consequently, is associated with adverse patient outcomes [20].
Every catalytic cycle of ERO1α oxidation of PDI results in the production of H2O2 as a by-product [21]. This reaction helps in oxidative protein folding in the ER under normal conditions. Nevertheless, in cancer cells, the low concentrations of ROS produced in the process obtain other functions. Most tumors are oxygen-deprived, and the UPR is constantly expressed. In these circumstances, cells seem to depend more on ERO1α to support protein folding. The generated ROS help in the process of folding of pro-angiogenic proteins like vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A) and its receptor-like vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR2), which require correct disulfide bond formation to be released and active. Inhibition of ERO1α in experiments reduces VEGF-A release and disrupts endothelial tube differentiation, which demonstrates the relevance of ERO1α to tumor-related angiogenesis [22,23].

2.3. Functional Coupling of PDI and ERO1α in the Endoplasmic Reticulum

The action of the ERO1α–PDI relay is based on a direct electron transfer chain: a reduced substrate passes electrons to PDIs; PDIs then transfer them to ERO1α, which then transfers it to molecular oxygen. In the catalysis process, PDIs are reduced and lose their activity unless they are re-oxidized. In mammalian cells, this reoxidation is primarily performed by ERO1α. It links the PDI cycle with molecular oxygen. Essentially, ERO1α has redox-active cysteines that receive electrons directly emitted by reduced PDIs and transfer them to its flavin adenine dinucleotide (FAD) cofactor, where oxygen is the ultimate acceptor. Consequently, this reaction chain generates hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) [8]. This relay maintains a store of oxidized PDIs that is accessible and enables continuous oxidative folding of nascent proteins (Figure 1).
Structural and biochemical mapping demonstrated that ERO1α has a β-hairpin loop that interacts with the b′ domain of PDI, which precisely positions its catalytic cysteines to undergo thiol–disulfide exchange [25] (Figure 2).
Considering this, the electron transfer in the ERO1α–PDI relay occurs via transient covalent states. In the context of catalysis, ERO1α and PDI create mixed disulfide reaction intermediates that serve as the hand-off points of the electronic transfer [21]. These covalent bridges are directional, and backflow of the electrons is prohibited. When the intermediate is resolved, PDI is reoxidized, and the relay proceeds [3]. Late formation or resolution of these intermediates leads to a buildup of reduced PDI, slowed oxidative folding, and ER stress [26]. This extra stress in tumor cells that are already on the edge of proteostasis can lead to survival or death.
The interaction also depends on the presence of specific residues of the ERO1α–PDI interface. In ERO1α Val101 was found to be an important hotspot in cervical cancer models in terms of identifying PDI. Val101 mutation undermines binding and decreases folding performance, as well as tumor growth and invasion, in mice [27]. This direct correlation of the behavior of a tumor with a single amino acid indicates why the interface is an attractive drug target. The complexity of the PDI family in terms of structural diversity also introduces a further therapeutic opportunity. The various paralogs of PDI have different substrate-binding groves and non-redundant functions in cancer. Recently, a review suggested that this diversity might be utilized to create interface-selective inhibitors that selectively deactivate ERO1α that prefers PDI partners in tumor cells and spares other PDIs that are required to sustain normal secretory activity [28].
This docking creates an active but highly regulated microenvironment that aligns the redox centers, reduces off-pathway reactions, and catalyzes the turnover quickly. In the therapeutic context, an intermediate between two extremes could be achieved by targeting the ERO1α–PDI docking interface. On the one hand, broad PDI inhibitors block the growth of tumors but can also affect other PDIs, causing toxicity in secretory tissues [29]. On the other hand, downstream antioxidant-only targeting is not sufficient to reduce oxidative folding throughput. An interface-specific blocker would act by inhibiting the physical interaction between ERO1α and PDI, which is the location of electron transfer. Those agents may block PDI reoxidation, decrease the folding flux, cause ER stress, and promote apoptosis in tumor cells—in particular, when used together with agents that enhance the oxidative burden or disrupt the proteostasis systems. In fact, activation of the UPR, as well as suppression of tumor growth, with broad-spectrum pancreatic cancer PDI inhibitors like E64FC26 has been demonstrated but with different kinds of death mechanisms depending on the cell line [30,31].

3. Dysregulation of PDI and ERO1α in Cancer

3.1. PDI Involvement in Cancer Progression

Many cancer types have been reported to overexpress members of the PDI family, with PDIA1 emerging as the most consistently upregulated isoform across solid tumors. It was shown that PDIA1 is one of the most frequently overexpressed proteins in the interstitial fluid, plasma, and blood because it is secreted into circulation by tumor cells [32]. This implies that PDIA1 may be used as a non-invasive biomarker for early cancer diagnosis. Besides that, Lee and Lee (2017) documented that PDI facilitates the activation of membrane-bound client proteins, including metalloproteases, selectins, and integrins, which further enhance tumor cell adhesion and invasion [33]. A summary of these findings is provided in Table 1.
PDI family members are consistently overexpressed across diverse cancer types, indicating that enhanced ER redox capacity is a common feature of malignant cells. This pattern is closely linked to hypoxia and chronic ER stress within the tumor microenvironment, which activate the unfolded protein response (UPR) and increase cellular dependence on PDI-mediated oxidative folding.
Functionally, elevated PDI expression supports key tumor-promoting phenotypes. In breast cancer, increased levels of ER folding enzymes correlate with stem-like characteristics and therapy resistance, in line with reports demonstrating that PDI overexpression enhances mammosphere formation and self-renewal capacity [35]. Similar adaptive roles are observed in lung cancer, with PDIA4 and PDIA6 selectively upregulated in cisplatin-resistant non-small cell lung cancer [37] and PDI expression positively correlated with ERO1α levels [38], suggesting coordinated regulation of ER redox machinery during drug resistance.
Beyond therapy adaptation, PDI also appears to contribute to tumor invasiveness. In glioma, elevated PDI expression at the invasive tumor margin is associated with enhanced migratory behavior, consistent with a role for ER stress adaptation in highly invasive cancer cells [34]. The functional relevance of PDI overexpression is supported by loss-of-function studies in ovarian cancer, where pharmacological inhibition or genetic silencing of PDI induces marked cytotoxicity, demonstrating that cancer cells rely on sustained PDI activity for survival [39].
Mechanistically, these effects are mediated through modulation of UPR signaling pathways. PDI functions within a chaperone network that includes GRP78, GRP94, and BiP—proteins frequently overexpressed in tumors to buffer ER stress and promote survival. Disruption of this network can activate PERK-dependent pro-apoptotic signaling via CHOP/GADD153, although PERK pathway outputs remain context-dependent, exerting either tumor-suppressive or tumor-promoting effects [40]. This context dependency is further illustrated in breast cancer, where PDIA1 silencing elicits distinct transcriptional programs in estrogen receptor-positive and triple-negative cells. RNA-seq analyses revealed that PDIA1 modulates carcinogenesis through divergent pathways depending on ERα status, influencing ROS-associated catabolic processes and G2/M cell cycle regulation in ERα-positive tumors while affecting NF-κB signaling, mitochondrial biogenesis, metabolic reprogramming, and immune-related pathways in ERα-negative breast cancer [36].

3.2. ERO1α in Cancer Biology

ERO1α is associated with multiple redox-sensitive signal transduction pathways in tumor and endothelial cells. Low concentrations of H2O2 may trigger kinases like phosphoinositide 3-kinase/protein kinase B (PI3K/Akt) and extracellular signal-regulated kinases 1 and 2 (ERK1/2) and stabilize HIF-1α, thereby stimulating gene expression that leads to vessel development and cell survival. These modifications are beneficial in increasing endothelial cell migration, tissue remodeling, and neovascularization, thereby promoting tumor growth [41]. To mitigate possible oxidative stress, cancer cells enhance their antioxidant capacity through the increased expression of antioxidants like peroxiredoxin-4 (PRDX4) and glutathione peroxidases 7 and 8 [42]. These enzymes remove excessive H2O2 but retain an oxidizing environment in the ER, which is favorable for protein folding. This interaction allows the ERO1α protein to be involved not only in the regulation of folding but also in redox homeostasis, angiogenesis, and tumor survival in a hypoxic environment.
Evidence from multiple cancer types illustrates how this balance supports tumor progression. In pancreatic cancer, ERO1α expression is rapidly induced by hypoxia and promotes tumor growth and progression in both in vitro and mouse models; genetic ablation of ERO1α reduces ROS levels, impairs proliferation, and restricts tumor growth, indicating a strong dependence of pancreatic tumors on ERO1α-mediated oxidative folding under low-oxygen conditions [43]. Similar mechanisms operate in breast cancer, where ERO1α enhances oxidative folding and VEGF-A production in MDA-MB-231 cells and xenograft models, driving angiogenesis and tumor growth, with high ERO1α expression correlating with poor prognosis in triple-negative breast cancer [44]. In cholangiocarcinoma, elevated ERO1α expression promotes proliferation, migration, and epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT) through Akt/mTOR signaling and is associated with adverse clinical outcomes [45].
ERO1α also contributes to tumor aggressiveness in colorectal cancer, where ERO1α-positive tumor epithelial cells drive invasion and EMT, and high expression levels predict poor patient outcomes [46]. Hypoxia-induced upregulation of ERO1α in colorectal cancer cells enhances integrin-β1 maturation and trafficking, thereby supporting cell motility and invasive behavior; conversely, ERO1α deficiency disrupts protein glycosylation and impairs migration, particularly under hypoxic conditions [47]. Large-scale analyses of tumor cell lines and tissues further support ERO1α as a robust endogenous marker of hypoxia, in some contexts outperforming established markers such as carbonic anhydrase IX (CA9) in delineating low-oxygen tumor regions [48].
Other studies implicate ERO1α in conferring resistance to ferroptosis. ERO1α aids in promoting the antioxidant defenses of tumors with active mechanistic target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) signaling by promoting cystine uptake through SLC7A11. To this end, the inhibition of ERO1α makes these tumors susceptible to ferroptosis, indicating that oxidative folding is involved not only in facilitating protein maturation but also redox-dependent survival [49].
ERO1α-driven redox signaling also contributes to immune evasion and therapy resistance. In hepatocellular carcinoma, ERO1α activates the S1PR1/STAT3/VEGF-A axis to promote migration and angiogenesis, with elevated expression correlating with reduced survival [50]. In lung adenocarcinoma, overexpression of ERO1α is associated with a hypoxia-induced, immunity-suppressive tumor microenvironment and predicts resistance to immunotherapy [51], whereas genetic deletion of ERO1α enhances anti-tumor immunity, induces immunogenic cell death, and improves responses to immunotherapy in experimental models [52]. Consistent with these findings, bioinformatic analyses across lung cancer subtypes identify ERO1α as a negative prognostic factor with potential use for therapy stratification [53]. In pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, combined inhibition of ERO1α and IDO1 enhances dendritic cell infiltration and limits tumor growth, linking ERO1α activity to immune regulation within the tumor microenvironment [54].
Comparable patterns are observed in prostate and cervical cancers. In prostate cancer, elevated ERO1α expression correlates with higher Gleason scores, and gene silencing reduces proliferation, invasion, and integrin-β1 expression, highlighting its role in matrix interaction and tumor progression [55]. In cervical cancer, ERO1α promotes tumor growth, migration, and EMT through H2O2-mediated signaling; notably, the Val101 residue is essential for ERO1α–PDI interaction and oxidase activity, and its mutation suppresses oxidative folding and tumor development in vivo, directly linking the ERO1α–PDI interface to malignant behavior [27].
Collectively, these findings, along with their integrated summary in Table 2, consistently demonstrate that ERO1α is a key catalyst in oxidative protein folding but also a more general regulator of tumor adaptation, redox control, and clinical outcomes.

4. Small Molecule and Peptide Inhibitors of ERO1α and PDI

ERO1α continuously reoxidizes PDI to maintain disulfide bond formation, a process that directly supports the oxidative folding capacity of the endoplasmic reticulum. Cancer cells—particularly those with high secretory activity, hypoxic tumor microenvironments, or activated UPR pathways—rely heavily on this oxidative machinery [20]. This dependence creates a potential therapeutic window: inhibiting ERO1α or PDI preferentially disrupts tumor cell homeostasis, while most normal cells can tolerate the resulting ER stress without significant cytotoxicity.

4.1. PDI Inhibitors

Compared to ERO1α inhibitors, PDI-targeting pharmacology is more developed, largely because PDI proteins participate in multiple cancer-associated processes [7], including integrin maturation [56] and MHC-I peptide loading [57]. However, the PDI family includes more than 20 isoforms [58], and most inhibitors lack isoform selectivity [59].
The PACMA (propynoic acid carbamoyl methyl amide) family, with PACMA31 as the most well-characterized member, represents a class of electrophilic small molecules that covalently target the active-site cysteines of PDIs—primarily PDIA1 [60]. In vitro, PACMA31 efficiently inhibits PDI activity, induces accumulation of misfolded proteins in the ER, triggers the unfolded protein response (UPR), and promotes apoptotic cell death. In vivo, PACMA31 exhibits significant anti-tumor efficacy in ovarian cancer xenograft models, reducing tumor growth without causing overt systemic toxicity [39].
16F16 is an irreversible small molecule inhibitor of PDI that covalently modifies free cysteine thiols to block its reductase activity, as first described by Hoffstrom et al. [61]. In MDA-MB-231 and HCC1937, 16F16 reduced cell adhesion, spreading, and the formation of pro-migratory F-actin structures. Treatment also impaired cell migration in scratch-wound assays, with effects more pronounced in basal-like cell lines compared with PACMA-31, which preferentially inhibits PDIA1 [62].
RB-11-ca was identified as the first characterized a-domain-selective inhibitor of PDIA1, binding specifically to Cys53, the N-terminal catalytic cysteine of the a domain. In vitro fluorescence-based activity assays showed that RB-11-ca inhibits PDI activity comparably to commercially available inhibitor 16F16 and decreases the proliferation of HeLa cells [63].
Cole et al. identified KSC-34 as a highly potent and exceptionally selective PDIA1 inhibitor derived from lead compound RB-11-ca. KSC-34 covalently targets Cys53 in the a domain and incorporates an alkyne handle that enables rapid assessment of potency and selectivity in living cells. It is ~38-fold more potent than 16F16 and shows strong selectivity for PDIA1 within the cellular proteome. Importantly, in MCF-7 cells, KSC-34 caused only minimal and transient activation of the IRE1α arm of the UPR, indicating limited off-target stress responses [13].
Tseng and colleagues recently identified PS1, a selective PDIA4 inhibitor that improved multiple diabetic parameters in db/db mice by reducing ROS and protecting β-cell function [64]. Building on related PDI-targeting strategies, Chu et al. developed compound 14d, a highly potent PDIA1 inhibitor derived from warhead optimization, which effectively suppressed platelet aggregation and thrombosis without cytotoxicity [65]. Both inhibitors demonstrated strong activity in non-cancer disease models, and neither has yet been tested in cancer, leaving open the possibility of future oncologic applications. The chemical structures of the PDI inhibitors are represented in Figure 3.
An overview of PDI-targeting compounds, including their isoform selectivity, experimental validation, and clinical status, is summarized in Table 3.

4.2. ERO1α Inhibitors

EN460 remains the most widely characterized small molecule ERO1α inhibitor, originally identified together with QM295 in the seminal biochemical screening study by Blais et al., which first demonstrated that ERO1α could be pharmacologically targeted [67]. Originally identified through screening of quinazolinone derivatives, EN460 acts as a covalent or quasi-covalent modifier of the FAD proximal active site of ERO1α, reducing its catalytic turnover rate [67]. However, EN460 lacks specificity: it inhibits other flavin-dependent oxidoreductases, including MAO-A/B, raising concerns about off-target toxicity [68]. Despite these limitations, EN460 remains the primary pharmacological probe to study ERO1α biology. QM295, discovered alongside EN460 in the same study, is a reversible thiol-reactive inhibitor with good in vitro potency, yet it similarly shows limited cellular efficacy and some nonspecific cytotoxicity [67].
Varone et al. clarified that although EN460 inhibits ERO1α in the low micromolar range, its Michael acceptor electrophile allows for reaction with cellular thiols like glutathione, raising concerns about selectivity and off-target effects. To address this, the authors performed structure–activity optimization and identified improved EN460 analogs I2 and I3, which bind ERO1α directly, more effectively trap it in a reduced inactive state, and suppress VEGF-A secretion. Notably, I2 showed superior activity in TNBC models, reducing VEGF-A and PD-L1 in tumors without detectable toxicity [69].
A recent large-scale natural-product screening [70] identified two new ERO1α inhibitors—S88 and geniposide—that improved neuromuscular function in ALS and congenital muscle disorder models. Although they have not yet been tested in cancer, they highlight the possibility of discovering therapeutically relevant ERO1α inhibitors for oncology. Another study by Johnson et al. [71] revealed that T151742, the most potent aurone analog identified to date, selectively inhibits ERO1α in recombinant and cell-based assays and impairs clonogenic growth in vitro. Although it has not yet been evaluated in vivo, its specificity suggests strong potential for future cancer studies. The chemical structures of ERO1α inhibitors are represented in Figure 4.
The pharmacological landscape of ERO1α inhibition, encompassing biochemical, cellular, and in vivo validation, is outlined in Table 4.
Unlike inhibitors that target ERO1α or PDI alone, there is limited literature suggesting that small molecules could interfere with direct functional interaction between ERO1α and PDI. An example is bisphenol A, which was demonstrated to disrupt ERO1α–PDI-dependent disulfide transfer by disrupting their redox interaction, resulting in lower oxidative folding activity in vitro. Even though bisphenol A is not selective and cannot be used as a therapeutic compound, its activity offers valuable proof of concept that the ERO1α–PDI interface is chemically addressable [72]. The chemical structure of bisphenol A is represented in Figure 5.
Taken together, these studies argue in favor of the idea that interfering with the ERO1α–PDI redox interface, as opposed to blocking either enzyme on its own, is a unique mechanistic approach. Nevertheless, there is a scarcity of verified interface-directed inhibitors, which should be replaced by additional structure-driven discovery programs.

5. Translational and Clinical Implications

In many tumor types, ERO1α and PDI have emerged as prognostic biomarkers based on patient-derived correlative data. Clinical cohort analyses show that elevated ERO1α expression is associated with poor outcomes in several cancers. For example, Zhang et al. (2025) showed that high expression of ERO1α in lung cancer is associated with lower survival and activation of pathways such as epithelial–mesenchymal transition, PI3K/AKT/mTOR, and IL-6/JAK/STAT3, which directly contribute to tumor growth and aggressiveness [73]. Furthermore, regulation of ERO1α by the AC087588.2/miR-30a-5p pathway is linked to an increased immune response and reduced patient survival, so this indicator is also helpful in prediction. The same conclusions were made about pancreatic cancer: ERO1α is a part of the signature of ER stress genes, and its increased expression correlates with reduced survival rates [74]. In addition, PDIA3, an ER redox regulator, is also more frequently expressed in different cancer types and is a marker of poor clinical outcomes and limited response to immunotherapy [75].
In contrast, functional and causal evidence for ERO1α–PDI involvement in therapy response is derived from preclinical studies. Experimental models demonstrate that ERO1α-mediated oxidative protein folding stabilizes drug-resistance transporters such as ATP-binding cassette subfamily G member 2 (ABCG2) and multidrug resistance-associated protein 1 (MRP1), whereas disruption of disulfide bond formation sensitizes tumor cells to cytotoxic agents [76]. In addition, activity of the ERO1α–PDI system generates hydrogen peroxide, thereby modulating intracellular oxidative stress levels and contributing to redox-dependent drug resistance pathways [77]. More broadly, ER stress sensors, including GRP78, PERK, IRE1, ATF6, and PDI, enable tumor cells to adapt to hypoxia and therapeutic pressure, highlighting these pathways as potential targets for combination strategies [78].
Preclinical intervention studies further support a causal role for the ERO1α–PDI axis in tumor progression and immune modulation. Benham et al. provided evidence that inhibition of ERO1α–PDI delays protein folding in tumor cells and inhibits VEGF-A angiogenesis and immune signaling pathways [79]. Loss of ERO1α causes tumor cells to become more apparent to the immune system. Consequently, infiltration of CD8+ T cells and the release of DAMPs increase, which enhances the response to immune checkpoint inhibitors and can even stimulate immune memory development [52]. ERO1α blockers, in combination with ER stress-inducing drugs such as proteasome blockers or PERK and ATF6 inhibitors, additionally suppresses the ERK1/2-mTOR pathway [80]. There is also a link between ERO1α and angiogenesis, as the NFIB–ERO1α axis stabilizes HIF-1α, and knockdown of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor delta (PPARδ) results in increased VEGF-A [81,82].

6. Challenges and Future Perspectives

The challenges of targeting ERO1α in the treatment of cancer involve both scientific and practical aspects that need to be considered to make this treatment strategy clinically viable. Redundancy in the ER oxidative folding network is one of the initial problems in targeting ERO1α. ERO1β has the ability to replace a few functions, and other enzymes, including peroxiredoxin IV and glutathione peroxidases 7 and 8, are also involved in disulfide bond formation. The PDI family is also large, and its paralogs overlap in their activities. Consequently, inhibition of ERO1α might not be sufficient to inhibit oxidative folding because cancer cells might also evolve and use other oxidases, or they may switch to other PDIs [20]. Combination strategies are under consideration to resolve this. Some such solutions involve co-inhibiting an ERO1α–PDI interface with an inhibitor that is selective to a tumor-relevant PDI isoform. Another approach is to pair ERO1α inhibitors with ferroptotic inducers, which can take advantage of compromised antioxidant responses in tumors with active mTORC1 signaling [49].
Safety is another concern. Oxidative folding is necessary to generate key proteins important to normal secretory cells like insulin in pancreatic β cells, albumin in hepatocytes, and antibodies in plasma cells. Blocking ERO1α or PDIs excessively may overwhelm cells under ER stress and disrupt the functioning of organs. Reviews of PDI-targeted agents underline this risk and indicate the necessity of selective or tumor-targeted strategies [29]. Technologies that enhance delivery, like nanoparticles, antibody drug conjugates, and hypoxia-activated prodrugs, provide alternatives to localize drug activity to the tumor microenvironment in order to reduce systemic toxicity. On a more general level, ER stress research in cancer warns that induction of global stress in all tissues is a double-edged sword; in many cases, it is detrimental, inducing ER stress in all tissues [83], although it may be safer to selectively impair the ERO1α–PDI interface.
Structural knowledge is another weakness. Although the mapping of major surfaces has improved, high-resolution structures of the human ERO1α–PDI complex in active states are yet to be defined. This is a loophole that slows down the design of interface-directed drugs. The discovery that Val101 is essential in binding to PDI, which is an example of a mutational study, demonstrates that single residues can serve as functional hotspots [27]. As such, structural templates capturing docking geometries and mixed-disulfide intermediates would be useful to medicinal chemistry, which might need to be prioritized as the first step in the development of a roadmap to decipher/validate the “ERO1α–PDI interface” as a potential treatment strategy. Thus, transient states might be stabilized and visualized using techniques such as cryo-EM, NMR, and cross-linking mass spectrometry, along with biochemical mapping of important contact points. Such information could be used for in silico screening, fragment-based discovery, and the rational design of peptidomimetics [25].
Another challenge—and opportunity—is the selection of appropriate cancer settings and therapeutic partners. To determine cases in which the dependence on ERO1α is greatest, preclinical work should focus on comparing tumor cells with corresponding normal cells under hypoxia and high secretory loads. Therapeutic windows can be defined with the help of CRISPR-based knockouts or inducible knockdowns [47]. The newly designed chemical probes that will inhibit the docking of ERO1α to PDI should be tested by binding assays and in situ methods, thermal-shift or SPR readouts, and cell-based markers of BiP and CHOP induction, as well as tests of secretion efficiency and ROS accumulation [30,84]. In this context, combination studies appear to be particularly promising. As an example, the combination of ERO1α inhibitors and proteasome inhibitors or immune checkpoint blockade may enhance stress or immune recognition. Outside of redox balance, ERO1α has been found to mediate immune evasion, such as that of PD-L1 and myeloid cell repression, and there is a possibility that the disruption of this relay might enhance the success of immunotherapy against some cancers [85].
Lastly, clinical translation will be dependent on patient selection. The most sensitive tumors are likely to be those with high ERO1α and hypoxia levels or those with high levels of secretory demands, for example, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, cervical cancer, and subsets of colorectal and lung cancers. Diagnostic tools such as ERO1α immunohistochemistry, used alongside hypoxia-related gene signatures or imaging, could help identify patients for inclusion in early-phase clinical trials. Interface-directed drugs may be used alongside oxidative burden-increasing or proteostasis-inhibiting therapies in clinical practice, and close attention to functions of the pancreas, liver, and immune compartments would assist in managing the toxicity risk [29].

7. Conclusions

The ERO1α–PDI system is a central regulator of oxidative protein folding in the endoplasmic reticulum and is frequently hyperactivated in cancer to sustain proliferation, survival under stress, angiogenesis, and resistance to therapy. When the interaction between ERO1α and PDI is altered, tumor cells can become more susceptible to chemotherapy and immunotherapy and face additional stress because of protein folding issues. Importantly, disrupting the interaction between ERO1α and PDI appears to be a more promising strategy than broadly inhibiting ER folding enzymes, as it selectively impairs proteostasis and increases stress in tumor cells. Although the structural organization of the ERO1α–PDI complex is not yet fully resolved and systemic inhibition may pose toxicity risks, advances in structure-guided drug design and tumor-selective delivery approaches offer feasible paths forward. A new approach would be especially promising for treatment of patients with hypoxic tumors, high secretory activity, or increased ERO1α-level tumors. Overall, targeting the ERO1α–PDI system appears to be a viable approach to enhance anti-cancer therapy.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.A.; writing—original draft preparation, K.S. (Kamila Sagatbekova), D.B., A.Z. (Aiym Zhussipbekkyzy), K.K., and K.S. (Karakat Sabit); writing—review and editing, K.K., K.S. (Kamila Sagatbekova), L.R.L., and A.Z. (Assem Zhakupova); visualization, L.R.L.; funding acquisition, M.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Nazarbayev University Collaborative Research Grant number 111024CRP2020. L.R.L. was funded by grants from Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) (L.R.L.; 2020/12432-6, and CEPID Redox Processes in Biomedicine, Redoxome 2013/07937-8).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
ABCG2ATP-binding cassette subfamily G member 2
AktProtein kinase B
ALSAmyotrophic lateral sclerosis
ATF6Activating transcription factor 6
BiPBinding immunoglobulin protein
BPABisphenol A
CA9Carbonic anhydrase IX
CHOPC/EBP homologous protein (GADD153)
CNXCalnexin
CRTCalreticulin
DAMPsDamage-associated molecular patterns
EMTEpithelial–mesenchymal transition
EN460Small molecule ERO1α inhibitor
EREndoplasmic reticulum
ERK1/2Extracellular signal-regulated kinases 1 and 2
ERO1αEndoplasmic reticulum oxidoreductin 1 alpha
ERO1βEndoplasmic reticulum oxidoreductin 1 beta
ERp57Endoplasmic reticulum protein 57 (PDIA3)
ERp72Endoplasmic reticulum protein 72 (PDIA4)
FADFlavin adenine dinucleotide
GADD153Growth arrest and DNA damage–inducible protein 153
GRP78Glucose-regulated protein 78
GRP94Glucose-regulated protein 94
GSHReduced glutathione
GSSGOxidized glutathione
H2O2Hydrogen peroxide
HCCHepatocellular carcinoma
HIF-1αHypoxia-inducible factor 1 alpha
HTSHigh-throughput screening
IDO1Indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase 1
IRE1Inositol-requiring enzyme 1
MAO-A/BMonoamine oxidase A/B
MCF-7Human breast cancer cell line
MDA-MB-231Triple-negative breast cancer cell line
MHC-IMajor histocompatibility complex class I
MPR1Multidrug resistance-associated protein 1
mTORMechanistic target of rapamycin
mTORC1Mechanistic target of rapamycin complex 1
NF-κBNuclear factor kappa B
NFIBNuclear factor I B
NSCLCNon-small cell lung cancer
PACMAPropynoic acid carbamoyl methyl amide
PD-1Programmed cell death protein 1
PD-L1Programmed death-ligand 1
PDIProtein disulfide isomerase
PDIA1Protein disulfide isomerase A1
PDIA3Protein disulfide isomerase A3
PDIA4Protein disulfide isomerase A4
PDIA6Protein disulfide isomerase A6
PERKProtein kinase R–like ER kinase
PI3KPhosphoinositide 3-kinase
PPARδPeroxisome proliferator-activated receptor delta
PRDX4Peroxiredoxin 4
ROSReactive oxygen species
S1PR1Sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor 1
SLC7A11Solute carrier family 7 member 11
SPRSurface plasmon resonance
STAT3Signal transducer and activator of transcription 3
TNBCTriple-negative breast cancer
UPRUnfolded protein response
VEGF-AVascular endothelial growth factor A
VEGFR2Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2

References

  1. Kettel, P.; Karagöz, G.E. Endoplasmic Reticulum: Monitoring and Maintaining Protein and Membrane Homeostasis in the Endoplasmic Reticulum by the Unfolded Protein Response. Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 2024, 172, 106598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Ragupathi, A.; Mastrogiannis, A.J.; Rahimi, N. Biochemistry, Tertiary Protein Structure. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/books/NBK470269/ (accessed on 2 January 2026).
  3. Shergalis, A.G.; Hu, S.; Bankhead, A., 3rd; Neamati, N. Role of the ERO1-PDI Interaction in Oxidative Protein Folding and Disease. Pharmacol. Ther. 2020, 210, 107525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Chen, X.; Cubillos-Ruiz, J.R. Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress Signals in the Tumour and Its Microenvironment. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2021, 21, 71–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Nagel, R.; Semenova, E.A.; Berns, A. Drugging the Addict: Non-oncogene Addiction as a Target for Cancer Therapy. EMBO Rep. 2016, 17, 1516–1531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Huang, D.; Baldandorj, B.; Odkhuu, E.; Amartuvshin, E.; Boldbaatar, D.; Guo, H.; Mendjargal, A. ERO1α Regulates Curcumin-Induced Autophagy via PI3K/AKT Pathway. Cancer Treat. Res. Commun. 2025, 44, 100957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Nie, Q.; Yang, J.; Zhou, X.; Li, N.; Zhang, J. The Role of Protein Disulfide Isomerase Inhibitors in Cancer Therapy. ChemMedChem 2025, 20, e202400590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Tavender, T.J.; Bulleid, N.J. Molecular Mechanisms Regulating Oxidative Activity of the Ero1 Family in the Endoplasmic Reticulum. Antioxid. Redox Signal. 2010, 13, 1177–1187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hao, S.; Cai, D.; Gou, S.; Li, Y.; Liu, L.; Tang, X.; Chen, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Shen, J.; Wu, X.; et al. Does Each Component of Reactive Oxygen Species Have a Dual Role in the Tumor Microenvironment? Curr. Med. Chem. 2024, 31, 4958–4986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Goldberger, R.F.; Epstein, C.J.; Anfinsen, C.B. Acceleration of Reactivation of Reduced Bovine Pancreatic Ribonuclease by a Microsomal System from Rat Liver. J. Biol. Chem. 1963, 238, 628–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Andreu, C.I.; Woehlbier, U.; Torres, M.; Hetz, C. Protein Disulfide Isomerases in Neurodegeneration: From Disease Mechanisms to Biomedical Applications. FEBS Lett. 2012, 586, 2826–2834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wang, C.; Li, W.; Ren, J.; Fang, J.; Ke, H.; Gong, W.; Feng, W.; Wang, C. Structural Insights into the Redox-Regulated Dynamic Conformations of Human Protein Disulfide Isomerase. Antioxid. Redox Signal. 2013, 19, 36–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Cole, K.S.; Grandjean, J.M.D.; Chen, K.; Witt, C.H.; O’Day, J.; Shoulders, M.D.; Wiseman, R.L.; Weerapana, E. Characterization of an A-Site Selective Protein Disulfide Isomerase A1 Inhibitor. Biochemistry 2018, 57, 2035–2043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chiavari, M.; Ciotti, G.M.P.; Canonico, F.; Altieri, F.; Lacal, P.M.; Graziani, G.; Navarra, P.; Lisi, L. PDIA3 Expression in Glioblastoma Modulates Macrophage/Microglia Pro-Tumor Activation. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 8214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Soldà, T.; Garbi, N.; Hämmerling, G.J.; Molinari, M. Consequences of ERp57 Deletion on Oxidative Folding of Obligate and Facultative Clients of the Calnexin Cycle. J. Biol. Chem. 2006, 281, 6219–6226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Medinas, D.B.; Rozas, P.; Hetz, C. Critical Roles of Protein Disulfide Isomerases in Balancing Proteostasis in the Nervous System. J. Biol. Chem. 2022, 298, 102087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Perri, E.R.; Thomas, C.J.; Parakh, S.; Spencer, D.M.; Atkin, J.D. The Unfolded Protein Response and the Role of Protein Disulfide Isomerase in Neurodegeneration. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2016, 3, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Oka, O.B.V.; Yeoh, H.Y.; Bulleid, N.J. Thiol-Disulfide Exchange between the PDI Family of Oxidoreductases Negates the Requirement for an Oxidase or Reductase for Each Enzyme. Biochem. J. 2015, 469, 279–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Jha, V.; Kumari, T.; Manickam, V.; Assar, Z.; Olson, K.L.; Min, J.-K.; Cho, J. ERO1-PDI Redox Signaling in Health and Disease. Antioxid. Redox Signal. 2021, 35, 1093–1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Chen, P.; Sharma, A.; Weiher, H.; Schmidt-Wolf, I.G.H. Biological Mechanisms and Clinical Significance of Endoplasmic Reticulum Oxidoreductase 1 Alpha (ERO1α) in Human Cancer. J. Exp. Clin. Cancer Res. 2024, 43, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ramming, T.; Appenzeller-Herzog, C. The Physiological Functions of Mammalian Endoplasmic Oxidoreductin 1: On Disulfides and More. Antioxid. Redox Signal. 2012, 16, 1109–1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Tanaka, T.; Kutomi, G.; Kajiwara, T.; Kukita, K.; Kochin, V.; Kanaseki, T.; Tsukahara, T.; Hirohashi, Y.; Torigoe, T.; Okamoto, Y.; et al. Cancer-Associated Oxidoreductase ERO1-α Promotes Immune Escape through up-Regulation of PD-L1 in Human Breast Cancer. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 24706–24718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Varone, E.; Decio, A.; Chernorudskiy, A.; Minoli, L.; Brunelli, L.; Ioli, F.; Piotti, A.; Pastorelli, R.; Fratelli, M.; Gobbi, M.; et al. The ER Stress Response Mediator ERO1 Triggers Cancer Metastasis by Favoring the Angiogenic Switch in Hypoxic Conditions. Oncogene 2021, 40, 1721–1736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Sevier, C.S.; Kaiser, C.A. Disulfide Transfer between Two Conserved Cysteine Pairs Imparts Selectivity to Protein Oxidation by Ero1. MBoC 2006, 17, 2256–2266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Masui, S.; Vavassori, S.; Fagioli, C.; Sitia, R.; Inaba, K. Molecular Bases of Cyclic and Specific Disulfide Interchange between Human ERO1α Protein and Protein-Disulfide Isomerase (PDI). J. Biol. Chem. 2011, 286, 16261–16271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Amodio, G.; Pagliara, V.; Moltedo, O.; Remondelli, P. Structural and Functional Significance of the Endoplasmic Reticulum Unfolded Protein Response Transducers and Chaperones at the Mitochondria–ER Contacts: A Cancer Perspective. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2021, 9, 641194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zhang, Y.; Li, T.; Zhang, L.; Shangguan, F.; Shi, G.; Wu, X.; Cui, Y.; Wang, X.; Wang, X.; Liu, Y.; et al. Targeting the Functional Interplay between Endoplasmic Reticulum Oxidoreductin-1α and Protein Disulfide Isomerase Suppresses the Progression of Cervical Cancer. EBioMedicine 2019, 41, 408–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Rahman, N.S.A.; Zahari, S.; Syafruddin, S.E.; Firdaus-Raih, M.; Low, T.Y.; Mohtar, M.A. Functions and Mechanisms of Protein Disulfide Isomerase Family in Cancer Emergence. Cell Biosci. 2022, 12, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Powell, L.E.; Foster, P.A. Protein Disulphide Isomerase Inhibition as a Potential Cancer Therapeutic Strategy. Cancer Med. 2021, 10, 2812–2825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hung, C.-S.; Lee, K.-L.; Huang, W.-J.; Su, F.-H.; Liang, Y.-C. Pan-Inhibition of Protein Disulfide Isomerase Caused Cell Death through Disrupting Cellular Proteostasis in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Cells. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 16467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Robinson, R.M.; Reyes, L.; Duncan, R.M.; Bian, H.; Reitz, A.B.; Manevich, Y.; McClure, J.J.; Champion, M.M.; Chou, C.J.; Sharik, M.E.; et al. Inhibitors of the Protein Disulfide Isomerase Family for the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma. Leukemia 2019, 33, 1011–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Yang, S.; Jackson, C.; Karapetyan, E.; Dutta, P.; Kermah, D.; Wu, Y.; Wu, Y.; Schloss, J.; Vadgama, J.V. Roles of Protein Disulfide Isomerase in Breast Cancer. Cancers 2022, 14, 745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lee, E.; Lee, D.H. Emerging Roles of Protein Disulfide Isomerase in Cancer. BMB Rep. 2017, 50, 401–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Goplen, D.; Wang, J.; Enger, P.Ø.; Tysnes, B.B.; Terzis, A.J.A.; Laerum, O.D.; Bjerkvig, R. Protein Disulfide Isomerase Expression Is Related to the Invasive Properties of Malignant Glioma. Cancer Res. 2006, 66, 9895–9902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Wise, R.; Duhachek-Muggy, S.; Qi, Y.; Zolkiewski, M.; Zolkiewska, A. Protein Disulfide Isomerases in the Endoplasmic Reticulum Promote Anchorage-Independent Growth of Breast Cancer Cells. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2016, 157, 241–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Bakker, E.; Fujii, M.; Krstic-Demonacos, M.; Demonacos, C.; Alhammad, R. Protein Disulfide Isomerase A1-associated Pathways in the Development of Stratified Breast Cancer Therapies. Int. J. Oncol. 2022, 60, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Tufo, G.; Jones, A.W.E.; Wang, Z.; Hamelin, J.; Tajeddine, N.; Esposti, D.D.; Martel, C.; Boursier, C.; Gallerne, C.; Migdal, C.; et al. The Protein Disulfide Isomerases PDIA4 and PDIA6 Mediate Resistance to Cisplatin-Induced Cell Death in Lung Adenocarcinoma. Cell Death Differ. 2014, 21, 685–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kim, K.; An, A.; Park, H.; Jang, K.; Moon, W.; Kang, M.; Lee, Y.; Ku, J.; Chung, M. Combined Expression of Protein Disulfide Isomerase and Endoplasmic Reticulum Oxidoreductin 1-α Is a Poor Prognostic Marker for Non-small Cell Lung Cancer. Oncol. Lett. 2018, 16, 5753–5760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Xu, S.; Butkevich, A.N.; Yamada, R.; Zhou, Y.; Debnath, B.; Duncan, R.; Zandi, E.; Petasis, N.A.; Neamati, N. Discovery of an Orally Active Small-Molecule Irreversible Inhibitor of Protein Disulfide Isomerase for Ovarian Cancer Treatment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 16348–16353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Karamali, N.; Daraei, A.; Rostamlou, A.; Mahdavi, R.; Akbari Jonoush, Z.; Ghadiri, N.; Mahmoudi, Z.; Mardi, A.; Javidan, M.; Sohrabi, S.; et al. Decoding Contextual Crosstalk: Revealing Distinct Interactions between Non-Coding RNAs and Unfolded Protein Response in Breast Cancer. Cancer Cell Int. 2024, 24, 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ong, G.; Logue, S.E. Unfolding the Interactions between Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress and Oxidative Stress. Antioxidants 2023, 12, 981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bhattarai, K.R.; Riaz, T.A.; Kim, H.-R.; Chae, H.-J. The Aftermath of the Interplay between the Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress Response and Redox Signaling. Exp. Mol. Med. 2021, 53, 151–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Gupta, N.; Park, J.E.; Tse, W.; Low, J.K.; Kon, O.L.; McCarthy, N.; Sze, S.K. ERO1α Promotes Hypoxic Tumor Progression and Is Associated with Poor Prognosis in Pancreatic Cancer. Oncotarget 2019, 10, 5970–5982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Tanaka, T.; Kutomi, G.; Kajiwara, T.; Kukita, K.; Kochin, V.; Kanaseki, T.; Tsukahara, T.; Hirohashi, Y.; Torigoe, T.; Okamoto, Y.; et al. Cancer-Associated Oxidoreductase ERO1-α Drives the Production of VEGF via Oxidative Protein Folding and Regulating the mRNA Level. Br. J. Cancer 2016, 114, 1227–1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Yan, W.; Wang, X.; Liu, T.; Chen, L.; Han, L.; Xu, J.; Jin, G.; Harada, K.; Lin, Z.; Ren, X. Expression of Endoplasmic Reticulum Oxidoreductase 1-α in Cholangiocarcinoma Tissues and Its Effects on the Proliferation and Migration of Cholangiocarcinoma Cells. Cancer Manag. Res. 2019, 11, 6727–6739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hu, S.; Lou, J.; Chen, Y.; Ding, M.; Qin, J.; Nie, J.; Li, Y.; Liu, Z.; Xu, M.; Sun, H.; et al. ERO1A-Positive Tumor Epithelial Cells in Colorectal Cancer Progression: A Multi-Omics Perspective. Apoptosis 2025, 30, 3044–3068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Takei, N.; Yoneda, A.; Sakai-Sawada, K.; Kosaka, M.; Minomi, K.; Tamura, Y. Hypoxia-Inducible ERO1α Promotes Cancer Progression through Modulation of Integrin-Β1 Modification and Signalling in HCT116 Colorectal Cancer Cells. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 9389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Takei, N.; Yoneda, A.; Kosaka, M.; Sakai-Sawada, K.; Tamura, Y. ERO1α Is a Novel Endogenous Marker of Hypoxia in Human Cancer Cell Lines. BMC Cancer 2019, 19, 510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Wang, Z.; Zong, H.; Liu, W.; Lin, W.; Sun, A.; Ding, Z.; Chen, X.; Wan, X.; Liu, Y.; Hu, Z.; et al. Augmented ERO1α upon mTORC1 Activation Induces Ferroptosis Resistance and Tumor Progression via Upregulation of SLC7A11. J. Exp. Clin. Cancer Res. 2024, 43, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Yang, S.; Yang, C.; Yu, F.; Ding, W.; Hu, Y.; Cheng, F.; Zhang, F.; Guan, B.; Wang, X.; Lu, L.; et al. Endoplasmic Reticulum Resident Oxidase ERO1-Lalpha Promotes Hepatocellular Carcinoma Metastasis and Angiogenesis through the S1PR1/STAT3/VEGF-A Pathway. Cell Death Dis. 2018, 9, 1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Liu, L.; Wang, W.; Zhao, Z.; Hu, C.; Tao, L.; Zhang, X. Pholidonone, an Active Stilbene Derivative from Pholidota Cantonensis, Exhibits pro-Apoptotic Effect via Induction of Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress in Human Gastric Cancer. Food Nutr. Res. 2019, 63, 10–29219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Liu, L.; Li, S.; Qu, Y.; Bai, H.; Pan, X.; Wang, J.; Wang, Z.; Duan, J.; Zhong, J.; Wan, R.; et al. Ablation of ERO1A Induces Lethal Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress Responses and Immunogenic Cell Death to Activate Anti-Tumor Immunity. Cell Rep. Med. 2023, 4, 101206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Voronkova, M.A.; Johnson, B.; Gandhi, N.; Koomen, J.M.; Patrick, M.; Shanthi Bhupathi, S.; Wu, V.M.; Elliott, A.; Vanderwalde, A.; Halmos, B.; et al. ERO1A Levels Are a Prognostic Indicator in EGFR Mutated Non Small Cell Lung Cancer. NPJ Precis. Oncol. 2024, 8, 250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Tay, A.H.M.; Cinotti, R.; Sze, N.S.K.; Lundqvist, A. Inhibition of ERO1a and IDO1 Improves Dendritic Cell Infiltration into Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma. Front. Immunol. 2023, 14, 1264012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Cornelius, J.; Cavarretta, I.; Pozzi, E.; Lavorgna, G.; Locatelli, I.; Tempio, T.; Montorsi, F.; Mattei, A.; Sitia, R.; Salonia, A.; et al. Endoplasmic Reticulum Oxidoreductase 1 Alpha Modulates Prostate Cancer Hallmarks. Transl. Androl. Urol. 2021, 10, 1110–1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Rosenberg, N.; Mor-Cohen, R.; Sheptovitsky, V.H.; Romanenco, O.; Hess, O.; Lahav, J. Integrin-Mediated Cell Adhesion Requires Extracellular Disulfide Exchange Regulated by Protein Disulfide Isomerase. Exp. Cell Res. 2019, 381, 77–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Park, B.; Lee, S.; Kim, E.; Cho, K.; Riddell, S.R.; Cho, S.; Ahn, K. Redox Regulation Facilitates Optimal Peptide Selection by MHC Class I during Antigen Processing. Cell 2006, 127, 369–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Sato, Y.; Kojima, R.; Okumura, M.; Hagiwara, M.; Masui, S.; Maegawa, K.; Saiki, M.; Horibe, T.; Suzuki, M.; Inaba, K. Synergistic Cooperation of PDI Family Members in Peroxiredoxin 4-Driven Oxidative Protein Folding. Sci. Rep. 2013, 3, 2456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Bekendam, R.H.; Bendapudi, P.K.; Lin, L.; Nag, P.P.; Pu, J.; Kennedy, D.R.; Feldenzer, A.; Chiu, J.; Cook, K.M.; Furie, B.; et al. A Substrate-Driven Allosteric Switch That Enhances PDI Catalytic Activity. Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 12579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Yamada, R.; Cao, X.; Butkevich, A.N.; Millard, M.; Odde, S.; Mordwinkin, N.; Gundla, R.; Zandi, E.; Louie, S.G.; Petasis, N.A.; et al. Discovery and Preclinical Evaluation of a Novel Class of Cytotoxic Propynoic Acid Carbamoyl Methyl Amides (PACMAs). J. Med. Chem. 2011, 54, 2902–2914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hoffstrom, B.G.; Kaplan, A.; Letso, R.; Schmid, R.S.; Turmel, G.J.; Lo, D.C.; Stockwell, B.R. Inhibitors of Protein Disulfide Isomerase Suppress Apoptosis Induced by Misfolded Proteins. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2010, 6, 900–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Young, H.S.; McGowan, L.M.; Jepson, K.A.; Adams, J.C. Impairment of Cell Adhesion and Migration by Inhibition of Protein Disulphide Isomerases in Three Breast Cancer Cell Lines. Biosci. Rep. 2020, 40, BSR20193271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Banerjee, R.; Pace, N.J.; Brown, D.R.; Weerapana, E. 1,3,5-Triazine as a Modular Scaffold for Covalent Inhibitors with Streamlined Target Identification. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2013, 135, 2497–2500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Tseng, H.-J.; Chen, W.-C.; Kuo, T.-F.; Yang, G.; Feng, C.-S.; Chen, H.-M.; Chen, T.-Y.; Lee, T.-H.; Yang, W.-C.; Tsai, K.-C.; et al. Pharmacological and Mechanistic Study of PS1, a Pdia4 Inhibitor, in β-Cell Pathogenesis and Diabetes in Db/Db Mice. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2023, 80, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Chu, J.-C.; Tsai, K.-C.; Wang, T.-Y.; Chen, T.-Y.; Tsai, J.-Y.; Lee, T.; Lin, M.-H.; Hsieh, Y.S.Y.; Wu, C.-C.; Huang, W.-J. Discovery and Biological Evaluation of Potent 2-Trifluoromethyl Acrylamide Warhead-Containing Inhibitors of Protein Disulfide Isomerase. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2025, 283, 117169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Furie, B.; Flaumenhaft, R. Thiol Isomerases in Thrombus Formation. Circ. Res. 2014, 114, 1162–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Blais, J.D.; Chin, K.-T.; Zito, E.; Zhang, Y.; Heldman, N.; Harding, H.P.; Fass, D.; Thorpe, C.; Ron, D. A Small Molecule Inhibitor of Endoplasmic Reticulum Oxidation 1 (ERO1) with Selectively Reversible Thiol Reactivity. J. Biol. Chem. 2010, 285, 20993–21003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Hayes, K.E.; Batsomboon, P.; Chen, W.-C.; Johnson, B.D.; Becker, A.; Eschrich, S.; Yang, Y.; Robart, A.R.; Dudley, G.B.; Geldenhuys, W.J.; et al. Inhibition of the FAD Containing ER Oxidoreductin 1 (Ero1) Protein by EN-460 as a Strategy for Treatment of Multiple Myeloma. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2019, 27, 1479–1488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Varone, E.; Retini, M.; Cherubini, A.; Chernorudskiy, A.; Marrazza, A.; Guidarelli, A.; Cagnotto, A.; Beeg, M.; Gobbi, M.; Fumagalli, S.; et al. Small Molecule-Mediated Inhibition of the Oxidoreductase ERO1A Restrains Aggressive Breast Cancer by Impairing VEGF and PD-L1 in the Tumor Microenvironment. Cell Death Dis. 2025, 16, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Jantrapirom, S.; Sangphukieo, A.; U-on, N.; Poonsawas, P.; Wongkumool, W.; Yeewa, R.; Lo Piccolo, L. Discovery of a Pyrazolopyridine Alkaloid Inhibitor of ERO1A that Mitigates Neuronal ER Stress and Age-Related Decline. bioRxiv 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Johnson, B.D.; Kaulagari, S.; Chen, W.-C.; Hayes, K.; Geldenhuys, W.J.; Hazlehurst, L.A. Identification of Natural Product Sulfuretin Derivatives as Inhibitors for the Endoplasmic Reticulum Redox Protein ERO1α. ACS Bio Med Chem Au 2022, 2, 161–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Okumura, M.; Kadokura, H.; Hashimoto, S.; Yutani, K.; Kanemura, S.; Hikima, T.; Hidaka, Y.; Ito, L.; Shiba, K.; Masui, S.; et al. Inhibition of the Functional Interplay between Endoplasmic Reticulum (ER) Oxidoreduclin-1α (Ero1α) and Protein-Disulfide Isomerase (PDI) by the Endocrine Disruptor Bisphenol A. J. Biol. Chem. 2014, 289, 27004–27018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Zhang, Q.; Fu, C.; Liu, S.; Leng, Y.; Duan, L.; Wang, N.; Zhang, L.; Qiao, H. Construction and Validation of a Prognostic Model Based on Mitochondria-Associated Endoplasmic Reticulum Membranes Gene Signature in LUAD Patients. PLoS ONE 2025, 20, e0330722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Chen, Z.; Wang, W.; Abdul Razak, S.R.; Han, T.; Ahmad, N.H.; Li, X. Ferroptosis as a Potential Target for Cancer Therapy. Cell Death Dis. 2023, 14, 460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Tu, Z.; Ouyang, Q.; Long, X.; Wu, L.; Li, J.; Zhu, X.; Huang, K. Protein Disulfide-Isomerase A3 Is a Robust Prognostic Biomarker for Cancers and Predicts the Immunotherapy Response Effectively. Front. Immunol. 2022, 13, 837512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Kuo, M.T. Redox Regulation of Multidrug Resistance in Cancer Chemotherapy: Molecular Mechanisms and Therapeutic Opportunities. Antioxid. Redox Signal. 2009, 11, 99–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ranbhise, J.S.; Singh, M.K.; Ju, S.; Han, S.; Yun, H.R.; Kim, S.S.; Kang, I. The Redox Paradox: Cancer’s Double-Edged Sword for Malignancy and Therapy. Antioxidants 2025, 14, 1187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Yadav, V.; Sivaram, A.; Vyas, R. Unfolded Protein Response Complexity in Gynecological Tumor Dynamics: Therapeutic Challenges and Future Perspectives. Cell Cycle 2025, 24, 237–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Benham, A.M.; Van Lith, M.; Sitia, R.; Braakman, I. Ero1–PDI Interactions, the Response to Redox Flux and the Implications for Disulfide Bond Formation in the Mammalian Endoplasmic Reticulum. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2013, 368, 20110403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Chen, P.; Chen, Y.; Sharma, A.; Gonzalez-Carmona Maria, A.; Schmidt-Wolf, I.G.H. Inhibition of ERO1L Induces Autophagy and Apoptosis via Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress in Colorectal Cancer. Cell. Signal. 2025, 127, 111560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Luo, W.; He, D.; Zhang, J.; Ma, Z.; Chen, K.; Lv, Z.; Fan, C.; Yang, L.; Li, Y.; Zhou, Z. Knockdown of PPARδ Induces VEGFA-Mediated Angiogenesis via Interaction with ERO1A in Human Colorectal Cancer. Front. Oncol. 2021, 11, 713892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Zilli, F.; Marques Ramos, P.; Auf Der Maur, P.; Jehanno, C.; Sethi, A.; Coissieux, M.; Eichlisberger, T.; Sauteur, L.; Rouchon, A.; Bonapace, L.; et al. The NFIB-ERO1A Axis Promotes Breast Cancer Metastatic Colonization of Disseminated Tumour Cells. EMBO Mol. Med. 2021, 13, e13162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Zhang, W.; Shi, Y.; Oyang, L.; Cui, S.; Li, S.; Li, J.; Liu, L.; Li, Y.; Peng, M.; Tan, S.; et al. Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress—A Key Guardian in Cancer. Cell Death Discov. 2024, 10, 343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Watanabe, M.M.; Laurindo, F.R.M.; Fernandes, D.C. Methods of Measuring Protein Disulfide Isomerase Activity: A Critical Overview. Front. Chem. 2014, 2, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Johnson, B.D.; Geldenhuys, W.J.; Hazlehurst, L.A. The Role of ERO1α in Modulating Cancer Progression and Immune Escape. J. Cancer Immunol. 2020, 2, 103–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Biomedicines 14 00263 g001
Figure 1. Schematic representation of reoxidation of protein disulfide isomerase A1 in the endoplasmic reticulum mediated by ERO1α. Nascent polypeptides are translocated into the lumen of the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), where they undergo oxidative folding. PDI catalyzes the formation of disulfide bonds within nascent proteins, converting them from the reduced (-SH) to the oxidized (S-S) state (1–4). During this reaction, PDI becomes reduced (4). Reduced PDI is subsequently reoxidized by endoplasmic reticulum oxidoreductin 1 alpha (ERO1α) through direct electron transfer (5,6). Electrons flow from the catalytic cysteines of PDI to the shuttle cysteines of ERO1α, then to its FAD cofactor (7–9). The reduced FAD transfers electrons to molecular oxygen (O2), generating hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) as a by-product (10). This cycle regenerates oxidized ERO1α and maintains a pool of oxidized PDI required for continuous disulfide bond formation in newly folded proteins (11). Adapted from Sevier and Kaiser, Mol. Biol. Cell 17, 2256–2266 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.e05-05-0417 [24].
Figure 1. Schematic representation of reoxidation of protein disulfide isomerase A1 in the endoplasmic reticulum mediated by ERO1α. Nascent polypeptides are translocated into the lumen of the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), where they undergo oxidative folding. PDI catalyzes the formation of disulfide bonds within nascent proteins, converting them from the reduced (-SH) to the oxidized (S-S) state (1–4). During this reaction, PDI becomes reduced (4). Reduced PDI is subsequently reoxidized by endoplasmic reticulum oxidoreductin 1 alpha (ERO1α) through direct electron transfer (5,6). Electrons flow from the catalytic cysteines of PDI to the shuttle cysteines of ERO1α, then to its FAD cofactor (7–9). The reduced FAD transfers electrons to molecular oxygen (O2), generating hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) as a by-product (10). This cycle regenerates oxidized ERO1α and maintains a pool of oxidized PDI required for continuous disulfide bond formation in newly folded proteins (11). Adapted from Sevier and Kaiser, Mol. Biol. Cell 17, 2256–2266 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.e05-05-0417 [24].
Biomedicines 14 00263 g001
Biomedicines 14 00263 g002
Figure 2. Human ERO1-PDI docking simulation. (A) Model generated with the SurFit server showing full-length human ERO1α docked with the b–b′ domains of human PDI. The FAD cofactor in ERO1α is shown in yellow–orange, and the boxed area highlights the contact region between the two proteins. (B) A closer view of the interface shows how ERO1α residue Trp272 interacts closely with PDI residues Phe240, Phe249, and Phe304 through non-covalent contacts. (C) Structural alignment of human (green, PDB 3AHQ) and yeast (magenta, PDB 2B5E) ERO1 shows an overall similar fold, but the β-hairpin in human ERO1α extends farther compared to the shorter one in yeast ERO1p. Figure reproduced from Masui et al., J. Biol. Chem. 286, 16261–16271 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M111.231357, licensed under CC BY 4.0 [25].
Figure 2. Human ERO1-PDI docking simulation. (A) Model generated with the SurFit server showing full-length human ERO1α docked with the b–b′ domains of human PDI. The FAD cofactor in ERO1α is shown in yellow–orange, and the boxed area highlights the contact region between the two proteins. (B) A closer view of the interface shows how ERO1α residue Trp272 interacts closely with PDI residues Phe240, Phe249, and Phe304 through non-covalent contacts. (C) Structural alignment of human (green, PDB 3AHQ) and yeast (magenta, PDB 2B5E) ERO1 shows an overall similar fold, but the β-hairpin in human ERO1α extends farther compared to the shorter one in yeast ERO1p. Figure reproduced from Masui et al., J. Biol. Chem. 286, 16261–16271 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M111.231357, licensed under CC BY 4.0 [25].
Biomedicines 14 00263 g002
Biomedicines 14 00263 g003
Figure 3. Chemical structure of PDI inhibitors.
Figure 3. Chemical structure of PDI inhibitors.
Biomedicines 14 00263 g003
Biomedicines 14 00263 g004
Figure 4. Chemical structure of ERO1α inhibitors.
Figure 4. Chemical structure of ERO1α inhibitors.
Biomedicines 14 00263 g004
Biomedicines 14 00263 g005
Figure 5. Chemical structure of bisphenol A.
Figure 5. Chemical structure of bisphenol A.
Biomedicines 14 00263 g005
Table 1. Open-access evidence for PDI’s role in cancer.
Table 1. Open-access evidence for PDI’s role in cancer.
Cancer TypeMain FindingsReferences (Open Access)
GliomaPDI is highly expressed in invasive and migrating glioma cells in xenograft models and human glioblastoma tissues.[34]
Breast cancerPDIA1, PDIA3, PDIA4, and PDIA6 are upregulated, with PDIA1 detected in tumor tissue, interstitial fluid, plasma, and blood;
Overexpression of PDI is associated with mammosphere formation and therapy-resistant cell populations;
PDIA1 silencing in ERα-positive and ERα-negative cells alters gene expression related to ROS regulation, cell cycle control, immune signaling, metabolism, and calcium homeostasis.		[29,35,36]
Lung cancerPDIA4 and PDIA6 are overexpressed in cisplatin-resistant non-small cell lung cancer cells, and PDI expression correlates positively with ERO1α levels.[37,38]
Ovarian cancerPharmacological inhibition or siRNA-mediated silencing of PDI induces cytotoxicity in human ovarian cancer cell lines.[39]
Table 2. Open-access evidence for ERO1α’s role in cancer.
Table 2. Open-access evidence for ERO1α’s role in cancer.
Cancer TypeMain FindingsReferences (Open Access)
Pancreatic cancerERO1α expression was induced under hypoxic conditions and was associated with increased tumor growth and progression in pancreatic cancer cell and mouse models. Combined inhibition of ERO1α and IDO1 increased dendritic cell infiltration and reduced tumor growth.[43,54]
Breast cancerERO1α promoted tumor growth and angiogenesis through oxidative protein folding and increased VEGF-A expression in MDA-MB-231 cells and mouse models. Elevated ERO1α expression was correlated with poor prognosis in triple-negative breast cancer.[44]
Liver cancerERO1α activated the S1PR1/STAT3/VEGF-A signaling pathway, enhancing tumor cell migration and angiogenesis. Increased ERO1α expression was associated with reduced patient survival.[50]
Lung cancerERO1α contributed to an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment and reduced sensitivity to PD-1 blockade in lung cancer models. Genetic ablation of ERO1α enhanced T-cell-mediated anti-tumor immunity and induced immunogenic cell death. Elevated ERO1α expression was identified as a negative prognostic factor across lung cancer subtypes.[52,53]
Prostate cancerERO1α expression positively correlated with Gleason score and was further increased in docetaxel-resistant prostate cancer cells. Genetic suppression of ERO1α reduced proliferation, migration, and invasion, with stronger effects observed in highly metastatic cells.[55]
Cervical cancerERO1α promoted tumor growth, migration, and epithelial–mesenchymal transition through H2O2-dependent signaling. Mutation of Val101 disrupted ERO1α–PDI interaction, reduced oxidase activity, and suppressed oxidative folding and tumor progression.[27]
CholangiocarcinomaHigh ERO1α expression enhanced proliferation, migration, and epithelial–mesenchymal transition via Akt/mTOR signaling and was associated with poor prognosis.[45]
Colorectal cancerERO1α-positive cells exhibited increased invasive capacity and epithelial–mesenchymal transition, and high ERO1α expression was associated with unfavorable clinical outcome.[46]
Table 3. PDI inhibitors and their experimental and clinical evaluation.
Table 3. PDI inhibitors and their experimental and clinical evaluation.
CompoundPrimary PDI Isoform/SelectivityEvidence from Isolated Enzyme AssaysEvidence from Cell-Based AssaysEvidence from Animal StudiesClinical Evaluation StatusReference
PACMA31Predominantly PDIA1/P4HB; irreversible covalent active-site modifier Forms covalent adducts with active-site cysteines → sustained inhibition of PDI activity Reported to suppress ovarian cancer cell survival/proliferation and trigger ER stress/UPR-associated effects in tumor contextXenograft efficacy (ovarian cancer mouse xenograft; tumor targeting + tumor growth suppression) No clinical studies reported [39]
16F16Often used as PDIA1/PDI inhibitor; described as irreversible/thiol-reactive in the literatureReported to inhibit PDI via interaction with catalytic thiols (commonly treated as irreversible in mechanistic discussions) Widely used in cells to perturb PDI-dependent folding/stress pathways (many applications; mechanism varies by context) In vivo use exists mainly in thrombosis/inflammation literature (blocking PDI-dependent TF activation in disease models); not established as an anti-cancer compound No clinical studies reported[66]
RB-11-caPDIA1 (a-domain) active-site covalent probe; binds Cys53 (N-terminal cysteine of the a-domain CXXC motif)Target ID + site mapping supports selective covalent labeling of PDIA1 C53 Used as a cell-active covalent probe (cellular profiling/labeling); not primarily an in vivo efficacy molecule No animal efficacy reported in the primary characterization paperNo clinical studies reported[13]
KSC-34PDIA1 a-site selective covalent inhibitor; reported ~30-fold selectivity for a vs. a′ siteTime-dependent inhibition reported with kinact/KI and a-site preference Cellular characterization: minimal sustained UPR/ER stress relative to broader PDI inhibition; used as a selective PDIA1 tool No in vivo evaluation reported in the primary characterizationNo clinical studies reported[13]
PS1PDIA4/ERp72-targeting small molecule inhibitor used as a PDIA4-directed chemical probeMechanistic/pharmacologic characterization (PDIA4-focused) Improves β-cell survival/ER stress phenotypes in cellular modelsIn db/db mice, PS1 (alone ± metformin) improves diabetic endpoints (GTT, HbA1c, incidence, and β-cell function markers) No clinical studies reported[64]
14dReported as a reversible PDI inhibitorReported IC50 ≈ 0.48 μM for PDI inhibition Reduces platelet activation/aggregation with low cytotoxicity in the reported evaluationReduced thrombus formation in animal thrombosis modelsNo clinical studies reported[65]
Table 4. ERO1α inhibitors and their experimental and clinical evaluation.
Table 4. ERO1α inhibitors and their experimental and clinical evaluation.
CompoundPrimary Target/SelectivityIsolated Enzyme EvidenceCell-Based EvidenceAnimal EvidenceClinical Evaluation StatusReferences
EN460ERO1α inhibitor; thiol-reactive tool compoundReported IC50 of ~1.9 μM in original biochemical work In multiple myeloma cells, EN460 inhibits proliferation/induces apoptosis (Hayes 2019 [68], PMC6554731) (PMC)EN460 used in vivo and linked to VEGF/PD-L1/tumor effectsNo clinical studies reported [72,73,74]
QM295Reported ERO1 inhibitor hit (often cited alongside EN460);IC50 of ~1.9 μM in kinetic assay (vendor page; not primary literature) Reported as HTS hit used for UPR/ERO1 pathway probing in literature reviews Not reportedNo clinical studies reported [19]
I2/I3Covalent ERO1α inhibitorsIC50: I2, ~8.1 μM; I3, ~3.5 μM Cellular pathway effects (VEGF-A/PD-L1 axis)In vivo testing consistent with anti-tumor pathway modulation No clinical studies reported [69]
T151742Aurone/sulfuretin-derived ERO1α inhibitor; selectivity profiling includedRecombinant assay IC50 = 8.27 ± 2.33 μM; compared vs. EN-460Cell viability IC50 of ~16 μM in MTT assay context Not reportedNo clinical studies reported [71]
S88/GeniposideReported as ERO1α inhibitorsInhibit ERO1α in vitro and reduce ER stress markers in neurons Reduced tunicamycin-induced ER stress markers in human neurons Improved Drosophila phenotypes/aging measures No clinical studies reported [70]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Khojayeva, K.; Zhussipbekkyzy, A.; Balkybayeva, D.; Sabit, K.; Lopes, L.R.; Sagatbekova, K.; Zhakupova, A.; Aljofan, M. Targeting the Endoplasmic Reticulum Oxidoreductin-1 Alpha–Protein Disulfide Isomerase Redox Interface as a Therapeutic Strategy in Cancer. Biomedicines 2026, 14, 263. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines14020263

AMA Style

Khojayeva K, Zhussipbekkyzy A, Balkybayeva D, Sabit K, Lopes LR, Sagatbekova K, Zhakupova A, Aljofan M. Targeting the Endoplasmic Reticulum Oxidoreductin-1 Alpha–Protein Disulfide Isomerase Redox Interface as a Therapeutic Strategy in Cancer. Biomedicines. 2026; 14(2):263. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines14020263

Chicago/Turabian Style

Khojayeva, Kamilla, Aiym Zhussipbekkyzy, Dilbara Balkybayeva, Karakat Sabit, Lucia Rossetti Lopes, Kamila Sagatbekova, Assem Zhakupova, and Mohamad Aljofan. 2026. "Targeting the Endoplasmic Reticulum Oxidoreductin-1 Alpha–Protein Disulfide Isomerase Redox Interface as a Therapeutic Strategy in Cancer" Biomedicines 14, no. 2: 263. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines14020263

APA Style

Khojayeva, K., Zhussipbekkyzy, A., Balkybayeva, D., Sabit, K., Lopes, L. R., Sagatbekova, K., Zhakupova, A., & Aljofan, M. (2026). Targeting the Endoplasmic Reticulum Oxidoreductin-1 Alpha–Protein Disulfide Isomerase Redox Interface as a Therapeutic Strategy in Cancer. Biomedicines, 14(2), 263. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines14020263

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop