BACKGROUND: Cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) plays a key role in breast cancer progression and metastasis. Effective therapeutic targeting of COX-2 would require the knowledge of whether a tumor is addicted to COX-2, and if we can counter the potential resistance to anti-COX-2 therapy. Herein we tested the hypothesis that celecoxib-resistance involves selection of cancer cells that overexpress COX-2. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We selected celecoxib-resistant (CER) variants from two metastatic cell lines, SUM149 inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) cell line and MDA-MB-231-BSC60 cell line, by culturing them in the presence of celecoxib. We measured the relative levels of COX-2 protein and its network components Bcl-2, Bcl-xL, and Bax in the parental cell lines and their CER variants by Western blotting. To determine whether celecoxib resistance would increase tumorigenicity, we performed an in vitro clonogenicity assay. We determined the statistical significance of differences between the groups using the two-sample t-test. RESULTS: Both the celecoxib-resistant cell lines SUM149-CER and BSC60-CER produced significantly higher levels of COX-2 protein than their parental counterparts (P < 0.05). The CER variants produced a reduced level of pro-apoptosis protein Bax (both cell lines) and increased levels of anti-apoptosis proteins Bcl-2 (BSC60) or Bcl-xL (SUM149). Importantly, the CER variants had significantly higher clonogenicity than their parental cell lines (P < 0.05). The siRNA-mediated COX-2 knockdown in SUM149-CER cell line resulted in a significant decrease in clonogenicity and in Bcl-xL and Bcl-2 protein levels, thus supporting our hypothesis. CONCLUSION: Celecoxib-resistant variant cells present in breast cancer cell lines overexpress COX-2, which is robustly linked with survival pathways and clonogenicity. Since COX-2 is important in the variant cancer cells of aggressive nature, it represents a good therapeutic target.
BACKGROUND:Cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) plays a key role in breast cancer progression and metastasis. Effective therapeutic targeting of COX-2 would require the knowledge of whether a tumor is addicted to COX-2, and if we can counter the potential resistance to anti-COX-2 therapy. Herein we tested the hypothesis that celecoxib-resistance involves selection of cancer cells that overexpress COX-2. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We selected celecoxib-resistant (CER) variants from two metastatic cell lines, SUM149 inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) cell line and MDA-MB-231-BSC60 cell line, by culturing them in the presence of celecoxib. We measured the relative levels of COX-2 protein and its network components Bcl-2, Bcl-xL, and Bax in the parental cell lines and their CER variants by Western blotting. To determine whether celecoxib resistance would increase tumorigenicity, we performed an in vitro clonogenicity assay. We determined the statistical significance of differences between the groups using the two-sample t-test. RESULTS: Both the celecoxib-resistant cell lines SUM149-CER and BSC60-CER produced significantly higher levels of COX-2 protein than their parental counterparts (P < 0.05). The CER variants produced a reduced level of pro-apoptosis protein Bax (both cell lines) and increased levels of anti-apoptosis proteins Bcl-2 (BSC60) or Bcl-xL (SUM149). Importantly, the CER variants had significantly higher clonogenicity than their parental cell lines (P < 0.05). The siRNA-mediated COX-2 knockdown in SUM149-CER cell line resulted in a significant decrease in clonogenicity and in Bcl-xL and Bcl-2 protein levels, thus supporting our hypothesis. CONCLUSION:Celecoxib-resistant variant cells present in breast cancer cell lines overexpress COX-2, which is robustly linked with survival pathways and clonogenicity. Since COX-2 is important in the variant cancer cells of aggressive nature, it represents a good therapeutic target.
Authors: Frida Ponthan; Malin Wickström; Helena Gleissman; Ole M Fuskevåg; Lova Segerström; Baldur Sveinbjörnsson; Christopher P F Redfern; Staffan Eksborg; Per Kogner; John I Johnsen Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-02-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Balraj Singh; Kendra R Cook; Laura Vincent; Carol S Hall; Jacob A Berry; Asha S Multani; Anthony Lucci Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2008-03-18 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Steven Van Laere; Tim Beissbarth; Ilse Van der Auwera; Gert Van den Eynden; Xuan Bich Trinh; Hilde Elst; Paul Van Hummelen; Peter van Dam; Eric Van Marck; Peter Vermeulen; Luc Dirix Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2008-11-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Florence Lerebours; Sophie Vacher; Catherine Andrieu; Marc Espie; Michel Marty; Rosette Lidereau; Ivan Bieche Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2008-02-04 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Kevin P Williams; Jennifer L Allensworth; Shalonda M Ingram; Ginger R Smith; Amy J Aldrich; Jonathan Z Sexton; Gayathri R Devi Journal: Cancer Lett Date: 2013-05-17 Impact factor: 8.679
Authors: Z I Thomas; W Gibson; J Z Sexton; K M Aird; S M Ingram; A Aldrich; H K Lyerly; G R Devi; K P Williams Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2011-04-19 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Maren Voglstaetter; Andreas R Thomsen; Jerome Nouvel; Arend Koch; Paul Jank; Elena Grueso Navarro; Tanja Gainey-Schleicher; Richa Khanduri; Andrea Groß; Florian Rossner; Carina Blaue; Clemens M Franz; Marina Veil; Gerhard Puetz; Andreas Hippe; Jochen Dindorf; Jubin Kashef; Wilko Thiele; Bernhard Homey; Celine Greco; Claude Boucheix; Andreas Baur; Thalia Erbes; Cornelius F Waller; Marie Follo; Ghamartaj Hossein; Christine Sers; Jonathan Sleeman; Irina Nazarenko Journal: J Pathol Date: 2019-06-18 Impact factor: 7.996
Authors: Balraj Singh; Karen Tai; Simran Madan; Milan R Raythatha; Amanda M Cady; Megan Braunlin; LaTashia R Irving; Ankur Bajaj; Anthony Lucci Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-05-03 Impact factor: 3.240