| Literature DB >> 22084710 |
María L Lavaggi1, Mauricio Cabrera, Cristina Pintos, Carolina Arredondo, Gisela Pachón, Jorge Rodríguez, Stella Raymondo, José Pedro Pacheco, Marta Cascante, Claudio Olea-Azar, Adela López de Ceráin, Antonio Monge, Hugo Cerecetto, Mercedes González.
Abstract
Phenazine 5,10-dioxides (PDOs) are a new class of bioreductive cytotoxins, which could act towards tumours containing hypoxic regions. The PDOs selective-hypoxic bioreduction was probed in vitro; however, the mechanism of action has not been completely explained. Besides, PDOs in vivo antitumour activities have not been demonstrated hitherto. We study the mechanism of hypoxic/normoxic cytotoxicity of PDO representative members. Electron spin resonance is used to confirm (•)OH production, alkaline comet assay to determine genotoxicity, and gel electrophoresis and flow cytometry to analyze DNA fragmentation and cell cycle distribution. Chemically induced rat breast tumours are employed to evaluate in vivo activities. For the most selective cytotoxin, 7(8)-bromo-2-hydroxyphenazine 5,10-dioxide (PDO1), exclusive hypoxic (•)OH production is evidenced, while for the unselective ones, (•)OH is produced in both conditions (normoxia and simulated hypoxia). In normoxia (Caco-2 cells), PDO1 induces cell-cycle arrest and DNA fragmentation but does not significantly induce apoptosis neither at IC(50) nor IC(80). No difference in the comet-assay scores are observed in normoxia and simulated hypoxia being the unselective 2-amino-7(8)-bromophenazine 5,10-dioxide (PDO2) the most genotoxic. The in vivo efficacy with the absence of systemic toxicity of PDO1 and PDO2 is checked out. Results from this study highlight the potential of PDOs as new therapeutics for cancer.Entities:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22084710 PMCID: PMC3196961 DOI: 10.5402/2011/314209
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ISRN Pharmacol ISSN: 2090-5165
Figure 1(a) The chemical structure and proposed mechanism of action of SR4233. (b) The chemical structure of AQ4N. (c) The chemical structures and in vitro biological behaviour of PDOs studied here. SF: survival fraction of V-79 cells treated with PDOs at 20 μM; Phypox: Hypoxic potency, dose which gives 1% of control cell survival in hypoxia; HCR: dose in air divided by the dose in hypoxia giving 1% of control cell survival.
Figure 2ESR studies of PDOs in bioreductive system (rat liver cytosolic proteins, 1 mg/mL, +NADPH). ESR spectra of PDOs (1 mM, treated as indicated in Material and methods section) were recorded in presence of the spin trap POBN (100 mM). Number of scans: 15.
Figure 3Alkaline comet assay analysis on V79 cells incubated with the studied compounds in different conditions and doses, expressed as cells in five different classes (0–5) and quantified as Collins et al. [22]. C(−): negative control (only solvent); C(+): positive control (treatment with hydrogen peroxide, 50 μM, during 5 min on ice).
Figure 4(a) IC50 and IC80 of PDO1 and PDO2 on Caco-2 cells after 24, 48, and 72 h incubation. (b) Percentage of distribution in different phases of cell cycle of untreated (□) and treated Caco-2 cells after 24 h with PDO1 at respective IC50 (■) and IC80 (■). (c) Percentage of early and late apoptotic and necrotic cells assessed by flow cytometry analysis of Annexin V-FITC staining and PI accumulation after exposure of Caco-2 cells to PDO1 at respective IC50 and IC80 after 24 h of incubation. (d) Apoptotic peaks detected by flow cytometry in treated Caco-2 cells after 24 h incubation with untreated (left) and PDO1-treated (right) at respective IC80. (e) Agarose gel electrophoresis analysis of DNA from Caco-2. Cells were incubated in the absence of substances (CT) or treated with PDO1 at IC50 or staurosporine (10 μM) (C+) for 24 h.
PDO cytotoxic effects in simulated hypoxia and normoxia on different conditions and cellular systems.
| Comp. | Dose ( | SFa,b,c in simulated hypoxia | SFa,b,c in normoxia | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| −vitCd | +vitC | −vitC | +vitC | ||
| PDO2 | 5 | 3 ± 1 | 0 ± 0 | 87 ± 5 | 83 ± 4 |
| PDO3 | 20 | 11 ± 2 | 8 ± 2 | 61 ± 3 | 74 ± 2 |
| PDO4 | 5 | 4 ± 1 | 0 ± 0 | 67 ± 3 | 80 ± 5 |
|
| |||||
| Comp. | Dose ( | SFhypoxia a,b | SFoxia a,b | ||
|
| |||||
| 20 | 0 ± 0 | 5 ± 1 | MCF-7 | ||
| PDO2 | 5 | 0 ± 0 | 34 ± 3 | ||
| 20 | 0 ± 0 | 26 ± 3 | TK-10 | ||
| 20 | 0 ± 0 | 18 ± 2 | HT-29 | ||
aSF: survival fractions (%).bValues are means of two different experiments. The assays were done by duplicate and using at least three repetitions, and standard errors were not greater than 2 % for most assays. cUsing V79 cells. dvitC: vitamin C (pretreatment during 25 min with equimolecular amount of vitamin).
Figure 5Antitumour effects of PDO1 and PDO2. (a) Tumour growth was measured every week and the change in the size was expressed respect to day 0 (beginning of the treatment). Results are expressed as the mean (n = 4 per group, statistical analysis was performed using the Student's unpaired t-test, **P < .01). Rats were killed on day 29, organs and (b) tumours were removed comparing size and weight of treated and untreated. Histopathology findings (haematoxylin/eosin slides) of PDO1-treated (left) and untreated (right) breast NMU-induced tumours demonstrated: (c) absence of necrosis and vascularisation (arrows) for PDO1 treated (left) and necrosis (circle) for untreated; (d) different tumour compartmentalisation behaviours (presence, left, and absence, right) and micrometastases for untreated (right); (e) differential infiltration of lymphocytes and eosinophils (arrows), significant immune response for PDO1-treated (left) and irrelevant for untreated (left).