BACKGROUND: Resveratrol (RESV) is a naturally occurring compound that may possess anticancer capabilities in both prostate carcinoma and melanoma. METHODS: The in vitro and in vivo cytotoxic activity of RESV and 3,5-dihydroxy-4'-acetoxy-trans-stilbene (4-ACE) was tested using cellular assays and a xenograft model. Five prostate carcinoma cell lines were used for in vitro evaluation. A melanoma cell line (Duke melanoma 738 [DM738]) and the prostate carcinoma line CWR22 were used for in vivo experiments. Mice were randomized to osmotic mini pumps with 200 μL of RESV (250 mg/mL), 4-ACE (335 mg/mL), or vehicle (50% dimethyl sulfoxide, 50% polyethylene glycol). Serum drug and metabolite levels were calculated by high-performance liquid chromatography with diode-array detection. Western blots were performed on treated tumors. Results were analyzed using a student's t-test, analysis of variance, and the Mann-Whitney rank sum test. RESULTS: RESV and 4-ACE were cytotoxic in a time- and dose-dependent manner in all prostate carcinoma cell lines tested. Enhanced growth compared with controls was seen at the 24 h time point in four lines treated with RESV and two lines treated with 4-ACE (Ps < 0.048). In vivo, no difference in either tumor growth or postmortem tumor weight was detected in either DM738 (P = 0.555, P = 0.562) or CWR22 (P = 0.166, P = 0.811) xenografts treated with either drug. Serum drug levels did not correlate with tumor growth rates for any treatment group (all Ps > 0.11). Treated tumors demonstrated protein changes by western blot. CONCLUSION: Although in vitro data were promising, RESV and 4-ACE have limited potential as single agents in the treatment of prostate carcinoma and melanoma.
BACKGROUND:Resveratrol (RESV) is a naturally occurring compound that may possess anticancer capabilities in both prostate carcinoma and melanoma. METHODS: The in vitro and in vivo cytotoxic activity of RESV and 3,5-dihydroxy-4'-acetoxy-trans-stilbene (4-ACE) was tested using cellular assays and a xenograft model. Five prostate carcinoma cell lines were used for in vitro evaluation. A melanoma cell line (Duke melanoma 738 [DM738]) and the prostate carcinoma line CWR22 were used for in vivo experiments. Mice were randomized to osmotic mini pumps with 200 μL of RESV (250 mg/mL), 4-ACE (335 mg/mL), or vehicle (50% dimethyl sulfoxide, 50% polyethylene glycol). Serum drug and metabolite levels were calculated by high-performance liquid chromatography with diode-array detection. Western blots were performed on treated tumors. Results were analyzed using a student's t-test, analysis of variance, and the Mann-Whitney rank sum test. RESULTS:RESV and 4-ACE were cytotoxic in a time- and dose-dependent manner in all prostate carcinoma cell lines tested. Enhanced growth compared with controls was seen at the 24 h time point in four lines treated with RESV and two lines treated with 4-ACE (Ps < 0.048). In vivo, no difference in either tumor growth or postmortem tumor weight was detected in either DM738 (P = 0.555, P = 0.562) or CWR22 (P = 0.166, P = 0.811) xenografts treated with either drug. Serum drug levels did not correlate with tumor growth rates for any treatment group (all Ps > 0.11). Treated tumors demonstrated protein changes by western blot. CONCLUSION: Although in vitro data were promising, RESV and 4-ACE have limited potential as single agents in the treatment of prostate carcinoma and melanoma.
Authors: Scott N Pinchot; Renata Jaskula-Sztul; Li Ning; Noel R Peters; Mackenzie R Cook; Muthusamy Kunnimalaiyaan; Herbert Chen Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-11-08 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Matthew Truong; Mackenzie R Cook; Scott N Pinchot; Muthusamy Kunnimalaiyaan; Herbert Chen Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2010-12-24 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Yong Wong; Gregory Osmond; Kenneth I Brewer; Douglas S Tyler; Merritt B Andrus Journal: Bioorg Med Chem Lett Date: 2009-12-05 Impact factor: 2.823
Authors: J A Thomas; J A Antonelli; J C Lloyd; E M Masko; S H Poulton; T E Phillips; M Pollak; S J Freedland Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2010-08-24 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Gregory W Osmond; Christina K Augustine; Patricia A Zipfel; James Padussis; Douglas S Tyler Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2010-08-06 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Hongying Yang; Joseph A Baur; Allen Chen; Christine Miller; Jeffrey K Adams; Anne Kisielewski; Konrad T Howitz; Robert E Zipkin; David A Sinclair Journal: Aging Cell Date: 2006-12-05 Impact factor: 9.304
Authors: Thomas T Y Wang; Norberta W Schoene; Young S Kim; Cassia S Mizuno; Agnes M Rimando Journal: Mol Nutr Food Res Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 5.914
Authors: John C Mavropoulos; W Cooper Buschemeyer; Alok K Tewari; Dmitriy Rokhfeld; Michael Pollak; Yunhua Zhao; Phillip G Febbo; Pinchas Cohen; David Hwang; Gayathri Devi; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Eric C Westman; Bercedis L Peterson; Salvatore V Pizzo; Stephen J Freedland Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2009-05-26
Authors: Michelle Pacholec; John E Bleasdale; Boris Chrunyk; David Cunningham; Declan Flynn; Robert S Garofalo; David Griffith; Matt Griffor; Pat Loulakis; Brandon Pabst; Xiayang Qiu; Brian Stockman; Venkataraman Thanabal; Alison Varghese; Jessica Ward; Jane Withka; Kay Ahn Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2010-01-08 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Lekshmi R Nath; S N Kumar; Arya A Das; Bala Nambisan; A Shabna; Chellapan Mohandas; Ruby John Anto Journal: Front Microbiol Date: 2016-04-14 Impact factor: 5.640