| Literature DB >> 24324518 |
Ewelina Szliszka1, Anna Sokół-Łętowska, Alicja Z Kucharska, Dagmara Jaworska, Zenon P Czuba, Wojciech Król.
Abstract
Propolis possesses chemopreventive properties through direct anticancer and indirect immunomodulatory activities. Tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL) plays a significant role in immunosurveillance and defense against cancer cells. TRAIL triggers apoptosis upon binding to TRAIL-R1 (DR4) and TRAIL-R2 (DR5) death receptors expressed on cancer cell surface. The activation of TRAIL apoptotic signaling is considered an attractive option for cancer prevention. However, as more tumor cells are reported to be resistant to TRAIL-mediated death, it is important to develop new strategies to overcome this resistance. The aim of this study was to investigate the chemical composition and proapoptotic mechanism of ethanolic extract of Polish propolis (EEP-P) against cancer cells. The identification and quantification of phenolic compounds in propolis extract were performed using HPLC-DAD and UPLC-Q-TOF-MS methods. TRAIL-resistant LNCaP prostate cancer cells were treated with EEP-P and TRAIL. Cytotoxicity was measured by MTT and LDH assays. Apoptosis was detected using annexin V-FITC staining by flow cytometry and fluorescence microscopy. Death receptors expression was analyzed using flow cytometry. Pinobanksin, chrysin, methoxyflavanone, p-coumaric acid, ferulic acid and caffeic acid were the main phenolics found in EEP-P. Propolis sensitized LNCaP cells through upregulation of TRAIL-R2. These results suggest that EEP-P supports TRAIL-mediated immunochemoprevention in prostate cancer cells.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24324518 PMCID: PMC3845518 DOI: 10.1155/2013/757628
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1UPLC-DAD chromatogram (290 nm) of compounds of ethanol extract from Polish propolis.
Figure 2UPLC-DAD chromatogram (325 nm) of compounds of ethanol extract from Polish propolis.
Figure 3UPLC-DAD chromatogram (370 nm) of compounds of ethanol extract from Polish propolis.
Figure 4UPLC-ESI-MS (negative ion) chromatogram of main compounds of ethanol extract from Polish propolis.
The content (mg/g) and characterization of phenolic compounds of the ethanol extract of Polish propolis determined using their spectral characteristic in negative ions in LC-ESI/MS.
| Peak | Retention time | (M−H)− | MS/MS fragments | Compound name* | Quantity (mg/g of propolis)** |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2.26 | 179.0349 | 161.0241/135.0440 | Caffeic acida | 3.90 |
| 2 | 2.53 | 121.0288 | 121.0288 | Benzoic acidbc | 0.86d |
| 3 | 2.69 | 237.0772 | 163.0406/145.0284/117.0342 | Ni | Tr |
| 4 | 2.79 | 163.0406 | 119.0488 |
| 28.65 |
| 5 | 2.88 | 267.0899 | 160.0154/133.0276 | Ni | Tr |
| 6 | 3.01 | 193.0492 | 178.0258/149.0613/134.0375 | Ferulic acida | 22.01 |
| 7 | 3.18 | 357.0989 | 279.0655/147.0441 | Ferulic acid derivativec | 0.59e |
| 8 | 3.31 | 295.0815 | 161.0241/133.0299 | Ferulic acid derivativec | Tr |
| 9 | 3.57 | 359.1129 | 163.0380/145.0284/119.0510 | Coumaric acid derivativec | 0.16g |
| 10 | 3.72 | 389.1221 | 193.0492/134.0375/175.0399/160.0154 | Ferulic acid derivativec | 0.75e |
| 11 | 3.88 | 279.086 | 145.0284/117.0342 | Ni | Tr |
| 12 | 4.15 | 415.1065 | 253.0730/179.0349/161.0241/135.0440 | Caffeic acid derivativec | 0.11f |
| 13 | 4.27 | 355.1176 | 179.0349/163.0380/135.0440/119.0488 | Caffeic and coumaric acids derivativec | Tr |
| 14 | 4.61 | 399.1051 | 253.0697/179.0349/163.0380/119.0488 | Coumaric and caffeic acids derivativec | 1.83g |
| 15 | 4.70 | 429.1214 | 253.0697/193.0492/161.0241/134.0375 | Ferulic acid derivativec | 2.12e |
| 16 | 4.86 | 269.0469 | 151.0042/117.0342 | Apigenina | 1.98 |
| 17 | 4.96 | 383.1137 | Coumaric acid derivativec | 3.97g | |
| 18 | 5.05 | 271.0616 | 253.0502/197.0596/161.0605/125.0241/107.0134 | Pinobanksina | 12.78 |
| 19 | 5.10 | 383.1137 | 163.0406/119.0510 | Coumaric acid derivativec | 22.87g |
| 20 | 5.20 | 413.1240 | 193.0492/163.0380/134.0375/119.0488 | Coumaric and ferulic acids derivative (metoxy-)c | 13.44e |
| 21 | 5.27 | 443.1320 | 193.0492/163.0380/134.0375/119.0488 | Coumaric and ferulic acids derivative (dimetoxy-)c | 3.98e |
| 22 | 5.44 | 259.1917 | 193.0492/163.0380/134.0375/119.0489 | Ferulic acid derivativec | 2.02e |
| 23 | 5.63 | 283.0594 | 193.0492/134.0375 | Ferulic acid derivativec | 0.3e |
| 24 | 5.73 | 441.1179 | 179.0349/163.0406/135.0440/119.0388 | Caffeic and coumaric acids derivativec | Tr |
| 25 | 5.79 | 315.0512 | 121.0288 | Rhamnetina | 0.49 |
| 26 | 5.86 | 471.1305 | 297.1136/193.0492 | Ni | Tr |
| 27 | 6.25 | 425.1242 | 163.0406/119.0510 | Coumaric acid derivativec | 5.00 |
| 28 | 6.32 | 247.0982 | 179.0349/163.0380/135.0440 | Coumaric and caffeic acids derivativec | 0.31f |
| 29 | 6.35 | 253.0502 | 143.0510 | Chrysina | 6.56 |
| 30 | 6.41 | 269.0804 | 178.0258/163.0380/134.0375/119.0488 | Ni | — |
| 31 | 6.56 | 269.0435 | 171.0446/151.0042/117.0342 | Galangina | 0.47 |
| 32 | 6.56 | 299.0572 | Kaempferideg | Tr | |
| 33 | 6.66 | 313.0745 | 253.0502 | Pinobanksin-3-O-acetateb | Tr |
| 34 | 6.94 | 249.1131 | 161.0241/133.0299 | Ni | — |
| 35 | 7.13 | 253.0860 | 162.0308/151.0394/145.0284/117.0342 | Methoxyflavanonebc | 20.50h |
| 36 | 7.25 | 283.0973 | 163.0380/145.0653/119.0488 | Coumaric acid derivativec | 10.49g |
| 37 | 8.80 | 449.2537 | 361.2026/253.0502/121.0288 | Benzoic acid derivativec | 5.20d |
Ni: not identified.
Tr: traces.
*a: confirmed by standard; b: confirmed by reference [41, 42]; c: confirmed by MS fragmentation.
**d: expressed as cinnamic acid; e: expressed as ferulic acid; f: expressed as caffeic acid; g: expressed as p-coumaric acid; h: expressed as apigenin.
Figure 5Cytotoxic and apoptotic effects of EEP-P on LNCaP prostate cancer cells. Cells were incubated with 25–50 μg/mL EEP-P for 24–48 h. The values represent mean ± SD of three independent experiments performed in quadruplicate (n = 12). (a) Cytotoxic activity of EEP-P against LNCaP cells. The percentage of cell death was measured using the MTT cytotoxicity assay (*** = P < 0.001 compared to control). (b) Apoptotic activity of EEP-P against LNCaP cells. Apoptotic cell death was detected by flow cytometry using annexin V-FITC staining (*** = P < 0.001 compared to control).
Figure 6EEP-P sensitizes LNCaP prostate cancer cells to TRAIL-induced cytotoxicity and apoptosis. Cells were incubated with 25–50 μg/mL EEP-P and/or 100 ng/mL TRAIL for 24–48 h. The values represent mean ± SD of three independent experiments performed in quadruplicate (n = 12). (a) Cytotoxic activity of EEP-P in combination with TRAIL against LNCaP cells. The percentage of cell death was measured using the MTT cytotoxicity assay (*** = P < 0.001 compared to EEP-P alone, +++ = P < 0.001 compared to TRAIL alone). (b) Apoptotic activity of EEP-P in combination with TRAIL against LNCaP cells. Apoptotic cell death was detected by flow cytometry using annexin V-FITC staining (*** = P < 0.001 compared to EEP-P alone, +++ = P < 0.001 compared to TRAIL alone). (c) Apoptotic activity of EEP-P in combination with TRAIL against LNCaP cells: (A) control cells, (B) cells incubated with 25 μg/mL EEP, (C) cells incubated with 50 μg/mL EEP, (D) cells incubated with 100 ng/mL TRAIL, (E) cells incubated with 25 μg/mL EEP and 100 ng/mL TRAIL, (F) cells incubated with 50 μg/mL EEP and 100 ng/mL TRAIL for 24 h, (G) control cells, (H) cells incubated with 25 μg/mL EEP, (I) cells incubated with 50 μg/mL EEP, (J) cells incubated with 100 ng/mL TRAIL, (K) cells incubated with 25 μg/mL EEP and 100 ng/mL TRAIL, and (L) cells incubated with 50 μg/mL EEP and 100 ng/mL TRAIL for 48 h. Apoptotic cell death was detected and visualized by fluorescence microscopy using annexin V-FITC staining. Healthy cells (stained with Hoechst 33342) emitted blue fluorescence and apoptotic cells (stained with Hoechst 33342 and annexin V-FITC) emitted green and blue fluorescence (indicated by arrows).
Figure 7Effects of EEP-P on death receptor expression in LNCaP prostate cancer cells. Cells were incubated with 25–50 μg/mL for 12–24 h. (a) TRAIL-R1 and (b) TRAIL-R2 expression on LNCaP cells treated with EEP-P measured by flow cytometry. The values represent mean ± SD of three independent experiments performed in quadruplicate (n = 12) shown as the average mean fluorescence (*** = P < 0.001 EEP-P compared to isotype control, +++ = P < 0.001 EEP-P compared to control) and histograms.
Figure 8TRAIL-R2/Fc chimera block apoptosis induced by combination of EEP-P and TRAIL in LNCaP prostate cancer cells. Cells were incubated with 50 μg/mL EEP-P and/or 100 ng/mL TRAIL with or without 1 μg/mL TRAIL-R2/Fc chimera proteins for 24 h. Apoptotic cell death was detected by annexin V-FITC staining using flow cytometry. The values represent mean ± SD of three independent experiments performed in duplicate (n = 6) (*** = P < 0.001 compared to combination EEP-P+TRAIL).