Extracellular acidity is associated with tumor progression. Elevated glycolysis and acidosis promote the appearance of aggressive malignant cells with enhanced multidrug resistance. Thus, targeting of tumor acidity can open new avenues in diagnosis and treatment of aggressive tumors and targeting metastatic cancers cells within a tumor. pH (low) insertion peptides (pHLIPs) belong to the class of pH-sensitive agents capable of delivering imaging and/or therapeutic agents to cancer cells within tumors. Here, we investigated targeting of highly metastatic 4T1 mammary tumors and spontaneous breast tumors in FVB/N-Tg (MMTV-PyMT)634Mul transgenic mice with three fluorescently labeled pHLIP variants including well-characterized WT-pHLIP and, recently introduced, Var3- and Var7-pHLIPs. The Var3- and Var7-pHLIPs constructs have faster blood clearance than the parent WT-pHLIP. All pHLIPs demonstrated excellent targeting of the above breast tumor models with tumor accumulation increasing over 4 h postinjection. Staining of nonmalignant stromal tissues in transgenic mice was minimal. The pHLIPs distribution in tumors showed colocalization with 2-deoxyglucose and the hypoxia marker, Pimonidazole. The highest degree of colocalization of fluorescent pHLIPs was shown to be with lactate dehydrogenase A, which is related to lactate production and acidification of tumors. In sum, the pHLIP-based targeting of breast cancer presents an opportunity to monitor metabolic changes, and to selectively deliver imaging and therapeutic agents to tumors.
Extracellular acidity is associated with tumor progression. Elevated glycolysis and acidosis promote the appearance of aggressive malignant cells with enhanced multidrug resistance. Thus, targeting of tumor acidity can open new avenues in diagnosis and treatment of aggressive tumors and targeting metastatic cancers cells within a tumor. pH (low) insertion peptides (pHLIPs) belong to the class of pH-sensitive agents capable of delivering imaging and/or therapeutic agents to cancer cells within tumors. Here, we investigated targeting of highly metastatic 4T1 mammary tumors and spontaneous breast tumors in FVB/N-Tg (MMTV-PyMT)634Mul transgenic mice with three fluorescently labeled pHLIP variants including well-characterized WT-pHLIP and, recently introduced, Var3- and Var7-pHLIPs. The Var3- and Var7-pHLIPs constructs have faster blood clearance than the parent WT-pHLIP. All pHLIPs demonstrated excellent targeting of the above breast tumor models with tumor accumulation increasing over 4 h postinjection. Staining of nonmalignant stromal tissues in transgenic mice was minimal. The pHLIPs distribution in tumors showed colocalization with 2-deoxyglucose and the hypoxia marker, Pimonidazole. The highest degree of colocalization of fluorescent pHLIPs was shown to be with lactate dehydrogenase A, which is related to lactate production and acidification of tumors. In sum, the pHLIP-based targeting of breast cancer presents an opportunity to monitor metabolic changes, and to selectively deliver imaging and therapeutic agents to tumors.
For a wide variety of cancers, extracellular
pH is significantly more acidic than in normal tissues. An acidic
pH shift within solid tumors can regulate multiple biological processes
such as proliferation, angiogenesis, immunosuppression, invasion,
and chemoresistance.[1−6] Being a unique property of the majority of tumors, acidity may be
heterogeneous within a single tumor.[7,8] This heterogeneity
does not correlate spatially with tumor oxygenation; both well and
poorly oxygenated parts of tumors can be acidic. Exposure of cancer
cells to low pH has previously been shown to promote selection of
stable, more invasive phenotypes.[6,9,10] Therefore, targeting tumor acidity might represent
a novel approach for the prediction of tumor aggressiveness and delivery
of therapeutic agents to tumor cells with the greatest metastatic
potential.Several pH-sensitive imaging and drug delivery systems
have been introduced in which the release of the diagnostic or therapeutic
agent is specifically triggered by the acidic tumor microenvironment.[11−15] Among these systems are peptides of the pHLIP (pH low insertion
peptide) family, which represent a unique class of water-soluble membrane
polypeptides capable of undergoing pH-dependent membrane-associated
folding.[16,17] Transition of pHLIPs from the membrane-surface
state at neutral pH to the membrane-inserted state at low pH is highly
cooperative due to the accompanied coil–helix transformation
within a lipid bilayer.[18−20] This pH-dependent insertion has
been used for the targeting of imaging agents to acidic tumors, as
well as translocation of polar cargo molecules across the phospholipid
bilayer of the membrane of cancer cells; the well-characterized WT-pHLIP
was employed for translocation of toxins and peptide nucleic acids
into the cytoplasm of cancer cells, and for delivery of various imaging
agents and targeting of both liposomes and gold nanoparticles to tumors
and other acidic diseased tissue.[21−28] Biophysical investigations allowed us to broaden the chemical space
of pHLIP peptides and establish rational design principles to define
second generation constructs with the aim of clinical application.
We introduced a family of novel pHLIP variants and demonstrated that
tumor targeting, blood clearance, and biodistribution of these peptides
can be modulated by tuning their sequence and, as a result, their
physical and chemical properties and their interactions with the cell
membrane.[18] The focus of our current research
is a comparative study of the wild type (WT)-, Var3- and Var7-pHLIPs
targeting of breast tumors. The data presented here provides important
information about the pHLIPs distribution in tumors and colocalization
with 2-deoxyglucose (2DG), lactate dehydrogenase A (an enzyme involved
in lactate production), and the hypoxia marker, Pimonidazole.
Materials
and Methods
Synthesis and Labeling of Peptides
The pHLIP variants
were prepared by solid-phase peptide synthesis using Fmoc (9-fluorenylmethyloxycarbonyl)
chemistry and purified by reverse phase chromatography by Dr. James
I. Elliott at the W. M. Keck Foundation Biotechnology Resources Laboratory
at Yale University (New Haven, CT). The pHLIP variants studied were
as follows:WT: ACEQNPIYWARYADWLFTTPLLLLDLALLVDADEGTVar3: ACDDQNPWRAYLDLLFPTDTLLLDLLWVar7: ACEEQNPWARYLEWLFPTETLLLELThe pHLIP variants were conjugated at the
N-terminus with Alexa488-, Alexa546-, and Alexa647-maleimide (Life
Technologies) and IR680-maleimide (LiCor Biosciences) in DMF (dimethylformamide)
at a ratio of 1:1 and incubated at room temperature for about 8 h
and then at 4 °C until the conjugation was completed. The reaction
progress was monitored by reverse phase (Zorbax SB-C18 columns, 9.4
× 250 mm 5 μm, Agilent Technology) high-performance liquid
chromatography (HPLC) using gradients of 10–65% acetonitrile
and water containing 0.05% of trifluoroacetic acid for Var3 and Var7
constructs and 10–75% acetonitrile and water containing 0.05%
of trifluoroacetic acid for WT constructs. The products were lyophilized
and characterized by SELDI-TOF mass spectrometry.The concentrations
of the constructs were determined by their absorbance using the following
molar extinction coefficients: ε495 = 71,000 M–1·cm–1 (for Alexa488-pHLIPs),
ε556 = 104,000 M–1·cm–1 (for Alexa546-pHLIPs), ε650 = 239,000
M–1·cm–1 (for Alexa647-pHLIPs),
and ε672 = 165,000 M–1·cm–1 (for IR680-pHLIPs).
Cell Line
The
4T1 mouse mammary tumor cell line was obtained from the American Type
Culture Collection and cultured in RPMI medium supplemented with 10%
fetal bovine serum and 10 μg/mL of ciprofloxacin in a humidified
atmosphere of 5% CO2 and 95% air at 37 °C.
Tumor
Mouse Models
All animal studies were conducted according
to the animal protocol AN04-12-011 approved by the Institutional Animal
Care and Use Committee at the University of Rhode Island, in compliance
with the principles and procedures outlined by NIH for the Care and
Use of Animals. 4T1 mammary tumors were established by subcutaneous
injection of 4T1 cells (8 × 105 cells/0.1 mL/flank)
in the right flank of adult female BALB/c mice (about 19–22
g weight) obtained from Harlan Laboratories. FVB/N-Tg(MMTV-PyVT)634Mul/J
transgenic female mice (Jackson Laboratories) developed palpable mammary
tumors at 12–15 weeks of age. Noncarrier FVB/NJ female mice
(Jackson Laboratories), which did not develop mammary tumors, were
used as a control mice.
Fluorescence Whole-Body and Organ Imaging
When tumors were palpable in the MMTV-Py MT mice, single tail vein
injections of a cocktail of 1 nmol (100 μL of 10 μM) of
IR680-labeled pHLIPs (WT, Var3, and Var7) and 10 nmol (100 μL
of 100 μM) of IR800-labeled 2DG in PBS per mouse were performed.
Control mice (noncarrier FVB/NJ) received the same dose of fluorescent
pHLIPs (WT, Var3, and Var7) and 2DG. In xenografted BALB/c mice, tumors
were used when they reached approximately 6 mm in diameter. Single
tail vein injections of 5 nmol (100 μL of 50 μM) of Alexa488-,
Alexa546-, and Alexa647-labeled pHLIPs in PBS (one pHLIP at the time
or a cocktail of differently labeled pHLIPs) were performed. Pimonidazole,
a marker of hypoxia (1.5 mg), and Hoechst 33342, a blood perfusion
marker[29−32] (1 mg), were administered 1 h and 1.5 min before animal euthanization,
respectively. Whole-body imaging followed by euthanization and necropsy
was performed at 24 h postinjection. The whole-body imaging of transgenicmice was performed, while the animals were under ketamine/xylazine
anesthesia and the skin was removed from the breast area. Animals
were euthanized at 2, 4, 24, and 48 h postinjections followed by necropsy.
Tumors and major organs of transgenic and BALB/c mice were imaged
immediately after collection. The excised tumors were embedded in
Tissue-Tek optimal cutting temperature (OCT) compound and stored at −80
°C until used for immunohistochemical analysis.Imaging
of Alexa-pHLIPs and IR-pHLIPs/IR-2DG were carried out using a FX Kodak
image station and an Odyssey IR scanner (Li-Cor Biosciences), respectively,
using various magnifications and depth distances. Mean fluorescence
intensity of tumor and organs was calculated using Kodak and ImageJ
software. The contrast index (CI) was calculated according to the
equationwhere Ftumor, Fmuscle, and Fbackg are the mean fluorescence intensities of tumor, muscle, and background
signals measured for control mice noninjected with fluorescent constructs.
Immunofluorescence Staining and Imaging of Tumor Sections
Frozen breast tumor tissues were sectioned at a thickness of 10 μm
using a Vibratome UltraPro 5000 Cryostat. Sections were mounted on
microscope slides, dried in air, and washed with deionized water.
Tumor sections with the “pHLIPs-cocktail” were analyzed
without further processing, while the remaining sections were fixed
and stained. Slides were fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde (Sigma-Aldrich)
for 12 min and washed with Dulbecco’s Phosphate Buffered Saline
(Life Technologies). The slides were dried in air and blocked using
a mixture of 10% Goat serum (GeneTex), 1% bovine serum albumin (Life
Technologies), and 0.3% Triton X-100 (Sigma-Aldrich) in phosphate
buffered saline (Life Technologies) for 30 min. Then, immunofluorescence
staining for lactate dehydrogenase A (LDHA) and Pimonidazole was performed.
For LDHA staining, rabbit polyclonal (NBP1-48336, Novus Biologicals)
was used at 1:100 dilution, with goat antirabbit Alexa-568 (Life Technologies)
at 1:100 for secondary detection. For Pimonidazole staining, FITC-conjugated
mouse monoclonal antipimonidazole antibody (Natural Pharmacia International
Inc.) was used at 1:20 dilution. Following fluorescence imaging, the
same sections were then stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E).Fluorescence and brightfield images were acquired at 4× magnification
using an Olympus BX60 fluorescence microscope equipped with a motorized
stage (Prior Scientific Instruments Ltd.) and coolsnap EZ CCD (Photometrics)
and CC12 RGB camera (Olympus Scientific). Whole-tumor montage images
were obtained by acquiring multiple fields, followed by alignment
using MicroSuite Biologic Suite (version 2.7; Olympus).
Results
In our study we used various tumor models and different fluorescent
constructs. The summary is given in Table 1.
Table 1
Summary of the Experiments and Use of Fluorescent
Constructs
study
use of fluorescent constructs
targeting of 4T1 mammary tumors,
biodistribution, and histological analysis
Alexa546-WT,
Alexa546-Var3, Alexa546-Var7
comparative study of distribution of three different
pHLIPs in 4T1 mammary tumors (simultaneous administration of all fluorescent
pHLIPs)
Alexa647-WT, Alexa546-Var3, Alexa448-Var7
targeting of transgenic breast tumors and
histological analysis
IR680-WT, IR680-Var3, IR680-Var7, IR800-2DG
Targeting 4T1 Mammary Tumors
The murine 4T1 xenograft
model closely mimics stage IV of humanbreast cancer.[33−35] Small 4T1 mammary tumor (tumor volume < 150 mm3) generates
a significant level of lactate and serves as a good model of an aggressive,
acidic tumor.[36] The pHLIP variants labeled
with Alexa546 showed statistically significant targeting of tumors
with minimal signal accumulation in liver, kidney, and muscle (Figures 1 and 2 and SI Table 1, Supporting Information). The signal in tumors
continued to increase up to 4 h postinjection, and then declined within
48 h (Figure 2a and SI Table 1, Supporting Information). The highest uptake in
tumor was observed for Var3; at 48 h postinjection the signal in tumor
was still higher than the background fluorescence, while fluorescence
in muscle and liver was at the level of autofluorescence. Var7 demonstrated
fast clearance with steady decay of the fluorescent signal from 2
to 24 h in all organs except for the tumor, where the maximum signal
was reached at 4 h postinjection. For Var3, the renal fluorescence
signal was maximal at 24 h, indicating a slower clearance profile
of this pHLIP variant. The optimal tumor targeting was achieved with
Var3, which showed a statistically significant increase of a contrast
index from 5 at 2–4 h to 19 at 24 h postinjection (Figure 2b). The statistically significant increase of contrast
index for Var7 from 3 to 5 and up to 19 for 2, 4, and 24 h postinjection
was observed, respectively. We did not calculate the values of contrast
index at 48 h since the signal in muscle were at background levels.
Figure 1
Distribution
of pHLIPs in small 4T1 mammary tumors, muscle, kidney, and liver.
Fluorescent images of organs obtained at 2 h (a),
4 h (b), 24 h (c), and 48 h (d) after intravenous administration of WT, Var3, and Var7
peptides conjugated with Alexa546 are shown. Distribution of pHLIPs
is different in small (e) and big (f) 4T1 mammary tumors (tumor mass is indicated in upper right corner).
The necrotic region of the big 4T1 mammary tumor is indicated by an
arrow.
Figure 2
Time-dependent biodistribution of Alexa546-pHLIPs
quantified by ex vivo mean fluorescence in 4T1 mammary
tumors, muscle, kidney, and liver (a). The dashed
lines indicate the level of autofluorescence signal. Contrast index
was calculated for the 4T1 mammary tumors (b). The
values are given in SI Tables 1 and 2, Supporting
Information. Six mice per each Alexa-pHLIP constructs were
used. The p-level values were computed based on the
two-tailed test between means of CI at 2 vs 4 h and 2 vs 24 h for
each pHLIP.
Distribution
of pHLIPs in small 4T1 mammary tumors, muscle, kidney, and liver.
Fluorescent images of organs obtained at 2 h (a),
4 h (b), 24 h (c), and 48 h (d) after intravenous administration of WT, Var3, and Var7
peptides conjugated with Alexa546 are shown. Distribution of pHLIPs
is different in small (e) and big (f) 4T1 mammary tumors (tumor mass is indicated in upper right corner).
The necrotic region of the big 4T1 mammary tumor is indicated by an
arrow.Time-dependent biodistribution of Alexa546-pHLIPs
quantified by ex vivo mean fluorescence in 4T1 mammary
tumors, muscle, kidney, and liver (a). The dashed
lines indicate the level of autofluorescence signal. Contrast index
was calculated for the 4T1 mammary tumors (b). The
values are given in SI Tables 1 and 2, Supporting
Information. Six mice per each Alexa-pHLIP constructs were
used. The p-level values were computed based on the
two-tailed test between means of CI at 2 vs 4 h and 2 vs 24 h for
each pHLIP.We compared the distribution
of fluorescent-pHLIPs in both small (∼0.2 g) and necrotic large
(∼0.5–0.6 g) 4T1 mammary tumors. The representative
images of tumors (cut into halves) are shown in Figure 1e,f. In contrast to the smaller tumors, where the signal was
homogeneously distributed within the entire tumor mass with maximal
accumulation in the center of the tumor, the fluorescent signal in
the necrotic core of the larger tumors was minimal.Previously,
we demonstrated the pH-dependent tumor targeting of WT-pHLIP.[27,28,37] Novel pHLIP variants also show
pH-dependent tumor staining, but with different pharmacokinetics.[18] In this study, we compared the cellular localization
and distribution of different pHLIPs in tumors. Frozen sections were
prepared from tumors collected at 4, 24, and 48 h after administration
of a cocktail of pHLIPs labeled with different fluorescent dyes: Alexa488-Var7,
Alexa546-Var3, and Alexa647-WT given as a single tail vein injection
(Figure 3). We selected later time points to
minimize the concentration of the peptides in blood. The spatial distribution
of all pHLIPs in tumors was identical. The intensity profiles for
all pHLIPs obtained from the different areas of tumor sections were
very similar, with minor differences in the background. Thus, despite
the fact that pHLIP variants show different blood clearance profiles,
the overall tumor spatial distributions were identical.
Figure 3
pHLIPs distribution
in 4T1 mammary tumors. Fluorescence images of tumor sections for 4
h (a), 24 h (c), and 48 h (e) postinjections of cocktails of Alexa647-WT, Alexa546-Var3,
and Alexa488-Var7 are shown. Intensity profiles of the fluorescent
signal of various pHLIPs in the different lines are shown in panels b, d, and f.
pHLIPs distribution
in 4T1 mammary tumors. Fluorescence images of tumor sections for 4
h (a), 24 h (c), and 48 h (e) postinjections of cocktails of Alexa647-WT, Alexa546-Var3,
and Alexa488-Var7 are shown. Intensity profiles of the fluorescent
signal of various pHLIPs in the different lines are shown in panels b, d, and f.Immunohistochemical analysis of 4T1 mammary tumor
sections revealed colocalization of fluorescent pHLIPs with hypoxia
marker, Pimonidazole, and excellent colocalization with lactate dehydrogenase
A (LDHA) (Figure 4).
Figure 4
Immunohistochemical staining
of 4T1 mammary tumors. pHLIPs distribution (Alexa546-pHLIPs, red),
LDHA staining (yellow), hypoxia (Pimonidazole, green), and blood flow
(Hoechst, blue) are compared on tumor sections (a,c,e). Intensity profiles of the
fluorescent signals in the highlighted regions are shown in panels b, d, and f.
Immunohistochemical staining
of 4T1 mammary tumors. pHLIPs distribution (Alexa546-pHLIPs, red),
LDHA staining (yellow), hypoxia (Pimonidazole, green), and blood flow
(Hoechst, blue) are compared on tumor sections (a,c,e). Intensity profiles of the
fluorescent signals in the highlighted regions are shown in panels b, d, and f.
Targeting Breast Tumors in Transgenic Mice
It has been established that breast tumor progression, from benign
to metastatic disease, correlates with age in the FVB/N-Tg (MMTV-PyMT)634Mul
transgenicmouse model,[38−40] with invasive tumors developing
in mice of age 12 weeks and older. We used mice with an age range
from 12 to 15 weeks to investigate distribution of pHLIPs in spontaneous
invasive breast tumors. Tumor and organs were analyzed at 24 h after
intravenous administration of Alexa546- or IR680-pHLIPs given as a
single injection or in a mixture with the fluorescent nonmetabolizible
2DG. We observed pHLIP-targeting of breast tumors with a minimal level
of fluorescence from control mice (noncarrier FVB/NJ female mice)
or detectable signal in muscle at 24 h postinjection (Figure 5a,b). Higher tumor uptake of Var3 was observed,
along with higher signal in muscle at 24 h compared to the other pHLIPs.
The fluorescent signal for WT and Var7 was comparable to the signal
from fluorescent 2DG, which was given at concentrations 10 times higher
than for the pHLIPs. Multiple tumors collected from the same mouse
targeted by both IR680-Var3 and IR800-2DG are shown in Figure 5c; the heterogeneous distribution of IR800-2DG is
apparent. Detailed analysis of the 2DG and pHLIPs distribution indicates
that accumulation of 2DG correlates strongly with the accumulation
of the pHLIPs (Figure 5d,e), but the pHLIPs
also demonstrate targeting of additional regions.
Figure 5
Tumor targeting by IR680-pHLIPs
and IR800,2DG in transgenic mice. Whole-body NIR fluorescence images
of control and transgenic mice were obtained at 24 h after intravenous
administration of IR680-pHLIP, the contour of the mouse body is outlined,
and the tumor is circled and indicated by arrow (a). Averaged mean fluorescence of IR680-pHLIPs and IR800-2DG in tumors,
and muscle is calculated (b); the values are given
in SI Table 3, Supporting Information.
The p-level values were computed based on the two-tailed
test. Distributions of IR680-pHLIPs (green) and IR800-2DG (red) in
breast tumors are compared (c,d).
Intensity profiles of the fluorescent pHLIPs and 2DG in the highlighted
regions are shown in panel e.
Tumor targeting by IR680-pHLIPs
and IR800,2DG in transgenic mice. Whole-body NIR fluorescence images
of control and transgenic mice were obtained at 24 h after intravenous
administration of IR680-pHLIP, the contour of the mouse body is outlined,
and the tumor is circled and indicated by arrow (a). Averaged mean fluorescence of IR680-pHLIPs and IR800-2DG in tumors,
and muscle is calculated (b); the values are given
in SI Table 3, Supporting Information.
The p-level values were computed based on the two-tailed
test. Distributions of IR680-pHLIPs (green) and IR800-2DG (red) in
breast tumors are compared (c,d).
Intensity profiles of the fluorescent pHLIPs and 2DG in the highlighted
regions are shown in panel e.Analysis of histological sections of breast tumors indicates
that pHLIPs can clearly differentiate between regions of primarily
tumor cells and nonmalignant stromal tissues (Figure 6a–c). Regions consisting mainly of tumor cells stained
strongly with all pHLIP variants. Uptake of pHLIPs was observed in
poorly perfused tumor regions (indicated by low Hoechst 33342 staining),
which also accumulated the hypoxia marker Pimonidazole (Figures 6 and 7). However, we observed
the highest degree of pHLIP colocalization with lactate dehydrogenase
A (LDHA) enzyme, confirming that uptake of pHLIP is closely related
to the production of acidic glucose metabolites in this model system.
Figure 6
Immunohistochemical
staining of tumors from transgenic mice. Histology (H&E), blood
flow (Hoechst, blue), pHLIPs distribution (Alexa546-pHLIPs, red),
LDHA staining (yellow), and hypoxia (Pimonidazole, green) are compared
on tumor sections (a–c). The noncancerous
regions are indicated by arrows. Intensity profiles of the fluorescent
signals in the highlighted regions are shown in panel d.
Figure 7
Magnified images of sections of breast tumors
from transgenic mice. Blood flow (Hoechst, blue), pHLIPs distribution
(Alexa546-pHLIPs, red), LDHA staining (yellow), and hypoxia (Pimonidazole,
green) are compared on tumor sections (a–c). Hypoxic regions are indicated by stars.
Immunohistochemical
staining of tumors from transgenic mice. Histology (H&E), blood
flow (Hoechst, blue), pHLIPs distribution (Alexa546-pHLIPs, red),
LDHA staining (yellow), and hypoxia (Pimonidazole, green) are compared
on tumor sections (a–c). The noncancerous
regions are indicated by arrows. Intensity profiles of the fluorescent
signals in the highlighted regions are shown in panel d.Magnified images of sections of breast tumors
from transgenic mice. Blood flow (Hoechst, blue), pHLIPs distribution
(Alexa546-pHLIPs, red), LDHA staining (yellow), and hypoxia (Pimonidazole,
green) are compared on tumor sections (a–c). Hypoxic regions are indicated by stars.
Discussion
Tumors of the same organ and cell type can
have remarkably diverse appearances in different patients, which can
restrict the use of targeting approaches based on overexpression of
particular protein biomarkers. Heterogeneity of the cancer cell population
within a single tumor is assumed to lead to diminished treatment response.
Cytotoxic therapies, while treating the majority of cancer cells,
may spare multidrug resistant clones leading to tumor relapse and
treatment failure.[41,42] Moreover, this transient depopulation
of sensitive tumor cells by chemotherapeutic agents may provide a
growth advantage to the surviving cells, leading to outgrowth of resistant
clones.[42] It is therefore important to
develop targeted imaging agents, which can reflect the underlying
tumor microenvironment and allow for the targeted therapy of otherwise
resistant cell clones. pH-responsive imaging and therapeutic probes
could be particularly well-suited for this role as decreased extracellular
pH is a general property of tumor microenvironments that is also reflective
of tumor aggressiveness since most malignant cells within a tumor
mass are glycolytic and acidic.Previously we demonstrated that
the water-soluble membrane peptide, WT-pHLIP, can deliver optical,
PET, and SPECT imaging agents to the primary tumors and metastatic
lesions in a pH-dependent manner and distinguish between aggressive
and nonmetastatic tumors.[26−28,37] Here we show that both 4T1 mammary tumors and breast tumors in transgenicmice were targeted very well by all fluorescently labeled pHLIP variants,
with minimal signal observed in other organs, stroma, or necrotic
4T1 mammary tumors, which have a lower level of lactate production.[36] Var3 and Var7 were recently introduced as novel
pHLIP variants, which show higher tumor targeting and fast blood clearance,
respectively,[18] and are able to target
pancreatic tumors in various mouse models.[43] Despite the difference in pharmacokinetics of pHLIP variants, Var3
and Var7 demonstrate distribution in tumors identical to the well-characterized
WT-pHLIP.Using IR800-2DG we observed that the spatial distribution
of the glucose analogue in tumors is heterogeneous, and this correlated
well with the pHLIPs distribution. Regions of elevated pHLIPs uptake
correlated with the hypoxia marker Pimonidazole as well. At the same
time, pHLIPs also target adjacent regions to the 2DG uptake and showed
accumulation in nonhypoxic tumor regions. The highest colocalization
of pHLIPs was seen with lactate dehydrogenase A in both transgenic
and 4T1 small mammary tumors. LDHA expression is partially regulated
by the hypoxia-inducible HIF1 transcription factor, as is the glucose
transporter GLUT-1. Increased LDHA expression, with consequent increased
lactate production and generation of hydrogen ions, would be expected
to correlate most closely with pH-dependent uptake of pHLIP, as was
observed in this study. Our observation of a positive correlation
between pHLIP uptake and markers of glucose transport and metabolism
strongly implies that pHLIP is specifically accumulated in tumor regions
displaying typical characteristics of a stressed microenvironment,
such as hypoxia, elevated glucose uptake, and glycolytic metabolism.Despite an evident correlation between 2DG uptake, lactate production,
and tumor acidification, it was shown that 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-d-glucose positron emission tomography ([18F]FDG-PET) imaging was significantly less sensitive to differences
in the metabolic phenotypes of tumors compared to the lactate-magnetic
resonance spectroscopic imaging (MRSI).[36] Although MRSI can provide additional information about metabolic
activities in tumors, it is not yet widely implemented in a clinical
setting. The potential therefore exists for pHLIP to provide imaging
data of a similar nature to lactate-MRSI, but with a clearer path
to rapid clinical translation. Use of any of the three pHLIP variants
labeled with PET or SPECT agents (e.g., 18F, 64Cu, and 99Tc) could allow monitoring of metabolic changes
in humantumors over time or in response to therapeutic intervention.
In addition, pHLIP peptides could be used for delivery of therapeutic
cargoes to tumors, which might target the most aggressive cancer cell
clones.
Authors: Raymond E Moellering; Kvar C Black; Chetan Krishnamurty; Brenda K Baggett; Phillip Stafford; Matthew Rain; Robert A Gatenby; Robert J Gillies Journal: Clin Exp Metastasis Date: 2008-02-27 Impact factor: 5.150
Authors: Sven Macholl; Matthew S Morrison; Peter Iveson; Bente E Arbo; Oleg A Andreev; Yana K Reshetnyak; Donald M Engelman; Edvin Johannesen Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Bedrich L Eckhardt; Belinda S Parker; Ryan K van Laar; Christina M Restall; Anthony L Natoli; Michael D Tavaria; Kym L Stanley; Erica K Sloan; Jane M Moseley; Robin L Anderson Journal: Mol Cancer Res Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 5.852
Authors: Maria L Garcia-Martin; Gary V Martinez; Natarajan Raghunand; A Dean Sherry; Shanrong Zhang; Robert J Gillies Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Christoph Oehler; Joseph A O'Donoghue; James Russell; Pat Zanzonico; Sylvie Lorenzen; C Clifton Ling; Sean Carlin Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-02-14 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Xiao-Feng Li; Sean Carlin; Muneyasu Urano; James Russell; C Clifton Ling; Joseph A O'Donoghue Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2007-08-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Michael P Antosh; Dayanjali D Wijesinghe; Samana Shrestha; Robert Lanou; Yun Hu Huang; Thomas Hasselbacher; David Fox; Nicola Neretti; Shouheng Sun; Natallia Katenka; Leon N Cooper; Oleg A Andreev; Yana K Reshetnyak Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-04-13 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Charles W Kimbrough; Anil Khanal; Matthew Zeiderman; Bigya R Khanal; Neal C Burton; Kelly M McMasters; Selwyn M Vickers; William E Grizzle; Lacey R McNally Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2015-06-29 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Linden C Wyatt; Anna Moshnikova; Troy Crawford; Donald M Engelman; Oleg A Andreev; Yana K Reshetnyak Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2018-03-05 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Nazanin Rohani; Liangliang Hao; Maria S Alexis; Brian A Joughin; Konstantin Krismer; Mira N Moufarrej; Anthony R Soltis; Douglas A Lauffenburger; Michael B Yaffe; Christopher B Burge; Sangeeta N Bhatia; Frank B Gertler Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2019-02-12 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Linden C Wyatt; Jason S Lewis; Oleg A Andreev; Yana K Reshetnyak; Donald M Engelman Journal: Trends Biotechnol Date: 2017-04-21 Impact factor: 19.536
Authors: Janessa Wehr; Eden L Sikorski; Elizabeth Bloch; Mary S Feigman; Noel J Ferraro; Trevor R Baybutt; Adam E Snook; Marcos M Pires; Damien Thévenin Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2020-03-30 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Jovana Golijanin; Ali Amin; Anna Moshnikova; Joseph M Brito; Timothy Y Tran; Ramona-Cosmina Adochite; Gregory O Andreev; Troy Crawford; Donald M Engelman; Oleg A Andreev; Yana K Reshetnyak; Dragan Golijanin Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2016-09-29 Impact factor: 11.205