Melissa M Singh1, Blake Johnson1, Avinashnarayan Venkatarayan1, Elsa R Flores1, Jianping Zhang1, Xiaoping Su1, Michelle Barton1, Frederick Lang1, Joya Chandra1. 1. Department of Pediatrics Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (M.M.S., B.J., J.C.); Department of Molecular and Cellular Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (A.V., E.R.F.); Department of Molecular Carcinogenesis, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (M.B., J.C.); Department of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (J.Z., X.S.); Department of Neurosurgery, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (B.J., F.L.); Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Texas (A.V., E.R.F., M.B., F.L., J.C.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common and aggressive form of brain cancer. Our previous studies demonstrated that combined inhibition of HDAC and KDM1A increases apoptotic cell death in vitro. However, whether this combination also increases death of the glioma stem cell (GSC) population or has an effect in vivo is yet to be determined. Therefore, we evaluated the translational potential of combined HDAC and KDM1A inhibition on patient-derived GSCs and xenograft GBM mouse models. We also investigated the changes in transcriptional programing induced by the combination in an effort to understand the induced molecular mechanisms of GBM cell death. METHODS: Patient-derived GSCs were treated with the combination of vorinostat, a pan-HDAC inhibitor, and tranylcypromine, a KDM1A inhibitor, and viability was measured. To characterize transcriptional profiles associated with cell death, we used RNA-Seq and validated gene changes by RT-qPCR and protein expression via Western blot. Apoptosis was measured using DNA fragmentation assays. Orthotopic xenograft studies were conducted to evaluate the effects of the combination on tumorigenesis and to validate gene changes in vivo. RESULTS: The combination of vorinostat and tranylcypromine reduced GSC viability and displayed efficacy in the U87 xenograft model. Additionally, the combination led to changes in apoptosis-related genes, particularly TP53 and TP73 in vitro and in vivo. CONCLUSIONS: These data support targeting HDACs and KDM1A in combination as a strategy for GBM and identifies TP53 and TP73 as being altered in response to treatment.
BACKGROUND:Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common and aggressive form of brain cancer. Our previous studies demonstrated that combined inhibition of HDAC and KDM1A increases apoptotic cell death in vitro. However, whether this combination also increases death of the glioma stem cell (GSC) population or has an effect in vivo is yet to be determined. Therefore, we evaluated the translational potential of combined HDAC and KDM1A inhibition on patient-derived GSCs and xenograft GBM mouse models. We also investigated the changes in transcriptional programing induced by the combination in an effort to understand the induced molecular mechanisms of GBM cell death. METHODS:Patient-derived GSCs were treated with the combination of vorinostat, a pan-HDAC inhibitor, and tranylcypromine, a KDM1A inhibitor, and viability was measured. To characterize transcriptional profiles associated with cell death, we used RNA-Seq and validated gene changes by RT-qPCR and protein expression via Western blot. Apoptosis was measured using DNA fragmentation assays. Orthotopic xenograft studies were conducted to evaluate the effects of the combination on tumorigenesis and to validate gene changes in vivo. RESULTS: The combination of vorinostat and tranylcypromine reduced GSC viability and displayed efficacy in the U87 xenograft model. Additionally, the combination led to changes in apoptosis-related genes, particularly TP53 and TP73 in vitro and in vivo. CONCLUSIONS: These data support targeting HDACs and KDM1A in combination as a strategy for GBM and identifies TP53 and TP73 as being altered in response to treatment.
Authors: I Fillippovich; N Sorokina; M Gatei; Y Haupt; K Hobson; E Moallem; K Spring; M Mould; M A McGuckin; M F Lavin; K K Khanna Journal: Oncogene Date: 2001-01-25 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: I Casciano; K Mazzocco; L Boni; G Pagnan; B Banelli; G Allemanni; M Ponzoni; G P Tonini; M Romani Journal: Cell Death Differ Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 15.828
Authors: Nicole Concin; Kirsten Becker; Neda Slade; Susan Erster; Elizabeth Mueller-Holzner; Hanno Ulmer; Guenter Daxenbichler; Alain Zeimet; Robert Zeillinger; Christian Marth; Ute M Moll Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2004-04-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: T J Grob; U Novak; C Maisse; D Barcaroli; A U Lüthi; F Pirnia; B Hügli; H U Graber; V De Laurenzi; M F Fey; G Melino; A Tobler Journal: Cell Death Differ Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 15.828
Authors: Alex I Zaika; Neda Slade; Susan H Erster; Christine Sansome; Troy W Joseph; Michael Pearl; Eva Chalas; Ute M Moll Journal: J Exp Med Date: 2002-09-16 Impact factor: 14.307
Authors: Kevin Shee; Meagan Chambers; Edward G Hughes; Damian A Almiron; Sophie J Deharvengt; Donald Green; Joel A Lefferts; Angeline S Andrew; William F Hickey; Gregory J Tsongalis Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2020-06-24 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Javier Martinez-Useros; Mario Martin-Galan; Maria Florez-Cespedes; Jesus Garcia-Foncillas Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-06-27 Impact factor: 6.639