T M Drake1, J E Ritchie2, C Kanthou2, J J Staves3, R Narramore4, L Wyld5. 1. Academic Unit of Surgical Oncology, FU03, Department of Oncology, The Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield S10 2RX, UK. Electronic address: tmdrake1@shef.ac.uk. 2. Academic Unit of Surgical Oncology, FU03, Department of Oncology, The Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield S10 2RX, UK. 3. Department of Histopathology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Glossop Road, Sheffield S10 2JF, UK. 4. The Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield S10 2RX, UK. 5. Academic Unit of Surgical Oncology, FU03, Department of Oncology, The Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield S10 2RX, UK. Electronic address: l.wyld@shef.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy is an established treatment modality for early and locally advanced rectal cancer as part of short course radiotherapy and long course chemoradiotherapy. The unfolded protein response (UPR) is a cellular stress response pathway often activated in human solid tumours which has been implicated in resistance to both chemotherapy and radiotherapy. This research has investigated whether the UPR pathway is upregulated in ex-vivo samples of human colorectal cancer and characterised the interaction between radiotherapy and UPR activation in two human colorectal cancer cell lines in vitro. METHODS: In vitro UPR expression was determined in response to clinical doses of radiotherapy in both the human colorectal adenocarcinoma (HT-29) cell line and a radio-resistant clone (HT-29R) using western blotting and quantitative polymerase chain reaction. The UPR was induced using a glucose deprivation culture technique before irradiation and radiosensitivity assessed using a clonogenic assay. Ex-vivo human colorectal cancer tissue was immuno-histochemically analysed for expression of the UPR marker glucose regulated protein 78 (GRP-78). RESULTS: The UPR was strongly up regulated in ex-vivo human colorectal tumours with 36 of 50 (72.0%) specimens demonstrating moderate to strong staining for the classic UPR marker GRP-78. In vitro, therapeutic doses of radiotherapy did not induce UPR activation in either radiosensitive or radioresistant cell lines. UPR induction caused significant radiosensitisation of the radioresistant cell line (HT-29R SF2Gy=0.90 S.E.M. +/-0.08; HT-29RLG SF2Gy=0.69 S.E.M. +/-0.050). CONCLUSION: This suggests that UPR induction agents may be potentially useful response modifying agents in patients undergoing therapy for colorectal cancer.
BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy is an established treatment modality for early and locally advanced rectal cancer as part of short course radiotherapy and long course chemoradiotherapy. The unfolded protein response (UPR) is a cellular stress response pathway often activated in humansolid tumours which has been implicated in resistance to both chemotherapy and radiotherapy. This research has investigated whether the UPR pathway is upregulated in ex-vivo samples of humancolorectal cancer and characterised the interaction between radiotherapy and UPR activation in two humancolorectal cancer cell lines in vitro. METHODS: In vitro UPR expression was determined in response to clinical doses of radiotherapy in both the humancolorectal adenocarcinoma (HT-29) cell line and a radio-resistant clone (HT-29R) using western blotting and quantitative polymerase chain reaction. The UPR was induced using a glucose deprivation culture technique before irradiation and radiosensitivity assessed using a clonogenic assay. Ex-vivo humancolorectal cancer tissue was immuno-histochemically analysed for expression of the UPR marker glucose regulated protein 78 (GRP-78). RESULTS: The UPR was strongly up regulated in ex-vivo humancolorectal tumours with 36 of 50 (72.0%) specimens demonstrating moderate to strong staining for the classic UPR marker GRP-78. In vitro, therapeutic doses of radiotherapy did not induce UPR activation in either radiosensitive or radioresistant cell lines. UPR induction caused significant radiosensitisation of the radioresistant cell line (HT-29R SF2Gy=0.90 S.E.M. +/-0.08; HT-29RLG SF2Gy=0.69 S.E.M. +/-0.050). CONCLUSION: This suggests that UPR induction agents may be potentially useful response modifying agents in patients undergoing therapy for colorectal cancer.
Authors: Francesca Amoroso; Kimberley Glass; Reema Singh; Francisco Liberal; Rebecca E Steele; Sarah Maguire; Rohinton Tarapore; Joshua E Allen; Sandra Van Schaeybroeck; Karl T Butterworth; Kevin Prise; Joe M O'Sullivan; Suneil Jain; David J Waugh; Ian G Mills Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-02-19 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Uliana Vladimirova; Pavel Rumiantsev; Marianna Zolotovskaia; Eugene Albert; Aleksander Abrosimov; Konstantin Slashchuk; Petr Nikiforovich; Olga Chukhacheva; Nurshat Gaifullin; Maria Suntsova; Galina Zakharova; Alexander Glusker; Daniil Nikitin; Andrew Garazha; Xinmin Li; Dmitriy Kamashev; Alexei Drobyshev; Irina Kochergina-Nikitskaya; Maxim Sorokin; Anton Buzdin Journal: Heliyon Date: 2021-03-13
Authors: Emma Scott; Rebecca Garnham; Kathleen Cheung; Adam Duxfield; David J Elliott; Jennifer Munkley Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-07-25 Impact factor: 6.208
Authors: David R Soto-Pantoja; Adam S Wilson; Kenysha Yj Clear; Brian Westwood; Pierre L Triozzi; Katherine L Cook Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2017-08-03