As the delivery of selectively targeted cytotoxic agents via antibodies or small molecule ligands to malignancies has begun to show promise in the clinic, the need to identify and validate additional cellular targets for specific therapeutic delivery is critical. Although a multitude of cancers have been targeted using the folate receptor, PSMA, bombesin receptor, somatostatin receptor, LHRH, and αvβ3, there is a notable lack of specific small molecule ligand/receptor pairs to cellular targets found within cancers of the GI tract. Because of the selective GI tract expression of the cholecystokinin 2 receptor (CCK2R), we undertook the creation of conjugates that would deliver microtubule-disrupting drugs to malignancies through the specific targeting of CCK2R via a high affinity small molecule ligand. The cytotoxic activity of these conjugates were shown to be receptor mediated in vitro and in vivo with xenograft mouse models exhibiting delayed growth or regression of tumors that expressed CCK2R. Overall, this work demonstrates that ligands to CCK2R can be used to create selectively targeted therapeutic conjugates.
As the delivery of selectively targeted cytotoxic agents via antibodies or small molecule ligands to malignancies has begun to show promise in the clinic, the need to identify and validate additional cellular targets for specific therapeutic delivery is critical. Although a multitude of cancers have been targeted using the folate receptor, PSMA, bombesin receptor, somatostatin receptor, LHRH, and αvβ3, there is a notable lack of specific small molecule ligand/receptor pairs to cellular targets found within cancers of the GI tract. Because of the selective GI tract expression of the cholecystokinin 2 receptor (CCK2R), we undertook the creation of conjugates that would deliver microtubule-disrupting drugs to malignancies through the specific targeting of CCK2R via a high affinity small molecule ligand. The cytotoxic activity of these conjugates were shown to be receptor mediated in vitro and in vivo with xenograft mouse models exhibiting delayed growth or regression of tumors that expressed CCK2R. Overall, this work demonstrates that ligands to CCK2R can be used to create selectively targeted therapeutic conjugates.
Conventional nontargeted
chemotherapeutics, such as antimetabolites,[1] microtubule inhibitors, and DNA intercalating[2]/alkylating agents,[3,4] are effective
at killing cancer cells, but due to their indiscriminate penetration
into nearly all cells, they can also damage healthy cells, causing
such toxicities as myelosuppression, alopecia, mucositis, peripheral
neuropathy, and cardiotoxicity.[5,6] To minimize such collateral
damage to healthy tissues, physicians must often either reduce the
dosage or decrease the frequency of drug administration, leading to
incomplete elimination of diseased tissue. On the basis of these considerations,
recent approaches to cancer therapy have focused on developing methods
that specifically target chemotherapeutic agents to cancer cells,
allowing for improved tumor suppression with fewer adverse events.The most common approach to drug targeting has relied on the specificity
of a monoclonal antibody for its tumor-specific antigen. Through the
conjugation of a highly cytotoxic drug to a tumor-specific antibody,
tumor-selective drug delivery can be achieved with little drug deposition
in healthy tissues.[7,8] Examples of such tumor-targeted
antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) include trastuzumab emtansine[9,10] and brentuximab vedotin.[11] Although several
ADCs have shown significant success in preclinical and clinical settings,
some questions as to their ability to penetrate solid tumors have
been raised.[12−16] A related strategy to achieve tumor-selective drug delivery involves
the use of low molecular weight targeting ligands that can similarly
deliver attached drugs specifically to cancer cells. Low molecular
weight ligand–drug conjugates (Figure 1A) also target receptors that are overexpressed on malignant cells,
and their much smaller sizes may permit more thorough tumor penetration.[17−20]
Figure 1
Ligand
targeted drug conjugates. (A) General representation of
ligand conjugated to cytotoxic payload via a peptide linker. The circle
represents the cholecystokinin 2 receptor (CCK2R) binding ligand,
whereas the linker is represented by an oval. The cytotoxic drug,
or payload, is indicated by a rectangle. The solid black line represents
a covalent bond between the ligand and the linker, and the dotted
line symbolizes a cleavable self-immolative bond. (B) Chemical structures
of the CCK2R ligand CRL conjugated to the cytotoxic antimicrotubule
agents desacetyl vinblastine hydrazide and tubulysin B hydrazide via
a hydrophilic peptide linker.
Ligand
targeted drug conjugates. (A) General representation of
ligand conjugated to cytotoxic payload via a peptide linker. The circle
represents the cholecystokinin 2 receptor (CCK2R) binding ligand,
whereas the linker is represented by an oval. The cytotoxic drug,
or payload, is indicated by a rectangle. The solid black line represents
a covalent bond between the ligand and the linker, and the dotted
line symbolizes a cleavable self-immolative bond. (B) Chemical structures
of the CCK2R ligand CRL conjugated to the cytotoxic antimicrotubule
agents desacetyl vinblastine hydrazide and tubulysin B hydrazide via
a hydrophilic peptide linker.In this paper, Z-360,[21] a low
molecular
weight ligand of the cholecystokinin 2 receptor (CCK2R), is modified
to deliver two of the more potent antimicrotubule agents currently
available (desacetyl vinblastine monohydrazide and tubulysin B hydrazide).
CCK2R is a transmembrane receptor primarily found in epithelial cells
of the GI tract and brain, where it can bind Gastrin and other amidated
peptides of the gastrin-cholecystokinin family.[22,23] CCK2R is overexpressed on many cancers of the lung, pancreas, liver,
and GI tract (esophagus, colon, and gastrointestinal stromal tumors).[24−29] Because CCK2R in the brain is inaccessible to drugs that cannot
pass the blood brain barrier, this restricted expression pattern renders
CCK2R a possible candidate for ligand-targeted drug delivery. We report
here the design, synthesis, and biological evaluation of two highly
potent CCK2R-targeted chemotherapeutic agents and demonstrate their
efficacy and tolerability in treating CCK2R-expressing humantumor
xenografts in nu/nu mice.
Materials
Protected
amino acids were purchased from
Chem-Impex Intl. (Chicago, IL). H-Cys (Trt)-2-Cl-Trt
resin was obtained from Novabiochem (San Diego, CA). 1-[Bis(dimethylamino)methylene]-1H-1,2,3-triazolo[4,5-b]pyridinium 3-oxid
hexafluorophosphate (HATU) was obtained from Genscript Inc. (Piscataway,
NJ). Diisopropylethylamine (DIPEA), piperidine, dimethylformamide
(DMF), isopropyl alcohol (i-PrOH), and all other
reagents were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich. Tubulysin B and desacetyl
vinblastine hydrazide and their activated derivatives were a kind
gift from Endocyte Inc. (West Lafayette, IN). Dulbecco’s Modified
Eagle Medium (DMEM), Roswell Park Memorial Institute medium (RPMI),
fetal bovine serum (FBS), and G418 (Geneticin) were all purchased
from GIBCO (Grand Island, NY). Glutamine and penicillin-streptomycin
were obtained from Life Technologies. HC Matrigel was obtained from
BD Biosciences (San Jose, CA).
Cell Culture
The
HEK 293 cell line transfected with
wild type CCK2R was a generous gift from Dr. Mark Hellmich (Galveston,
Texas). Cells were cultured as monolayers in DMEM supplemented with
10% fetal bovine serum, G418 disulfate (400 μg/mL), 1% of 2
mM glutamine, and 1% of penicillin-streptomycin at 37 °C in a
5% CO2:95% humidified-air atmosphere. KB cells were cultured
from frozen stocks in RPMI and supplemented with the same concentrations
of fetal bovine serum, penicillin-streptomycin, and glutamine as the
HEK 293 cells.
Conjugate Synthesis
Synthesis of Ligand–Linker
Conjugate (CRL-L1)
The CCK2R ligand (Z-360) was synthesized
as previously described[21] and abbreviated
CRL to be consistent with previous
publications.[30] The peptide spacer was
prepared using Fmoc-protected solid phase peptide synthesis as outlined
in Scheme 1 (Supporting Information (SI), Figure 1) and named L1. As shown in Scheme 1 (SI, Figure 1), CRL was coupled to the peptide spacer on the
solid phase and cleaved from the resin using a standard cleavage cocktail
solution. Crude CRL-L1 was purified by preparative RP-HPLC [A = 2
mM ammonium acetate buffer (pH 5.0), B = CH3CN, solvent
gradient: 5% B to 80% B in 25 min] to yield the requisite product.
LRMS-LC/MS (m/z): [M + H]+ calcd for C72H110N12O27S, 1607.79; found, 1608.
Synthesis of CRL-L1-desacetyl vinblastine
hydrazide (CRL-L1-DAVBH)
A solution of saturated sodium bicarbonate
(2 mL) and HPLC grade
water was bubbled with argon continuously for 10 min. CRL-L1 (36 mg,
0.0226 mmol) was dissolved in argon-purged HPLC grade water (2.0 mL),
and the pH of the reaction mixture was increased to ∼7 using
argon-purged sodium bicarbonate. A solution of disulfide activated-DAVBH
(11.10 mg, mmol) in THF (2.0 mL) was then added to the reaction mixture
(SI, Figure 2). The progress of the reaction
was monitored using analytical LRMS-LCMS, and after stirring for 20
min, the reaction was found to reach completion. Crude CRL-L1-DAVBH
was purified by preparative RP-HPLC [A = 20 mM ammonium acetate (pH
7.2), B = CH3CN, solvent gradient: 5% B to 80% B in 30
min], yielding the desired product. LRMS (LC/MS) (m/z): [M + H]+ calcd for C118H168N18O36S2, 2478; found,
2478.
Synthesis of CRL-L1 Tubulysin B Hydrazide (CRL-L1-TubBH)
CRL-L1-TubBH was synthesized from activated tubulysin B hydrazide
following the same procedure used for the synthesis of CRL-L1-DAVBH
(SI, Figure 2). After removing the THF
under reduced pressure, CRL-L1-TubBH was purified by preparative RP-HPLC
[A = 2 mM ammonium acetate buffer (pH 7.0), B = CH3CN,
solvent gradient: 5% B to 80% B in 25 min] to yield the requisite
product. LRMS-LC/MS (m/z): [M +
H]+ calcd for C117H177N19O38S3, 2553.96; found, 2554.
Synthesis
of Nontargeted Desacetyl Vinblastine Hydrazide (L1-DAVBH)
and Nontargeted Tubulysin Hydrazide (L1-TubBH)
L1-DAVBH and
L1-TubBH were synthesized from activated DAVBH and TubBH, respectively,
following the procedure outlined for the synthesis of CRL-L1-DAVBH
(SI, Figure 1 and 3). Each compound was
then purified by reverse phase HPLC [A = 2 mM ammonium acetate buffer
(pH 7.0), B = CH3CN, solvent gradient: 5% B to 80% B in
25 min] to yield the requisite product. LRMS-LC/MS (m/z): [M + H]+ calcd for L1-DAVBH, C89H134N14O32S2,
1976.22; found, 1976; and (m/z):
[M + H]+ calcd for L1-TubBH C88H143N15O34S3, 2051.35; found, 2051.
All conjugates were found to be stable in saline for at least four
weeks as monitored by LC-MS.
General Procedure for the
in Vitro Determination of Cell Viability
(IC50)
CCK2R-transfected HEK 293 cells (100,000
cells/well) were seeded on amine-coated 24-well plates and allowed
to form monolayers. The spent medium in each well was replaced with
fresh medium containing increasing concentrations of the test agents.
After incubating for 2 h at 37 °C, cells were rinsed 3×
with fresh medium and then incubated an additional 66 h at 37 °C
in fresh medium. Spent medium in each well was again replaced with
fresh medium (0.5 mL) containing 3H-thymidine (1 μCi/ml),
and the cells were incubated for an additional 4 h. After washing
the cells 3× with medium, they were dissolved in 0.5 mL of 0.25
M NaOH. Thymidine incorporation was then determined by counting cell-associated
radioactivity using a scintillation counter (Packard, Packard Instrument
Company). The IC50 value was derived from a plot of the
percent of 3H-thymidine incorporation versus log concentration
using Graph Pad Prism 4 and TableCurve 2D software.
Tumor Model
and Therapy
HEK 293 cells expressing CCK2R
(5.0 × 106 in 50% HC matrigel) were injected into
the shoulders of 5–6 week old female nu/nu mice. An age-matched group of animals was similarly implanted with
1 × 106 KB cells in 100 μL of cell culture medium.
Because KB cells do not overexpress CCK2R, the KB xenograft model
served as a negative control. Tumors were measured in two perpendicular
directions 3× per week with vernier calipers, and their volumes
were calculated as 0.5 x L x W2, where L is the longest
axis (in millimeters), and W is the axis perpendicular to L (in millimeters).
Dosing was initiated when the subcutaneous tumors reached ∼100
mm3 in volume. Dosing solutions were prepared in saline
and filtered through a 0.22 μm filter. Solutions were administered
either intraperitonealy (CRL-L1-DAVBH, L1-DAVBH) or intravenously
(CRL-L1-TubBH, L1-TubBH, CRL-L1). Each mouse received 2 μmol/kg
of the test or control agent in 100 μL of saline per injection.
Injections were given 3× per week for 3 weeks, and the mice were
weighed at each dosing as a measure of gross toxicity. All animal
work was performed under the guidance of the Purdue Laboratory Animal
Program and was reviewed by the Purdue Animal Care and Use Committee.
Histological Staining
Tumors were excised, fixed in
formalin, embedded in paraffin, sectioned, and stained with hematoxylin
and eosin by the Purdue Histology and Phenotyping Laboratory.
Results
Proper design of a ligand-targeted chemotherapeutic agent requires
(i) selection of a high affinity ligand with good selectivity for
a cancer-enriched receptor, (ii) identification of a therapeutic agent
with sufficient potency to kill cancer cells when captured by a cancer-specific
receptor, and (iii) construction of a linker that will enable delivery
and release of the attached drug preferentially within the targeted
cells. Because cholecystokinin receptor ligand (CRL) has been shown
to exhibit high affinity (0.47 nM) and strong selectivity for CCK2R
(>600-fold specificity over CCK1R[29]),
it
was selected for exploration as a targeting ligand for drug delivery
to CCK2R-expressing cancer cells (Figure 1B).[21,30]To avoid nonspecific adsorption to CCK2R negative cells, we
incorporated
a water-soluble peptide spacer,[31] referred
to as L1, between the ligand and its therapeutic payload (Figure 1B). Previous results from our lab have shown only
a slight loss of affinity with no effect on specificity when CRL is
conjugated to its payload via hydrophilic linkers.[30]In the present study, two highly potent microtubule
inhibitors,
desacetyl vinblastine hydrazide (DAVBH) and tubulysin B hydrazide
(TubBH), were attached to the CRL-L1 peptide spacer through a self-immolative
disulfide linker.[31] This linker allows
for selective release of the cytotoxic agent upon entry into the reducing
environment of cancer cells. Detailed schemes for the synthesis of
CRL conjugates of DAVBH and TubBH are described in SI Figures 2 and 3 and complete chemical structures for all
conjugates can be found in SI Figures 4–7.To determine the cytotoxicity and targeting specificity of the
CRL-L1-DAVBH conjugate, we incubated CRL-L1-DAVBH, free DAVBH, and
nontargeted L1-DAVBH with CCK2R-transfected HEK 293 cells for 2 h
followed by incubation of the cells in drug-free medium for 66 h.
Cell viability was then measured via incorporation of 3H-thymidine. As shown in Figure 2, the potency
of free DAVBH and CRL-L1-DAVBH was 9 and 29 nM, respectively, whereas
the potency of the nontargeted conjugate L1-DAVBH was markedly reduced
by a factor of >1000 (IC50 value >50 μM). Importantly,
CRL by itself was found to show no cytotoxicity toward HEK 293-CCK2R
cells (SI, Figure 8), demonstrating that
the aforementioned cytotoxicity was due to the targeted therapeutic
agent rather than obstruction of CCK2R by CRL.
Figure 2
In vitro cytotoxicity
of DAVBH derivatives. The cytotoxicity of
free DAVBH (circles), the nontargeted L1-DAVBH (triangles), and the
targeted CRL-L1-DAVBH (squares) conjugates in HEK 293 cells transfected
with CCK2R when pulsed for 2 h at 37 °C, washed with culture
medium three times, and then incubated for an additional 66 h. Cells
were incubated with 3H-thymidine for 4 h and washed three
times. After the final wash, the cells were dissolved in 0.5 mL of
0.25 M NaOH. Viability of the cells was assessed by analyzing the
incorporation of 3H-thymidine. Error bars represent standard
deviation.
In vitro cytotoxicity
of DAVBH derivatives. The cytotoxicity of
free DAVBH (circles), the nontargeted L1-DAVBH (triangles), and the
targeted CRL-L1-DAVBH (squares) conjugates in HEK 293 cells transfected
with CCK2R when pulsed for 2 h at 37 °C, washed with culture
medium three times, and then incubated for an additional 66 h. Cells
were incubated with 3H-thymidine for 4 h and washed three
times. After the final wash, the cells were dissolved in 0.5 mL of
0.25 M NaOH. Viability of the cells was assessed by analyzing the
incorporation of 3H-thymidine. Error bars represent standard
deviation.To determine in vivo efficacy,
we injected 2 μmol/kg CRL-L1-DAVBH
intraperitoneally into mice bearing CCK2R-transfected HEK 293 xenografts
at a frequency of 3x per week for ∼3 weeks (n = 5). This dose was selected based on previous studies showing significant
therapeutic benefit when similar folate- and DUPA-targeted chemotherapeutics
were administered at the same concentration.[20,32,33] As shown in Figure 3A, CRL-L1-DAVBH was found to markedly delay tumor growth but not
lead to complete tumor eradication. To determine whether the residual
lesion was comprised predominately of cancer or stromal cells, H&E
staining was performed on excised tumors (day 33). Unlike the saline
control, which was comprised of almost entirely of cancer cells (Figure 4A), CRL-L1-DAVBH-treated tumors exhibited a greatly
decreased ratio of cancer to stromal cells (Figure 4B). As expected, the nontargeted L1-DAVBH exerted little impact
on tumor growth, demonstrating the critical role of ligand targeting
on CRL-L1-DAVBH efficacy (Figure 3A). Importantly,
body weights in the CRL-L1-DAVBH-treated group remained essentially
constant over the course of the study, suggesting that the targeted
therapy was not grossly toxic to the animals (Figure 3B).
Figure 3
In vivo therapeutic efficacy and gross toxicity of DAVBH conjugates.
(A) Volume of tumors and (B) percent weight change in nu/nu mice subcutaneously injected with CCK2R-transfected HEK 293 cells
(5.0 × 106 in 50% HC matrigel) on day 0. Mice were
randomized to different treatment groups (n = 5)
and began treatment on day 15, when tumor volume was approximately
100 mm3. Saline (diamonds), nontargeted L1-DAVBH (triangles),
and targeted CRL-L1-DAVBH (squares) conjugates were administered intraperitoneally
following a TIW schedule for ∼3 weeks. Error bars represent
standard deviation.
Figure 4
Histopathological staining
of CCK2R-transfected HEK 293 tumor xenografts.
Excised tumors from mice treated with (A) saline or (B) CRL-L1-DAVBH
were sectioned and stained with hematoxylin and eosin. Arrows show
the abundance of cancer cells in panel A and a reduced number of cancer
cells in panel B.
In vivo therapeutic efficacy and gross toxicity of DAVBH conjugates.
(A) Volume of tumors and (B) percent weight change in nu/nu mice subcutaneously injected with CCK2R-transfected HEK 293 cells
(5.0 × 106 in 50% HC matrigel) on day 0. Mice were
randomized to different treatment groups (n = 5)
and began treatment on day 15, when tumor volume was approximately
100 mm3. Saline (diamonds), nontargeted L1-DAVBH (triangles),
and targeted CRL-L1-DAVBH (squares) conjugates were administered intraperitoneally
following a TIW schedule for ∼3 weeks. Error bars represent
standard deviation.Histopathological staining
of CCK2R-transfected HEK 293tumor xenografts.
Excised tumors from mice treated with (A) saline or (B) CRL-L1-DAVBH
were sectioned and stained with hematoxylin and eosin. Arrows show
the abundance of cancer cells in panel A and a reduced number of cancer
cells in panel B.Because complete tumor
remission was not achieved at a dose of
2 μg/kg with CRL-L1-DAVBH, we elected to develop a more potent
CCK2R-targeted conjugate. For this purpose, tubulysin B hydrazide
(TubBH), a microtubule inhibitor with ∼10× the potency
of DAVBH, was conjugated to CRL via the same L1 linker (Figure 1, SI Figures 2 and 3).
As shown in Figure 5A, free tubulysin B hydrazide
was found to be very potent in vitro, exhibiting an IC50 of 2.7 nM on HEK 293-CCK2R cells. Similarly, the targeted CRL-L1-TubBH
conjugate yielded an IC50 of 2 nM, whereas nontargeted
L1-TubBH displayed the anticipated significant drop in potency (IC50 of ∼310 nM) due to its membrane impermeability and
lack of targeting. To ensure that the cytotoxicity of CRL-L1-TubBH
was receptor mediated, cells were incubated with CRL-L1-TubBH in the
presence of 100-fold excess CRL-L1. As expected, the IC50 value of the competed CRL-L1-TubBH was nearly identical to that
of the nontargeted L1-TubBH conjugate (IC50 of ∼340
and 310 nM, respectively).
Figure 5
In vitro cytotoxicity of TubBH derivatives.
The cytotoxicity of
free TubBH (circles), the nontargeted L1-TubBH (triangles), the targeted
CRL-L1-TubBH (squares), and the targeted CRL-L1-TubBH in the presence
of 100-fold greater concentration competing CRL-L1 (diamonds) conjugates
in HEK 293 cells transfected with CCK2R when pulsed for 2 h at 37
°C, washed with culture medium three times, and then incubated
for an additional 66 h. Cells were incubated with 3H-thymidine
for 4 h and washed three times. After the final wash, the cells were
dissolved in 0.5 mL of 0.25 M NaOH. Viability of the cells was assessed
by analyzing the incorporation of 3H-thymidine. Error bars
represent standard deviation.
In vitro cytotoxicity of TubBH derivatives.
The cytotoxicity of
free TubBH (circles), the nontargeted L1-TubBH (triangles), the targeted
CRL-L1-TubBH (squares), and the targeted CRL-L1-TubBH in the presence
of 100-fold greater concentration competing CRL-L1 (diamonds) conjugates
in HEK 293 cells transfected with CCK2R when pulsed for 2 h at 37
°C, washed with culture medium three times, and then incubated
for an additional 66 h. Cells were incubated with 3H-thymidine
for 4 h and washed three times. After the final wash, the cells were
dissolved in 0.5 mL of 0.25 M NaOH. Viability of the cells was assessed
by analyzing the incorporation of 3H-thymidine. Error bars
represent standard deviation.To determine the efficacy of CRL-L1-TubBH in vivo, we followed
the same treatment regimen used for DAVBH conjugates except that TubBH
conjugates were injected intravenously. CRL-L1-TubBH showed efficient
antitumor activity, eliminating all detectable malignant lesions from
all five mice (Figure 6A) and prolonged survival
(SI, Figure 9). As expected, nontargeted
L1-TubBH showed no difference from the saline-treated control group
when an identical concentration as that of the CRL-L1-TubBH targeted
conjugate was tested. Moreover, when CRL-L1-TubBH was competed with
100-fold excess of CRL-L1, the antitumor effect of the targeted TubBH
was negated (Figure 6A). This indicates that
the antitumor activity observed in the CRL-L1-TubBH group was entirely
receptor mediated. Importantly, the CRL-L1-TubBH-treated mice displayed
no visible signs of gross toxicity, and no weight loss was observed
(Figure 6C).
Figure 6
In vivo therapeutic efficacy and gross
toxicity of TubBH conjugates.
(A,B) Volume of tumors and (C,D) percent weight change in nu/nu mice subcutaneously injected with 5.0 × 106 CCK2R-transfected HEK 293 cells (CCK2R(+) cells) in 50% HC
matrigel (A,C) or 1.0 × 106 KB cells (CCK2R(−)
cells) in 50% HC matrigel on day 0. Mice were randomized to different
treatment groups (n = 5) and began treatment on day
17, when the tumor volume was ∼100 mm3. Saline (diamonds),
nontargeted L1-TubBH (triangles), targeted CRL-L1-TubBH (squares),
and targeted CRL-L1-TubBH in the presence of 100-fold greater concentration
of competing CRL-L1 (circles) conjugates were administered via lateral
vein injection following a TIW schedule for ∼3 weeks. Error
bars represent standard deviation.
In vivo therapeutic efficacy and gross
toxicity of TubBH conjugates.
(A,B) Volume of tumors and (C,D) percent weight change in nu/nu mice subcutaneously injected with 5.0 × 106 CCK2R-transfected HEK 293 cells (CCK2R(+) cells) in 50% HC
matrigel (A,C) or 1.0 × 106 KB cells (CCK2R(−)
cells) in 50% HC matrigel on day 0. Mice were randomized to different
treatment groups (n = 5) and began treatment on day
17, when the tumor volume was ∼100 mm3. Saline (diamonds),
nontargeted L1-TubBH (triangles), targeted CRL-L1-TubBH (squares),
and targeted CRL-L1-TubBH in the presence of 100-fold greater concentration
of competing CRL-L1 (circles) conjugates were administered via lateral
vein injection following a TIW schedule for ∼3 weeks. Error
bars represent standard deviation.Finally, to more thoroughly establish the necessity of receptor-mediated
targeting for CRL-L1-TubBH efficacy, the targeted conjugate was tested
using the same protocol in a CCK2R-negative KB xenograft model. In
vitro CRL-L1-TubBH conjugate yielded an IC50 value of 269
nM (SI, Figure 9), similar to the IC50 values observed with the nontargeted and competed targeted
conjugates in the CCK2R-expressing HEK cells. As shown in Figure 6B, CRL-L1-TubBH showed no difference in tumor growth
from the vehicle control. Because free tubulyisn B hydrazide is known
to be cytotoxic against KB cells,[34] the
lack of reduction in tumor volume in the KB xenograft must derive
from the absence of CCK2R and not from any intrinsic resistance to
TubBH. Again, none of the mice in this study exhibited any signs of
gross toxicity, and no substantial weight loss was observed (Figure 6D).
Discussion
Conjugation of cytotoxic
drugs to ligands that selectively target
cancer cells has emerged as a promising method to both improve drug
efficacy and reduce drug toxicity. Although only a few low molecular
weight ligand-targeted cancer drugs have been tested in vivo to date,
results suggest that the potential to design such targeted therapeutics
for most humanmalignancies is promising. Folate receptor-targeted
chemotherapeutic agents have demonstrated the capacity to treat malignancies
of the ovary, lung, kidney, breast, and endometrium,[35,36] and PSMA-targeted drugs have shown promise for treating cancers
of the prostate.[25] LHRH receptor- and αvβ3-targeted therapeutics can expand this
list to include cancers of the ovary and breast,[37,38] but to date, few ligands are available to target cancers of the
GI tract. In this study, we attempted to obtain a ligand that would
deliver attached drugs to gastroinstestinal malignancies. On the basis
of literature demonstrating overexpression of CCK2R in gastrointestinal
stromal tumors and colon, stomach, esophageal, and pancreatic cancers,[24−29] the CRL conjugates described in this paper should have the potential
to address this deficiency.One of the more interesting results
to emerge from this study was
the high specificity displayed by both CRL-L1-DAVBH and CRL-L1-TubBH
for CCK2R-expressing cancer cells. CRL, DAVBH, and TubBH were all
found to be very hydrophobic, predicting that any conjugate of the
ligand to a drug would be extremely lipophilic, resulting in a strong
proclivity to associate nonspecifically with all cell membranes. Thus,
to increase hydrophilicity, a water-soluble linker (L1) was utilized
to conjugate CRL to the cytotoxic drugs. CCK2R-dependent binding of
CRL-L1-DAVBH and CRL-L1-TubBH was established by the absence of toxicity
when (i) CRL was deleted, (ii) conjugate binding was competed with
excess ligand, or (iii) CCK2R was absent from the targeted cancer
cell. These data suggest that, otherwise, highly hydrophobic ligand–drug
conjugates can be rendered tumor specific by the judicious choice
of a hydrophilic linker due to the linker impeding the diffusion of
the hydrophobic drug through the cell membranes,[39] thus reducing nonspecific activity. However, this effect
is somewhat concentration dependent as some conjugates can diffuse
into cells, and therefore at high concentrations, nonreceptor mediated
activity can occur. In the case of linking CRL to DAVBH and TubBH,
the insertion of a bulky water-soluble linker between the ligand and
drug converted an otherwise nonspecific drug conjugate into a highly
receptor-targeted drug conjugate at physiologically relevant concentrations.Our CRL-TubBH conjugates were also tested against xenograft tumors
similar to those exposed to the DAVBH conjugates, except an additional
treatment group was included where CRL-L1-TubBH was competed with
excess CRL-L1. Similar to the DAVBH conjugates, the nontargeted L1-TubBH
conjugate did not appear to have any effect on tumor growth. The lack
of efficacy of L1-conjugated cytotoxic compounds in vivo is most likely
due to the hydrophilic linker, which does not allow for the cytotoxic
compound to readily diffuse through the cell membrane, whereas the
targeted CRL-L1-DAVBH and CRL-L1-TubBH both showed efficacy in vivo.Somewhat surprisingly, the CRL-L1-DAVBH conjugate did not regress
tumor volume even though similar concentrations of DAVBH conjugated
to folate or DUPA did exhibit tumor regression.[20,32,33] This result is most likely due to a lower
number of CCK2R receptors present on the cell surface as compared
to folate or PSMA. This resulting lack of tumor regression in vivo
encouraged the testing of a more potent cytotoxic agent with a similar
mechanism of action. When the more potent CRL-L1-TubBH conjugate was
tested, not only do it halt tumor growth, but it even regressed the
tumor to an indistinguishable level. Importantly, the CRL-L1-TubBH
treatment group that was competed with CRL-L1 showed no effect on
inhibiting tumor growth, similar to both the vehicle control and the
nontargeted conjugate. To further assess the necessity of receptor-mediated
targeting, we tested xenografts of the receptor-negative KB cell line
with the targeted CRL-L1-TubBH conjugate. Unlike the CCK2R-positive
HEK 293 xenografts, the KB xenografts showed neither regression nor
a delay of tumor growth when treated with the conjugate. Taken together,
these results strongly support the necessity of receptor-mediated
targeting with these conjugates for any in vivo efficacy.In
summary, the current study demonstrates that CCK2R-targeting
ligands can be used to deliver drugs selectively to CCK2R-positive
tumors to generate a dramatic receptor-specific antitumor effect without
observable gross toxicity to healthy tissues. Because current treatments
for colon, lung, pancreatic, and related cancers commonly cause hair
loss, bone marrow suppression, weight loss, and so forth, the prospects
for developing a less toxic treatment for these malignant diseases
offer some optimism for the management of these cancers in the future.
Authors: Lynn C Hartmann; Gary L Keeney; Wilma L Lingle; Teresa J H Christianson; Bindu Varghese; David Hillman; Ann L Oberg; Philip S Low Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2007-09-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Christopher P Leamon; Joseph A Reddy; Iontcho R Vlahov; Elaine Westrick; Nikki Parker; Jeffrey S Nicoson; Marilynn Vetzel Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2007-10-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Sandhya Girish; Manish Gupta; Bei Wang; Dan Lu; Ian E Krop; Charles L Vogel; Howard A Burris Iii; Patricia M LoRusso; Joo-Hee Yi; Ola Saad; Barbara Tong; Yu-Waye Chu; Scott Holden; Amita Joshi Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2012-01-20 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: Mohiuddin A Quadir; Stephen W Morton; Lawrence B Mensah; Kevin Shopsowitz; Jeroen Dobbelaar; Nicole Effenberger; Paula T Hammond Journal: Nanomedicine Date: 2017-03-02 Impact factor: 5.307
Authors: Philipp Klahn; Verena Fetz; Antje Ritter; Wera Collisi; Bettina Hinkelmann; Tatjana Arnold; Werner Tegge; Katharina Rox; Stephan Hüttel; Kathrin I Mohr; Joachim Wink; Marc Stadler; Josef Wissing; Lothar Jänsch; Mark Brönstrup Journal: Chem Sci Date: 2019-04-15 Impact factor: 9.825
Authors: Berthold A Nock; Panagiotis Kanellopoulos; Oleg G Chepurny; Maritina Rouchota; George Loudos; George G Holz; Eric P Krenning; Theodosia Maina Journal: Pharmaceutics Date: 2022-03-18 Impact factor: 6.321