Combination with redox modulators can potentiate the anticancer activity and maximize the selectivity of organometallic complexes with redox-based mechanisms of action. We show that nontoxic doses of l-buthionine sulfoximine increase the selectivity of organo-Os complex FY26 for human ovarian cancer cells versus normal lung fibroblasts to 63-fold. This increase is not due to changes in the mechanism of action of FY26 but to the decreased response of cancer cells to oxidative stress.
Combination with redox modulators can potentiate the anticancer activity and maximize the selectivity of organometallic complexes with redox-based mechanisms of action. We show that nontoxic doses of l-buthionine sulfoximine increase the selectivity of organo-Os complex FY26 for humanovarian cancer cells versus normal lung fibroblasts to 63-fold. This increase is not due to changes in the mechanism of action of FY26 but to the decreased response of cancer cells to oxidative stress.
The development of
resistance is a major clinical problem with
current anticancer drugs. Multitargeting by using a combination of
drugs provides a potential strategy to overcome resistance. We are
exploring the concept of redox synergism for combination therapy,
a strategy that could additionally lower the doses of metallodrugs.
Metal complexes based on Ru(II), Os(II), and Ir(III) are being developed
as viable alternatives to platinum drugs used in the clinic.[1−3]Metal-based
anticancer drugs can interfere in cellular redox chemistry
in several ways: directly through metal or ligand redox centers, or
indirectly by binding to biomolecules involved in cellular redox pathways.
This opens the possibility to target the redox balance in cancer cells,
which may be a highly effective, multiple site approach.[4] In the present work, we show that combining metal-based
drugs and redox modulators not only improves potency but also has
great repercussions for the selectivity of the complex toward cancer
cells.Conventional platinum drugs target DNA and therefore
rely on the
high proliferation rate of cancer cells as a basis for selectivity.[5] In contrast, organometallic osmium(II) complexes,
such as FY26, [Os(η6-p-cym)(p-NMe2-Azpy)I]PF6 (Figure a), have a novel mechanism
of action centered on increasing the level of reactive oxygen species
(ROS) produced in cancer cells.[6] Cancer
cells are primed for this intervention because they are already redox-hyperactive
and in most cases present malfunctioning mitochondria. Several factors
are known to contribute to mitochondrial dysfunction in cancer cells,
including mtDNA mutations, oncogenic stress, and p53 mutations.[7−9] Functional mitochondria are responsible for a plethora of cellular
processes, including ATP production, ROS generation, and cell death.[10] Dysfunctional mitochondria are unable to control
ROS generation efficiently, leading to inherent oxidative stress in
cancer cells.[11] This allows osmium compounds,
such as FY26, to exert selective toxicity toward cancer cells over
normal cells.
Figure 1
(a) Chemical structure of FY26, (b) antiproliferative
activity
of FY26 ± 5 μM L-BSO in A2780 ovarian cancer cells (orange)
and MRC5 human lung fibroblasts (white). The selectivity factor (IC50-MRC5/IC50-A2780) increases from 28.4× to
63.5×.
(a) Chemical structure of FY26, (b) antiproliferative
activity
of FY26 ± 5 μM L-BSO in A2780 ovarian cancer cells (orange)
and MRC5human lung fibroblasts (white). The selectivity factor (IC50-MRC5/IC50-A2780) increases from 28.4× to
63.5×.Multicomponent therapy,
in which the drugs used are synergistic,
can provide dose reduction and subsequent minimization of adverse
side effects while avoiding the development of resistance.[12,13] Some examples of conventional combination therapy for cancer include
the use of aphidicolin glycinate and cisplatin (CDDP) in the treatment
of melanomas[14] and paclitaxel combined
with carboplatin for ovarian and NSCL cancers.[15]We have shown that a number of active organometallic
anticancer
agents based on Ru(II), Os(II), and Ir(III) have potential redox components
in their mechanisms of action. For such complexes, the possibility
arises of using combination therapy together with redox modulators
to increase their potency. This is attractive for lowering the doses
of metal complexes that need to be administered.[4]Osmium complex FY26 is highly active toward several
cancer cell
lines, in particular, it exhibits submicromolar activity in A2780
ovarian, A549 lung, HCT116 colon, and MCF7 breast cancer cell lines.[16,17] FY26 is more potent than cisplatin by at least 2 orders of magnitude
in the NCI-60 cell line screen (GI50 FY26 0.28 μM
versus 10.3 μM for CDDP) as well as in the 809-cell line screen
of the Sanger Institute (mean GI50 FY26 0.75 μM versus
36.7 μM for CDDP).[6]We have
further investigated the anticancer activity and mechanism
of action on FY26 toward ovarian cancer, using A2780 cells as a model.
Current statistics, held by CR-UK, indicate that we lose one woman
every 2 h due to this disease. Importantly, we have reported that
the activity of FY26 can be potentiated by coadministration of a nontoxic
dose of the redox modulator l-buthionine sulfoximine, L-BSO,
an inhibitor of γ-glutamylcysteine synthetase.[4,16] This effect has also been observed for piano-stool complexes based
on Ru(II) and Ir(III). In the case of the activity of FY26 toward
A2780 ovarian cancer cells, potency improves by 2.3-fold when coadministered
with 5 μM of L-BSO, with the IC50 decreasing from
160 ± 10 nM to 69 ± 5 nM.[4] In
the present work, we explore the implications of this activity improvement
at the cellular level. We show that combination of FY26 with nontoxic
doses of L-BSO dramatically increases the selectivity of the Os complex
for cancer cells over normal fibroblasts.
Results and Discussion
We describe a series of experiments in which we investigated the
effect of low, nontoxic doses of the redox modulator l-buthionine
sulfoximine, L-BSO, an inhibitor of the enzyme γ-glutamyl cysteine
synthetase that catalyzes the first and rate-limiting step in the
production of glutathione (GSH). This redox modulator has been in
clinical trials for malignant melanoma (NCI-T93-0176O) and refractory
progressive neuroblastoma (NCT00002730) in combination with melphalan.
The results so far indicate that it can be safely used to generate
a 40% GSH depletion in patients.[18,19]In the
present work, L-BSO has been used in combination with the
organo-Os(II) complex FY26 in studies on the antiproliferative activity
in A2780 ovarian cancer cells and MRC5human fibroblasts, effects
on GSH levels, on the induction of ROS and superoxide, the involvement
of apoptosis in cell death, and on mitochondrial membrane potentials
and cell-cycle profiles.
Antiproliferative Activity
The antiproliferative
activity
of FY26 has previously been reported in the A2780 ovarian cell line
(IC50 = 160 nM) as well as the possibility of enhancing
its activity by coadministration with 5 μM L-BSO.[4] We have investigated whether this potentiation
of anticancer activity is also observed for inactive Os(II) piano-stool
complexes. For this, we determined the IC50 of FY77 ([Os(η6-bip)(Cl-Azpy)Cl]PF6 IC50 > 100 μM)
and FY122 ([Os(η6-p-cym) (OH-Impy)I]PF6 IC50 = 30 ± 2 μM) which are structurally
related organometallic complexes but have much lower potencies than
FY26. We then determined the percentages of cell survival when different
concentrations of FY77 and FY122 are coadministered with 5 μM
of L-BSO (Supporting Information (SI) Figure 1). The biphenyl complex FY77 remains inactive, with percentages of
cell survival above 93%. Only partial enhancement of activity was
observed for FY122. This indicates that L-BSO does not confer antiproliferative
activity per se and can only enhance the performance of a complex
that is already biologically active.We hypothesized that the
cellular effect of L-BSO in reducing GSH levels is directly related
to the enhancement of antiproliferative activity. To confirm this,
we investigated whether the effect of coincubation with L-BSO could
be reversed by also coadministering GSH. A2780 ovarian cancer cells
exposed to a fixed concentration of FY26 (0.10 or 0.30 μM) were
coincubated with (a) 5 μM L-BSO, (b) 5 μM GSH, (c) 5 μM
L-BSO and 5 μM GSH, (d) 50 μM GSH, or (e) 5 μM L-BSO
and 50 μM GSH (Figure and SI Figure 2).
Figure 2
Effect of coadministration
of 0.10 μM FY26 with 5 μM
L-BSO in the presence/absence of GSH (5 and 50 μM) on the percentage
of cell survival of A2780 ovarian cancer cells.
Effect of coadministration
of 0.10 μM FY26 with 5 μM
L-BSO in the presence/absence of GSH (5 and 50 μM) on the percentage
of cell survival of A2780 ovarian cancer cells.The administration of 0.10 μM of FY26 and 5 μM
L-BSO,
as expected, reduced the percentage of cell survival compared to the
administration of the complex on its own. This effect was partially
reversed in the presence of GSH as well as L-BSO (Figure ). In fact, when cells were
coincubated with only FY26 and GSH, the percentage of cell survival
increased in comparison to the osmium drug alone. This suggests that
the effect of L-BSO may be related to modulating the cellular response
to the osmium drug. More specifically, the role of L-BSO is to reduce
the level of GSH as a cellular detoxification agent.The anticancer
activity of metal-based drugs may well involve both
cytostatic and cytotoxic effects. To investigate the contribution
of these two effects, the percentages of survival of cells exposed
to the drug when allowed or not allowed to recover in drug free medium
were compared. This provides an indication of cytostasis and cytotoxicity,
respectively.We carried out this experiment on A2780 ovarian
cancer cells exposed
for 24 h to various concentrations of FY26. These values were then
compared to cells that were drug-exposed under similar conditions
but were then allowed to recover for further 72h in drug-free medium
(SI Figure 3a). At concentrations between
75 and 0.3 μM FY26 the percentage of cell survival was always
significantly lower for cells that were allowed to recover, which
highlights the cytostatic effect of FY26. Meanwhile at the lowest
concentration tested (30 nM), no differences were observed and the
percentage of cell survival was very similar to that of untreated
controls. We also determined the percentages of cell survival when
A2780 cells were exposed to 5 μM L-BSO in coadministration with
various concentrations of FY26 (SI Figure 3b). The use of the redox modulator did not change the trends observed,
and once more the percentage of cells in the experiment that included
72 h recovery in drug-free medium was lower. This suggests that in
the presence and absence of L-BSO the behavior of FY26 is mostly cytostatic.
Cancer Cell Selectivity
The selectivity factor for
a given compound can be defined as the ratio between its activity
(IC50) in normal cells (MRC5 fibroblasts in the present
case) compared to cancer cells. The selectivity of FY26 (IC50-MRC5/IC50-A2780) is 28, while the corresponding factor
for CDDP is only 9.5.[20] We studied the
effect on the selectivity factor of combined administration of a 5
μM nontoxic dose of L-BSO together with FY26 to A2780humanovarian cancer cells compared to MRC5 fibroblasts. Remarkably, the
selectivity factor increased to 63.5× (Figure b, SI Table 1).
The activity in the fibroblasts remains unchanged, but the potency
in the ovarian cancer cells increases. Such a differential activity
might allow the use of combination therapy for dose reduction and
translate into reduction of unwanted side effects.
Cellular GSH
Levels
We investigated the effect of L-BSO
on the GSH levels in A2780 ovarian cancer cells. We treated A2780
cells with three different concentrations of L-BSO: 1, 5, and 50 μM.
Compared to untreated controls, 1 μM L-BSO treatment did not
cause significant variations in the GSH levels (to 95%), but 5 μM
L-BSO induced an approximate 50% drop (to 56%), and the highest concentration
(50 μM) caused a 63% reduction (to 37%; Figure a, SI Table 2).
Figure 3
GSH levels
in A2780 cells exposed for 24 h to (a) L-BSO (1, 5,
and 50 μM), (b) FY26 (IC50 and 2× IC50) ± 5 μM L-BSO. In all cases, data have been normalized
against negative untreated controls.
GSH levels
in A2780 cells exposed for 24 h to (a) L-BSO (1, 5,
and 50 μM), (b) FY26 (IC50 and 2× IC50) ± 5 μM L-BSO. In all cases, data have been normalized
against negative untreated controls.We chose 5 μM L-BSO to carry out experiments on coadministration
with FY26. In this case, the levels of GSH were reduced, as expected,
to ca. 54% of those of the untreated controls. The variation caused
by a single dose of FY26 at IC50 concentration was a decrease
to 92%. At 2× IC50 concentration, a statistically
significant reduction to 87% was observed. It is possible that at
high concentrations of the complex, GSH is used as a cellular strategy
for drug detoxification (Figure b, SI Table 2). This effect
has been observed before, for example, reduced levels of GSH (caused
by L-BSO administration) can restore cellular sensitivity to the Ru(III)
anticancer drug KP1019.[21]
ROS/Superoxide
Induction
We then determined the induction
of ROS and superoxide in A2780 ovarian cancer cells exposed for 24
h to complex FY26 at the IC50 concentration (160 nM) using
flow cytometry and compared this to the ROS and superoxide levels
observed in MRC5 fibroblasts under similar conditions. The experiment
allowed the simultaneous determination of total oxidative stress (e.g.,
peroxides, peroxynitrite, and hydroxyl radicals) using the FL-1 green
channel and the generation of superoxide using FL-2 orange channel.
Ovarian cancer cells exposed to FY26 showed high levels of both total
ROS and superoxide, with most of the cell population in the FL-1+/FL-2+
upper right quadrant of a dot plot. Meanwhile, untreated negative
controls remained in the lower left quadrant, with low levels in both
channels (Figure a,b, SI Table 3). In contrast, MRC5 fibroblasts exposed
to FY26 exhibited elevated levels of total ROS but showed low induction
of superoxide, with most of the population in the lower half of the
FL-2 orange channel (Figure c).
Figure 4
Flow cytometry analysis of the induction of total ROS and superoxide:
(a) positive and negative controls in A2780 ovarian cancer cells,
(b) FY26 (IC50) ± 5 μM L-BSO in A2780 cells,
and (c) MRC5 normal fibroblasts exposed to FY26 (IC50).
In all cases, the experiments included 24 h of drug exposure and no-recovery
time.
Flow cytometry analysis of the induction of total ROS and superoxide:
(a) positive and negative controls in A2780 ovarian cancer cells,
(b) FY26 (IC50) ± 5 μM L-BSO in A2780 cells,
and (c) MRC5 normal fibroblasts exposed to FY26 (IC50).
In all cases, the experiments included 24 h of drug exposure and no-recovery
time.These observations are consistent
with the proposed mechanism of
action for FY26, which is based on the disruption of the cellular
redox balance.[6] We hypothesize that FY26
exerts its anticancer activity by generating a burst of superoxide,
hence exploiting the weaknesses of defective mitochondria in cancer
cells. This could explain the selective toxicity observed between
cancer cells and normal fibroblasts. The MRC5 fibroblasts which contain
normal functioning mitochondria are capable of rebalancing the redox
state of the cell efficiently, while the A2780 progress toward cell
death.A similar experiment was carried out using a combination
of FY26
and 5 μM of L-BSO in A2780 ovarian cancer cells. We again determined
the levels of total ROS and superoxide induction. Both of these readings
remained unchanged compared to the administration of the osmium complex
alone, showing the majority of the cell population in the upper right
quadrant FL-1+/FL-2+ (Figure b SI Table 4). Remarkably, no further
increase in the levels of superoxide is observed in the presence of
FY26 and L-BSO, which indicates that the enhancement in anticancer
activity is the result of a weakened cell response to the osmium complex
due to the lower GSH levels. As a second set of negative controls
(apart from the untreated cells), A2780 cells exposed to 5 μM
of L-BSO showed only population in the FL-1–/FL-2– lower
left quadrant, indicating low levels of both superoxide and total
ROS.We have reported that the levels of superoxide induction
in A2780ovarian cancer cells can be directly related to the antiproliferative
activity of Os(II) piano-stool complexes, in particular to the activity
of FY26, FY77, and FY122.[6] There is no
production of superoxide in cells exposed the inactive complex FY77,
and no improvement in anticancer activity when the complex is coadministered
with 5 μM L-BSO. This is consistent with the idea that L-BSO
can only enhance the potency of already active complexes, such as
FY26, and that it does so by lowering GSH levels, hence weakening
the cellular response to the osmium-complex.
Induction of Apoptosis
We have previously reported
that IC50 concentrations of FY26 do not cause significant
apoptosis in A2780 ovarian cancer cells after 24 h of drug exposure.[6] Under these conditions, the majority of the cell
population in a flow cytometry dot plot remains in the lower left
quadrant with FL-1 measuring Annexin V fluorescence intensity and
FL-2 reading propidium iodide fluorescence. Apoptosis, as programmed
cell death, starts with the loss of symmetry of the phosphatidylserine
membrane, which allows Annexin binding (early apoptosis), followed
by loss of the membrane integrity. At this point, cells become permeant
to propidium iodide and generate high fluorescence in the FL-2 channel
after DNA intercalation (late apoptosis). FY26 has been shown to cause
apoptotic cell death in A549 lung cancer cells only at concentrations
10× IC50, nonetheless at a dose of 0.5 μM the
apoptotic population can still be disregarded.[22]We exposed A2780 ovarian cancer cells to FY26 under
similar conditions (24 h drug exposure at IC50 concentration),
this time coadministered with 5 μM L-BSO with the aim of determining
whether the use of the redox modulator would induce higher levels
of programmed cell death. Figure a (SI Table 5) shows that
combination with the redox modulator does not cause significant changes
to the apoptotic response. Most of the cell population showed only
low levels of Annexin binding and propidium iodide intercalation,
hence they are located in the FL-1–/FL-2– lower left
quadrant of the dot plot. There are, nonetheless, a statistically
relevant (p < 0.001) number of nonviable cells
located in the upper left quadrant FL-1–/FL-2+, which only
exhibit high propidium iodide fluorescence; this is consistent with
a nonapoptotic mechanism of cell death. The experiment was also carried
out using a single dose of 5 μM L-BSO as a second set of negative
controls. There were no statistically significant differences between
the cells exposed to the redox modulator and the untreated controls,
as all the population remained in the lower left quadrant, with low
Annexin V and low propidium iodide fluorescence.
Figure 5
Flow cytometry analysis
of A2780 cells exposed for 24 h to FY26
(IC50) ± 5 μM L-BSO: (a) induction of apoptosis,
(b) changes in the mitochondrial membrane potential, and (c) cell
cycle analysis.
Flow cytometry analysis
of A2780 cells exposed for 24 h to FY26
(IC50) ± 5 μM L-BSO: (a) induction of apoptosis,
(b) changes in the mitochondrial membrane potential, and (c) cell
cycle analysis.A nonapoptotic mechanism
of cell death does not rule out the involvement
of mitochondrial dysfunction or redox disruption. In fact, it has
been reported that pathogenic mitochondrial oxidation[23] and even autophagic cell death[24] can be linked to cellular redox disruption. There is also a need
to consider that the mechanism of cell death caused by this type of
multitargeted metal-based complex may be novel and difficult to map
onto known mechanisms.
Mitochondrial Membrane Potential
We also investigated
changes in the mitochondrial membrane potential of A2780 cells exposed
to FY26 ± 5 μM L-BSO using flow cytometry. First, we used
the Os(II) complex on its own, with a drug exposure of 24 h at IC50 (160 nM) concentration. The experiment relies on the JC-10
mitochondrial stain which exists as a red aggregate inside the mitochondria,
however, upon changes in the membrane potential, the dye is released
into the cytosol and converted into its monomeric green form. Following
the increase of intensity in the FL-1 green channel, it is possible
to quantify the release of the stain and hence gain information on
changes in the mitochondrial membrane potential. A FL-1 histogram
revealed that FY26 is capable of changing the potential of the mitochondrial
membrane as indicated by a gain in the fluorescence intensity. Similarly,
we carried out the experiment with coadministration with 5 μM
L-BSO. This combination did not affect markedly the results of this
experiment, and changes in the mitochondrial membrane potential were
still observed (Figure b, SI Table 6).
Effects on A2780 Cell Cycle
Cell cycle profiles of
A2780 cells exposed for 24 h to FY26 at IC50 concentration
(160 nM) ± 5 μM L-BSO were obtained by flow cytometry using
propidium iodide as a DNA stain. In both cases, with and without the
redox modulator, it was observed that after the drug exposure period
and no recovery time, A2780 cells were arrested in G1 phase and there
was no significant population in a sub-G1 phase (Figure c). These results highlight
the cytostatic effect of the Os(II) complex and are consistent with
the above studies of apoptosis in which 24 h of drug exposure does
not lead to a majority population of nonviable cells. It is also consistent
with the results obtained when cells exposed to FY26 are allowed or
not to recover in drug-free medium before determining the percentages
of cell survival (vide supra).
Conclusions
It
is well-known that L-BSO can deplete GSH levels in cells by
inhibiting the enzyme γ-glutamylcysteine synthetase.[21] Furthermore, several previous studies have related
intracellular levels of GSH with resistance to metal-based anticancer
agents. Metal–GSH adducts can be recognized by ATP-mediated
efflux transporters and MDR proteins, which translates into reduced
cell accumulation of the drugs.[25,26] Most importantly, cellular
GSH is a scavenger of reactive oxygen species.FY26, a potent
Os(II) anticancer drug candidate, exerts its activity
by generating reactive oxygen species and disrupting the redox balance
in cancer cells.[4,6,22] We
have shown here that coadministration of FY26 and nontoxic doses of
L-BSO allows the potentiation of its anticancer activity, and most
remarkably, it improves the selectivity for cancer cells versus normal
fibroblasts. Reduced GSH levels (caused by the L-BSO) not only undermine
cellular detoxification pathways but most importantly diminish the
cell’s ability to respond to oxidative stress.Co-administration
of FY26 with the redox modulator L-BSO does not
alter the levels of ROS/superoxide produced in the cancer cells nor
does it enhance the effect of the Os(II) complex on the mitochondrial
membrane potential. However, such a combination plays a key role in
the cellular response to this damage. Cell responses to redox disruption
differ greatly from cancer to normal cells. The vulnerability of the
former arises from elevated energy requirements and the presence of
dysfunctional mitochondria, while in the latter, balancing mechanisms
are effective and redox variations, such as those induced by FY26,
are readily reversed. Most notably, and in contrast to the cancer
cells, treatment of normal fibroblasts with FY26 does not induce high
levels of superoxide (Figure ).Because metal-based drugs are often multitargeted,
a “systems
pharmacology” approach which considers their effects on feedback
loops from interlinked pathways is likely to be beneficial for understanding
their mechanisms of action and improving their design. “Smart”
and “synergic” combinations can be exploited to maximize
the selectivity of metal-based anticancer drug candidates. The increase
in selectivity of FY26 to a 63-fold difference between MRC5 fibroblasts
and A2780 ovarian cancer cells is quite dramatic and would have a
significant impact on therapeutic regimes if it could be translated
into clinical practice.
Experimental Section
Materials
and Methods
Organometallic Os(II) complexes
FY26, FY77, and FY122 were synthesized and characterized as reported
previously.[16] Staurosporine, propidium
iodide (94%) RNase A, pyocyanin and carbonyl cyanide 3-chlorophenylhydrazone,
CCCP, L-BSO, and GSH were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich.
Cell Culture
A2780humanovarian carcinoma and MRC5human fetal lung fibroblasts were obtained from the European Collection
of Cell Cultures (ECACC) and grown in Roswell Park Memorial Institute
medium (RPMI-1640), supplemented with 10% of fetal calf serum, 1%
of 2 mM glutamine, and 1% penicillin/streptomycin. All cells were
grown as adherent monolayers at 310 K in a 5% CO2 humidified
atmosphere and passaged at approximately 70–80% confluency.
In Vitro Growth Inhibition Assay
Briefly, 96-well plates
were used to seed 5000 cells per well. The plates were left to preincubate
in drug-free media at 310 K for 48 h before adding different concentrations
of the compounds to be tested. A drug exposure period of 24 h was
allowed. After this, supernatants were removed by suction and each
well was washed with PBS. A further 72 h was allowed for the cells
to recover in drug-free medium at 310 K. The SRB assay was used to
determine cell viability. IC50 values, as the concentration
which caused 50% of cell death, were determined as duplicates of triplicates
in two independent sets of experiments and their standard deviations
were calculated. CDDP-exposed and untreated cells were used as positive
and negative controls, respectively.
Redox Modulation Assays
These experiments were performed
using the protocol previously described for IC50 determination
with the following modifications. Briefly, a 96-well plate was seeded
with 5000 cells per well. Cells were preincubated in drug-free medium
for 48 h at 310 K before adding the metal complex FY26 together with
5 μM L-BSO. To prepare the stock solution of the drug, the solid
complex was dissolved first in DMSO and then diluted in a 50:50 v/v
mixture of cell culture medium:saline (0.9% w/v NaCl in sterile water)
to a maximum DMSO concentration of 5% v/v. This stock was further
diluted using RPMI until working concentrations were achieved. Separately,
a stock solution of L-BSO was prepared in saline. Both solutions,
FY26 and L-BSO, were added to each well independently but within 5
min of each other. Drug exposure and recovery time were 24 and 72
h, respectively. The SRB assay was used to determine cell viability.These experiments used cells treated with different concentrations
of CDDP as positive controls and two sets of negative controls; in
the first one, the cells were kept untreated, while in the second
set, the cells were exposed to 5 μM L-BSO. The differences in
cell survival between the two sets of negative controls were not statistically
significant in any experiment.A similar protocol was used to
investigate the effect of coadministration
with GSH. A2780 cells were drugged using fixed concentrations of FY26
(0.10 and 0.30 μM) and 5 μM L-BSO in the presence/absence
of 5 and 50 μM GSH. Drug exposure and recovery time were 24
and 72 h, respectively. The SRB assay was used to determine cell viability.
Cell Cycle Analysis
Cells were seeded in a 6-well plate
using 1.0 × 106 cells per well. They were preincubated
in drug-free media at 310 K for 24 h, after which FY26 ± 5 μM
L-BSO were added using equipotent concentrations equal to IC50 and 2× IC50 for the Os(II) complex. After 24 h of
drug exposure, supernatants were removed by suction and cells were
washed with PBS. Finally, cells were harvested using trypsin. DNA
staining was achieved by resuspending the cell pellets in PBS containing
propidium iodide (PI) and RNase A. Cell pellets were resuspended in
PBS before being analyzed by flow cytometry using the maximum excitation
of PI-bound DNA at 536 nm and its emission at 617 nm. Data were processed
using Flowjo software. These experiments used two sets of negative
controls, a first one using untreated cells and a second one with
cells treated only with 5 μM L-BSO. These experiments were carried
out in duplicates of triplicates in independent experiments; although
only selected dot plots are shown, full numerical data and statistical
analysis can be found in the Supporting Information.Flow cytometry analysis of apoptotic
populations were carried out using the Annexin V-FITC apoptosis detection
kit (Sigma-Aldrich) according to the manufacturer’s instructions.
Briefly, cells were seeded in 6-well plates (1.0 × 106 cells per well), preincubated for 24 h in drug-free media at 310
K, after which they were exposed to FY26 ± 5 μM L-BSO for
further 24 h (equipotent concentrations of FY26 equal to IC50 and 2× IC50). Cells were harvested using trypsin
and stained using PI/Annexin V-FITC. After staining in the dark, cell
pellets were analyzed in a Becton Dickinson FACScan flow cytometer.
For positive-apoptosis controls, A2780 cells were exposed for 2 h
to staurosporine (1 μg/mL). Cells for apoptosis studies were
used with no previous fixing procedure so as to avoid nonspecific
binding of the annexin V-FITC conjugate. Negative controls included
untreated cells and cells treated only with 5 μM L-BSO. These
experiments were carried out in duplicates of triplicates in independent
experiments; although only selected dot plots are shown, full numerical
data and statistical analysis can be found in the Supporting Information.
ROS and Superoxide Determination
Flow cytometry analysis
of ROS/superoxide generation by exposure to FY26 ± 5 μM
L-BSO was carried out using the Total ROS/Superoxide detection kit
(Enzo Life Sciences) according to the supplier’s instructions.
Briefly, 1.0 × 106 cells per well were seeded in a
6-well plate. Cells were preincubated in drug-free media at 310 K
for 24 h in a 5% CO2 humidified atmosphere, and then drugs
were added at equipotent concentrations equal to IC50 and
2× IC50 of FY26 and ±5 μM L-BSO. After
24 h of drug exposure, supernatants were removed by suction and cells
were washed and harvested. Staining was achieved in the dark by resuspending
the cell pellets in buffer containing the orange/green fluorescent
reagents. Cells were analyzed in a Becton Dickinson FACScan flow cytometer
using Ex/Em 490/525 nm for the oxidative stress and Ex/Em 550/620
nm for superoxide detection. Data were processed using Flowjo software.
Negative controls included untreated cells and cells treated only
with 5 μM L-BSO. Positive controls were obtained using pyocyanin.
These experiments were carried out as duplicates of triplicates in
independent experiments; although only selected dot plots are shown,
full numerical data and statistical analysis can be found in the Supporting Information.
Mitochondrial Membrane
Potential Assay
Analysis of
the changes of mitochondrial potential was carried out using the Abcam,
JC-10 mitochondrial membrane potential assay kit according to the
manufacturer’s instructions. Briefly, 1.0 × 106 cells were seeded in 6-well plates and left to incubate for 24 h
in drug-free medium at 310 K in a humidified atmosphere. Solutions
of FY26 at IC50 and 2× IC50 concentrations
±5 μM L-BSO were added in triplicate and the cells left
to incubate for further 24 h under similar conditions. Supernatants
were removed by suction, and each well was washed with PBS before
detaching the cells using trypsin-EDTA. Staining of the samples was
done in flow cytometry tubes protected from light, incubating 30 min
at room temperature. Samples were immediately analyzed on a Beckton
Dickinson FACScan with fluorescence detection. Data were processed
using Flowjo. Negative controls included untreated cells and cells
treated only with 5 μM L-BSO. Positive controls were obtained
using CCCP. These experiments were carried out as duplicates of triplicates
in independent experiments; although only selected dot plots are shown,
full numerical data and statistical analysis can be found in the Supporting Information.
Glutathione Assay
GSH levels in cells exposed to FY26
± L-BSO were determined using the Glutathione (GSH/GSSG/Total)
Assay Kit from BioVision according to the manufacturer’s instructions.
Briefly, 1.0 × 106 cells were seeded in 6-well plates
and left to incubate for 24 h in drug-free medium at 310 K in a humidified
atmosphere. Drug solutions of FY26 at IC50 and 2×
IC50 concentration ±5 μM L-BSO were added in
triplicate and the cells left to incubate for further 24 h under similar
conditions. Supernatants were removed by suction, and each well was
washed with PBS before detaching the cells using trypsin-EDTA. Cell
pellets were resuspended in 100 μL of assay buffer together
with 20 μL of cold 6N perchloric acid (PCA). A 60 μL aliquot
was vortexed to a uniform emulsion and kept on ice for 5 min before
spinning it at 13000g for 2 min. The supernatant,
containing GSH, was collected and the protein pellet discarded. For
the fluorescence-based assay, a 40 μL aliquot of each sample
was neutralized using 6 M KOH before being kept on ice for min and
spun at 13000g for 2 min at 4 °C. The GSH concentration
was determined by reading the absorbance of the o-phthalaldehyde (OPA) probe at Ex/Em 340/420 nm after 40 min incubation
at room temperature (10 μL of the probe were added to 10 μL
each sample and diluted to a final volume of 100 μL). Values
were normalized to the protein content of each sample determined by
a Bradford assay. These experiments were carried out as duplicates
of triplicates in independent experiments.
Statistical Analysis
In all cases, independent two-sample t tests with
unequal variances, Welch’s tests, were
carried out to establish statistical significance of the variations
(p < 0.001 for ***, p < 0.01
for **, and p < 0.05 for *).
Authors: L Galluzzi; I Vitale; J M Abrams; E S Alnemri; E H Baehrecke; M V Blagosklonny; T M Dawson; V L Dawson; W S El-Deiry; S Fulda; E Gottlieb; D R Green; M O Hengartner; O Kepp; R A Knight; S Kumar; S A Lipton; X Lu; F Madeo; W Malorni; P Mehlen; G Nuñez; M E Peter; M Piacentini; D C Rubinsztein; Y Shi; H-U Simon; P Vandenabeele; E White; J Yuan; B Zhivotovsky; G Melino; G Kroemer Journal: Cell Death Differ Date: 2011-07-15 Impact factor: 15.828
Authors: Yvonne Collins; Edward T Chouchani; Andrew M James; Katja E Menger; Helena M Cochemé; Michael P Murphy Journal: J Cell Sci Date: 2012-02-15 Impact factor: 5.285
Authors: Carlos Sanchez-Cano; Isolda Romero-Canelón; Yang Yang; Ian J Hands-Portman; Sylvain Bohic; Peter Cloetens; Peter J Sadler Journal: Chemistry Date: 2017-01-26 Impact factor: 5.236
Authors: Russell J Needham; Carlos Sanchez-Cano; Xin Zhang; Isolda Romero-Canelón; Abraha Habtemariam; Margaret S Cooper; Levente Meszaros; Guy J Clarkson; Philip J Blower; Peter J Sadler Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2016-12-21 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: James P C Coverdale; Hannah E Bridgewater; Ji-Inn Song; Nichola A Smith; Nicolas P E Barry; Ian Bagley; Peter J Sadler; Isolda Romero-Canelón Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2018-10-05 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Sandhya Clement; Jared M Campbell; Wei Deng; Anna Guller; Saadia Nisar; Guozhen Liu; Brian C Wilson; Ewa M Goldys Journal: Adv Sci (Weinh) Date: 2020-10-28 Impact factor: 16.806
Authors: Elizabeth J Anthony; Elizabeth M Bolitho; Hannah E Bridgewater; Oliver W L Carter; Jane M Donnelly; Cinzia Imberti; Edward C Lant; Frederik Lermyte; Russell J Needham; Marta Palau; Peter J Sadler; Huayun Shi; Fang-Xin Wang; Wen-Ying Zhang; Zijin Zhang Journal: Chem Sci Date: 2020-11-12 Impact factor: 9.825
Authors: Russell J Needham; Abraha Habtemariam; Nicolas P E Barry; Guy Clarkson; Peter J Sadler Journal: Organometallics Date: 2017-11-09 Impact factor: 3.876