| Literature DB >> 27706074 |
Daniele Tibullo1,2, Nunzia Caporarello3, Cesarina Giallongo4,5, Carmelina Daniela Anfuso6, Claudia Genovese7,8, Carmen Arlotta9,10, Fabrizio Puglisi11, Nunziatina L Parrinello12, Vincenzo Bramanti13, Alessandra Romano14, Gabriella Lupo15, Valeria Toscano16, Roberto Avola17, Maria Violetta Brundo18, Francesco Di Raimondo19, Salvatore Antonio Raccuia20,21.
Abstract
Multiple myeloma (MM) is a clonal B-cell malignancy characterized by an accumulation of clonal plasma cells (PC) in the bone marrow (BM) leading to bone destruction and BM failure. Despite recent advances in pharmacological therapy, MM remains a largely incurable pathology. Therefore, novel effective and less toxic agents are urgently necessary. In the last few years, pomegranate has been studied for its potential therapeutic properties including treatment and prevention of cancer. Pomegranate juice (PGJ) contains a number of potential active compounds including organic acids, vitamins, sugars, and phenolic components that are all responsible of the pro-apoptotic effects observed in tumor cell line. The aim of present investigation is to assess the antiproliferative and antiangiogenic potential of the PGJ in human multiple myeloma cell lines. Our data demonstrate the anti-proliferative potential of PGJ in MM cells; its ability to induce G0/G1 cell cycle block and its anti-angiogenic effects. Interestingly, sequential combination of bortezomib/PGJ improved the cytotoxic effect of the proteosome inhibitor. We investigated the effect of PGJ on angiogenesis and cell migration/invasion. Interestingly, we observed an inhibitory effect on the tube formation, microvessel outgrowth aorting ring and decreased cell migration and invasion as showed by wound-healing and transwell assays, respectively. Analysis of angiogenic genes expression in endothelial cells confirmed the anti-angiogenic properties of pomegranate. Therefore, PGJ administration could represent a good tool in order to identify novel therapeutic strategies for MM treatment, exploiting its anti-proliferative and anti-angiogenic effects. Finally, the present research supports the evidence that PGJ could play a key role of a future therapeutic approach for treatment of MM in order to optimize the pharmacological effect of bortezomib, especially as adjuvant after treatment.Entities:
Keywords: Punica granatum juice; angiogenesis; multiple myeloma; proliferation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27706074 PMCID: PMC5083999 DOI: 10.3390/nu8100611
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Phenolic compounds composition (mg·L−1) of pomegranate juice (Wonderful variety).
| Compound | Concentration (mg·L−1) |
|---|---|
| gallic acid | 18.2 |
| ellagic acid | 97.5 |
| ellagic acid glucoside | 11.7 |
| α-punicalagin | 3.1 |
| β-punicalagin | 6.5 |
| delphinidin 3,5-diglucoside | 110.5 |
| cyanidin 3,5-diglucoside | 242.8 |
| pelargonidin 3,5-diglucoside | 9.3 |
| delphinidin 3-diglucoside | 60.4 |
| cyanidin 3-diglucoside | 180.6 |
| pelargonidin 3-diglucoside | 12.1 |
Figure 1(A) the survival assay in U266, KMS26 and MM1S cell lines treated with PGJ. Bars represent the mean ± SEM of four independent experiments. ***/•••/◦◦◦ p < 0.0001 versus untreated cells; (B) the effect of PGJ treatment on G0/G1 phase in U266 cells. Cell cycle analysis was performed by the ModFit program ((Verity Software House, version 4.0, Topsham ME 04086, US). Results represent three independent experiments in triplicate (p < 0.002); (C) mRNA expression of PPARγ in MM cells treated with PGJ. Bars represent the mean ± SEM of four independent experiments. *** (U266 cells), ••• (KMS26 cells), ◦◦◦ (MM1S cells) p < 0.0001 versus untreated cells. (Calculated value of 2−ΔΔCt in U266, KMS26, MM1S untreated was 1).
Figure 2(A) Effect of PGJ on HBMEC viability. Cells (1 × 104 cells/well) were cultured in complete medium in the absence or in the presence of PGJ at 3% or 6% or 12% (v/v). Cell viability was assessed by MTT assay. Values are expressed as mean ± SD of three independent experiments, each involving six different wells per condition. (* p < 0.05 vs. respective control); (B) Effect of PGJ on VEGF-A-induced HBMEC in vitro angiogenesis. Tube formation was evaluated with light microscopy and representative fields are shown. Panel (a): Control cells; panel (b): VEGF-A stimulated cells; panels (c) and (e): Cells treated with 3% and 6% PGJ, respectively; panels (d) and (f): Cells treated with 3% and 6% PGJ, respectively, in the presence of VEGF-A; Quantitative analysis of tube formation was indicated as tube length (C) and number of branch points (D) expressed as percentage of control cells. Image analysis of the total length and the number of branch points in the whole photographed area (representing central 70% of the well) were carried out by using Angiogenesis Analyzer tool for ImageJ (ImageJ 1.50e, National Institutes of Health, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA). Values are expressed as a mean ± SD of three independent experiments performed in duplicate. Statistically significant differences by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey’s test (p < 0.05) are indicated: (*) VEGF-A-stimulated cells vs. control; (§) 3% and 6% PGJ plus VEGF-A-treated cells vs. VEGF-A-stimulated cells.
Figure 3Developing microvessels from the intimal/subintimal layers of the aortic wall. Rabbit thoracic aortic rings were isolated and embedded on Matrigel, in the absence of VEGF-A ((a): untreated; (b): 3% PGJ; (c): 6% PGJ) or in the presence of 50 ng/ml VEGF-A ((d): VEGF-A alone; (e): 3% PGJ; (f): 6% PGJ). After 14 days, the angiogenic response was measured by counting the lenght of neovessels sprouting out of the rings. Representative photographs from a single experiment that was performed three times are shown. Statistically significant differences by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test (p < 0.05) are indicated: (*) VEGF-A-stimulated cells vs. control; (§) 3% and 6% PGJ plus VEGF-A-treated cells vs. VEGF-A-stimulated cells.
Figure 4(A’’) Effect of PGJ on VEGF induced HBMEC migration (wound healing assay). Images of scratch photographed with at ×40 using phase-contrast microscope at different time point, 0, 24 and 48 h. (a) Control cells, 1% serum; (b) VEGF-A + 1% serum; (c) 3% PGJ; (d) 6% PGJ; (e) VEGF-A + 3% PGJ; (f) VEGF-A + 6% PGJ; (B’’) migration of HBMEC cells after wounding evaluated as percentage of wound closure respect to 48 h VEGF-A treated cells considered as 100% wound closure. The results are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. Statistically significant differences by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test (p < 0.05) are indicated: (#) non stimulated cells vs. control at 24 h; (*) 3% and 6% PGJ vs. control at 24- and 48 h; (**) VEGF-A-stimulated cells vs. respective control at at 24- and 48 h; (§) 3% and 6% PGJ plus VEGF-A-treated cells vs. VEGF-A-stimulated cells at 24- and 48 h; (C’’) effect of PGJ on VEGF-A induced HBMEC invasion. Harvested HBMEC (1 × 106 cells/mL) were allowed to migrate through transwell membranes towards 50 ng/mL VEGF in the absence or in the presence of PGJ for 24 h. Cells that had migrated to the underside of the transwell membrane were fixed and evaluated with light microscopy. Representative fields are shown at 100× magnification; (D’’) average number (displayed as percentage of control) of HREC migrated in three different wells in each condition (n = 5 different fields of the same membrane); and (E’’) quantitative analysis of invaded cells, which were eluted using 10% acetic acid and measured optical density value at 590 nm. Data are the mean ± SD of three independent experiments. Statistically significant differences by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test (p < 0.05) are indicated: (*) 3% and 6% PGJ plus VEGF-A-treated cells vs. VEGF-A-stimulated cells.
Effect of 6% PGJ on the expression levels of angiogenic genes in HBMEC. Reported data are expressed by relative quantification (fold change) using a 2−ΔΔCt method. VEGF-A treated cells was of the control.
| Genes | VEGF | PGJ + VEGF | |
|---|---|---|---|
| VEGF | 43 | 0.036 | |
| ADAMST1 | 23 | 0.041 | |
| CXCL12 | 16 | 0.136 | |
| CXCL2 | 9 | 0.038 | |
| FGF2 | 32 | 0.011 | |
| FIGF | 12 | 0.065 | |
| IL12A | 9 | 0.030 | |
| IL8 | 21 | 0.007 | |
| MMP2 | 5 | 0.031 | |
| PDGFB | 15 | 0.116 | |
| VEGFB | 19 | 0.028 | |
| VEGFC | 18 | 0.008 |
Figure 5(A) the survival assay in U266 cell line treated with Bortezomib (BTZ) alone and in combination with PGJ. Bars represent the mean ± SEM of four independent experiments. *** p < 0.0001 versus untreated cells; and (B) the survival assay in U266 cell line treated alternating BTZ/PGJ or PGJ/BTZ combinations for treatment of 24 h each one. Bars represent the mean ± SEM of four independent experiments. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.001; *** p < 0.0001.