| Literature DB >> 28415715 |
Antonella Caivano1, Francesco La Rocca1, Ilaria Laurenzana1, Tiziana Annese2, Roberto Tamma2, Ubaldo Famigliari3, Vittorio Simeon1, Stefania Trino1, Luciana De Luca1, Oreste Villani4, Simona Berardi5, Antonio Basile5, Angelo Vacca5, Giuseppe Saglio6, Luigi Del Vecchio7,8, Pellegrino Musto9, Daniela Cilloni6.
Abstract
This study investigates the role of ephrin receptor A3 (EphA3) in the angiogenesis of Multiple Myeloma (MM) and the effects of a selective target of EphA3 by a specific monoclonal antibody on primary bone marrow endothelial cells (ECs) of MM patients.EphA3 mRNA and protein were evaluated in ECs of MM patients (MMECs), in ECs of patients with monoclonal gammopathies of undetermined significance (MGECs) and in ECs of healthy subjects (control ECs). The effects of EphA3 targeting by mRNA silencing (siRNA) or by the anti EphA3 antibody on the angiogenesis were evaluated. We found that EphA3 is highly expressed in MMECs compared to the other EC types. Loss of function of EphA3 by siRNA significantly inhibited the ability of MMECs to adhere to fibronectin, to migrate and to form tube like structures in vitro, without affecting cell proliferation or viability. In addition, gene expression profiling showed that knockdown of EphA3 down modulated some molecules that regulate adhesion, migration and invasion processes. Interestingly, EphA3 targeting by an anti EphA3 antibody reduced all the MMEC angiogenesis-related functions in vitro. In conclusion, our findings suggest that EphA3 plays an important role in MM angiogenesis.Entities:
Keywords: EphA3; angiogenesis; bone marrow endothelial cells; multiple myeloma; receptor tyrosine kinase
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28415715 PMCID: PMC5470968 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.16100
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Figure 1Analysis of EphA3 expression in normal ECs vs MGECs vs MMECs
(A) Absolute Real Time-PCR of EphA3 mRNA copies/10*4 ABL copies as median ± SD of 6 normal (●) and 8 MGUS (■) and 35 MM subjects (▲) respectively. p = 0.001 by One Way ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis test. (B) Western blot of representative 2 normal, 2 MGUS and 4 MM subjects (β-actin = loading control). EphA3 fold change of Optical Density (OD) as means ± SD of 2 normal, 2 MGUS and 4 MM subjects. (C) Confocal immunofluorescence of EphA3 in MMECs vs. MGECs vs. ECs. Corrected Total Cell Fluorescence (CTCF) as mean ± SD of 26 MM and 5 MGUS and 5 normal subjects. Pictures by confocal laser scanning microscope with 40× objective lenses. *p < 0.03 or better by Wilcoxon signed-rank. (D) FACS analysis of EphA3 protein expression in MMECs from 2 representative patients. (E) EphA3 immunohistochemical staining of BM biopsies from representative MM patient. EphA3 stained both neovessels (arrows) and plasma cells (arrows). Hematossilin/eosin staining (H&E) of BM biopsies is showed as magnification of 40×. Pictures by an Olympus photomicroscope (Olympus, Milan, Italy) with a CCD camera (Princeton Scientific Instr., Princeton, NJ, USA).
Figure 2EphA3 silencing in MMECs
The cells were transfected with EphA3 siRNA (siEphA3), non-targeting siRNA (Control siRNA) or lipofectamine only (Untreated) and analyzed after transfection in a Western blot assay (β-actin = loading control). In the left panel, WB of a representative MMEC sample was showed. Data are means ± SD of 10 MM patients. *p < 0.03
Figure 3Effects on EC functions and angiogenesis in siEphA3 MMECs (siEphA3)
siRNA-transfected cells were tested for adhesion to fibronectin (A), chemotaxis (B) and angiogenesis on Matrigel (C; quantification by vessel length and areas in the bottom panels) and compared with control siRNA and untreated cells by the EVOS image software. Matrigel original magnification ×200 for all panels. Data are means ± SD of 8 MM patients. *p < 0.03 or better and **p < 0.01 or better by Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
Down regulated genes in siEphA3 vs control siRNA MMECs
| ENTREZ GENESYMBOL ID | NAME | FUNCTION | FOLD CHANGE |
|---|---|---|---|
| 57124 | Angiogenesis35 | 0,8 | |
| 2316 | Adhesion, migration34 | 0,8 | |
| 7422 | Angiogenesis36 | 0,7 | |
| 58494 | Cell-cell adhesion37 | 0,7 | |
| 6259 | Focal adhesion38 | 0,3 |
Figure 4mRNA and proteins differentially expressed in siEphA3 vs Control siRNA cells
Relative quantitative real time-PCR (normalized to Abelson = ABL) was performed for RYK, VEGF, and FLNA mRNA (A). FLNA protein expression was evaluated by western blot (B) β-actin = loading control). Optical density (OD) as means ± SD of 3 independent experiments. *p < 0.03 and **p < 0.01 by Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
Figure 5Characterization of anti angiogenic capability of anti EphA3-specific antibody
(A) Analysis of migration of MMECs by wound healing assays in vitro. Representative photographs (4X magnification) taken 24h after scratching are shown. Cell migration was monitored over 24h with 7.5 μg/ml of anti EphA3-Ab or an irrelevant Ab (Control) or in medium (Untreated) as indicated. (B) MMECs were cultured on standard Matrigel in the absence (Untreated) or presence of anti-EphA3 or an irrelevant Ab (Control). Representative microphotographs of tube formation after 18 hours of culture (original magnification ×4) are shown. Quantification of lateral migration and tube formation (vessel length and areas) is shown at right panels. Anti EphA3 was assayed at least three times and the corresponding values (means ± SD) of 4 MM patients were represented, **p < 0.01 versus control.
Phenotypic characterization of MMECs
| Antigens | % of positive cells |
|---|---|
| VEGFR2 | 95 ± 10 |
| Tie2 | 84 ± 13 |
| CD61 | 60 ± 20 |
| CD144 | 82 ± 17 |
| CD34 | 85 ± 19 |
| FGFR2 | 41 ± 6 |
| CD105 | 92 ± 15 |
| CD38 | 15 ± 3 |
| CD31 | 95 ± 18 |
| CD62E | 45 ± 7 |
| CD138 | - |
| CD14 | - |