| Literature DB >> 28738876 |
Huidi Liu1,2,3, Jianrui Liu1,4, Siwen Wang1,2, Zheng Zeng1,2, Ting Li1,2, Yongfang Liu1,2, Emilio Mastriani1,2, Qing-Hai Li1,2, Hong-Xia Bao1,2, Yu-Jie Zhou1,2, Xiaoyu Wang1,2, Sijing Hu1,2, Shan Gao1,2, Yingying Qi1,2, Zhihang Shen1,2, Hongyue Wang1,2, Miao Yu1,2, Tingting Gao1,2, Randal N Johnston3, Shu-Lin Liu5,6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer is one of the three leading gynecological malignancies, characterized by insidious growth, highly frequent metastasis, and quick development of drug resistance. As a result, this disease has low 5-year survival rates. Estrogen receptor inhibitors were commonly used for the treatment, but only 7% to 18% of patients respond to anti-estrogen therapies. Therefore, more effective therapies to inhibit estrogen-related tumors are urgently needed. Recently, phytoestrogens, such as lignans with estrogen-like biological activities, have attracted attention for their potential effects in the prevention or treatment of estrogen-related diseases. Enterodiol (END) and enterolactone (ENL) are mammalian lignans, which can reduce the risk of various cancers. However, the effects of END and ENL on ovarian cancer are not adequately documented.Entities:
Keywords: Anti-cancer; Enterodiol; Enterolactone; Ovarian cancer
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28738876 PMCID: PMC5525236 DOI: 10.1186/s13048-017-0346-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ovarian Res ISSN: 1757-2215 Impact factor: 4.234
Fig. 1Growth inhibition of ES-2 cells by END and ENL revealed by MTT assays. a Cell proliferation index determined after END treatment for 12, 24 or 48 h. b Cell proliferation index determined after ENL treatment for 12, 24 or 48 h. Relative cell numbers were normalized to the control. Results were obtained from three independent experiments. *P < 0.05, compared with the control
Fig. 2Viability inhibition of ES-2 cells by END and ENL revealed by Trypan blue assays. a Cell viability (%) after END treatment. b Cell viability (%) after ENL treatment. Results were obtained from three independent experiments. *P < 0.05, compared with the control
Fig. 3Migration inhibition of ES-2 cells by END and ENL quantified by Wound Healing assay. Cells were scratched and treated with END (a) and ENL (c). Photomicrographs were taken at 0 h and 48 h after scratching. b, d Quantitation of wound healing assay by END (b) and ENL (d). Results were obtained from three separate experiments. *P < 0.05, compared with the control
Fig. 4Invasiveness of ES-2 cells quantified by Transwell. Cells were plated in the upper chamber with END (a) and ENL (b). Pictures were taken under the microscopy after 48 h of treatments. The invading cells treated by END (c) and ENL (d) were quantitated. Results were obtained from three separate experiments. *P < 0.05, compared with control
Fig. 5Tumor growth and body weight changes during END and ENL treatment. a The tumor volume curve starting to be measured on day 10 after cancer cell inoculation. The tumor size was calculated according to the formula V = 0.5 ab2 (see details in the main text). b The body weight curve, which shows that 1 mg/kg END group dropped drastically, while other groups were relatively stable during the 32 days. Both body weight and tumor volume were measured once every two days
Fig. 6Comparisons of the final body weight, spleen weight, tumor weight and tumor volume of the animals treated with END or ENL at necroscopy. The sacrificed animals (a) and tumors (b), and statistics of tumor size (c), tumor weight (d), spleen weight (e) and body weight (f)