Jigang Wang1,2,3, Jianbin Zhang1, Yin Shi1, Chengchao Xu3, Chongjing Zhang3,4, Yin Kwan Wong1, Yew Mun Lee3, Sanjeev Krishna5, Yingke He6, Teck Kwang Lim3, Weiying Sim3, Zi-Chun Hua2, Han-Ming Shen1, Qingsong Lin3. 1. Department of Physiology, National University of Singapore, 117597, Singapore. 2. Changzhou High-Tech Research Institute of Nanjing University and the State Key Laboratory of Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, College of Life Sciences, Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210023, China. 3. Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, 117543, Singapore. 4. Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, National University of Singapore, 117585, Singapore. 5. Institute for Infection and Immunity, St. George's, University of London, London, SW17 0RE, United Kingdom. 6. Department of Anaesthesiology, Singapore General Hospital, 169608, Singapore.
Abstract
The antimalarial artemisinin (ART) possesses anticancer activity, but its underlying mechanism remains largely unclear. Using a chemical proteomics approach with artemisinin-based activity probes, we identified over 300 specific ART targets. This reveals an anticancer mechanism whereby ART promiscuously targets multiple critical biological pathways and leads to cancer cell death. The specific cytotoxicity of ART against colorectal cancer (CRC) cells rather than normal colon epithelial cells is due to the elevated capacity of heme synthesis in the cancer cells. Guided by this mechanism, the specific cytotoxicity of ART toward CRC cells can be dramatically enhanced with the addition of aminolevulinic acid (ALA), a clinically used heme synthesis precursor, to increase heme levels. Importantly, this novel ART/ALA combination therapy proves to be more effective than an ART monotherapy in a mouse xenograft CRC model. Thus, ART can be repurposed and potentiated by exploitation of its mechanism of action and the metabolic features of the CRC cells.
The antimalarial artemisinin (ART) possesses anticancer activity, but its underlying mechanism remains largely unclear. Using a chemical proteomics approach with artemisinin-based activity probes, we identified over 300 specific ART targets. This reveals an anticancer mechanism whereby ART promiscuously targets multiple critical biological pathways and leads to cancer cell death. The specific cytotoxicity of ART against colorectal cancer (CRC) cells rather than normal colon epithelial cells is due to the elevated capacity of heme synthesis in the cancer cells. Guided by this mechanism, the specific cytotoxicity of ART toward CRC cells can be dramatically enhanced with the addition of aminolevulinic acid (ALA), a clinically used heme synthesis precursor, to increase heme levels. Importantly, this novel ART/ALA combination therapy proves to be more effective than an ART monotherapy in a mouse xenograft CRC model. Thus, ART can be repurposed and potentiated by exploitation of its mechanism of action and the metabolic features of the CRC cells.
Artemisinin is an active
compound of a Chinese herbal medicine
that has been used to treat chills and fever for at least 2000 years.[1] Currently, artemisinin and its derivatives (herein
collectively referred to as ART) are important frontline drugs against
uncomplicated malarial infections.[2,3] Because of
their potency and rapid onset of action with few documented adverse
effects, they are effective in eliminating the otherwise multidrug
resistant parasite, Plasmodium falciparum.[4] Beyond these well-established antimalarial properties,
there is accumulating evidence demonstrating that artemisinin and
its derivatives possess cytotoxic effects against many humancancer
cell types both in vitro and in animal experiments in vivo.[5−10] As an extension of these studies, our group in the United Kingdom
has recently conducted a randomized double-blind pilot clinical phase
II trial using oral artesunate (the salt form of artesunic acid, a
derivative of artemisinin) neoadjuvant therapy in colorectal cancer
(CRC) patients. It was shown that artesunate is generally well tolerated
and has antiproliferative properties in CRC patients.[11] These preliminary data suggest artesunate as a promising
drug in CRC treatment regimens, and a more thorough study is being
conducted with a larger patient sample. Yet, the detailed anticancer
mechanism of action (MOA) of ART has not been fully understood.[12] Artemisinin and its derivatives such as artesunate
are prodrugs which require cellular activation to cleave the endoperoxide
moiety for antimalarial and anticancer efficacy.[13−17] However, the identity of the activator remains inconclusive.
On one hand, previous studies have proposed the role of iron[18−24] in the in vitro decay of ARTendoperoxide. On the
other hand, other studies have pointed out a similar function for
heme depending on the context of the cellular environment.[13−17,25−27] Recently, using
chemical proteomics approaches, we[28−31] and other groups[32−34] have independently shown that ART can be activated by heme before
indiscriminately alkylating multiple proteins. However, given the
biological differences between cancer cells and malaria parasites,
the postactivation or downstream mechanisms by which ART exerts its
cytotoxicity are likely to differ from its antimalaria mechanism.[12,28−35] Here, we sought to understand the following in the specific context
of cancer cells: (i) What are the detailed pathways affected by ART
treatment and the mechanisms explaining its anticancer effects? (ii)
How can ART specifically kill cancer cells but not normal cells? (iii)
Is it possible to further enhance the anticancer effect of ART, given
that ART derivatives have been selected for antimalarial potency but
not anticancer efficacy?To address these questions, we first
used alkyne (AP1)- and biotin
(AP2)-tagged ART probes (Figure ) to specifically identify protein targets and their
implicated biological pathways in CRC cells. Several pathways that
were disrupted by ART treatment were examined in detail. Importantly,
we found that the specificity of ART against CRC cells could stem
from the elevated capacity of heme synthesis in the cancer cells versus
the normal cells. Based on this distinctive metabolic feature of CRC
cells, we introduced a clinically used heme synthesis precursor, aminolevulinic
acid (ALA), as a sensitizer of artesunate to specifically increase
the heme level and thus dramatically enhance its anticancer effects.
The efficacy of this newly developed ART/ALA combination therapy was
further validated in a mouse xenograft CRC model (Figure ).
Figure 1
An outline of the quantitative
chemical proteomics study of the
molecular mechanism for ART’s specific anticancer property
and its combination with aminolevulinic acid (ALA).
An outline of the quantitative
chemical proteomics study of the
molecular mechanism for ART’s specific anticancer property
and its combination with aminolevulinic acid (ALA).
Results and Discussion
To characterize
the direct binding targets of ART and its MOA in
CRC cells, an alkyne-tagged artemisinin-based probe AP1 was used to
enrich and visualize its interacting protein profile on an SDS–PAGE
gel.[28,29] To further increase the stringency of protein
target identification, we also synthesized a biotin-tagged ART probe
AP2 (Scheme ). Only
the targets that were consistently identified with both probes were
considered as specific ART targets in CRC cells. The in vitro growth inhibitory assay confirmed that both probes largely retained
the anti-CRC effects as shown in Figure S1, indicating that our tagging strategies do not interfere with drug
activation or targeting (Figure ).
Scheme 1
Structure and Synthetic Scheme of Alkyne-Tagged Artemisinin
Probe
AP1 and Biotin-Tagged Artemisinin Probe AP2
Of note, AP1 has been published
in our previous report.[28]
Structure and Synthetic Scheme of Alkyne-Tagged Artemisinin
Probe
AP1 and Biotin-Tagged Artemisinin Probe AP2
Of note, AP1 has been published
in our previous report.[28]The protein binding targets of ART in CRC cells were labeled
with
AP1 and visualized by conjugating AP1 with a fluorescence dye through
click chemistry. Live CRC cells treated with increasing concentrations
of AP1 showed increasing levels of drug target labeling upon in-gel
fluorescent scanning (Figure b). The direct targets of ART were enriched by streptavidin
affinity purification and identified with mass spectrometry. Nonspecifically
bound proteins were filtered out by comparing the enrichment ratio
of the pull-down group versus the control group, with a stringent
enrichment ratio of 2 as the cutoff (with a minimum of two quantified
peptides). In total, 304 proteins were consistently identified by
both probes as specific targets of ART (the full list is shown in Table S1). Seven representative proteins from
the target list were selected, and their interactions with AP1 were
further verified by immunoblotting (Figures a and 2c).
Figure 2
(a) Selective
targets of ART in HCT116 cells. (b) In situ fluorescence
labeling of HCT 116 cells to show the cellular targets
of ART. (c) Western blot validation of pulled-down fractions of HCT116
by AP1 (or DMSO as negative control) with respective antibodies.
(a) Selective
targets of ART in HCT116 cells. (b) In situ fluorescence
labeling of HCT 116 cells to show the cellular targets
of ART. (c) Western blot validation of pulled-down fractions of HCT116
by AP1 (or DMSO as negative control) with respective antibodies.Gene ontology (GO) analysis revealed
that ART’s cellular
targets are widely distributed in different subcellular compartments
(Figure a). To visualize
the cellular localization of ART binding targets, we employed a fluorescence
(TAMRA)-tagged ART probe. Probe-treated CRC cells showed high level
of fluorescent signal evenly distributed throughout the cells, consistent
with the GO analysis. No fluorescence could be observed in the DMSO-treated
control cells (Figure b). Ingenuity pathway analysis (IPA) further suggested that ART may
exert its cytotoxicity on cancer cells by targeting multiple critical
functions and pathways including the EIF2, mitochondrial functions,
phagosome maturation, and eIF4/p70S6K pathways (Figure c), with possible influences on the fatty
acid metabolism, protein synthesis, autophagy, and free radical scavenging
process (Figure d).
Based on these predictions, we next carried out validation studies
on possible functional pathways affected by ART treatment.
Figure 3
(a) Cellular
components of the ART targets determined by GO analysis.
(b) Images of HCT116 cells treated with red fluorescent ART. Cells
were treated with TAMRA-tagged ART probe (20 μM) for 30 min
and were subjected to analysis by confocal microscopy. (c) Top canonical
pathways with the ART protein targets significantly over-represented.
(d) Top cellular and molecular functions that are associated with
ART-targeted proteins.
(a) Cellular
components of the ART targets determined by GO analysis.
(b) Images of HCT116 cells treated with red fluorescent ART. Cells
were treated with TAMRA-tagged ART probe (20 μM) for 30 min
and were subjected to analysis by confocal microscopy. (c) Top canonical
pathways with the ART protein targets significantly over-represented.
(d) Top cellular and molecular functions that are associated with
ART-targeted proteins.First, we examined the changes in the levels of protein synthesis
(Figures a, 3d, and S2) in HCT116
cells upon artesunate treatment using the artificial amino acid azidohomoalanine
(AHA), a methionine analogue that is incorporated into proteins that
are newly synthesized and allows the dynamic monitoring of de novo protein synthesis.[36,37] Newly synthesized
proteins with AHAs incorporated were subsequently conjugated with
a fluorescence tag through a click chemistry reaction, and flow cytometry
was used to measure the fluorescence intensity of the labeled cells
to quantify the relative level of newly synthesized proteins. It was
shown that artesunate inhibited the de novo protein
synthesis in a dose dependent manner, and 2 μM artesunate treatment
for 12 h led to a 50% reduction of the protein synthesis in HCT116
cells (Figure a).
Figure 4
(a) Dose-dependent
reduction of protein synthesis by artesunate
(Arts) (0.5 μM, 1 μM, 2 μM, 12 h) in HCT116 cells.
Data shown are mean ± SD from triplicate experiments (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, Student’s t-test). (b) Cell viability of HCT116 cells treated with
Arts (2 μM) for 24 h with or without the presence of palmitate.
(c) Arts increases autophagic flux in HCT116 cells. HCT116 cells were
treated with Arts (5 μM) for 12 h with or without chloroquine
(CQ; 25 μM), and cell lysates were prepared for Western blot.
(d) HeLa cells stably expressing GFP-LC3 were treated with Arts (5
μM) for 12 h. GFP-LC3 puncta were observed under confocal microscopy.
(e) ART activates lysosomal function in HCT116 cells. HCT116 cells
were treated with Arts (5 μM) for 12 h and then stained with
LysoTracker Red DND-99 (50 nM) for 15 min. Confocal microscopy was
performed to analyze. (f) ROS level increases in HCT116 cells upon
Arts treatment. Cells were treated with 5 μM Arts for 12 h,
followed by DCFH-DA staining and flow cytometry analysis.
(a) Dose-dependent
reduction of protein synthesis by artesunate
(Arts) (0.5 μM, 1 μM, 2 μM, 12 h) in HCT116 cells.
Data shown are mean ± SD from triplicate experiments (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, Student’s t-test). (b) Cell viability of HCT116 cells treated with
Arts (2 μM) for 24 h with or without the presence of palmitate.
(c) Arts increases autophagic flux in HCT116 cells. HCT116 cells were
treated with Arts (5 μM) for 12 h with or without chloroquine
(CQ; 25 μM), and cell lysates were prepared for Western blot.
(d) HeLa cells stably expressing GFP-LC3 were treated with Arts (5
μM) for 12 h. GFP-LC3 puncta were observed under confocal microscopy.
(e) ART activates lysosomal function in HCT116 cells. HCT116 cells
were treated with Arts (5 μM) for 12 h and then stained with
LysoTracker Red DND-99 (50 nM) for 15 min. Confocal microscopy was
performed to analyze. (f) ROS level increases in HCT116 cells upon
Arts treatment. Cells were treated with 5 μM Arts for 12 h,
followed by DCFH-DA staining and flow cytometry analysis.In cancer pathogenesis, endogenous fatty acid biosynthesis
is substantially
upregulated to provide essential building blocks for phospholipid
membranes, conferring growth advantages to cancer cells.[38] Our chemical proteomics data and pathway analysis
identified fatty acid synthase (FASN) as well as various other mediators
of lipid metabolism as ART binding targets (Figures a and S3). FASN
inhibition has been investigated as a potential therapeutic avenue
for specific cancers.[38−40] To investigate ART’s effect on FASN, palmitate—the
end product of FASN’s catalytic reaction—was used to
treat HCT116 cells with or without the presence of artesunate. As
shown in Figure b,
the antiproliferative effect of artesunate was partially rescued by
palmitate addition. This suggests that artesunate may inhibit fatty
acid synthesis through binding with FASN and other targets (Figures S3), partially contributing to its anticancer
effect.Autophagy is a catabolic process that results in degradation
of
bulk cytoplasmic contents, abnormal protein aggregates, and excess
or damaged organelles through autophagosome–lysosome fusion,[41] which is negatively regulated by the kinase
mTOR. mTOR activation by Akt or MAPK signaling inhibits autophagy
whereas mTOR inhibition by AMPK or p53 signaling enhances autophagy.[42] As reflected in our pathway analysis, EIF2,
phagosome maturation, and eIF4/p70S6K pathways were involved in ART-treated
cells. These pathways are highly related to the autophagy process.
Here, we examined the effect of ART on autophagy. As shown in Figure c, in the presence
of chloroquine, a lysosomal inhibitor,[43] artesunate significantly enhanced the levels of autophagic marker
LC3-II and reduced levels of autophagy substrate p62, indicating that
artesunate causes cellular damage and increases autophagic flux in
HCT116 cells. Consistent with this, confocal microscopy showed that
artesunate also increased the abundance of GFP-LC3 puncta in Hela
cells (Figure d).
Moreover, lysoTracker staining in HCT116 cells showed that artesunate
significantly enhanced lysosomal activation (Figure e), which further promotes the autophagosomal
degradation during later stages of autophagy.Our pathway analysis
also suggested mitochondrial dysfunction upon
ART treatment, which might lead to elevated reactive oxygen species
(ROS) production. We found that artesunate significantly increased
ROS levels (Figure f) in HCT116 cells while cotreatment with ROS scavengers could partially
rescue the cell death induced by artesunate (Figure S4). The increase of ROS not only directly contributes to cancer
cell death but also leads to autophagosome formation and autolysosomal
degradation, which further overwhelms the cellular system.[6,35,44]After detailed dissection
of the functional pathways for ART’s
anticancer effects, we next attempted to uncover the molecular mechanism
of the specificity of ART against cancer cells versus normal cells.
Previous research by us and other groups have shown that artesunate
is activated by heme to generate reactive free radicals that can promiscuously
alkylate various cellular targets.[14,28−34] Heme, as an essential cofactor of many important cellular enzymes,
is involved in several critical steps of cell metabolism.[45,46] We hypothesize that cancer cells, with higher metabolic rate for
rapid growth, may also require higher levels of heme synthesis. Thus,
ART activation could be specifically enhanced in this context. The
heme levels of HCT116 (colon cancer cell line) and CCD841 (normal
colon epithelial cell line) were first measured and compared. Consistent
with our hypothesis, the cancerousHCT116 cells have higher heme level
than the noncancerous CCD841 cells (Figure a). In mammalian cells, heme is synthesized
in both the mitochondria and cytosol by a series of metabolic reactions
(Figure b).[45] The rate-limiting step of the heme synthesis
pathway is the production of aminolevulinic acid (ALA), catalyzed
by ALA synthase (ALAS1).[47] We therefore
examined the expression level of this key enzyme by immunoblotting.
Our results demonstrated that the ALAS1 level in HCT116 cells was
substantially higher than that of CCD841 cells (Figure c and 5d), suggesting
an enhanced capacity of heme synthesis in cancer cells to sustain
faster growth. Notably, we found that the amount of ALAS1 was significantly
higher in HCT116 cells when treated with artesunate, while minimal
change was found in the normal cells (Figures c and 5d). Consistent
with enhanced heme synthesis in HCT116 cells, a substantially higher
level of ART activation and targeting was observed by in-gel fluorescence
scanning (Figure e).
Importantly, this correlated well with the viability of HCT116 cells
and CCD 841 cells upon ART treatment (Figures f and 5g). The elevated
heme level in cancer cells thus corresponds to the enhanced activation
of ART and its subsequent multipathway targeting, and eventually cell
death. In contrast, heme levels in normal cells and tissues are strictly
controlled and maintained at lower levels, minimizing ART’s
activation, which could possibly explain the specificity and low toxicity
of ART.[46] However,
we cannot rule out the potential contribution of the
intracellular iron inside cancer
cells to
ART activation, the broad targeting spectrum, and its downstream events.[20−22,24,48,49]
Figure 5
(a) Assessment of heme levels in normal (CCD841)
and colorectal
cancer cells (HCT116) in the absence (basal) and presence of 1 mM
ALA treatment for 24 h. (b) Schematic diagram of the effects of exogenous
modulators on the heme biosynthetic pathway. (c) The protein levels
of heme biosynthetic enzyme ALAS1 in CCD841 and HCT116 in the absence
(basal) and presence of artesunate (Arts) treatment. (d) Normalized
protein expression levels of ALAS1 for the results from panel c. Tubulin
level was used for normalization. (e) The fluorescence labeling (4
h) of HCT116 and CCD841 cells with and without (basal) 1 mM ALA treatment.
(f) Effects of Arts and ALA combination treatment on HCT116 cell viability.
(g) Effects of Arts and ALA combination treatment on CCD 841 cell
viability. Error bars represent SD of triplicate experiments in panels
a, d, f, and g.
(a) Assessment of heme levels in normal (CCD841)
and colorectal
cancer cells (HCT116) in the absence (basal) and presence of 1 mM
ALA treatment for 24 h. (b) Schematic diagram of the effects of exogenous
modulators on the heme biosynthetic pathway. (c) The protein levels
of heme biosynthetic enzyme ALAS1 in CCD841 and HCT116 in the absence
(basal) and presence of artesunate (Arts) treatment. (d) Normalized
protein expression levels of ALAS1 for the results from panel c. Tubulin
level was used for normalization. (e) The fluorescence labeling (4
h) of HCT116 and CCD841 cells with and without (basal) 1 mM ALA treatment.
(f) Effects of Arts and ALA combination treatment on HCT116 cell viability.
(g) Effects of Arts and ALA combination treatment on CCD 841 cell
viability. Error bars represent SD of triplicate experiments in panels
a, d, f, and g.Although
ART has shown some promising anticancer effects, its potency
is somewhat limited compared to its remarkable antimalarial effects
and the IC50 of ART against cancer is in the micromolar
range.[5] Artesunate is transformed to dihydroartemisinin
(DHA), and DHA has a relatively short elimination half-life (∼45m)
with Cmax values in the low micromolar
range when used in antimalarial therapies.[50] The high potency of artesunate in antimalarial parasite therapy
(with IC50 values in the low nanomolar range) is due to
rapid drug activation triggered by high concentration of heme released
by hemoglobin digestion.[14] Thus, the antimalarial
effect is not compromised given the limited drug exposure time.[51] Although ART can be similarly activated by heme
in cancer cells, the heme level is much lower compared to the case
of malaria parasites which undergo massive hemoglobin digestion.[3] Previously, we have developed a mitochondrial
targeting ART analogue that can target ART to the sites of heme synthesis
in mammalian cells.[29] In this manner, ART
activation can be enhanced by directly delivering the drug to heme-concentrated
regions of the cell. Thus, we hypothesized that another possible strategy
to enhance ART’s anticancer effect is to increase the level
of intracellular heme, thereby enhancing ART activation and its cytotoxicity.
As mentioned above, we have found that the ALA synthase enzyme was
highly expressed in cancer cells in comparison with normal cells,
implying a higher capacity of cancer cells to utilize ALA for heme
synthesis. ALA itself is a clinically used drug in photodynamic therapy
for imaging-guided surgery or tumor treatment.[52] It has been reported to have minimal side effects and is
clinically safe for cancer treatment.[52−54] Therefore, we introduced
ALA as a potential sensitizer to enhance the efficacy of artesunate
by increasing heme levels to enhance artesunate activation. We examined
cancer cell viability after treatments with artesunate, artesunate
+ ALA, and artesunate + ALA + SA (succinylacetone, an inhibitor of
heme synthesis) respectively. As shown in Figure f, artesunate treatment alone for 24 h had
an IC50 of approximately 2 μM, while the addition
of ALA lowered the IC50 approximately 10-fold to around
200 nM. The addition of the heme synthesis inhibitor SA fully blocked
the cytotoxicity of artesunate treatments, regardless of the presence
of ALA, strongly supporting a heme-centric mechanism for both single
and combination treatments. In normal cells, no significant killing
is observed in either ART or ART + ALA treatment even when the concentration of ART
was as high as 20 μM (Figure g). Consistently, addition of ALA indeed increased
intracellular heme level and enhanced ART activation in cancer cells
but had negligible effect in normal cells (Figures a and 5e). This may
explain the specific enhancement of the anticancer effects of the
ART + ALA cotreatment.Finally, to determine whether the efficacy
of artesunate and ALA
combined treatment against CRC cells (HCT116) observed in
vitro can be recapitulated in vivo in mouse
xenograft models, the following treatments were administered to male
nude mice inoculated with visible tumors: (1) control (PBS), (2) ALA,
(3) artesunate, and (4) artesunate + ALA for 8 days. Consistent with
previous reports, artesunate administration exhibited inhibitory effects
against tumor growth (Figures a and 6b; Figures S5a and S5b).[55,56] Strikingly, the combination of
artesunate and ALA showed significant tumor growth delay in comparison
to both the control and the artesunate or ALA single treatment groups,
supporting the notion that ALA can potentiate the anticancer effects
of artesunate. Interestingly, ALA treatment also inhibited tumor growth
to some extent, which might be related to its potential photodynamic
efficacy on tumors.[52−54] As a control, the tolerance of the combined treatment
of artesunate and ALA was confirmed by the comparable body weight
reduction among different groups (Figure S5c). Consistently, the ART activation level in the mousetumor tissue
was shown to be elevated by the combination treatment, as revealed
by in-gel fluorescence scan (Figure c).
Figure 6
(a, b) In vivo efficacy comparison of
artesunate
(Arts), ALA, and combined treatment in human colon cancer xenograft
models. Five days after subcutaneous implantation of 3 × 106 HCT116 cells in PBS, male nude mice received one dose of
the following treatments: (1) Ctrl (PBS), (2) ALA (100 mg/kg), (3)
Arts (50 mg/kg), or (4) Arts (50 mg/kg) plus ALA (100 mg/kg) via intraperitoneal
(ip) injection every day. After 8 days of administration, tumors were
isolated, and tumor volumes were examined and estimated every day.
Each data point represents mean tumor volume of at least 7 tumors
in each group ± SE. p value, *<0.05; **<0.01.
(c) The mice were treated for 4 h with AP1 probe or other treatments,
and the tumors were harvested and lysed for in-gel fluorescence scanning.
(a, b) In vivo efficacy comparison of
artesunate
(Arts), ALA, and combined treatment in humancolon cancer xenograft
models. Five days after subcutaneous implantation of 3 × 106 HCT116 cells in PBS, male nude mice received one dose of
the following treatments: (1) Ctrl (PBS), (2) ALA (100 mg/kg), (3)
Arts (50 mg/kg), or (4) Arts (50 mg/kg) plus ALA (100 mg/kg) via intraperitoneal
(ip) injection every day. After 8 days of administration, tumors were
isolated, and tumor volumes were examined and estimated every day.
Each data point represents mean tumor volume of at least 7 tumors
in each group ± SE. p value, *<0.05; **<0.01.
(c) The mice were treated for 4 h with AP1 probe or other treatments,
and the tumors were harvested and lysed for in-gel fluorescence scanning.
Conclusions
In conclusion, we have
comprehensively characterized the targets
and biological pathways disrupted by ART in the context of colorectal
cancer. We propose a heme-centric mechanism to explain ART activation
and specificity in cancers. Based on this heme-centric activation
model, we further designed a novel ART combination therapy by incorporation
of a heme precursor ALA as a potent enhancer of ART’s anticancer
effects, and demonstrated the efficacy of this combination in both
cancer cell lines and animal models. Since both artesunate and ALA
are clinically used and well-tolerated,[52] this combination has the potential to be safely applied to subsequent
clinical testing, pending further study into its pharmacokinetics
and pharmacodynamics profiles. As the level of free ferrous iron is
relatively high in cancer cells and it can catalyze the breakage of
the endoperoxide bridge of ART,[18−24] its contribution both to ART activation and to downstream events
in cell lines and animal models should be further investigated. Iron-based
strategies, such as the well-reported coadministration of ART with
holotransferrin,[57,58] might also turn out to be an
interesting avenue of exploration in conjunction with the presently
described heme-based combination. Finally, alternative formulations
such as several artemisinin-derived dimers[7−10,22,59,60] with higher
anticancer potency have been developed recently, and these promising
artemisinin derivatives can also be tested as combination therapy
in the future.
Authors: Anne Robert; Françoise Benoit-Vical; Catherine Claparols; Bernard Meunier Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2005-09-09 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Kodihalli C Ravindra; Wanxing Eugene Ho; Chang Cheng; Luiz C Godoy; John S Wishnok; Choon Nam Ong; W S Fred Wong; Gerald N Wogan; Steven R Tannenbaum Journal: Chem Res Toxicol Date: 2015-09-21 Impact factor: 3.739
Authors: Jigang Wang; Chong-Jing Zhang; Wan Ni Chia; Cheryl C Y Loh; Zhengjun Li; Yew Mun Lee; Yingke He; Li-Xia Yuan; Teck Kwang Lim; Min Liu; Chin Xia Liew; Yan Quan Lee; Jianbin Zhang; Nianci Lu; Chwee Teck Lim; Zi-Chun Hua; Bin Liu; Han-Ming Shen; Kevin S W Tan; Qingsong Lin Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2015-12-22 Impact factor: 14.919