Jaeryun Lee1, Deokbae Park2, Youngki Lee2. 1. Dept. of Medicine, Jeju National University School of Medicine, Jeju 690-756, Korea. 2. Dept. of Histology, Jeju National University School of Medicine, Jeju 690-756, Korea.
Abstract
Metformin is the most commonly prescribed anti-diabetic drug with relatively minor side effect. Substantial evidence has suggested that metformin is associated with decreased cancer risk and anticancer activity against diverse cancer cells. The tyrosine kinase inhibitor imatinib has shown powerful activity for treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia and also induces growth arrest and apoptosis in colorectal cancer cells. In this study, we tested the combination of imatinib and metformin against HCT15 colorectal cancer cells for effects on cell viability, cell cycle and autophagy. Our data show that metformin synergistically enhances the imatinib cytotoxicity in HCT15 cells as indicated by combination and drug reduction indices. We also demonstrate that the combination causes synergistic down-regulation of pERK, cell cycle arrest in S and G2/M phases via reduction of cyclin B1 level. Moreover, the combination resulted in autophagy induction as revealed by increased acidic vesicular organelles and cleaved form of LC3-II. Inhibition of autophagic process by chloroquine led to decreased cell viability, suggesting that induction of autophagy seems to play a cell protective role that may act against anticancer effects. In conclusion, our present data suggest that metformin in combination with imatinib might be a promising therapeutic option in colorectal cancer.
Metformin is the most commonly prescribed anti-diabetic drug with relatively minor side effect. Substantial evidence has suggested that metformin is associated with decreased cancer risk and anticancer activity against diverse cancer cells. The tyrosine kinase inhibitor imatinib has shown powerful activity for treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia and also induces growth arrest and apoptosis in colorectal cancer cells. In this study, we tested the combination of imatinib and metformin against HCT15colorectal cancer cells for effects on cell viability, cell cycle and autophagy. Our data show that metformin synergistically enhances the imatinibcytotoxicity in HCT15 cells as indicated by combination and drug reduction indices. We also demonstrate that the combination causes synergistic down-regulation of pERK, cell cycle arrest in S and G2/M phases via reduction of cyclin B1 level. Moreover, the combination resulted in autophagy induction as revealed by increased acidic vesicular organelles and cleaved form of LC3-II. Inhibition of autophagic process by chloroquine led to decreased cell viability, suggesting that induction of autophagy seems to play a cell protective role that may act against anticancer effects. In conclusion, our present data suggest that metformin in combination with imatinib might be a promising therapeutic option in colorectal cancer.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cell viability; HCT15 colorectal cancer cell; Imatinib; Metformin
Attempts to target the altered signaling pathways at molecular level have been proven
to be effective for the treatment of cancer. Kinases in signal transduction process
are closely implicated in tumor cell proliferation and survival, which has led to
the development of small kinase inhibitors for cancer intervention. Imatinib, a
small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) targeting the fusion protein of
BCR-ABL kinase found in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), has been widely used in the
CML treatment, exhibiting up to 80% response rate (Druker et al., 1996; Zhang et al.,
2009). However, despite this exciting therapeutic efficacy, significant
challenges are faced due to drug resistance and side effects of imatinib, resulting
in high relapse rate and dose reduction respectively. Although second-generation
TKIs such as dasatinib (Hochhaus et al.,
2008) and nilotinib (Saglio et al.,
2010) have been developed to overcome imatinib resistance and improve the
prognosis of CMLpatients, resistance to these novel inhibitors still arises partly
from the emergence of BCR-ABL mutant clones (O’Hare
et al., 2011). Therefore, it has been a challenging theme to overcome
this compromised effectiveness of imatinib as a single agent for successful
treatment outcome in the clinic.In addition to its inhibition of BCR-ABLtyrosine kinases in CML, imatinib targets
selectively other receptor tyrosine kinases such as stem cell factor receptor
(c-Kit) and platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) receptor, and is currently used
for the treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) harboring c-Kit mutation
(Joensuu et al., 2001; De Giorgi & Verweij, 2005). Several studies
demonstrated that Abl kinases are tyrosine phosphorylated and activated in solid
tumors and imatinib promotes apoptosis and inhibits growth of various cancer cells
including colorectal cancer (CRC) cells (Attoub et
al., 2002; Stahtea et al., 2007;
Popow-Wozniak et al., 2011; Abdel-Aziz et al., 2015). Furthermore, recent
reports suggested that imatinib suppresses cell proliferation in intestinal adenomas
and CRC cell lines via the regulation of Abl-cyclin D1 pathway (Genander et al., 2009; Kundu et al., 2015).Metformin, a biguanide derivative, is a widely prescribed and well-tolerated
first-line drug for type II diabetes mellitus. Metformin lowers the blood glucose
level by inhibiting hepatic gluconeogenesis and increasing glucose uptake in
skeletal muscles, which lead to a decline in circulating insulin levels (Shaw et al., 2005). Several retrospective
studies have described that metformin treatment in diabeticpatients significantly
reduced the risk of cancer incidence and metformin use in CRC patients with diabetes
is associated with decreased mortality, suggesting a potential role of metformin as
an anticancer agent (Evans et al., 2005; Lee et al., 2011). In many preclinical studies,
metformin suppressed cellular proliferation, caused apoptosis, induced cell cycle
arrest, and decreased the incidence and growth of experimental tumors (Isakovic et al., 2007; Ben Sahra et al., 2008; Tomimoto
et al., 2008; Alimova et al.,
2009). Moreover, combinatory treatment of metformin and other
chemotherapeutic drugs showed the synergistic anticancer effects in CRC cells (Zhang et al., 2013; Nanglia-Makker et al., 2014), demonstrating the possibility of
decreasing the dose of chemotherapeutic drugs with severe side effects.The present study was undertaken to investigate whether metformin could be used in
conjunction with imatinib to inhibit the growth of HCT15 CRC cells and to delineate
its mechanisms of regulation. Herein, we observed synergistic growth inhibition of
HCT15 CRC cells with the combination of imatinib and metformin, and described
synergistic down-regulation of pERK, cell cycle arrest, and induction of autophagy
as the mechanism explaining effects of the combination.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
1. Reagents and cell culture
Imatinib (also known as Gleevec) and metformin were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich
(St. Louis, Mo, USA). Imatinib was dissolved in DMSO to a concentration of 50 mM
and additionally in DMEM media to a working stock concentration of 100 μM.
Metformin was dissolved in phosphate buffered saline to a working concentration
of 100 mM. The humancolorectal cancer cell line HCT15 was obtained from ATCC
(Rockville, MD, USA). The cells were maintained and grown in Dulbecco’s modified
Eagle’s medium (1.0 g glucose/L) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (Gibco
BRL, Rockville, MD, USA) at 37℃ in a humidified atmosphere consisting of 5%
CO2 and 95% air. Cells were regularly tested for mycoplasma
contamination by treating 5 μg/mL of Plasmocin (Invivo Gen, San Diego, CA, USA).
Acridine orange, chloroquine and 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl
tetra-zolium bromide (MTT) were all purchased from Sigma-Aldrich.
2. Cell viability assay
Cell viability was determined by using MTT method as described previously (Park & Lee, 2014). HCT15 cells were
harvested and seeded in 24-well plates at a concentration of 5×104
cells/well, After 24 hr, cells were treated with varying concentration of
imatinib (2.5–40 μM), metformin (0.25–4 mM), their combination or vehicle
control for 48 hr. Results represent the median of 3 separate experiments each
conducted in quadruplicate. The IC50 values, combination index (CI)
and dose reduction index (DRI) were calculated by using CompuSyn software
(ComboSyn Inc, Paramus, NJ, USA). The resulting CI is a quantitative measure of
the degree of drugs interaction. If CI<1, it indicates synergism; if CI=1, it
indicates additive effect; if CI>1, it indicates antagonism. DRI denotes how
many folds of dose reduction are allowed for each drug due to synergism when
compared with the dose of each drug alone.
3. Western blotting
Western blotting assays were performed as previously described (Song et al., 2011) using the following
primary antibodies: cyclin D1, cyclin A, cyclin B1, ERK, pERK
(Tyr204) (all from Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Santa Cruz, CA, USA),
and LC3B (Cell Signaling, Beverly, MA, USA). After incubation with secondary
antibodies conjugated to horseradish peroxidase (Cell Signaling), enhanced
chemiluminescence was used for detection of immunoreactivity (Santa Cruz
Biotechnology). β-actin (Cell Signaling) served as a loading control.
4. Cell cycle analysis
HCT15 cells were plated onto 60 mm dishes and treated with different
concentrations of metformin, imatinib, the combination and vehicle control for
24 hr. Cells were harvested by treating trypsin-EDTA for 5 min at 37℃, washed
with PBS and fixed overnight in 50% ethanol at 4℃. Fixed cells were washed with
PBS and incubated with RNase (200 μg/mL) for 30 min at 37℃, and followed by
propidium iodide staining. Cells were analyzed by using BD FACSCalibur Flow
Cytometry System and data were analyzed by using CellQuest software (Becton
Dickinson).
5. Acridine orange staining
To detect acidic vesicular organelles which consist predominantly of
autophagosome and autolysosome and appear following autophagy induction, we
carried out vital staining with acridine orange after treatment of metformin or
imatinib. Briefly cells were washed twice with PBS, stained with acridine orange
(1 μg/mL) in HBSS containing 5% FBS for 15 min and then observed with
fluorescence microscope.
6. Colony formation assay
Cells were seeded in 6 well plates at a density of 200 cells per well. On the
second day, cells were treated with metformin or imatinib. Every three days,
medium was changed with fresh medium containing the corresponding concentration
of the drugs. After twelve day treatment, cell colonies were washed twice with
cold PBS and then fixed with ice-cold 100% methanol. Cell colonies were stained
with 0.1% crystal violet in 20% methanol and taken pictures with digital camera.
7. Statistical analysis
Data were expressed in the form of mean±SEM. The statistical analysis was done by
using Student's t Test. Differences between means were
considered as significant when yielding p<0.05.
RESULTS
1. Effect of imatinib, metformin and combination on the cell viability in
HCT15 cells
To evaluate the response of HCT15 CRC cells to imatinib and metformin, we first
treated HCT15 cells with various concentrations of imatinib and metformin for 48
hr, and cell viability was determined by using MTT assay. As shown in Fig. 1A and B, imatinib and metformin inhibited cell viability in a
concentration-dependent manner. IC50 values of imatinib and metformin
were 38.2 μM and 2.7 mM, respectively. Next, we analyzed the effect of imatinib
in combination with metformin on cell growth by deter-mining the type of
interaction between two drugs. Imatinib and metformin were combined in
non-constant ratios, in which the fixed dose of metformin (0.25, 0.5 or 1 mM)
were co-treated with different concentrations of imatinib (1.25–10 μM). As shown
in Fig 1C, anti-proliferative activity of
imatinib was augmented in proportion to increasing doses of metformin. The
combination index (CI) values ranged from 0.51 to 0.86, indicating synergism
according to the method of Chou-Talalay (Chou
& Talalay, 1981) (Table
1). The combination also showed that the values of drug reduction index
(DRI) were always above 1 at any combination points of two drugs (Table 2). We next screened the change of
pERK protein, one of the key regulator proteins in signal transduction pathway,
by Western blot assay. Metformin and imatinib each induced a remarkable
reduction in pERK, and the combination of metformin and imatinib caused almost
complete suppression of pERK level (Fig.
1D).
Fig. 1
Effects of imatinib, metformin and their combination on HCT15
colorectal cancer cells.
(A-C) Cells were seeded at 5×104 cells/well (0.5 mL) in
24-well culture plates, incubated for 24 hr and then treated with
imatinib (A), metformin (B) and the combination of both (C) for 48 hr.
Cell viability was measured by MTT assay. The viability of control cells
was regarded as 100%. (n=3, bars represents SEM). (D) Western blot
analyses for pERK and ERK proteins, the key effector proteins of
RAF/MEK/ERK signaling pathway. Cells were treated with imatinib (10 μM),
metformin (1 mM) and their combination for 24 hr. β-actin was included
as a loading control.
Table 1
Synergistic interaction between imatinib (Ima) and metformin (Metf)
in HCT15 cells as revealed by combination index (CI) values.
Ima (μM)
1.25
2.5
5
10
Type of interaction
CI at 0.25 mM Metf
0.52
0.56
0.58
0.71
Synergistic
CI at 0.5 mM Metf
0.51
0.52
0.52
0.66
Synergistic
CI at 1 mM Metf
0.51
0.6
0.63
0.86
Synergistic
CI values were calculated by using the CompuSyn software according to
the recommendations of Chou-Talaly.
Table 2
Dose reduction index (DRI) values of combination treatments of
imatinib (Ima) and metformin (Metf) in HCT15 cells.
Ima (uM)
1.25
2.5
5
10
Metf
Ima
Metf
Ima
Metf
Ima
Metf
Ima
DRI at 0.25 mM Metf
2.33
11.2
2.54
5.92
3.36
3.56
4.33
2.11
DRI at 0.5 mM Metf
2.22
17.1
2.42
9.08
3
5.22
3.22
2.73
DRI at 1 mM Metf
2.11
26.14
1.91
12.25
2.09
6.51
1.88
3.03
DRI values denote how many folds of dose reduction are allowed for
each drug due to synergism when compared with the dose of each drug
alone.
Effects of imatinib, metformin and their combination on HCT15
colorectal cancer cells.
(A-C) Cells were seeded at 5×104 cells/well (0.5 mL) in
24-well culture plates, incubated for 24 hr and then treated with
imatinib (A), metformin (B) and the combination of both (C) for 48 hr.
Cell viability was measured by MTT assay. The viability of control cells
was regarded as 100%. (n=3, bars represents SEM). (D) Western blot
analyses for pERK and ERK proteins, the key effector proteins of
RAF/MEK/ERK signaling pathway. Cells were treated with imatinib (10 μM),
metformin (1 mM) and their combination for 24 hr. β-actin was included
as a loading control.CI values were calculated by using the CompuSyn software according to
the recommendations of Chou-Talaly.DRI values denote how many folds of dose reduction are allowed for
each drug due to synergism when compared with the dose of each drug
alone.
2. Imatinib, metformin and combination induce cell cycle arrest
Since imatinib, metform and their combination decreases cell viability, we
explored whether these results are attributed to the changes of cell cycle
distribution. Cell cycle analysis of HCT15 cells by flow cytometry using PI
staining is shown in Fig. 2. After
treatment of metformin (1 mM) alone for 24 hr, the percentage of HCT15 cells in
S phase was increased from 17.9 % of control to 26.7 %. The increase of cell
population in S phase is accompanied by a reduction in G1 phase,
indicating that metformin induced cell cycle arrest in S phase. Imatinib (10 μM)
caused cell cycle arrest in G2/M phase and to lesser extent in S
phase. Combination treatment of metformin and imatinib resulted in similar
pattern of cell cycle distribution as treated with imatinib alone. We further
monitored the changes of proteins involved in cell cycle regulation using
Western blot. As shown in Fig. 3, while
there is no apparent alteration in cyclin D1 and A as compared to
control, cyclin B1 levels were remarkably reduced by imatinib, metfromin and
their combination treatment.
Fig. 2
Effect of imatinib, metformin and their combination on cell cycle
progression in HCT15 cells.
Cells were exposed to the indicated concentrations for 24 hr and cell
cycle distributions were analyzed by flow cytometry.
Fig. 3
Western blot analyses to reveal the effect of imatinib, metformin and
their combination on cell cycle-specific regulatory proteins.
Cells were treated with imatinib (10 μM), metformin (1 mM) and their
combination for 24 hr. β-actin was used as a loading control.
Effect of imatinib, metformin and their combination on cell cycle
progression in HCT15 cells.
Cells were exposed to the indicated concentrations for 24 hr and cell
cycle distributions were analyzed by flow cytometry.
Western blot analyses to reveal the effect of imatinib, metformin and
their combination on cell cycle-specific regulatory proteins.
Cells were treated with imatinib (10 μM), metformin (1 mM) and their
combination for 24 hr. β-actin was used as a loading control.
3. Effect of imatinib, metformin and combination on autophagy
induction
Substantial evidence has been accumulating to reveal that most of
chemotherapeutic and molecular targeted agents employed in cancer therapy cause
the activation of autophagy in cancer cells (Sui
et al., 2013). Therefore, we examined the effect of imatinib,
metformin and their combination on autophagy induction. The lysosomotropic agent
acridine orange (AO) accumulates in the acidic vesicular organelles (AVOs) such
as autophagosomes and autolysosomes, which are formed after the initiation of
autophagy. When excited with blue light, AO emits red fluorescence in AVOs and
green fluorescence in cytoplasm and nucleus (Takeuchi et al., 2005). It has been also suggested that the
microtubule-associated protein light chain 3 (LC3) is a novel marker of
autophagy activation. Upon autophagy induction the cytosolic full-length form of
LC3-1 (16 kDa) is processed to the cleaved autophagosome-bound form of LC3-II
(14 kDa) through lipidation to be associated with autophagic vacuoles (Li et al., 2013). In our study, metformin
alone showed a little increased red fluorescent AVOs formation while imatinib
and the combination of metformin and imatinib led to the markedly increased red
fluorescent AVOs in the cytoplasm compared to control cells (Fig. 4A). Western blot analysis revealed that
metformin did not show the increase of the lipidated LC3-II form, whereas
imatinib and the combination treatments showed the increased level of LC3-II
form, consistent with the results observed in AO staining (Fig. 4B).
Fig. 4
Induction of autophagy in response to imatinib and/or metformin in
HCT 15 CRC cells.
(A) Acridine orange staining. HCT15 cells were seeded in 24-well culture
dish and then treated with imatinib (10 µM) and/or metformin (1 mM) for
24 hr. Cells were stained with acridine orange and visualized under red
filter fluorescent microscope. Bar, 10 µM. (B) Western blot assay for
the detection of LC3. β-actin was used as a loading control.
Induction of autophagy in response to imatinib and/or metformin in
HCT 15 CRC cells.
(A) Acridine orange staining. HCT15 cells were seeded in 24-well culture
dish and then treated with imatinib (10 µM) and/or metformin (1 mM) for
24 hr. Cells were stained with acridine orange and visualized under red
filter fluorescent microscope. Bar, 10 µM. (B) Western blot assay for
the detection of LC3. β-actin was used as a loading control.
4. Inhibition of autophagy enhances the antitumor activity of imatinib,
metformin and combination
It has been suggested that many anti-cancer therapeutic agents induce autopahgy,
which acts as either prosurvival or prodeath role of cancer cells (Yang et al., 2011). Thus we asked how the
inhibition of autophagy affects the anti-tumor activity in our treatment
regimen. To this end, we employed a lysosmotropic agent chloroquine (CQ), which
interferes with the fusion between autophagosomes and lysosome and thus widely
used as an autophagy inhibitor (Mizushima et
al., 2010). As shown in Fig. 5,
co-treatment of metforim, imatinib or their combination with CQ resulted in more
decreased cell viability compared to that observed in treatment of metformin,
imatinib or combination alone.
Fig. 5
Inhibition of autophagy enhances the antican-cer effect of imatinib
and/or metformin in HCT15 CRC cells.
Cells were treated with imatinib and/ or metformin in combination with CQ
as indicated. 48 hr after treatment, cell viability was then analyzed by
MTT assay. Experiments were repeated three times. Error bars, SEM. *,
p<0.05.
Inhibition of autophagy enhances the antican-cer effect of imatinib
and/or metformin in HCT15 CRC cells.
Cells were treated with imatinib and/ or metformin in combination with CQ
as indicated. 48 hr after treatment, cell viability was then analyzed by
MTT assay. Experiments were repeated three times. Error bars, SEM. *,
p<0.05.
5. Metformin augments the inhibitory effect of imatinib on the colony
formation in HCT15 cells
To further confirm the synergistic effect of imatinib in combination with
metformin, we tested the long term effect of this drug combination in a 12-day
colony formation assay. As shown in Fig. 6,
imatinib or metformin alone at the tested doses partially inhibited the growth
of colony formation. However the combination of imatinib and metformin
potentiated the inhibitory effect on the formation and growth of colonies as
compared with either agent alone. Thus, these results further support the
synergistic anticancer effect of imatinib and metformin combination treatment in
HCT15 CRC cells.
Fig. 6
Combinatory treatment of imatinib with metformin results in enhanced
inhibition of colony formation in HCT15 CRC cells.
Cells were seeded in 24-well plates at a density of 200 cells per well.
After 24 hr cells were treated with the indicated concentrations of
imatinib or metformin. The same treatments were every 3 days. After 12
day treatment, cell colonies were stained with crystal violet dye and
taken pictures with digital camera.
Combinatory treatment of imatinib with metformin results in enhanced
inhibition of colony formation in HCT15 CRC cells.
Cells were seeded in 24-well plates at a density of 200 cells per well.
After 24 hr cells were treated with the indicated concentrations of
imatinib or metformin. The same treatments were every 3 days. After 12
day treatment, cell colonies were stained with crystal violet dye and
taken pictures with digital camera.
DISCUSSION
The tyrosine kinase inhibitor imatinib has shown a substantial therapeutic activity
in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), a disease resulting from mutated
BCR-Abl kinase. Imatinib also inhibits the catalytic activity of PDGF receptor and
c-kit receptor kinase. Therefore, imatinib is successfully used for the treatment of
GIST with mutated c-kittyrosine kinase and several studies have suggested that
imatinib inhibits cell proliferation and induces apoptosis in CRC cells (Attoub et al., 2002; Stahtea et al., 2007; Popow-Wozniak et al., 2011; Abdel-Aziz et
al., 2015). However, despite high response rate of imatinib in CML and
GIST patients, significant drug resistance and side effects have become a
challenging theme in the clinic. As a candidate to overcome these problems in cancer
therapeutics, the biguanidemetformin prescribed widely for the diabetes treatment
with well tolerable side effects has been tested as a single agent or combination
treatment with other drugs since metformin shows the antiproliferative and
proapoptotic activity in various cancer cells.In the present study, we evaluated the effects of metformin, imatinib and their
combination in HCT15 CRC cell line, and showed dose- and time-dependent growth
inhibitory effect of imatinib and metformin. In addition, the combination resulted
in synergistic growth inhibitory effects in HCT15 cells as revealed in CI and DRI
values. Recently, Shi et al (2015) reported
that metformin also potentiates the anticancer activity of imatinib in CML cells. To
elucidate the underlying mechanism for the synergism of the imatinib and metformin
combination, we explored changes in the levels of pERK1/2. Interestingly, our study
showed that metformin alone significantly suppressed pERK level. Metformin is known
to inhibit mitochondrial complex I (NADH dehydrogenase) activity in the electron
transport chain, which in turn increases the cellular AMP/ ATP ratio. This high
AMP/ATP ratio activates the phosphorylation of AMPK, a master energy sensor within
cell, and then pAMPK inhibits mTOR signaling by activating TSC2 and subsequently
inhibiting Rheb (Quinn et al., 2013; Wheaton et al., 2014). Therefore we anticipated
that metformin might increase pERK, considering that RAS-RAF-MEK-ERK and
PI3K-AKT-mTOR pathways negatively regulates each other’s activity and mTOR
inhibitorbased therapy often resulted in drug resistance due to the activation of
ERK (Mendoza et al., 2011). Currently, the
reason is yet unclear, but there are some reports showing the decrease of pE.RK following metformin treatment (Niehr et al.,
2011). In addition, Alimova et al
(2009) suggested that the high concentration of metformin inhibits the
epidermal growth factor receptor activity, which leads to reduction of pERK in
breast cancer cells. The exact mechanism of anticancer activity of metformin at
molecular level is a matter of debate, and there is a conflicting issue on the high
doses of metformin (1–20 mM) used in vitro cell culture study
compared to serum levels (6–30μM) observed in diabeticpatients to whom metformin is
prescribed. One possible explanation for this may be that cultured cell lines have
not the cationic transporter OCT1 to enter metformin into cytoplasm (Niehr et al., 2011). Another is the positively
charged metformin is accumulated in tissues or within mitochondria. This might reach
the local concentration of metformin up to 1,000 fold higher than the serum levels,
similar doses to those used in cell culture models (Wilcock & Bailey, 1994).Molecular targeted agents for cancer therapeutics are known to induce cell cycle
arrest and much attention has been paid to the control of cell cycle in the field of
oncology. In our current study, flow cytometry showed that metformin, imatinib and
the combination caused an increase in S phase or G2/M phase population 24
hr after treatment. This is in good agreement with the result of western blot
analysis showing that cyclin B1 levels were markedly reduced with no apparent
changes of cyclin D1 and cyclin A levels after treatments of metformin, imatinib and
the combination, since the accumulation of cyclin B1 protein begins at the S phase
and reaches the maximal level at G2/M phase (Norbury & Nurse, 1992). In contrast, several studies
described that Abltyrosine kinase regulates cell cycle and blocking of Abltyrosine
kinase with imatinib reduces cell proliferation via depletion of cyclinD1 and hence
leads to G1 arrest of cell cycle (Genander et al., 2009). However, a report with CML cells showed that
imatinib brings about a transient G1 phase accumulation and S phase
depletion peaking at 12 hr after treatment followed by a progressive decrease of
G1 phase content and accumulation in S phase at 24 hr (Huguet et al., 2008). Thus, the discrepancy of
our results with others seems to reside in the time-dependent changes in cell cycle
distribution after imatinib treatment and further detailed analysis is required to
delineate the precise temporal pattern of cell cycle distribution after imatinib
treatment in HCT15 CRC cells.Autophagy is a lysosomal catabolic mechanism which is required for the maintenance of
cellular homeostasis. Cellular autophagy is induced in environmental or metabolic
stress conditions such as nutrient deprivation or serum withdrawal. Many cancer
therapeutic agents, either chemotherapeutic or molecular targeted drugs, have been
known to induce autophagy and imatinib also activates autophagy in various cancer
cells including CRC cells (Abdel-Aziz et al.,
2015). Our present study also showed that the anticancer drug imatinib
and its combination with metformin activated autophagy in HCT15 CRC cells. Although
increasing evidence is accumulating to show the importance of autophagy in cancer
therapeutics, the role of autophagy in cancer is still controversial. Autophagy
induced following cancer therapy often behaves like a double-edged sword by
increasing or diminishing the anticancer activity of drugs. Autophagy induction in
response to cancer therapy can act as a cell protective mechanism causing drug
resistance of cancer cells. Therefore, inhibition of autophagy can reverse the drug
resistance and enhance the cytotoxicity of anticancer drugs. On the other hand,
autophagy may give rise to cell death, a second type of programmed cell death
(autophagic cell death). In this latter case, autophagy inhibition would increase
the viability of cancer cells (Sui et al.,
2013). Thus it is important to determine whether autophagy is induced in
cancer cells in response to cancer therapy and the induced autophagy serves as cell
protective or cell destructive role. In the present study, we showed that inhibition
of autophagy induced by metformin, imatinib and the combination augments the
cytotoxicity by diminishing the cell viability. This indicates that the induced
autophagy acts as cell survival mechanism in HCT15 CRC cells. Our result is
consistent with other reports showing that autophagy inhibition by different
autophagic inhibitors potentiates the anticancer effect of imatinib in several
cancer cells (Crowley et al., 2013).Taken together, our study reveals that metformin and imatinib inhibits cell viability
in dose-dependent manner and metformin synergistically augments the anticancer
activity of imatinib in HCT15 CRC cells. Moreover, we showed that autophagy is
activated in response to metformin, imatinib and the combination, and the blockage
of autophagy resulted in the decrease of cell viability. Thus, our findings suggest
that metformin may be used clinically to enhance the antitumor effect of imatinib
and inhibition of autophagy can be a potential strategy to increase therapeutic
efficacy of imatinib in combination with metformin. Further comprehensive studies
are required to examine in vivo synergistic antitumor effect of
imatinib and metformin combination therapy for the clinical application.
Authors: H Joensuu; P J Roberts; M Sarlomo-Rikala; L C Andersson; P Tervahartiala; D Tuveson; S Silberman; R Capdeville; S Dimitrijevic; B Druker; G D Demetri Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-04-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: I Ben Sahra; K Laurent; A Loubat; S Giorgetti-Peraldi; P Colosetti; P Auberger; J F Tanti; Y Le Marchand-Brustel; F Bost Journal: Oncogene Date: 2008-01-21 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: Giuseppe Saglio; Dong-Wook Kim; Surapol Issaragrisil; Philipp le Coutre; Gabriel Etienne; Clarisse Lobo; Ricardo Pasquini; Richard E Clark; Andreas Hochhaus; Timothy P Hughes; Neil Gallagher; Albert Hoenekopp; Mei Dong; Ariful Haque; Richard A Larson; Hagop M Kantarjian Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-06-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Yoo Jin Na; Eun Sang Yu; Dae Sik Kim; Dae-Hee Lee; Sang Cheul Oh; Chul Won Choi Journal: Korean J Intern Med Date: 2020-04-03 Impact factor: 2.884