| Literature DB >> 29348487 |
Wenyan Zhang1, Rui Duan1, Jian Zhang1, William K C Cheung1, Xiaoge Gao1, Raymond Zhang2, Qing Zhang1, Mengxue Wei1, Gang Wang1, Qian Zhang1, Peng-Jin Mei3, Hong-Lin Chen4, Hsiangfu Kung5, Marie C Lin6, Zan Shen7, Junnian Zheng1,3, Longzhen Zhang3, Hong Yao1.
Abstract
Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29348487 PMCID: PMC5830599 DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2017.461
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Br J Cancer ISSN: 0007-0920 Impact factor: 7.640
Figure 1Anti-tumoural and radiosensitising efficacies of H1/pHGFK1 nanoparticles for the subcutaneously U87 cell-xenografted nude mouse model. (A) A schematic of H1/pHGFK1 nanoparticle formation. The plasmid encoding the HGFK1 gene includes a hEF-HTL promoter and the secreted signalling peptide Igκ located at the N-terminus of the HGFK1 protein. (B) A diagram illustrating the therapeutic schedule for these treatments. On grouping day (day 0), peritumoural injection of H1/pDNA (DNA: 50 μg, N/P ratio: 20:1) was performed for each mice. After 2 days, the initiated IR was conducted at a dose of 3 Gy for a mouse; the procedure was repeated once over the next two days. On days 11, 19 and 25, the nanoparticles were again administered to maintain the therapeutic dose. (C, D) The dynamic change in tumour volume with time extension and the survival curve of tumour-bearing mice in PBS-, H1/pEGFP-, IR-, IR+H1/pEGFP-, H1/pHGFK1- and IR+H1/pHGFK1-treated groups, respectively. Student’s t-test, n=6, *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.
Figure 2Immunohistochemistry staining and stereological analysis of the Ki-67, TUNEL, CD31 and MET expression level in tumour tissues of PBS (control)-, H1/pEGFP-, IR-, IR+H1/pEGFP-, H1/pHGFK1- and IR+H1/pHGFK1-treated groups. (A) Representative phase-contrast light microscopy images of Ki-67 staining. Red line in each photo is the scale bar and represents 50 μm. Brown dots indicate Ki-67-positive signalling. Cell nuclei were stained by haematoxylin. (B) Panel of Ki-67 labelling index (KL) in tumour tissues of each group. The highest Ki-67 labelling index were displayed in control and H1/pEGFP-treated tumours; the medial level of that were shown in IR- and IR combining H1/pEGFP-treated tumours; the lowest level of that were shown in H1/pHGFK1- and IR combining H1/pHGFK1- treated tumours. ‘+’ indicates KL <10% ‘++’ indicates KL=10–50% and ‘+++’ indicates KL>50%. (C) Representative fluorescence microscopy images of TUNEL staining. Green represents fluorescein-dUTP signalling indicating TUNEL-positive staining. Cell nuclei were stained by DAPI. Merged lanes indicate the overlap between green and blue colours. (D) Table of apoptotic index (AI) of tumour specimens in each group. According to the intensity and number of the green colour, we qualified the TUNEL signalling level of every slide by the apoptotic index. The lowest AI (+) was shown in the control and H1/pEGFP-treated tissues; the median level of AI (++) was displayed IR-, IR+H1/pEGFP- and H1/pHGFK1-treated tumour tissues; the highest AI(+++) was presented in the IR+H1/pHGFK1-treated group. ‘+’ indicates AI ≦10% ‘++’ indicates 10%
Figure 3Proliferation and apoptosis analysis. (A) CCK8 assays showed the cell viability curves of U87 (solid line) and U251 (dotted line) cells treated with a series of doses of rHGFK1 for 48 h. (B) Statistical histograms of the percentage of Edu-positive cells in PBS- and rHGFK1(40 μg ml-1)-treated group (Student’s t-test. n=5, ***P<0.001). (C) Representative fluorescence microscopy images of Edu-assay in U87 cells. Cell nuclei were stained by Hoechst. keyFluor488-azide was used to label the Edu-positive cells. (D, F) Statistical histograms of the percentage of apoptotic cells among PBS-, IR-, rHGFK1- and IR+rHGFK1-treated U87 or U251 cells, respectively (Student’s t-test. n=3, *P<0.05, **P<0.01, ***P<0.001). (E, G) Representative colour density of flow cytometry analysis of U87 (E) or U251 (G) cells stained by Annexin V and PI. The percentage of the Annexin V+ and PI+/Annexin V+ subpopulations representing early and late apoptotic cells, respectively.
Figure 4Radiosensitivity of rHGFK1. (A, B) Multi-target single hit model and linear quadratic model (LQ model) of colonic survival of U87 cells treated with ionising radiation (IR) alone or in combination with rHGFK1, respectively. Plating efficiency (PE)=colony number/ number of seeded cells × 100%, cell survival fraction (SF)=colony formation efficiency with radiation without radiation × 100%. On the basis of multi-target single hit model and linear quadratic model (LQ model), radiation survival curves of U87 and U251 cells were fitted using GraphPad Prism 5.0.
The rate of surviving fraction in two groups (n=3, mean±s.d.)
| IR | 1 | 0.67±0.04 | 040±0.07 | 0.23±0.05 | 0.12±0.04 | 0.06±0.01 |
| IR+HGFK1 | 1 | 0.48±0.02 | 0.21±0.05 | 0.08±0.02 | 0.03±0.02 | 0.01±0.03 |
Abbreviation: IR=ionising radiation. The cell survival fraction (SF) of IR- and IR+rHGFK1-treated groups, respectively.
Comparison of radiation biologiacal parameters between two groups (multi-target single-hit model)
| IR | 1.185 | 3.225 | 1.444 | 0.671 | 1.405 |
| IR+HGFK1 | 0.432 | 2.296 | 1.207 | 0.480 |
Abbreviation: IR=ionising radiation. The radiobiological parameters of IR- and IR+rHGFK1-treated groups for the multi-target single hit model, respectively. D0 and N represents the median lethal radiation dose (Gy) and the extrapolation number, respectively; Dq represents the quasithreshold that was calculated by the Equation Dq=D0 × 1 nN; SF2 represents the survival fraction (SF) for cells treated with IR at 2 Gy that can be calculated according to the equation SF=1−(1−e−). The sensitisation enhancement ratio (SER) was calculated according to the values of Dq and SF2, where SER=D0 of control group/D0 of experimental group.
Comparison of radiation biological parameters between two groups (L–Q linearity quadri-model)
| IR | 0.185 | 0.011 | 16.818 | 0.661 |
| IR+HGFK1 | 0.344 | 0.011 | 31.273 | 0.481 |
Abbreviation: IR=ionising radiation. The radiobiological parameters of the IR- and IR+rHGFK1-treated groups for the linear quadratic (LQ) model. SF=e−, α, β, α/β and SF2 were given by GraphPad Prism 5.0 based on the curve of LQ model, previously.
Figure 5The protein expression levels of MET and ATM. (A, B) Flow cytometry analysis of MET-positive U87 and U251 cells treated with PBS, IR (10 Gy), rHGFK1 (40 μg ml-1) or IR (10 Gy)+rHGFK1 (40 μg ml−1) for 48 h. The left two statistical histograms show the MET-positive proportions for U87 and U251 cells, respectively. Each treatment was performed in triplicate, and the results are representative of three independent experiments (Student’s t-test, n=3, **P<0.01; ***P<0.001). The right histograms display representative images of the flow cytometry analysis of U87 (up) and U251 cells (down) treated by the indicated regimens. (C, D) Western blots of the protein expression level of total MET, pMETY1001, PARP, Caspase 3, pATMS1981, total ATM, pChk2T68, total Chk2, pChk1S345 and total Chk1 in U87 cells treated by the indicated regimens. The expression of target proteins was normalised to that of β-actin, which was used as housekeeping control. The grey value of each protein bane was shown below the relative lane.
Figure 6The anti-tumoural and radiosensitising functions of H1/pHGFK1 nanoparticles in the orthotopic luciferase-labelling U118 cells-xenografted nude mouse model. (A, C) Representative bioluminescent images of tumour-bearing live mice treated with PBS-, H1/pEGFP, IR, IR+ H1/pEGFP, H1/pHGFK1 and IR+ H1/pHGFK1 were captured by in vivo imaging on day 7 and day 14 post-treatment, respectively. Red circles marking the region of interests (ROIs) in each mouse; bioluminescent intensities (BIs, CPS: counts per second) are in the red boxes. (B, D) Statistical histograms of ROIs in living mice from the six groups on days 7 and 14 post-treatment, respectively (Student’s t-test, n=6, *P<0.05; **P<0.01; ***P<0.001). (E) The survival curve of the tumour-bearing mice in the six groups (Student’s t-test, n=6, **P<0.01).