| Literature DB >> 29695251 |
Zuoqing Song1, Xiaohong Xu2, Minghui Liu1, Jinghao Liu1, Jun Chen1, Chengxiang Li3, Chenguo Yao4, Qinghua Zhou5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Steep pulse therapy can irreversible electrically brackdown of tumor membrance and cause cell death. In previous studies, we investigated the effect of steep pulsed electroporation on the killing of large cell lung cancer cell line L981- in vitro, and determined the best parameters for killing lung cancer cells by steep pulse technology. But the optimal parameters and the mechanisms of steep pulse irreversible electroporation technology on nude mouse tumor model are unclear.Entities:
Keywords: Apoptosis; Caspase-3; In vivo imaging system; Large cell lung cancer; Necrosis; Steep pulse
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29695251 PMCID: PMC5918770 DOI: 10.1186/s12957-018-1386-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Surg Oncol ISSN: 1477-7819 Impact factor: 2.754
Fig. 1Pictures of materials. a The instant images of the nude mouse by vivo imaging system after subcutaneous injection of large cell lung cancer cell lines L9981-luc. b The observation of nude mouse subcutaneous transplanted tumor by vivo imaging system observation after 1 week
Differences between pre-treatment signal intensity and post-treatment signal intensity of parameter 1 in the negative control group of nude mouse tumor
| Nude mouse numbered | 3–4 | 5–1 | 5–5 | 8–2 |
| Pre-treatment signal intensity | 9.662e+09 | 2.394e+08 | 1.659e+09 | 3.885e+09 |
| After 72-h signal intensity | 2.301e+10 | 2.595e+08 | 2.329e+09 | 5.025e+09 |
The signal intensity values in the table is the size of ROI (region of interest) included the total flux, unit: p/s
Differences between pre-treatment signal intensity and post-treatment signal intensity of parameter 1 in the IRE group of nude mouse tumor
| Nude mouse numbered | Pre-treatment signal intensity | Instant-treatment signal intensity | After 24-h signal intensity | After 72-h signal intensity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6#-3 | 2.025e+10 | 3.635e+06 | 1.060e+09 | 2.291e+09 |
| 7#-2 | 8.789e+09 | 7.173e+07 | 2.099e+08 | 9.369e+08 |
| 7#-5 | 2.870e+10 | 4.016e+07 | 2.669e+08 | 2.072e+09 |
| 8#-5 | 1.550e+10 | 3.340e+05 | 1.031e+09 | 3.566e+09 |
| 9#-5 | 4.211e+10 | 1.713e+10 | 3.150e+10 | 4.397e+10 |
The signal intensity values in the table is the size of ROI (region of interest) included the total flux, unit: p/s
Fig. 2Differences between pre-treatment signal intensity and post-treatment signal intensity of parameter 1. a Differences between pre-treatment signal intensity and post-treatment signal intensity in the negative control group of nude mouse tumor. b Differences between pre-treatment signal intensity and post-treatment signal intensity of parameter 1 in nude mouse tumor. c The trend of pre-treatment signal intensity and post-treatment signal intensity of parameter 1 in nude mouse tumor
Differences between pre-treatment signal intensity and post-treatment signal intensity of parameter 2 in the IRE group of nude mouse tumor
| Nude mouse numbered | Pre-treatment signal intensity | Instant-treatment signal intensity | After 24-h signal intensity | After 72-h signal intensity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4#-3 | 2.210e+10 | 4.423e+09 | 2.169e+08 | 9.211e+09 |
| 4#-5 | 4.182e+09 | 9.476e+08 | 1.166e+09 | 1.852e+09 |
| 6#-2 | 2.025e+10 | 1.184e+09 | 5.598e+08 | 1.351e+09 |
| 8#-1 | 2.150e+10 | 2.839e+08 | 3.018e+07 | 5.714e+08 |
| 8#-4 | 2.343e+10 | 3.810e+07 | 8.349e+06 | 5.212e+07 |
The signal intensity values in the table is the size of ROI (region of interest) included the total flux, unit: p/s
Fig. 3Differences between pre-treatment signal intensity and post-treatment signal intensity of parameter 2. a Differences between pre-treatment signal intensity and post-treatment signal intensity of parameter 2 in the IRE group of nude mouse tumor. b The trend of pre-treatment signal intensity and post-treatment signal intensity of parameter 2 in nude mouse tumor
Differences between pre-treatment signal intensity and post-treatment signal intensity of parameter 3 in the IRE group of nude mouse tumor
| Nude mouse numbered | Pre-treatment signal intensity | Instant-treatment signal intensity | After 24-h signal intensity | After 72-h signal intensity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3#-5 | 6.359e+09 | 1.188e+09 | 1.246e+08 | 1.781e+09 |
| 5#-2 | 2.193e+10 | 1.146e+08 | 8.843e+06 | 1.267e+07 |
| 5#-3 | 3.951e+09 | 3.624+07 | 7.765+06 | 1.243+06 |
| 5#-4 | 2.238e+10 | 4.787e+08 | 8.527e+07 | 1.091e+08 |
| 6#-4 | 2.768e+10 | 1.405e+07 | 2.733e+06 | 8.122e+06 |
The signal intensity values in the table is the size of ROI (region of interest) included the total flux, unit: p/s
Fig. 4Differences between pre-treatment signal intensity and post-treatment signal intensity of parameter 3. a Differences of pre-treatment signal intensity and post-treatment signal intensity of parameter 3 in the IRE group of nude mouse tumor. b The trend of pre-treatment signal intensity and post-treatment signal intensity of parameter 3 in nude mouse tumor
The volume changes of transplantation tumors after treatment of steep pulse (, n = 9)
| Group | 1st day (mm3) | 5th day (mm3) | 12th day (mm3) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment group | 47.88 ± 27.53 | 18.08 ± 13.68 | 10.82 ± 11.06 |
| Control group | 62.66 ± 7.78 | 60.00 ± 28.34 | 64.82 ± 50.09 |
The comparison of volume, weight, and inhibition rate in nude mouse subcutaneous transplantation tumor by steep pulse technology
| Group | Tumor weight (g) | Weight inhibition rate | Tumor volume (cm3) | Volume inhibition rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment group | 0.644 ± 0.271 | 68.6% | 0.441 ± 0.359 | 73.5% |
| Control group | 2.048 ± 0.836 | 1.667 ± 0.702 |
Tumor volume—V = ab2/2, a = the longest tumor diameter, b = short tumor diameter
Volume(weight) inhibition rate:{V(weight)control − Vtreatment(weight)} ÷ V(weight)control × 100%
Fig. 5Light microscope observation of steep pulse therapy for large cell lung cancer cell line L9981 in nude tumor mouse and qualitative analysis of caspase-3 protein expression with immunofluorescent staining. a Multinuclear, meganucleus, prominent nucleoli, and relatively more mitoses were noticed in control group (× 400). b A homogeneous red-stained patch was noticed in the anode region, with blurred cell structure, and appeared with coagulation necrosis (× 400). c Cell structures of cathode were still clear with no significant changes, so as the deep subcutaneous tumor cells (× 400). d Tumor cell necrosis, darkening of cytoplasm eosin staining, dark staining of karyopyknosis, cytoplasm eosin staining, and nuclear pyknosis hyperchromatic (× 400). e Necrosis border was clear, with karyopyknosis, karyorrhexis, and karyolysis (× 400). f Tumor tissue necrosis, obviously, there are large necrosis area (× 400). g Karyopyknosis, karyorrhexis, and karyolysis (× 400). h Yellow fluorescence spotty distribution of caspase-3 by fluorescence microscopy. i Experimental group caspase-3 expression by fluorescence microscopy was obviously more than the control group