Dominik Kraus1, Jan Reckenbeil1, Nadine Veit2, Stefan Kuerpig3, Michael Meisenheimer3, Imke Beier1, Helmut Stark1, Jochen Winter4, Rainer Probstmeier5,6. 1. Department of Prosthodontics, Preclinical Education, and Material Sciences, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany. 2. Neuro- and Tumor Cell Biology Group, Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany. 4. Oral Cell Biology Group, Department of Periodontology, Operative and Preventive Dentistry, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany. 5. Neuro- and Tumor Cell Biology Group, Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany. r.probstmeier@uni-bonn.de. 6. Neuro- and Tumor Cell Biology Group, Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str. 25, D-53127, Bonn, Germany. r.probstmeier@uni-bonn.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Targeting glucose metabolism is a promising way to interfere with tumor cell proliferation and survival. However, controversy exists about the specificity of some glucose metabolism targeting anticancer drugs. Especially the potency of STF-31 has been debated. Here, we aimed to assess the impact of the glucose transporter (GLUT) inhibitors fasentin and WZB117, and the nicotinamide phosphoribosyltransferase (NAMPT) inhibitors GMX1778 and STF-31 on tumor cell proliferation and survival, as well as on glucose uptake. METHODS: Tumor-derived A172 (glioblastoma), BHY (oral squamous cell carcinoma), HeLa (cervix adenocarcinoma), HN (head neck cancer), HT-29 (colon carcinoma) and MG-63 (osteosarcoma) cells were treated with fasentin, WZB117, GMX1778 and STF-31. Proliferation rates and cell viabilities were assessed using XTT, crystal violet and LDH assays. mRNA and protein expression of GLUT1 and NAPRT were assessed using qPCR and Western blotting, respectively. The effects of inhibiting compounds on glucose uptake were measured using [18F]-fluoro-deoxyglucose uptake experiments. RESULTS: Stimulation of tumor-derived cells with the different inhibitors tested revealed a complex pattern, whereby proliferation inhibiting and survival reducing concentrations varied in [18F]-fluoro-deoxyglucose uptake experiments more than one order of magnitude among the different cells tested. We found that the effects of GMX1778 and STF-31 could be partially abolished by (i) nicotinic acid (NA) only in nicotinic acid phosphoribosyltransferase (NAPRT) expressing cells and (ii) nicotinamide mononucleotide (NMN) in all cells tested, supporting the classification of these compounds as NAMPT inhibitors. In short-time [18F]-fluoro-deoxyglucose uptake experiments the application of WZB-117 was found to lead to an almost complete uptake inhibition in all cells tested, whereas the effect of fasentin was found to be cell type dependent with a maximum value of ~35% in A172, BHY, HeLa and HT-29 cells. We also found that STF-31 inhibited glucose uptake in all cells tested in a range of 25-50%. These data support the classification of STF-31 as a GLUT inhibitor. CONCLUSIONS: Our data reveal a dual mode of action of STF-31, serving either as a NAMPT or as a GLUT inhibitor, whereby the latter seems to be apparent only at higher STF-31 concentrations. The molecular basis of such a dual function and its appearance in compounds previously designated as NAMPT-specific inhibitors requires further investigation.
BACKGROUND: Targeting glucose metabolism is a promising way to interfere with tumor cell proliferation and survival. However, controversy exists about the specificity of some glucose metabolism targeting anticancer drugs. Especially the potency of STF-31 has been debated. Here, we aimed to assess the impact of the glucose transporter (GLUT) inhibitors fasentin and WZB117, and the nicotinamide phosphoribosyltransferase (NAMPT) inhibitors GMX1778 and STF-31 on tumor cell proliferation and survival, as well as on glucose uptake. METHODS:Tumor-derived A172 (glioblastoma), BHY (oral squamous cell carcinoma), HeLa (cervix adenocarcinoma), HN (head neck cancer), HT-29 (colon carcinoma) and MG-63 (osteosarcoma) cells were treated with fasentin, WZB117, GMX1778 and STF-31. Proliferation rates and cell viabilities were assessed using XTT, crystal violet and LDH assays. mRNA and protein expression of GLUT1 and NAPRT were assessed using qPCR and Western blotting, respectively. The effects of inhibiting compounds on glucose uptake were measured using [18F]-fluoro-deoxyglucose uptake experiments. RESULTS: Stimulation of tumor-derived cells with the different inhibitors tested revealed a complex pattern, whereby proliferation inhibiting and survival reducing concentrations varied in [18F]-fluoro-deoxyglucose uptake experiments more than one order of magnitude among the different cells tested. We found that the effects of GMX1778 and STF-31 could be partially abolished by (i) nicotinic acid (NA) only in nicotinic acid phosphoribosyltransferase (NAPRT) expressing cells and (ii) nicotinamide mononucleotide (NMN) in all cells tested, supporting the classification of these compounds as NAMPT inhibitors. In short-time [18F]-fluoro-deoxyglucose uptake experiments the application of WZB-117 was found to lead to an almost complete uptake inhibition in all cells tested, whereas the effect of fasentin was found to be cell type dependent with a maximum value of ~35% in A172, BHY, HeLa and HT-29 cells. We also found that STF-31 inhibited glucose uptake in all cells tested in a range of 25-50%. These data support the classification of STF-31 as a GLUT inhibitor. CONCLUSIONS: Our data reveal a dual mode of action of STF-31, serving either as a NAMPT or as a GLUT inhibitor, whereby the latter seems to be apparent only at higher STF-31 concentrations. The molecular basis of such a dual function and its appearance in compounds previously designated as NAMPT-specific inhibitors requires further investigation.
Authors: Erin M Kropp; Bryndon J Oleson; Katarzyna A Broniowska; Subarna Bhattacharya; Alexandra C Chadwick; Anne R Diers; Qinghui Hu; Daisy Sahoo; Neil Hogg; Kenneth R Boheler; John A Corbett; Rebekah L Gundry Journal: Stem Cells Transl Med Date: 2015-04-01 Impact factor: 6.940
Authors: Denise A Chan; Patrick D Sutphin; Phuong Nguyen; Sandra Turcotte; Edwin W Lai; Alice Banh; Gloria E Reynolds; Jen-Tsan Chi; Jason Wu; David E Solow-Cordero; Muriel Bonnet; Jack U Flanagan; Donna M Bouley; Edward E Graves; William A Denny; Michael P Hay; Amato J Giaccia Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2011-08-03 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Felix Sahm; Iris Oezen; Christiane A Opitz; Bernhard Radlwimmer; Andreas von Deimling; Tilman Ahrendt; Seray Adams; Helge B Bode; Gilles J Guillemin; Wolfgang Wick; Michael Platten Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2013-04-02 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Mark Watson; Anne Roulston; Laurent Bélec; Xavier Billot; Richard Marcellus; Dominique Bédard; Cynthia Bernier; Stéphane Branchaud; Helen Chan; Kenza Dairi; Karine Gilbert; Daniel Goulet; Michel-Olivier Gratton; Henady Isakau; Anne Jang; Abdelkrim Khadir; Elizabeth Koch; Manon Lavoie; Michael Lawless; Mai Nguyen; Denis Paquette; Emilie Turcotte; Alvin Berger; Matthew Mitchell; Gordon C Shore; Pierre Beauparlant Journal: Mol Cell Biol Date: 2009-08-24 Impact factor: 4.272
Authors: Paolo E Porporato; Suveera Dhup; Rajesh K Dadhich; Tamara Copetti; Pierre Sonveaux Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2011-08-25 Impact factor: 5.810
Authors: Tamara Murmann; Carmen Carrillo-García; Nadine Veit; Cornelius Courts; Alexander Glassmann; Viktor Janzen; Burkhard Madea; Markus Reinartz; Anne Harzen; Michael Nowak; Sven Perner; Jochen Winter; Rainer Probstmeier Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-02-28 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Frederic A Vallejo; Anthony Sanchez; Branko Cuglievan; Winston M Walters; Guillermo De Angulo; Steven Vanni; Regina M Graham Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-06-23 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: Maheedhara R Guda; Collin M Labak; Sara Ibrahim Omar; Swapna Asuthkar; Subra Airala; Jack Tuszynski; Andrew J Tsung; Kiran K Velpula Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2019-09-05 Impact factor: 6.639