| Literature DB >> 30349650 |
Han Bit Baek1,2, Alan P Lombard1,2,3, Stephen J Libertini1,2, Aleida Fernandez-Rubio2, Ruth Vinall4, Regina Gandour-Edwards5, Rachel Nakagawa2, Kathleen Vidallo2, Kristine Nishida2, Salma Siddiqui1, Hiromi Wettersten6, Yosef Landesman7, Robert H Weiss1,6, Paramita M Ghosh1,8, Maria Mudryj1,2.
Abstract
Treatment options for high grade urothelial cancers are limited and have remained largely unchanged for several decades. Selinexor (KPT-330), a first in class small molecule that inhibits the nuclear export protein XPO1, has shown efficacy as a single agent treatment for numerous different malignancies, but its efficacy in limiting bladder malignancies has not been tested. In this study we assessed selinexor-dependent cytotoxicity in several bladder tumor cells and report that selinexor effectively reduced XPO1 expression and limited cell viability in a dose dependent manner. The decrease in cell viability was due to an induction of apoptosis and cell cycle arrest. These results were recapitulated in in vivo studies where selinexor decreased tumor growth. Tumors treated with selinexor expressed lower levels of XPO1, cyclin A, cyclin B, and CDK2 and increased levels of RB and CDK inhibitor p27, a result that is consistent with growth arrest. Cells expressing wildtype RB, a potent tumor suppressor that promotes growth arrest and apoptosis, were most susceptible to selinexor. Cell fractionation and immunofluorescence studies showed that selinexor treatment increased nuclear RB levels and mechanistic studies revealed that RB ablation curtailed the response to the drug. Conversely, limiting CDK4/6 dependent RB phosphorylation by palbociclib was additive with selinexor in reducing bladder tumor cell viability, confirming that RB activity has a role in the response to XPO1 inhibition. These results provide a rationale for XPO1 inhibition as a novel strategy for the treatment of bladder malignancies.Entities:
Keywords: XPO1; bladder cancer; cell cycle; retinoblastoma; selinexor
Year: 2018 PMID: 30349650 PMCID: PMC6195388 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.26179
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Figure 1Expression of XPO1 in bladder tumor cells
(A) XPO1 expression in normal and bladder cancer from the indicated ONCOMINE datasets. The top and bottom of the box indicates the 75th and 25th percentile, respectively. Number of samples (n) and p-values (determined by a two-tailed Mann-Whitney U test) are as shown. (B) Representative images of XPO1 IHC staining of primary high-grade bladder malignancies (upper panels) and two PDX tumors. 40× magnification. Cells were counter-stained lightly with H&E. (C) Immunofluorescent analysis of XPO1 expression (green) in bladder tumor cells, where tubulin staining (red) and DAPI staining (blue) served to define the cytoplasmic and nuclear compartments, respectively. The analyses were conducted at the same time with the same reagents. (D) Quantification of immunofluorescence where XPO1 levels were normalized to DAPI. (E) Western immunoblot analysis of XPO1 expression, where tubulin served as a loading control (upper panel). Normalization of XPO1 expression to tubulin (lower panel, intensity to XPO1/intensity of tubulin). The studies were repeated at least once. Error bars denote standard deviation. Student’s t test.
Patient and tumor characteristic
| Number | XPO1 medium/high | XPO1 low | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Female | 9 | 6 | 3 |
| Male | 44 | 32 | 12 |
| under 60 | 16 | 11 | 5 |
| 60–69 | 13 | 10 | 3 |
| 70 and over | 25 | 17 | 8 |
| not listed | 17 | 12 | 5 |
| African American | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Asian | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Caucasian | 34 | 25 | 9 |
| Caucasian Hispanic | 4 | 4 | 0 |
| Caucasian non Hispanic | 30 | 21 | 9 |
| not reported | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Papillary urothelial carcinoma | 13 | 9 | 4 |
| SCC | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Urothelial Carcinoma | 38 | 27 | 11 |
| High grade | 50 | 35 | 15 |
| Low grade | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Unknown | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Figure 2Selinexor reduces bladder tumor cell the viability
(A) Cell viability assays of four bladder tumor cell lines treated with different concentrations of selinexor for 72 hours. Error bars denote standard deviations. (B) Colony formation assays of four cell lines treated with 0.1 uM selinexor or vehicle for T24-12 days, UM-UC-3-11 days, J82-9 days and TCCSUP-10 days. At the end of the study, the cells were fixed with methanol and stained with crystal violet. (C) Expression of XPO1 in bladder tumor cell lines treated with 0.1 uM selinexor for 72 hours analyzed by Western immunoblots. Tubulin serves as a protein loading control. V = vehicle, S = selinexor. (D) Immunofluorescent detection of XPO1 (green) in cells treated with vehicle and selinexor. Cells were plated on chamber slides and they were treated with either vehicle or selinexor for 48 hours. Tubulin (red) and DAPI (blue) served to define the nuclear and cytoplasmic compartment, respectively. (E) Quantitation of XPO1 expression normalized to DAPI. *denotes p ≤ 0.05, **denotes p ≤ 0.01. S.E.M.
Figure 3Selinexor induces cell cycle arrest and apoptosis
(A) Cell cycle analysis of selinexor treated cells was assessed by flow cytometry. Cells were treated with vehicle (red) or 0.1 uM selinexor (blue) for 72 hours. (B) Expression of XPO1, cyclin A, cyclin B, and p27 in cells treated with vehicle (V) or 0.1uM selinexor (S) was assessed by Western immunoblot studies. Tubulin served as a loading control. (C) Cells were treated with two different doses of selinexor for 72 hours and followed by caspase3/7 immunofluorescence assays. (D) The extent of apoptosis detected by the caspase 3/7 assay was quantified by counting 4 separate fields and shown as fold increase over control. (E) Detection of PARP cleavage in cells treated with vehicle or increasing doses of selinexor for 72 hours by Western blot analysis. Arrow points to cleaved PARP. Tubulin served as a loading control. *denotes p ≤ 0.05, **denotes p ≤ 0.01. Error bars denote standard deviation; Student’s t test.
Figure 4UM-UC-3 cell xenograft growth is retarded by Selinexor
(A) 106 UM-UC-3 cells were re-suspended 1:1 in Matrigel:PBS and injected into the left flank of female athymic nude mice. 5 mice were treated with vehicle and 7 were treated with selinexor 15 mg/kg 3× per week. Tumors were measured using calipers and volumes were calculated using the formula tumor volume (mm3) = length × width × depth. Mean tumor volume ± standard deviation. The difference in tumor growth rates were statistically significant. (B) Following euthanasia, tumors were excised and weighed (vehicle treated = 5 tumors, selinexor treated 6 tumors). The difference in weight was statistically significant P ˂ 0.05. Mean tumor weight ± standard deviation. Student’s t test. (C) Western immunoblot analysis of vehicle and selinexor treated tumors extracts. Tubulin served as loading control.
Figure 5Selinexor alters pocket protein expression in nuclear and cytoplasmic compartments
(A) Representative images of p107, p130 and RB (green) IF staining of bladder cancer cells treated with vehicle (V) or selinexor (S) for 48 hours. Tubulin staining (red) and DAPI staining (blue) served to define the cytoplasmic and nuclear compartments, respectively. The inserts are magnifications of the boxed cells. (B) Quantification of staining intensity of pocket proteins normalized to DAPI. (C) Nuclear and cytoplasmic fractions of cell treated with vehicle or 0.15 uM selinexor (UM-UC-3 and T24 cells), 0.25 uM selinexor (J82) and 0.5 uM selinexor (TCCSUP) for 72 hours were assessed for the expression of RB, p107 and p130. Nup62 and tubulin were used as markers for the nuclear and cytoplasmic fractions, respectively. (D) T24 and UM-UC-3 cells transfected with siC or siRB and were treated with vehicle or 0.1 uM selinexor for 72 hours. The results are shown as percent cell viability comparing drug treated to vehicle treated cells. (E) Palbociclib reduces T24 and UM-UC-3 bladder tumor cells viability in a dose dependent manner. (F) Combined selinexor (0.1 uM) and palbociclib (0.5 uM) treatment is more effective in reducing viability of cells than either treatment alone where the CI = 1.04 for UM-UC-3 cells and 1.02 for T24 cells indicating an additive response. Error bars = ± standard deviation. Student’s t test; * denotes p ≤ 0.05, ** denotes p ≤ 0.01.