| Literature DB >> 31559131 |
Mireia Pesarrodona1,2, Toni Jauset3,4, Zamira V Díaz-Riascos2,5,6, Alejandro Sánchez-Chardi7, Marie-Eve Beaulieu3,4, Joaquin Seras-Franzoso6, Laura Sánchez-García1,2,8, Ricardo Baltà-Foix6, Sandra Mancilla2,5,6, Yolanda Fernández2,5,6, Ursula Rinas9,10, Simó Schwartz2,6, Laura Soucek3,4,11,12, Antonio Villaverde1,2,8, Ibane Abasolo2,5,6, Esther Vázquez1,2,8.
Abstract
Two structurally and functionally unrelated proteins, namely Omomyc and p31, are engineered as CD44-targeted inclusion bodies produced in recombinant bacteria. In this unusual particulate form, both types of protein materials selectively penetrate and kill CD44+ tumor cells in culture, and upon local administration, promote destruction of tumoral tissue in orthotropic mouse models of human breast cancer. These findings support the concept of bacterial inclusion bodies as versatile protein materials suitable for application in chronic diseases that, like cancer, can benefit from a local slow release of therapeutic proteins.Entities:
Keywords: biofabrication; cancer therapy; functional amyloids; inclusion bodies; protein drug release
Year: 2019 PMID: 31559131 PMCID: PMC6755514 DOI: 10.1002/advs.201900849
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Adv Sci (Weinh) ISSN: 2198-3844 Impact factor: 16.806
Figure 1Proteins and protein materials. A) Schematic representation of the fusion proteins FN‐p31‐H6 and Omo‐FN‐H6, indicating the molecular mass of the products. Control proteins used in the study (FN‐GFP‐H6 and GFP‐H6,26) are also included. Box sizes are only approximate. B) Coomassie blue staining of a SDS‐PAGE gel loaded with purified proteins. Numbers on the left indicate the molecular masses in kDa of the ladder marker. On the right, arrows indicate the position of the full‐length recombinant proteins. M indicates the molecular marker line, and p31 and O indicate FN‐p31‐H6 and Omo‐FN‐H6 lanes, respectively. C) Internalization of FN‐GFP‐H6 in cultured CD44+ MDA‐MB‐231 and CD44− HepG2 cells, measured as the % of green fluorescent cells. Protein was added at 0.5 × 10−6 m and exposed to cells for 24 h. The percentage of CD44+ cells in each cell line is also indicated as a reference. D) Representative FESEM images of FN‐p31‐H6 and Omo‐FN‐H6 IBs at two different magnifications (zoom in the insets). Magnifications are equivalent in each micrograph pair to allow comparative visualization. Magnification bars represent 500 nm.
Figure 2Biological impact of IBs on cultured cells. A) Dose‐dependent loss of MDA‐MB‐231 cell viability upon exposure to IBs for 96 h. At 9 × 10−6 m, background reduction of cell viability was observed in cells exposed to GFP‐based IBs (not shown). B) Time‐dependent loss of MDA‐MB‐231 cell viability upon exposure to IBs (3 × 10−6 m). C) Killing of different CD44+ cell lines by cytotoxic IB (3 × 10−6 m), upon exposure for 96 h. D) Representative bright field images of MDA‐MB‐231 tumor‐spheres upon addition of 3 × 10−6 m protein and further incubation for 72 h. Qualitative assessment of sphere morphology and integrity when challenged with p31 and Omomyc IBs, compared to an equivalent GFP construct. Magnification bars represent 100 µm. One‐way ANOVA and a post‐hoc Dunnett test was performed comparing all groups to PBS‐treated control cells. p > 0.05 (n.s.); p < 0.05 (*); p < 0.01 (**); p < 0.001 (***).
Figure 3Cell penetration of CD44‐targeted IBs. A) Quantification of protein internalization by fluorescence was quantified with flow cytometry into MDA‐MB‐231 cells incubated for 24 h at increasing concentration of IBs. B) Kinetics of IB penetration into MDA‐MB‐231 cells exposed to 3 × 10−6 m IBs. C) Representative confocal microscopy images of protein internalization in MDA‐MB‐231 after 24 h treatment with 3 × 10−6 m of IBs. Nuclei and membrane cells were labeled with Hoechst (blue) and WGA (light grey) respectively. Magnification bars represent 5 µm.
Figure 4Antitumoral effect of IBs. A) Effect of Omomyc‐based IBs on tumor growth. Balb/c nude female mice bearing orthotopic tumors of MDA‐MB‐231 cell line were divided in 5 groups (n = 7–8) and treated intratumorally (i.t.) once a week. One group was treated with Omomyc IBs. GFP‐based IBs and PBS were included as treatment controls. No significant effect on tumor volume between the treatment groups was detected. B) Tumor necrosis was also evaluated at the experiment end point. Representative images are shown. C) The percentage of necrotic tumors for the groups treated with either IBs was measured. Omomyc IBs treated mice showed an increase in the number of necrotic tumors compared to GFP IB‐treated animals.
Figure 5In vivo biodistribution and efficacy of FN‐p31‐H6 IBs. A) Mice bearing orthotopic tumors of HCC1806 cell line were treated intratumorally (i.t.) with p31 IBs labeled with the AF647 fluorochrome. In vivo imaging was performed with IVIS‐Spectrum 0, 4, and 7 days after administration (left panel) and quantified (right top panel). No fluorescence was observed outside the tumors (not shown). Ex vivo imaging (right bottom panel) confirmed that fluorescence was retained in the tumors, with higher intensities at the site of injection. B) Representative images of p21 protein expression by immunohistochemistry in tumors of animals treated i.t. with control GFP or p31 IBs, showing that only p31 containing IBs were able to induce p21 expression, in BT‐20 orthotropic tumors. Quantitative evaluation of the stained section confirmed that p21 staining was significantly higher in tumors of p31 IBs‐treated mice (right panel). C) Representative images of Hoechst staining of control FN‐GFP‐H6‐treated and p31 IBs‐treated mice. Arrows indicate the presence of characteristic apoptotic nuclei. Quantification of apoptotic nuclei in control and FN‐p31‐H6 treated tumors indicated that apoptosis was significantly increased upon treatment with p31 IBs (right panel). Magnification bars in (B,C) represent 100 and 50 µm, respectively. p < 0.01 (**); p < 0.001 (***). D) p21 expression in BT20 cells treated for 4 h with FN containing constructs.