| Literature DB >> 31899582 |
Yao Huang1, Sai-Qun Lv2,3, Pin-Yi Liu4, Zhen-Long Ye2,3, Huan Yang3, Lin-Fang Li2,3, Hai-Li Zhu2, Ying Wang2, Lian-Zhen Cui3, Du-Qing Jiang3, Fang-Yuan Hao3, Hui-Min Xu3, Hua-Jun Jin2,3, Qi-Jun Qian2,3,4.
Abstract
Oncolytic viruses armed with therapeutic transgenes of interest show great potential in cancer immunotherapy. Here, a novel oncolytic adenovirus carrying a signal regulatory protein-α (SIRPα)-IgG1 Fc fusion gene (termed SG635-SF) was constructed, which could block the CD47 'don't eat me' signal of cancer cells. A strong promoter sequence (CCAU) was chosen to control the expression of the SF fusion protein, and a 5/35 chimeric fiber was utilized to enhance the efficiency of infection. As a result, SG635-SF was found to specifically proliferate in hTERT-positive cancer cells and largely increased the abundance of the SF gene. The SF fusion protein was effectively detected, and CD47 was successfully blocked in SK-OV3 and HO8910 ovarian cancer cells expressing high levels of CD47. Although the ability to induce cell cycle arrest and cell death was comparable to that of the control empty SG635 oncolytic adenovirus in vitro, the antitumor effect of SG635-SF was significantly superior to that of SG635 in vivo. Furthermore, CD47 was largely blocked and macrophage infiltration distinctly increased in xenograft tissues of SK-OV3 cells but not in those of CD47-negative HepG2 cells, indicating that the enhanced antitumor effect of SG635-SF was CD47-dependent. Collectively, these findings highlight a potent antitumor effect of SG635-SF in the treatment of CD47-positive cancers.Entities:
Keywords: CD47; SIRPα; cancer immunotherapy; oncolytic virus; ovarian cancer
Year: 2020 PMID: 31899582 PMCID: PMC7053234 DOI: 10.1002/1878-0261.12628
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mol Oncol ISSN: 1574-7891 Impact factor: 6.603
Figure 1Construction of the oncolytic adenovirus SG635‐SF. (A) Expression initiation efficacy of promoters in SK‐OV3 (solid columns) and HO8910 (open columns) cells tested by a luciferase reporter system. Data are expressed as mean ± SD. (B) Flow cytometry was used to test the infectivity of Ad5 and Ad35 toward SK‐OV3 and HO8910 cells at a MOI of 1 and 10. (C) Fluorescence assay to confirm the infectivity of Ad5 and Ad35 toward SK‐OV3 and HO8910 cells at MOI = 1 and MOI = 10. Bar, 50 μm. (D) Linearized depiction of the plasmid for SG635‐SF.
Figure 2Confirmation of the successful construction of the oncolytic adenovirus SG635‐SF. (A) Flow cytometry to detect CD47 and IgG1 expression levels. (B) Replicative tests showing efficient replication of the oncolytic adenoviruses SG635 and SG635‐SF in both SK‐OV3 and HO8910 cells within 96 h. Data are expressed as mean ± SD. (C) Western blot for detecting the expression of SF protein in the cell lysate. (D) ELISA for detecting the expression of SF protein in the cell supernatant. Data are expressed as mean ± SD; Pearson's chi‐square test was used; ***P < 0.001; *P < 0.01. E: Fluorescence assay using FITC‐labeled anti‐IgG1 Fc antibody confirmed the expression of SF protein after oncolytic adenovirus SG635‐SF infection of HO8910 cells. Bar, 20 μm. (F, G) Flow cytometry and fluorescence assays revealed significant CD47 expression blockade of oncolytic adenovirus SG635‐SF compared to oncolytic adenovirus SG635. ***P < 0.001. Bar, 20 μm. (H) MTT assay showing the inhibitory effect of the oncolytic adenoviruses SG635 and SG635‐SF toward SK‐OV3 and HO8910 cells and HepG2 cells. Data are expressed as mean ± SD.
Figure 3In vivo antitumor activity of the oncolytic adenovirus SG635‐SF. (A) Xenografts of mice treated with PBS, adenovirus Ad‐blank, Ad‐SF, SG635, and SG635‐SF. Values are presented as mean ± SD (n = 7). Pearson's chi‐square test was used; ***P < 0.001 vs Ad‐blank group; **P < 0.01 vs Ad‐blank group; a P < 0.001 vs PBS group. (B) ELISA for detection of the concentration of SF protein in the blood at 4 weeks post‐treatment. (C) Immunohistochemistry using anti‐Ki67, CD47, CD68, and Hexon, CD11b, CD161c antibodies revealed growth inhibition, CD47 expression blockade, macrophage‐mediated phagocytosis, and viral infiltration enhancement of the oncolytic adenovirus SG635‐SF compared to other treatments. Data are expressed as the mean ± SD.
Figure 4Antitumor activity of the oncolytic adenovirus SG635‐SF is CD47‐dependent. (A) Immunohistochemistry results revealed growth inhibition, CD47 expression blockade, macrophage‐mediated phagocytosis, and viral infiltration enhancement of the oncolytic adenovirus SG635‐SF compared to other treatments. (B) Oncolytic adenovirus SG635‐SF inhibited the growth of the CD47‐positive HO8910 cell‐derived xenografts more strongly than SG635. Values are mean ± SD (n = 7); Pearson's chi‐square test was used; ***P < 0.001 vs SG635 group. (C) The inhibition ability of oncolytic adenovirus SG635‐SF had no significant difference compared with the group of SG635 in CD47‐negative HepG2 cell‐derived xenografts. Values are mean ± SD.