A colon cancer growth inhibitor partially purified from the isolated cell wall membrane fraction of Chlorella sorokiniana, here referred to as Chlorella membrane factor (CMF), was evaluated for its antitumor and immunomodulatory effects in cell culture and in a colon carcinoma mouse model. The CMF treatment dose- and time-dependently inhibited colon carcinoma cell growth in 2-dimensional cultures. Treatment with CMF also significantly inhibited the growth of colon carcinoma spheroids in 3-dimensional cell culture in coculture with T lymphocytes. In a mouse CT26 colon carcinoma peritoneal dissemination model, intraperitoneal injection of CMF (10 or 30 mg dry weight/kg body weight, every other day) dose-dependently and significantly attenuated the growth of tumor nodules via induction of tumor cell apoptosis. Evaluation of immune cell populations in ascites showed that CMF treatment tended to increase T lymphocytes but lower granulocyte populations. The present study suggests that the cell wall membrane fraction of Chlorella sorokiniana contains a bioactive material that inhibits colon carcinoma growth via direct cell growth inhibition and stimulation of host antitumor immunity. Hence, it is suggested that the Chlorella cell wall membrane extract or a bioactive substance in the extract is an attractive complementary medicine for cancer therapy.
A colon cancer growth inhibitor partially purified from the isolated cell wall membrane fraction of Chlorella sorokiniana, here referred to as Chlorella membrane factor (CMF), was evaluated for its antitumor and immunomodulatory effects in cell culture and in a colon carcinomamouse model. The CMF treatment dose- and time-dependently inhibited colon carcinoma cell growth in 2-dimensional cultures. Treatment with CMF also significantly inhibited the growth of colon carcinoma spheroids in 3-dimensional cell culture in coculture with T lymphocytes. In a mouseCT26colon carcinoma peritoneal dissemination model, intraperitoneal injection of CMF (10 or 30 mg dry weight/kg body weight, every other day) dose-dependently and significantly attenuated the growth of tumor nodules via induction of tumor cell apoptosis. Evaluation of immune cell populations in ascites showed that CMF treatment tended to increase T lymphocytes but lower granulocyte populations. The present study suggests that the cell wall membrane fraction of Chlorella sorokiniana contains a bioactive material that inhibits colon carcinoma growth via direct cell growth inhibition and stimulation of host antitumor immunity. Hence, it is suggested that the Chlorella cell wall membrane extract or a bioactive substance in the extract is an attractive complementary medicine for cancer therapy.
Entities:
Keywords:
Chlorella sorokiniana cell wall membrane extract; antitumor immunity; apoptosis; cancer cell growth inhibition; colon cancer
In the United States, colon cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in
both sexes combined and there were an estimated 101 420 new cases and 51 020 deaths
in 2019.[1] Because of improvements in early detection and treatment, the current 5-year
survival rate is 90% in patients diagnosed with early-stage colon cancer. However,
survival rates of patients diagnosed with regional and distant metastases are 71%
and 14%, respectively.[2] Therefore, colon cancer still comprises a significant portion of
cancer-dependent mortality and morbidity. Accordingly, finding a better therapy is
an urgent necessity.Chlorella is a unicellular green algae detected in fresh water
throughout the world. Chlorella whole cell powder or crushed cell
body powder is taken as a nutritional and functional dietary supplement due to its
high nutritional value.[3,4]
In addition, water or alcohol extracts of Chlorella vulgaris and
C pyrenoidosa have been shown to have therapeutic value against
multiple cancers.[5-12] Although these studies suggest
that an antitumor effect associated with Chlorella extract is
related to the stimulation of host antitumor immune responses,[6,9,11] its molecular mechanism is yet
to be fully understood. Furthermore, the origin of the bioactive
component/components is unclarified.The Chlorella cell wall is a thick membrane composed of a large
amount of insoluble polysaccharide, a relatively small amount of
protein/glycoprotein, and unidentified materials.[13,14] Polysaccharides consist
primarily of mannose and glucose.[13] Since the Chlorella cell wall is unique in structure and
composition and makes up a relatively large portion of the
Chlorella body, it is of interest to study the biological
activities of the water extract from the Chlorella cell wall in the
field of cancer prevention and therapy. In this article, we report for the first
time that the colon cancer growth inhibitor in the cell wall membrane fraction of
C sorokiniana inhibits the growth of human and murine colon
carcinoma cells in vitro in cell culture and in vivo in a mousecolon cancer
allograft model via direct growth inhibition and stimulation of host antitumor
activity through T lymphocyte activation.
Materials and Methods
Animals
Female Balb/c mice were obtained from Charles River Laboratories International,
Inc. All mice were housed in a clean facility and acclimatized for 10 days. All
animal experiments adhered strictly to protocols approved by the Kansas State
University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (Protocol # 3857) and
Institutional Biosafety Committee (Protocol # 1050).
Materials
The mousecolon carcinoma cell line CT26.CL25 (CRL-2639); humancolon carcinoma
cell lines SW620 (CCL-227), HT29 (HTB-38), COLO 205 (CCL-222), and Caco-2
(HTB-37); and human lymphoblast cell line Jurkat (TIB-152) were purchased from
American Type Culture Collection (ATCC; Manassas, VA). RPMI (Roswell Park
Memorial Institute) 1640 and Eagle’s minimal essential medium (MEM) was
purchased from Mediatech, Inc (Manassas, VA). Macoy’s 5A modified medium was
from Sigma (St Louis, MO). Fetal bovine serum was from EQUITECH-BIO Inc
(Kerrville, TX). Penicillin-streptomycin stock was obtained from Lonza Rockland,
Inc (Allendale, NJ). Lipopolysaccharides (LPS) from Escherichia
coli O111:B6 were purchased from Sigma. Fluorescent conjugated
antibodies targeting CD4 (H129.19), CD8b (YTS156.7.7), CD19 (6D5), dendritic
cells (DCs) marker (33D1), LY6G (1A8), CD68 (FA-11), and mouseIgG
(immunoglobulin G) isotype were obtained from BioLegend (San Diego, CA).
Chlorella Membrane Factor Preparation
The C sorokiniana cell wall membrane fraction was isolated from
a culture of whole Chlorella by the proprietary method
developed by the euglena Co Ltd (Tokyo, Japan). Briefly, the whole
Chlorella was cleanly cultured in a commercial plant and
the cell wall membranes spontaneously suspended in Chlorella
culture media were separated from intact cell bodies of C
sorokiniana by 2 centrifugations at 8700g for 10
minutes. The resultant Chlorella cell wall membrane fraction
was washed with deionized water 3 times and freeze dried.To extract the colon cancer growth inhibitor from the Chlorella
cell wall membrane fraction, the lyophilized membranes were rehydrated with
phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) at a concentration of 40 mg/mL and incubated at
4°C for 12 hours and later at 37°C for 30 minutes with a 30-second sonication
and vortex mixing at every 10 minutes. Insoluble materials composed of
Chlorella cell wall membranes were removed by
centrifugations at 2300g first and the resultant supernatant
was further centrifuged at 11 800g, at room temperature for 10
minutes each. Insoluble materials larger than 200 to 300 nm diameter in the
supernatant fraction was removed by a 0.22-µm disk filter (Midwest Scientific,
Valley Park, MO), and the filtrate was stored at −20°C until use. This fraction
was designated the Chlorella membrane factor (CMF) and
subjected to the experiments described below.
Electron Microscopy
The transmission electron microscopy (TEM) of the freeze-dried
Chlorella cell wall membrane fraction was carried out after
rehydration of the membranes with a small amount of PBS. These rehydrated
membranes were fixed with Trump’s fixative (pH 7.4) overnight at 4°C, post fixed
with 1% osmium tetroxide in a 0.2 M phosphate buffer for 1 hour, and dehydrated
with a graded ethanol solutions several times. The Chlorella
cell wall membranes were washed with acetone and embedded in Spurr resin,
followed by polymerization of sample block in flat embedding molds. The sample
block was thin-sectioned at a thickness of 700 to 900 Å using a Leica UC7
ultramicrotome and placed on a 200 mesh copper TEM grid. Ultrathin sections were
analyzed using a FEI Tecnai G2 Spirit BioTWIN transmission electron microscope
at an accelerating voltage of 80 kV. Electron micrographs were taken with a
Tecnai 12 (FEI) microscope, equipped with a Gatan CCD camera. The electron
micrograph of rehydrated Chlorella cell wall membranes
indicated that the experimental material used for the present study was composed
of exclusively various size membranes but not any intact
Chlorella bodies (Figure 1).
Figure 1.
Transmission electron micrographs of freeze-dried
Chlorella cell wall membrane fraction.
Transmission electron micrographs of freeze-dried
Chlorella cell wall membrane fraction.
Cell Culture
The CT26 murinecolon carcinoma cells, SW620 and COLO 205 humancolon carcinoma
cells, and Jurkat cells were cultured in RPMI 1640. The HT29 human colon
carcinoma cells were cultured in Macoy’s 5A modified medium. Caco-2human colon
carcinoma cells were cultured in MEM. Each medium was supplemented with 10% v/v
fetal bovine serum and 1% v/v penicillin-streptomycin. These cells were cultured
at 37°C in a humidified air atmosphere containing 5% CO2.
Effect of CMF on the Growth of Human and Murine Colon Carcinoma Cells in
2-Dimensional Cell Culture
The murine (CT26; 1000 cells/well) and human (SW620, HT29, COLO 205, and Caco-2)
colon carcinoma cells (3000 cells/well) were seeded into a 96-well plate with
100 µL growth medium, followed by treatment with CWME after 24 hours. The time-
and dose-dependent effects of CMF were evaluated by measuring cell growth for
cells treated with 1, 10, and 100 µg/mL CMF at 48 and 72 hours after treatment.
Cell proliferation was evaluated using the
3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay as
described previously.[15] PBS served as a negative control.
Effect of Combination Treatment by CMF and Jurkat Cells on the Growth of CT26
Cell Spheroid in In Vitro 3-Dimensional Spheroid Culture
To evaluate the combined effect of CMF and immune cells, a 3-dimensional (3D)
spheroid assay was performed as described previously with slight
modifications.[16,17] The cells were treated with CMF (25 µg/mL) on Day 1 and Day
4. The image of spheroids was taken at Day 7 by an inverted microscope IX51
(Olympus America Inc, Center Valley, PA) equipped with cellSens Dimension
software (Olympus). Growth of the tumor spheroids was evaluated by measuring the
spheroid volume.The activation status of Jurkat cells was evaluated by morphological change and
IL-2 (interleukin-2) expression. IL-2 expression in Jurkat cells treated with 25
µg/mL CMF was measured by 1-step reverse transcriptase quantitative polymerase
chain reaction as described as previously.[17] The sequences of primers used are described in Table 1.
Primers Used for RT-qPCR.Abbreviation: RT-qPCR, reverse transcriptase quantitative polymerase
chain reaction.
Effect of CMF Treatment on Colon Carcinoma Tumor Growth in the Peritoneal
Cavity
The antitumor effect of CMF was evaluated in Balb/c mice using a CT26 murinecolon carcinoma allograft. Mice were anesthetized with isoflurane and injected
intraperitoneally with a suspension of 2.5 × 105 CT26 cells in 200 µL
PBS. The intraperitoneal administration of CMF (10 or 30 mg/kg) was carried out
at 3 days after CT26 inoculation for 8 days (every other day, totaling 5
injections). The PBS control was injected intraperitoneally with the same
schedule. The mouse body weights were monitored at 2-day intervals. All mice
were sacrificed by exposure to saturated CO2 followed by cervical
dislocation 2 weeks after CT26 inoculation. Tumor nodules contained in the
omenta and pancreases were collected to examine tumor growth. The tumor nodules
contained within the 2 organs were weighed and fixed in 10% formalin for
histological analysis. Because the weights of PBS- and CMF-treated mouse omenta
and pancreases were similar among the mice, tumor nodule weights were normalized
by subtracting the average weights of the omentum (425.2 ± 37.3 mg) and the
pancreas (161.1 ± 27.2 mg).
Analysis of CMF Treatment-Associated Apoptosis of CT26 Cell Tumor Cells by
Immunohistochemistry
A TUNEL (terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick end labeling) assay and
immunohistochemistry of cleaved caspase-3 was carried out to evaluate apoptosis
in tumors from either PBS- or CMF-treated mice. The TUNEL assay was conducted
using the APO-BRDU-IHC (TUNEL) Apoptosis Kit (Novus Biologicals, Centennial,
CO). Immunohistochemistry of cleaved caspase-3 was carried out as described previously.[17] The average number of TUNEL or cleaved caspase-3 positive cells in 10
random fields (n = 6) was calculated.
Flow Cytometry Analysis of Leukocytes in the Ascites of CMF-Treated
Tumor-Bearing Mice
Leukocytes in ascites of CMF-treated tumor-bearing mice were collected at the end
of the mouse study (2 weeks after CT26 inoculation). Five milliliters of saline
was injected into the abdominal cavity using a 22G 1¼″ Surflash I.V. Catheter
(Terumo Medical Corporation, Somerset, NJ) and ascites fluids were collected via
catheter. Ascites collection was repeated one additional time. Following the
removal of red blood cells using an ACK lysing buffer (Lonza Walkersville, Inc,
Walkersville, MD), the leukocytes were immunostained using anti-CD4 (helper T
cells), anti-CD8b (cytotoxic T cells), anti-CD19 (B cells), anti-DC marker
(33D1, dendritic cells), anti-LY6G (neutrophil), and anti-CD68 (macrophage)
antibodies, and their population distributions were evaluated by flow cytometry.
MouseIgG was used for the isotype control. PBS served as a negative treatment
control. The changes of cell populations were analyzed by flow cytometry (BD
LSRFortessa X-20; BD Biosciences, San Jose, CA) and analyzed by BD FACSDiva
software (BD Bioscience).
Statistical Analysis
All values are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation of mean. For all in
vitro and in vivo experiments, statistical significance was assessed by an
unpaired t test or ANOVA (analysis of variance) followed by
Tukey’s test. All experiments were conducted with multiple sample determinations
with several samples (n = 3-6). Statistical significance was set at *,
P < .05.
Results
CMF Treatment Attenuated the Growth of Both Murine and Human Colon Carcinoma
Cells in Cell Culture
An MTT assay was carried out to evaluate the effect of the
Chlorella cell wall membrane water extract (CMF) on the
growth of murine and humancolon cancer cells. The selection of both murine and
humancolon carcinoma cells was made to investigate whether the CMF effect was
cell type-specific or cytotoxicity-dependent nonspecific. First, the specificity
of the CMF’s effect on several colon cancer cells was evaluated. CT26 murinecolon carcinoma cells, SW620, COLO 205, Caco-2, and HT29 humancolon carcinoma
cells were treated with CMF (1-100 µg/mL) for 72 hours in cell culture. The CMF
treatment dose- and time-dependently attenuated the growth of CT26, Caco-2, and
HT29colon carcinoma cells (P < .05), but not SW620 and COLO
205 cells (Figure 2A and
B). Only very weak growth inhibition was detected at both 48 and 72
hours after treatment with a high dose of CMF (100 µg/mL) in both SW620 and COLO
205 cell growth (Figure
2B). The IC50 values for CT26 and HT29 cells were 425.0 µg/mL and
353.6 µg/mL, respectively. CMF treatment did not show any effect on normal mouse
mesothelial cell growth at doses of 1 to 100 µg/mL for 24 to 72 hours. These
results indicate that CMF treatment dose- and time-dependently attenuates the
growth of select murine and humancolon carcinoma cells, but not normal
epithelial cells. These results suggest that the growth attenuation effect of
CMF is not due to nonspecific cytotoxicity.
Figure 2.
Chlorella membrane factor (CMF) dose- and
time-dependently inhibited the growth of murine and human colon
carcinoma cells in 2D cell culture. CMF treatment dose-dependently
(1-100 µg/mL) and time-dependently (48 and 72 hours treatment)
attenuated the growth of CT26 murine colon carcinoma cells (A), Caco-2
and HT29 human colon carcinoma cells (B). The cell growth was evaluated
by MTT assay (n = 3). *P < .05 compared with
PBS-treated control. ◊P < .05 compared in
same group at 48 hours.
Chlorella membrane factor (CMF) dose- and
time-dependently inhibited the growth of murine and human colon
carcinoma cells in 2D cell culture. CMF treatment dose-dependently
(1-100 µg/mL) and time-dependently (48 and 72 hours treatment)
attenuated the growth of CT26 murinecolon carcinoma cells (A), Caco-2
and HT29 humancolon carcinoma cells (B). The cell growth was evaluated
by MTT assay (n = 3). *P < .05 compared with
PBS-treated control. ◊P < .05 compared in
same group at 48 hours.
CMF Treatment Enhanced T Lymphocyte Antitumor Activities in the Spheroid
Growth of CT26 Cells In Vitro
As shown in Figure 3A and
B, treatment with 25 µg/mL CMF significantly attenuated spheroid
growth of CT26 cells as compared with the PBS-treated group (P
< .05). However, this CMF-dependent growth attenuation of the CT26 cell
spheroid was further pronounced in the coculture with Jurkat cells
(P < .05 as compared with all other groups).
Morphological analysis of cocultured Jurkat cells in the spheroid assay revealed
that CMF treatment alone or coculture with CT26 spheroids only slightly modified
the morphologies of Jurkat cells (Figure 3C). However, morphologies were
drastically changed by the combination treatment with CMF in the presence of a
CT26 spheroid. These morphological analyses may suggest that CMF triggers the
differentiation of T lymphoblasts and that the effect of CMF is significantly
enhanced in the presence of cancer cells. In addition, IL-2 expression, which is
one of the T lymphocyte activation-associated cytokines, was significantly
increased by the treatment with 25 µg/mL CMF after 72 hours of treatment (Figure 3D). These results
suggest that CMF assists immature T lymphocytes in differentiating into mature
cells, thereby inhibiting CT26 cell tumor spheroid growth.
Figure 3.
Chlorella membrane factor (CMF) treatment attenuated the
growth of CT26 spheroids in coculture with T lymphoblasts. (A and B) The
effect of CMF (25 µg/mL) on the growth of CT26 spheroids was evaluated
in the presence or absence of lymphoblasts (Jurkat cells). (A) The
volume of the spheroid was measured at Day 7 (n = 5). a–c,
P < .05 between different characters. (B)
Typical pictures of spheroid in each group. Scale bar, 100 µm. (C)
Typical morphologies of Jurkat cells in the agar matrix of each
treatment group. Scale bar, 20 µm. (D) IL-2 expression in CMF-treated
Jurkat cells was evaluated by RT-qPCR. *P < .05
compared with PBS-treated control at each time point.
Chlorella membrane factor (CMF) treatment attenuated the
growth of CT26 spheroids in coculture with T lymphoblasts. (A and B) The
effect of CMF (25 µg/mL) on the growth of CT26 spheroids was evaluated
in the presence or absence of lymphoblasts (Jurkat cells). (A) The
volume of the spheroid was measured at Day 7 (n = 5). a–c,
P < .05 between different characters. (B)
Typical pictures of spheroid in each group. Scale bar, 100 µm. (C)
Typical morphologies of Jurkat cells in the agar matrix of each
treatment group. Scale bar, 20 µm. (D) IL-2 expression in CMF-treated
Jurkat cells was evaluated by RT-qPCR. *P < .05
compared with PBS-treated control at each time point.
Intraperitoneal Injection of CMF Attenuated the Growth of CT26 Murine Colon
Carcinoma in a Peritoneal Dissemination model
To evaluate the potential antitumor effect of CMF in vivo, 10 or 30 mg/kg CMF was
administered into the peritoneal cavity of the CT26 cell tumor-bearing mice. As
shown in Figure 4A and
B, the average tumor weight (792.2 ± 558.7 mg, P <
.05) of the group treated with 30 mg/kg CMF was significantly smaller than that
of the PBS treatment group (2064.6 ± 616.9 mg). In addition, the treatment of 10
mg/kg CMF also may be associated with decreased tumor weight (1320.4 ± 917.6 mg,
ns) compared with that of the PBS treatment group (Figure. 4A and B). Apoptotic cells in
tumor nodules determined by a TUNEL assay and immunohistochemical analysis with
anti-cleaved caspase-3 antibodies suggests that the CMF treatment significantly
increased the number of apoptotic cells in CMF-treated CT26 cell tumors compared
with PBS-treated tumors (Figure
5A and B). Contrary to the decrease of the tumor weights, the spleen
weights in the mice treated with 10 and 30 mg/kg CMF significantly increased
compared with those of the PBS control mice (Figure 4C). This spleen weight increase
may be a reflection of an effective increase of spleen function as the spleen is
the major proliferation and storage site of lymphocytes and monocytes.[18,19] The liver
and kidney weights also slightly increased in CMF treated mice as compared with
those in PBS control mice (Figure 4E), which is presumably a result of the metabolism of CMF.
However, no significant abnormality was noted in these 2 organs by macroscopical
observations. Since CMF treatment significantly increased T lymphocyte-dependent
inhibition of the tumor spheroid growth in 3D culture (Figure 3), it is suggested that
CMF-dependent tumor growth inhibition in mice is due at least in part to an
enhancement of antitumor immunity. To test this hypothesis, immune cell
populations in ascites collected from PBS- or CMF-treated tumor-bearing mice
were analyzed by flow cytometry. As shown in Figure 6, CMF treatment increased
CD4+ and CD8+ T lymphocyte populations, and
CD19+ B cell populations. These CD4+, CD8+,
and CD19+ cell populations were particularly increased in ascites of
30 mg/kg CMF-treated mice, with increases of 42.1% (P <
.05), 61.9%, and 142.6%, respectively. In contrast, populations of
CD68+ macrophages (44.7% decrease) and 33D1+ dendritic
cells (21.2% decrease) in ascites of mice treated with 30 mg/kg CMF were
decreased as compared with the PBS-treated group. The LY6G+
granulocyte population in ascites was also decreased in mouse groups treated
with 10 or 30 mg/kg CMF (11.6 and 19.5% decrease, respectively). This modulation
of immune cell populations in CMF-treated mice suggests that CMF treatment
induces antitumor immunity through an increase of anti-tumorigenic effector T
cells and a decrease of pro-tumorigenic macrophages.
Figure 4.
Chlorella membrane factor (CMF) treatment significantly
attenuated the growth of CT26 cell tumors in mouse peritoneal cavity via
an induction of tumor cell apoptosis. (A), Macroscopic views of typical
peritoneal cavity in PBS, 10 mg/kg and 30 mg/kg CMF-treated mice. Scale
bar in each picture represents 5 mm. (B-E), Average weight of tumor (B),
spleen (C), liver (D), and kidney (E) in each treatment group was
presented in the bar graphs (n = 6). a and b, P <
.05 between different characters.
Figure 5.
Chlorella membrane factor (CMF)-treatment induced
apoptosis in tumors of CMF-treated mice. Analysis of apoptosis in tumor
cells was carried out by the TUNEL assay (A, n = 6) and
immunohistochemistry with anti-cleaved caspase-3 antibodies (B, n = 6).
*P < .05 as compared with the level of the
PBS-treated control tumors.
Figure 6.
Chlorella membrane factor (CMF) treatment caused changes
in leukocyte populations in ascites of mice bearing CT26 cell tumors.
Leukocytes in the ascites collected from the tumor-bearing mice were
analyzed by flow cytometry using anti-CD4, -CD8, -CD19 (B cells), -33D1
(DCs), -LY6G (granulocytes/neutrophils), and -CD68 (macrophages)
antibodies. PBS served as a negative control treatment (n = 6). a and b,
P < .05 between different characters.
Chlorella membrane factor (CMF) treatment significantly
attenuated the growth of CT26 cell tumors in mouse peritoneal cavity via
an induction of tumor cell apoptosis. (A), Macroscopic views of typical
peritoneal cavity in PBS, 10 mg/kg and 30 mg/kg CMF-treated mice. Scale
bar in each picture represents 5 mm. (B-E), Average weight of tumor (B),
spleen (C), liver (D), and kidney (E) in each treatment group was
presented in the bar graphs (n = 6). a and b, P <
.05 between different characters.Chlorella membrane factor (CMF)-treatment induced
apoptosis in tumors of CMF-treated mice. Analysis of apoptosis in tumor
cells was carried out by the TUNEL assay (A, n = 6) and
immunohistochemistry with anti-cleaved caspase-3 antibodies (B, n = 6).
*P < .05 as compared with the level of the
PBS-treated control tumors.Chlorella membrane factor (CMF) treatment caused changes
in leukocyte populations in ascites of mice bearing CT26 cell tumors.
Leukocytes in the ascites collected from the tumor-bearing mice were
analyzed by flow cytometry using anti-CD4, -CD8, -CD19 (B cells), -33D1
(DCs), -LY6G (granulocytes/neutrophils), and -CD68 (macrophages)
antibodies. PBS served as a negative control treatment (n = 6). a and b,
P < .05 between different characters.
Discussion
A growing number of publications indicate that components in
Chlorella extracts may be potential therapeutics against
multiple diseases including cancers.[5-12,20-27] Most of these studies have
used extracts from whole Chlorella or crushed
Chlorella powders. However, since whole
Chlorella contains a large number of bioactive substances
including cytotoxic materials, it seems likely that reported medicinal activities
are due to a mixture of bioactive substances. Although it is possible that 2 or more
compounds collaboratively exhibit a significant bioactivity, it is beneficial to
determine the subcellular components from which the bioactive substances originate
and their general chemical makeup. Accordingly, the present study was undertaken to
identify the origin of the bioactivity using a water extract obtained from the
purified Chlorella cell wall membrane fraction of C
sorokiniana, termed CMF, and evaluating its anticancer activity in
vitro and in vivo.The effect of CMF on the growth of murine and humancolon cancer cell lines was
evaluated in cell culture-based studies. CMF significantly attenuated the growth of
both murine (CT26) and human (HT29 and Caco-2) colon carcinoma cells in
2-dimensional (2D) cell culture in both a dose- and time-dependent manner (Figure 2A and B). However, 2
humancolon carcinoma cell lines, SW620 and COLO 205, were poorly sensitive to the
CMF treatment (Figure 2B).
Coincidently, very similar cell line-specific growth inhibition was observed in our
previous study using exopolysaccharides from Parachlorella kessleri.[17] The cell line specificity of CMF activity for different cell lines may be due
to the different origins of the cell lines, that is, both HT29 and Caco-2 cell lines
are of epithelial origin, whereas both SW620 and COLO 205 are established from colon
carcinoma-derived metastatic tumors.[28,29] Nevertheless, the cell
line-specific sensitivity suggests that CMF-dependent growth inhibition is not due
to nonspecific cytotoxicity of the CMF.It is known that growth of cancer cells under 3D culture mimics tumor growth in vivo
more than that under 2D culture conditions.[16] For this reason, 3D culture methods such as spheroid assays[16,17,30-33] have been applied for the
evaluation and screening of novel therapeutics for cancer treatments. In the present
study, CMF treatment alone attenuated the growth of CT26 cells in both 2D culture
(Figure 2A) and a
spheroid assay (Figure 3A and
B). The results of the present study suggest that CMF itself possesses a
strong antitumor effect on both 2D and 3D growth of CT26 cells. In addition, the
ability of CMF to attenuate the growth of CT26 spheroids was further enhanced in the
presence of Jurkat cells (Figure 3A
and B). These results suggest that the antitumor effect of CMF against
CT26 cells in the presence of T lymphocytes is attributable to the collaborative
effect of CT26 cells and lymphocytes, and that CMF stimulates this collaboration.
Jurkat cells have been used as an alternative model cell for T lymphocytes collected
from peripheral blood. For example, Jurkat cells were used for the evaluation of
IL-2-dependent granzyme B production, which is a marker of the T lymphocyte
activation.[34,35] In 3D spheroid assays, the morphology of the Jurkat cells was
significantly altered by treatment with CMF (Figure 3C). Taken together, these results
imply that CMF treatment appears to induce functional differentiation in Jurkat
cells.It should be noted that the cell wall of Chlorella has been shown to
possess lipopolysaccharide-like immunoreactivity.[36,37] CMF, on the contrary, was
associated with decreased CT26 cell growth (Figure 2A), while bacterial LPS significantly
increased cell growth (Figure S1; available online). It is apparent that the action of CMF
is functionally different from LPS in stimulation of CT26 cells. These results
suggest that the bioactive compound(s) in CMF are apparently distinct from bacterial
LPS and the contribution of LPS-like immunoreactive molecules to the antitumor
activities of CMF appears to be negligible. However, determination of the detailed
chemical nature of such bioactive compounds in CMF awaits future study. On the other
hand, this CMF-induced direct differentiation and/or activation of T lymphocytes is
potentially useful in cancer therapy applicable to both primary and metastatic
cancer. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to report that CMF
stimulates functional differentiation of T lymphocytes, thereby inhibiting growth of
colon carcinoma cells in vitro.The inhibition of solid tumor growth by CMF against both murine and human colon
carcinoma cells in 2D and 3D cell cultures and its significant stimulation of
differentiation in T lymphoblasts compelled the in vivo efficacy study of CMF. In
the mouse study, relatively small doses of CMF (10 and 30 mg/kg in PBS) were
administered intraperitoneally every other day. As shown in Figure 4A and B and Figure 5A and B, these CMF treatments
significantly attenuated the growth of murinecolon carcinoma cell tumors in a
dose-dependent manner via an induction of apoptosis in tumor cells as compared with
the PBS-treated control tumors. Collectively, these results suggest that CMF
inhibits the growth of colon carcinoma cells directly and indirectly through
activation of T lymphocytes in the tumor microenvironment, thereby significantly
attenuating colon tumor growth in mice. The major mechanism by which CMF inhibits
tumor growth is likely the collaborative stimulation of antitumor immune function by
bidirectional communication between tumor cells and lymphocytes, and CMF stimulates
this communication. This speculation is supported by the inhibition of tumor
spheroid growth in the presence of lymphoblasts in vitro (Figure 3A and B), and increases of various
lymphocytes in ascites (Figure
6). However, further study will be required to detail the mechanism of
tumor growth inhibition in vivo.
Conclusions
CMF from the cell membrane fraction of C sorokiniana inhibits the
growth of murine and humancolon carcinoma cells. In a 3D spheroid culture, CMF
treatment significantly attenuated the spheroid growth of murinecolon carcinoma
cells in the presence of lymphoblasts, that is, Jurkat cells. In a murine colon
carcinoma peritoneal dissemination model with syngeneic mice, CMF treatment
dose-dependently attenuated tumor growth. These data show that CMF could be a useful
agent for inhibiting colon carcinoma growth in vivo by direct growth inhibition of
cancer cells and, indirectly, through stimulation of anti-tumor immunity.Click here for additional data file.Supplemental material, Supplementary_File_ict for Cell Wall Membrane Fraction of
Chlorella sorokiniana Enhances Host Antitumor Immunity and
Inhibits Colon Carcinoma Growth in Mice by Susumu Ishiguro, Nicole Robben, Riley
Burghart, Paige Cote, Sarah Greenway, Ravindra Thakkar, Deepa Upreti, Ayaka
Nakashima, Kengo Suzuki, Jeffrey Comer and Masaaki Tamura in Integrative Cancer
Therapies
Authors: Charmaine Lloyd; Kai Heng Tan; Kar Leong Lim; Vimala Gana Valu; Sarah Mei Ying Fun; Teng Rong Chye; Hui Min Mak; Wei Xiong Sim; Sarah Liyana Musa; Joscelyn Jun Quan Ng; Nazurah Syazana Bte Nordin; Nurhazlyn Bte Md Aidzil; Zephyr Yu Wen Eng; Punithavathy Manickavasagam; Jen Yan New Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-02-24 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Alexandre Poulhazan; Malitha C Dickwella Widanage; Artur Muszyński; Alexandre A Arnold; Dror E Warschawski; Parastoo Azadi; Isabelle Marcotte; Tuo Wang Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2021-11-04 Impact factor: 15.419