| Literature DB >> 32082487 |
Raquel Carvalho Montenegro1, Alison Howarth2, Alessandro Ceroni2, Vita Fedele2, Batoul Farran3, Felipe Pantoja Mesquita1, Martin Frejno4, Benedict-Tilman Berger5,6, Stephanie Heinzlmeir4,7, Heba Z Sailem8,9, Roberta Tesch5,6, Daniel Ebner2, Stefan Knapp5,6, Rommel Burbano10, Bernhard Kuster4,7,11, Susanne Müller5.
Abstract
Gastric cancer (GC) remains the third leading cause of cancer-related death despite several improvements in targeted therapy. There is therefore an urgent need to investigate new treatment strategies, including the identification of novel biomarkers for patient stratification. In this study, we evaluated the effect of FDA-approved kinase inhibitors on GC. Through a combination of cell growth, migration and invasion assays, we identified dasatinib as an efficient inhibitor of GC proliferation. Mass-spectrometry-based selectivity profiling and subsequent knockdown experiments identified members of the SRC family of kinases including SRC, FRK, LYN and YES, as well as other kinases such as DDR1, ABL2, SIK2, RIPK2, EPHA2, and EPHB2 as dasatinib targets. The expression levels of the identified kinases were investigated on RNA and protein level in 200 classified tumor samples from patients, who had undergone gastrectomy, but had received no treatment. Levels of FRK, DDR1 and SRC expression on both mRNA and protein level were significantly higher in metastatic patient samples regardless of the tumor stage, while expression levels of SIK2 correlated with tumor size. Collectively, our data suggest dasatinib for treatment of GC based on its unique property, inhibiting a small number of key kinases (SRC, FRK, DDR1 and SIK2), highly expressed in GC patients.Entities:
Keywords: SIK2; SRC-kinases; biomarker; dasatinib; gastric cancer
Year: 2020 PMID: 32082487 PMCID: PMC7007292 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.27462
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Antiproliferative effects of FDA approved kinase inhibitors on 2D gastric cancer cell lines
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Compounds | AGP-01 | ACP-02 | ACP-03 |
| Pimecrolimus | >20 | >20 | >20 |
| PX-866 | >20 | >20 | >20 |
| Tivozanib | >20 | >20 | >20 |
| Sunitinib | 1.53 (± 0.74) | 2.66 (± 0.68) | 1.97 (± 0.73) |
| Axitinib | >20 | >20 | >20 |
| Vemurafenib | >20 | >20 | >20 |
| Everolimus | >20 | >20 | >20 |
| Saracatinib | 2.38 (± 0.75) | 5.94 (± 0.72) | 2.80 (± 0.88) |
| Ruxolitinib | >20 | >20 | >20 |
| Gefitinib | >20 | >20 | >20 |
| Pazopanib | >20 | >20 | >20 |
| Dasatinib | 0.35 (± 0.80) | 1.02 (± 0.78) | 0.36 (± 0.86) |
| Vandetanib | >20 | >20 | >20 |
| Staurosporin | 6.13 × 10-6 (± 0.017) | 0.04 (± 0.81) | 0.01 (± 0.43) |
IC values were calculated using non-linear regression analysis from two independent experiments in triplicate. Staurosporine was used as the positive control. The drug with the most potent proliferation inhibition is highlighted. Numbers in brackets indicate the range of observed IC values. IC = concentration in μM that results in 50% inhibition of cell growth.
Figure 1Inhibition of cell invasion and migration of AGP-01 cells by dasatinib.
(A) Wound healing migration assay of cells exposed to dasatinib in concentration-dependent manner using an IncuCyte® life cell imager after 24 h of treatment. (B) Wound density measured in a migration assay of GC cells in concentration- and time-dependent. (C) Representative images used for migration assay of AGP-01 cells exposed to dasatinib or DMSO at different time points. (D) Quantification of invasion inhibition of AGP-01 cells exposed to dasatinib at different concentrations for 8 h and representative images of the invasion assay. AGP-01 cells were stained with Hoechst 33342 after treatment. Quantitative data of invasion and migration are represented as mean ± SD of three independent experiments. *** P < 0.0001, significant difference between control and treatment groups by analysis of variance and Tukey posttest.
Figure 2(A) Radarplot showing the kinome profile of GC AGP-01 cells using Kinobeads or Dasabeads, respectively. Kinases found to be potently bound in both types of experiments. Each spike is a protein target, and the length of the spike is indicative of apparent binding affinity depicted as pKDapp. Kinase subfamilies are indicated around the circle. (B) Selectivity profiling of dasatinib using Dasabeads (d) or Kinobeads (k). Shown are the 22 most potently bound kinases.
Figure 3Inhibition of cell invasion 8 h after silencing target gene expression of kinases highlighted in the Kinobeads assay.
Cell invasion was carried out with shCtrl cells (nonsilencing cells) and specific shRNA for the selected targets. The number of invading cells were counted automatically. Results are expressed as mean ± SD of three independent experiments after normalization by comparison with shCrtl. Significant differences: P < 0.001; P < 0.0001, significant difference between control and silenced cells by analysis of variance and Tukey posttest.
Figure 4Correlation between kinase expression levels and tumor stage in patient samples.
(A) Heatmap of expression levesl of different kinases in patient samples on mRNA level (m) or protein level (p). Samples were sorted according to tumor size (T1–T4) and metastatic stage (M0–M1). (B–D) Statistical analysis of mRNA and protein levels for each of the kinases FRK, DDR1, SRC and SIK2 was carried out using Mann-Whitney U test. Significant differences: P < 0.0001. (E) Analysis of SIK2 mRNA and protein expression, respectively in relationship to different tumor size (T2 or T4) and metastatic stage (M0 or M1).