| Literature DB >> 32323779 |
Qian Hao1, Min Wang1, Nuan-Xin Sun2, Cheng Zhu1, Ying-Min Lin3, Cui Li3, Fang Liu4, Wen-Wen Zhu1.
Abstract
The long pre‑cancerous state ofEntities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32323779 PMCID: PMC7057772 DOI: 10.3892/or.2020.7495
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncol Rep ISSN: 1021-335X Impact factor: 3.906
Figure 1.SFN-induced cytotoxicity in colon cancer cells. (A) Structure of SFN, also known as 1-isothiocyanato-4-(methylsulfinyl)-butane (CAS, 4478-93-7; molecular formula, C6H11NOS2). (B) HT-29 and SW480 cells were incubated with 0, 1.25, 2.5, 5, 10, 20, 40, 80 and 160 µM SFN for 24 h. (C and D) An MTT assay was used to detect cell viability after treatment with various concentrations of SFN or for different time-points (24, 48 and 72 h). The statistical significance of the results was analyzed by two-way ANOVA. (E and F) Colon cancer cells (HT-29 and SW480) were cultured with various concentrations of SFN (0, 5, 10 and 20 µM). A representative image of colony formation from 3 independent experiments is presented. (G) The number of colonies of various groups presented in the graphs of parts E and F were quantified. The statistical significance of the results was analyzed by one-way ANOVA. The results are presented as the mean ± standard deviation of 3 independent experiments. *P<0.05, **P<0.01, ***P<0.001, ****P<0.0001. SFN, sulforaphane; ANOVA, analysis of variance.
Primer sequences for RT-qPCR.
| Gene name | Primer sequence (5′→3′) |
|---|---|
| Nrf2 | Forward: TTCCCGGTCACATCGAGAG |
| Reverse: TCCTGTTGCATACCGTCTAAATC | |
| UGT1A | Forward: TCGAATCTTGCGAACAACACG |
| Reverse: ATGAAGGCCACTGTCAGCACG | |
| β-actin | Forward: CATGTACGTTGCTATCCAGGC |
| Reverse: CTCCTTAATGTCACGCACGAT |
UGT1A, UDP glucuronosyltransferase 1A; Nrf2, nuclear factor, erythroid 2 like 2; RT-qPCR, reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction.
Figure 2.SFN promotes the apoptosis of colon cancer cells and inhibits cell proliferation. (A and B) HT-29 and SW480 cells were treated with different concentrations of SFN in complete medium, and cell viability was assessed by EdU staining at 24 h. (C) HT-29 and SW480 cells were exposed to medium containing SFN for 24 h, and cell cycle arrest was detected by flow cytometry. (D) The cell cycle arrest of various groups was quantified. The statistical significance of the results was analyzed by Student's t-test. (E and F) HT-29 and SW480 cells were exposed to various conditions for 24 h, and cell apoptosis was detected by flow cytometry. (G) The cell apoptosis of various groups presented in the graphs of parts E and F was quantified. The statistical significance of the results was analyzed by two-way analysis of variance. The results are presented as the mean ± standard deviation of 3 independent experiments. **P<0.01, ***P<0.001 and ****P<0.0001. SFN, sulforaphane; EdU, 5-Ethynyl-2′- deoxyuridine.
Figure 3.SFN intervention decreases wound healing rates and cell migration. (A and C) HT-29 and SW480 cells were treated under different conditions, and their cell migratory ability was assessed by wound healing assay (magnification, ×40). (B and D) The wound healing rates of various groups presented in the graphs of parts A and C were quantified. The statistical significance of the results was analyzed by two-way ANOVA. (E) A total of 10×104 HT-29 or SW480 cells in 200 µl serum-free Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium with different concentrations of SFN were seeded on the upper chamber, and cell migration was assessed by Transwell assay. Representative images are presented (magnification, ×100 and ×200). (F) The number of cells per field of various groups of part E was quantified. The statistical significance of the results was analyzed by two-way ANOVA. The results are presented as the mean ± standard deviation of 3 independent experiments. *P<0.05, **P<0.01 and ***P<0.001. SFN, sulforaphane; ANOVA, analysis of variance.
Figure 4.SFN upregulates Nrf2 and UGT1A in colon cancer cells. Cells were treated with different concentrations of SFN. (A and B) The transcriptional levels of Nrf2 and UGT1A were quantified by RT-qPCR and illustrated by a bar legend. (C-E) The Nrf2 expression level in the nucleus was assessed by immunoblotting and illustrated by a bar legend. (F-L) The immunoreactivity of p-ERK was normalized to that of total ERK. The immunoreactivity of Nrf2 and UGT1A, which was normalized to the expression of β-actin, and the immunoreactivity of p-JNK and p-p38 were normalized to that of total JNK and p38 was measured by immunoblotting and represented by respective bar graphs revealing the mean ± SD. Fold changes in optical density with the 0 h group normalized to 1. The statistical significance of the results was analyzed by two-way analysis of variance. The results are expressed as the mean ± SD of 3 independent experiments. *P<0.05, **P<0.01, ***P<0.001, ****P<0.0001. SFN, sulforaphane; Nrf2, nuclear factor, erythroid 2 like 2; UGT1A, UDP glucuronosyltransferase 1A; ERK, extracellular signal-regulated kinase; p-ERK, phosphorylated ERK; JNK, c-Jun NH2-terminal kinase; p-JNK, phosphorylated-JNK; p38, p38 kinase; SD, standard deviation; RT-qPCR, reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction.
Figure 5.Effect of Nrf2 on UGT1A expression induced by SFN. The Nrf2 gene was knocked down in SW480 and HT-29 cells. (A and B) The Nrf2 protein levels in HT-29 and SW480 cells were assessed by immunoblotting. (C) The expression levels of Nrf2 were quantified by ImageJ and illustrated by a bar legend. The statistical significance of the results was analyzed by Student's t-test. ****P<0.0001 vs. NC shRNA. (D) The transcriptional level of Nrf2 was quantified by RT-qPCR and illustrated by a bar legend. ****P<0.0001 vs. NC shRNA. The statistical significance of the results was analyzed by Student's t-test. (E and F) The expression levels of UGT1A in HT-29 and SW480 cells decreased in Nrf2-knockdown cells, and the induction effect of SFN on UGT1A expression decreased upon Nrf2-gene knockdown. (G and H) The UGT1A expression in various groups presented in the images of parts E and F was quantified by ImageJ. The statistical significance of the results was analyzed by two-way analysis of variance. *P<0.05, **P<0.01, ***P<0.001 vs. the SFN 0 µM group; ##P<0.01, #####P<0.0001 vs. the NC shRNA group. The results are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation of 3 independent experiments. SFN, sulforaphane; Nrf2, nuclear factor, erythroid 2 like 2; NC, negative control; shRNA, short hairpin RNA; RT-qPCR, reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction.
Figure 6.SFN induces UGT1A expression through ERK-dependent regulation of Nrf2. HT-29 and SW480 cells were pretreated with PD98059 (an ERK inhibitor) for 1 h. (A and B) p-ERK expression levels were assessed by immunoblotting. HT-29 and SW480 cells were pretreated with or without PD98059 for 1 h followed by 24 h of incubation with SFN. (C) The immunoreactivity of p-ERK was normalized to that of total ERK, and represented by a bar graph presenting the mean ± SD. Fold changes in optical density compared with the control group were normalized to 1. The statistical significance of the results was analyzed by Student's t-test. (D and E) UGT1A and Nrf2 expression levels of total protein were assessed by immunoblotting. (F and G) Bar graphs presenting the mean ± SD fold changes in OD (with the control group set as 1) of p-ERK normalized to ERK and UGT1A normalized to β-actin. The statistical significance of the results was analyzed by Student's t-test. (H and I) Nrf2 expression level in the nucleus and cytoplasm were assessed by immunoblotting. (J) Bar graph revealing the immunoreactivities (mean ± SD fold changes in OD, with control group set at 1) of Nrf2 normalized to Lamin B1 (marker for the nucleus). The statistical significance of the results was analyzed by Student's t-test. The results are presented as the mean ± SD of 3 independent experiments. *P<0.05, **P<0.01, ***P<0.001 and ****P<0.0001 vs. the control; #P<0.05, vs. SFN. SFN, sulforaphane; Nrf2, nuclear factor, erythroid 2 like 2; UGT1A, UDP glucuronosyltransferase 1A; ERK, extracellular signal-regulated kinase; SD, standard deviation; OD, optical density; p-, phosphorylated.
Figure 7.Nuclear translocation of Nrf2 and ROS levels observed by fluorescence microscopy. HT-29 and SW480 cells were pretreated with PD98059 (an ERK inhibitor) for 1 h. (A and B) Nuclear translocation of Nrf2 in HT-29 and SW480 cells. Fixed cells were incubated with anti-Nrf2 and fluorescein isothiocyanate-conjugated anti-rabbit immunoglobulin G antibodies (magnification, ×400). (C and D) Bar graphs revealing the fluorescence intensity (mean ± SD fold changes in OD, with control group set at 1) of Nrf2. (E and F) Intracellular ROS levels were observed by fluorescence microscopy (magnification, ×100). (G and H) Bar graphs revealing the fluorescence intensity (mean ± SD fold changes in OD, with control group set at 1) of ROS. The results are presented as the mean ± SD of 3 independent experiments. *P<0.05, **P<0.01, ***P<0.001 vs. the control; #P<0.05, ##P<0.01, ###P<0.001 vs. SFN. SFN, sulforaphane; Nrf2, nuclear factor, erythroid 2 like 2; SD, standard deviation.
Figure 8.Mechanism of SFN on the II phase metabolism phase enzyme UGT1A. SFN, sulforaphane; UGT1A UDP glucuronosyltransferase 1A.