| Literature DB >> 32351616 |
Qiang Ma1,2,3, Hebin Liao2, Lei Xu2, Qingrong Li1,2,3, Jiang Zou1,2,3, Ru Sun3,4, Dan Xiao1,2,3, Chang Liu1,2,3, Wenjie Pu1,2,3, Jibing Cheng1,2,3, Xi Zhou1,2,3, Guangcheng Huang1,2,3, Lihua Yao1,2,3, Xiaowu Zhong1,2,3, Xiaolan Guo1,2,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dihydroartemisinin (DHA), a derivate of artemisinin, is an effective antimalarial agent. DHA has been shown to exert anticancer activities to numerous cancer cells in the past few years, while the exact molecular mechanisms remain to be elucidated, especially in esophageal cancer.Entities:
Keywords: Autophagy; Cell cycle arrest; Dihydroartemisinin; Esophageal cancer; TRF2
Year: 2020 PMID: 32351616 PMCID: PMC7183693 DOI: 10.1186/s13020-020-00318-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Chin Med ISSN: 1749-8546 Impact factor: 5.455
Fig. 1The anticancer effect of DHA on Eca109 cells in vitro and in vivo. a, b Cells were incubated with 0, 50, 100, 150, 200 μM of DHA for 48 h (a) or treated with 100 μM of DHA for 0, 12, 24, 36, 48 h (b) and then were collected for measuring the percentage of viable cells with crystal violet assay. (c) The morphological characteristics of Eca109 cells after treated with DHA (100 μM) or DMSO. (d, e) The tumor size (d) and proliferation curve (e) from esophageal cancer xenograft from mice. Data represent mean ± S.D. *p < 0.05 was significant difference between DHA-treated and control groups
Fig. 2DHA inhibits the tumorigenicity of Eca109 cells and induces cell cycle arrest. a, b Represent images of plate colony formation assay (a) and soft agar assay (b) from Eca109 cells treated with DHA (100 μM) or DMSO. (c, d) Cell cycle distribution of Eca109 cells after treated with DHA (100 μM) or DMSO (c) and the statistical chart (d). (e–h) The expression of cell cycle-related proteins in DHA (100 μM) treated Eca109 cells (e) and the statistical charts (f–h). Data represent mean ± S.D. *p < 0.05 was significant difference between DHA-treated and control groups
Fig. 3DHA induces intracellular ROS generation of Eca109 cells after treated with DHA. a Images from a fluorescence microscope after cells treated with DHA followed by DCFH-DA co-incubation. (b, c) The mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) of cells treated with DHA (100 μM) (b) and the statistical chart (c). (d, e) The change of MFI in cells treated with DHA (100 μM) plus NAC (5 mM) (d) and the statistical chart (e). Data represent mean ± S.D. *p < 0.05 was significant difference between DHA-treated and control groups
Fig. 4DHA induces autophagy in Eca109 cells. a, b GFP-LC3 puncta formation in DHA (100 μM) treated cells (a) and the statistical chart (b). c–e The expression of LC3 and P62 protein in cells treated with DHA (100 μM) or DMSO (C) and the statistical charts (d, e). Data represent mean ± S.D. *p < 0.05 was significant difference between DHA-treated and control group
Fig. 5DHA downregulates the expression of TRF2 and the mechanisms. a–c The mRNA (a) and protein (b) expression of TRF2 in cells treated with DHA (100 μM) and the statistical chart (c). d, e The expression of TRF2 protein in tumor tissues from the xenograft mouse model treated with DHA (100 μM) or DMSO (d) and the statistical chart (e). f–h The expression of LC-3 and TRF2 in DHA (100 μM) treated cells after autophagy was inhibited by 3-MA (10 mM) or CQ (20 μM) (f) and the statistical chart (g, h). (i–k) The expression of LC-3 and TRF2 in DHA (100 μM) treated cells after ROS was blocked by NAC (5 mM) (i) and the statistical chart (j, k). l, m GFP-LC3 expression and puncta formation in DHA (100 μM) treated cells (l) and the statistical chart (m). n, o The expression of γ-H2AX in DHA (100 μM) treated cells after ROS was blocked by NAC (5 mM) (n) and the statistical chart (o). Data represent mean ± S.D. *p < 0.05 was significant difference between DHA-treated and control group
Fig. 6The evaluation of ROS and autophagy on cell cycle distribution in DHA treated cells. (a, b) Cell cycle distribution of cells treated with DHA (100 μM) and/or CQ (20 μM) (a) and the statistical chart (b). (c, d) The expression of ATG5 in cells transfected with shAtg5 (c) and the statistical chart (d). (e, f) Cell cycle distribution of cells treated with DHA (100 μM) after ATG5 was knockdown (e) and the statistical chart (f). (g, h) Cell cycle distribution of cells treated with DHA and/or NAC (5 mM) (g) and the statistical chart (h). (i, j) The effect of ROS on cell viability in DHA treated cells (i) and the statistical chart (j). (k) The effect of ROS on cell morphology in DHA treated cells