| Literature DB >> 32626742 |
Claudia Robles-Planells1,2,3, Carlos Barrera-Avalos1,2, Leonel E Rojo1,2, Eugenio Spencer1,2, Marcelo Cortez-San Martin1, Silvia Matiacevich4, Jorge Pavez5, Luis A Milla6, Franco D Navarro1,2, Brandon A Martínez1,2, Francisco J Bravo1,2, Andrea Mella1,2, Juan Pablo Huidobro-Toro1,3, Ricardo Fernandez7, Alejandro Escobar8, Claudio Acuña Castillo1,2.
Abstract
Reovirus is known to have an anticancer effect in both the preclinical and clinical assays. Current evidence suggests that the reovirus-mediated impact on tumor growth depends on the activation of specific antitumor immune responses. A feasible explanation for the oncolytic effects and immune system activation is through the expression of the fusogenic reovirus protein. In this work, we evaluated the in vivo antitumor effects of the expression of fusogenic protein p10 of avian reovirus (ARV-p10). We used chitosan nanoparticles (CH-NPs) as a vehicle for the ARV-p10 DNA in murine B16 melanoma models both in vitro and in vivo. We confirmed that ARV-p10 delivery through a chitosan-based formulation (ARV-p10 CH-NPs) was capable of inducing cell fusion in cultured melanoma cells, showing a mild cytotoxic effect. Interestingly, intratumor injection of ARV-p10 CH-NPs delayed tumor growth, without changing lymphoid populations in the tumor tissue and spleen. The injection of chitosan nanoparticles (CH-NPs) also delayed tumor growth, suggesting the nanoparticle itself would attack tumor cells. In conclusion, we proved that in vitro ARV-p10 protein expression using CH-NPs in murine melanoma cells induces a cytotoxic effect associated with its cell fusion. Further studies are necessary for establishing a protocol for efficient in vivo DNA delivery of fusion proteins to produce an antitumoral effect.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32626742 PMCID: PMC7306838 DOI: 10.1155/2020/4045760
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Electrophoretic and physicochemical characterization of chitosan nanoparticles containing pIRES-ARV (NP-ARV). (a) Electrophoretic migration of pIRES-ARV on an agarose gel, (b) size distribution, and (c) surface charge (zeta potential value). Representative results of triplicate measures are shown.
Figure 2ARV-p10 protein expression in B16 melanoma cells using NP-ARV. (a) The expression of the ARV-p10 protein (upper panel) and housekeeping GAPDH (lower panel) transcripts was determined by RT-PCR 48 hours posttransfection. A representative gel containing DNA ladder (L, lane 1), PCR blank control (control, lane 2), nontransfected cells (parental, lane 3), Lipofectamine pIRES-ARV-transfected cells (Lipo-ARV, lane 4), and NP-ARV-transfected cells (lane 5). (b) Expression of ARV-p10 protein determined by immunofluorescence. B16 (upper panel), Lipo-ARV-transfected B16 cells (middle panel), and NP-ARV-transfected B16 cells (lower panel) stained with DAPI (left column) and with an antibody against ARV-p10 protein (middle column). Merge is shown in the right column. (c) Syncytium formation 48 h posttransfection of B16 cells (upper panel), Lipo-ARV-transfected B16 cells (middle panel), and NP-ARV-transfected B16 cells (lower panel) stained with DAPI (left column) and CellMask (middle column). Merge is shown in the right column. White arrows mark fusion points. (d) Quantification of syncytia 48 hours posttransfection by hemacolor stain. (e) Cell viability was evaluated at 24, 48, and 120 hours posttransfection and was normalized against nontransfected cells. Graphs correspond to average ± standard error of three independent experiments. Statistical analyses were performed using the Mann-Whitney test (∗p < 0.05).
Figure 3In vivo antitumor effect of NP-ARV against melanoma. Mice were challenged with viable B16 cells and monitored daily until tumor size reached its maximum. (a) Experiment timeline. (b) Schematic representation of the experiment strategy. (c) Tumor growth of the nontreated control group (open circles), chitosan alone group (gray circles), and NP-ARV group (black circles). The vertical line at day 10 indicates the day at which the last control mouse reached the MTV. The experiment was done in 5-6 animals for each group and graphed individually.
Figure 4Effect of NP-ARV treatment on tumor-infiltrated and splenic T cells. (a) Representative dot plots of the intratumoral T CD8+ and T CD4+ lymphocytes are shown for the nontreated animals (control), chitosan alone (CH), and NP-ARV-treated group. (b) Graph bar of the percentage of each population in tumor CD45+ cells. (c) Representative dot plots of the splenic T CD8+ and T CD4+ lymphocytes for the nontreated animals (control), chitosan alone (CH), and NP-ARV-treated group. (d) Graph bar of the percentage of each population in splenic CD45+ cells. Bars correspond to average ± standard error; individual experiments are also graphed; statistical analyses were performed using the Mann-Whitney test.
Figure 5Effect of NP-ARV treatment on splenic CD4+ subpopulations. Representative dot plots of splenic T CD4+ subpopulation (left) and graph bar of the percentage of each population (right) for the (a) CD4+ IFNγ+, (b) CD4+ IL-17A+, and (c) CD4+ Foxp3+ lymphocytes in the nontreated animals (control), chitosan alone (CH), and NP-ARV-treated group. Bars correspond to average ± standard error; individual experiments are also graphed; statistical analyses were performed using the Mann-Whitney test.