| Literature DB >> 33066414 |
Rasha H Al-Serwi1,2, Gamal Othman3,4, Mohammed A Attia4,5, Eman T Enan6, Mohamed El-Sherbiny4,7, Seham Mahmoud8, Nehal Elsherbiny9,10.
Abstract
Oral squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is one of the most predominant tumors worldwide and the present treatment policies are not enough to provide a specific solution. We aimed to assess the cytotoxic effect of Cu(II)-Mn(II) Schiff base tetradentate complex alone or in combination with cisplatin against squamous cell carcinoma cell line (SCCs) in vitro. Oral-derived gingival mesenchymal stem cells (GMSCs) were used as control. The cell viability was assessed by MTT assay. IC50 values were calculated. Evaluation of apoptosis and DNA damage were performed. In addition, the expression of pro-apoptotic and anti-apoptotic genes and proteins were tested. IC50 values indicated less toxicity of the Schiff base complex on GMSCs compared to cisplatin. Schiff base complex treatment resulted in up-regulation of p53 and Bax genes expression and down-regulation of Bcl2 gene expression in SCCs paralleled with increased protein expression of caspase-3 and Bax and down-regulation of Bcl-2 protein. Annexin V-FITC apoptosis kit showed a higher apoptotic effect induced by a Schiff base complex compared to the cisplatin-treated group. These effects were markedly increased on the combination of Schiff base and cisplatin. The present study established that Cu(II)-Mn(II) Schiff base tetradentate complex might induce a cytotoxic effect on SCCs cells via induction of the apoptotic pathway. Moreover, this Schiff base complex augments the anticancer effect of cisplatin.Entities:
Keywords: anticancer; apoptosis; cisplatin; oral squamous cell carcinoma (SCCs); schiff base
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33066414 PMCID: PMC7587367 DOI: 10.3390/molecules25204688
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Histogram showing phenotypic cell-surface marker analysis of digested passage 3 (P3) Dental pulp stem cells (GMSCs). The GMSCs were highly positive for the mesenchymal markers CD90 and CD105 and were negative for the hematopoietic marker CD34.
Figure 2Evaluation of IC50 for different concentrations of Cis on SSC (A) and on GMCS (B). Evaluation of IC50 for different concentrations of Schiff-base on SSC (C) and on GMCS (D).
Figure 3Flow cytometry analysis of negative control cells acquired without stain for: (a) annexin and (b) promidium iodide.
Figure 4(A) Flow cytometry analysis of cell counts, detecting the number of annexin positive cells. (B) Flow cytometry analysis of cell counts, detecting the number of Propidium iodide (PI)-positive cells. 1: GMSCs control; 2: GMSCs treated with Schiff base complex; 3: GMSCs treated with cisplatin; 4: GMSCs treated with Schiff base complex and cisplatin together; 5: SCC cells; 6: SCC treated with Schiff base complex; 7: SCC treated with cisplatin; 8: SCC treated with Schiff base complex and cisplatin together.
Statistical analysis of annexin positive staining detected by flow cytometry in GMSCs.
| Control | SB | Cis | SB and Cis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Viable | 95.43 ± 0.44 | 66.10 ± 0.85 *** | 67.13 ± 0.76 *** | 50.60 ± 0.80 ***###¶¶¶ | <0.001 |
| Early apoptosis | 0.63 ± 0.05 | 29.77 ± 0.52 *** | 28.33 ± 1.65 *** | 21.60 ± 1.07 ***###¶¶¶ | <0.001 |
| Late apoptosis | 0.63 ± 0.14 | 3.40 ± 0.86 *** | 2.63 ± 0.45 *** | 25.67 ± 0.52 ***###¶¶¶ | <0.001 |
| Necrotic | 3.60 (2.50–3.80) | 1.00 (0.00–1.20) *** | 2.40 (0.00–3.30) * | 1.80 (1.50–3.10) | 0.003 |
Data expressed as mean ± SD and median (IQR). Test used: One-way ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey for data expressed as mean ± SD and Kruskal–Wallis followed by post-hoc Dunn for data expressed as median (IQR). * p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001 vs. control group. ### p < 0.001 vs. SB Group. ¶¶¶ p < 0.001 vs. Cis group.
Statistical analysis of annexin positive staining detected by flow cytometry in SCC.
| Control | SB | Cis | SB and Cis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Viable | 93.77 ± 0.52 | 45.30 ± 14.59 *** | 26.73 ± 0.88 ***## | 25.50 ± 1.25 ***## | <0.001 |
| Early apatosis | 0.80 ± 0.09 | 27.83 ± 19.11 *** | 3.40 ± 0.15 ## | 2.63 ± 0.21 ## | <0.001 |
| Late apaptosis | 0.60 (0.50–2.10) | 4.50 (3.9–56.80) | 55.20 (55.20–57.10) ** | 60.10 (58.00–61.20) ***## | <0.001 |
| Necrotic | 4.60 (3.90–4.60) | 2.10 (0.00–13.30) | 14.00 (14.00–14.10) **## | 12.40 (11.30–12.60) | 0.001 |
Data expressed as mean ± SD and median (IQR). Test used: One-way ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey for data expressed as mean ± SD and Kruskal–Wallis followed by post-hoc Dunn for data expressed as median (IQR) ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001 vs. control group. ## p < 0.01 vs. SB Group.
Statistical analysis of PI positive staining detected by flow cytometry in GMSCs.
| Control | SB | Cis | SB and Cis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sub G1 | 12.13 ± 0.80 | 21.80 ± 0.82 *** | 46.93 ± 2.96 ***### | 65.90 ± 0.56 ***###¶¶¶ | <0.001 |
| G 0/1 | 69.33 ± 2.01 | 68.27 ± 1.39 | 44.20 ± 0.89 ***### | 30.30 ± 1.00 ***###¶¶¶ | <0.001 |
| S | 9.03 ± 1.39 | 5.07 ± 1.61 ** | 4.10 ± 2.64 *** | 2.00 ± 0.76 *** | <0.001 |
| G2/M | 9.50 ± 0.45 | 4.87 ± 1.90 *** | 4.77 ± 0.52 *** | 1.80 ± 0.85 ***##¶¶ | <0.001 |
Data expressed as mean ± SD. Test used: One-way ANOVA followed by post-hoc tukey. ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001 vs. control group. ## p < 0.01; ### p < 0.001 vs. SB Group. ¶¶ p < 0.01; ¶¶¶ p < 0.001 vs. Cis group.
Statistical analysis of PI positive staining detected by flow cytometry in SCC.
| Control | SB | Cis | SB and Cis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sub G1 | 9.23 ± 0.23 | 17.20 ± 0.95 *** | 37.20 ± 1.75 ***### | 61.50 ± 1.12 ***###¶¶¶ | <0.001 |
| G 0/1 | 56.63 ± 0.27 | 70.50 ± 2.38 *** | 49.17 ± 1.20 ***### | 27.00 ± 0.91 ***###¶¶¶ | <0.001 |
| S | 26.13 ± 1.60 | 5.33 ± 0.52 *** | 6.83 ± 0.58 ***# | 2.30 ± 0.18 ***###¶¶¶ | <0.001 |
| G2/M | 8.00 ± 1.84 | 6.97 ± 2.60 | 6.80 ± 2.48 | 9.20 ± 0.09 | 0.17 |
Data expressed as mean ± SD. Test used: One-way ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey *** p < 0.001 vs. control group. # p < 0.05; ### p < 0.001 vs. SB Group. ¶¶¶ p < 0.001 vs. Cis group.
Figure 5Effect of Schiff base complex (SB) treatment and cisplatin (Cis) on (A) p53 mRNA level on gingival mesenchymal stem cells (GMSCs); (B) p53 mRNA level on Oral squamous cell carcinoma (SCC); (C) BAX mRNA level on GMSCs; (D) BAX mRNA level on SCC; (E) BCl2 mRNA level on GMSCs; (F) BCl2 mRNA level on SCC. * p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001.
Figure 6Flow cytometry analysis of negative control cells acquired without stain for Bcl2, Bax and Caspase 3.
Figure 7(C) Flow cytometry analysis of cell counts, detecting the number of Bcl-2 positive cells. (D) Flow cytometry analysis of cell counts, detecting the number of Bax positive cells. (E) Flow cytometry analysis of cell counts, detecting the number of Caspase 3 positive cells. 1: GMSCs control; 2: GMSCs treated with Schiff base complex; 3: GMSCs treated with cisplatin; 4: GMSCs treated with Schiff base complex and cisplatin together; 5: SCC cells; 6: SCC treated with Schiff base complex; 7: SCC treated with cisplatin; 8: SCC treated with Schiff base complex and cisplatin together.
Statistical analysis for Bax, Bcl2 and caspase-3 expression in GMSCs.
| Control | G2/SB | Cis | SB and Cis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bcl-2 | 25.20 ± 0.51 | 25.20 ± 0.50 | 21.52 ± 1.44 ***### | 17.60 ± 0.27 ***###¶¶¶ | <0.001 |
| Bax | 24.70 ± 1.42 | 31.48 ± 4.54 ** | 44.86 ± 0.85 ***### | 60.42 ± 3.15 ***###¶¶¶ | <0.001 |
| Caspase 3 | 21.48 ± 1.32 | 35.46 ± 2.74 *** | 42.96 ± 1.85 ***### | 55.54 ± 0.76 ***###¶¶¶ | <0.001 |
Data expressed as mean ± SD. Test used: one-way ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey. ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001 vs. G1/control group. ### p < 0.001 vs. G2/SB Group. ¶¶¶ p < 0.001 vs. G3/Cis group.
Statistical analysis for Bax, Bcl2 and caspase-3 expression in SCC.
| Control | SB | Cis | SB and Cis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bcl-2 | 54.60 ± 2.53 | 33.54 ± 3.39 *** | 29.52 ± 0.28 ***# | 12.92 ± 1.34 ***###¶¶¶ | <0.001 |
| Bax | 15.60 ± 0.64 | 43.26 ± 1.48 *** | 54.54 ± 1.90 ***### | 93.48 ± 1.80 ***###¶¶¶ | <0.001 |
| Caspase 3 | 14.60 ± 0.067 | 41.08 ± 0.88 *** | 53.40 ± 1.75 ***### | 83.50 ± 2.48 ***###¶¶¶ | <0.001 |
Data expressed as mean ± SD. Test used: one-way ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey. *** p < 0.001 vs. G1/control group. # p < 0.05; ### p < 0.001 vs. G2/SB Group. ¶¶¶ p < 0.001 vs. G3/Cis group.
Figure 8(a) cultured gingival mesenchymal stem cells (GMSCs), (b) cultured squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) cells, scale bars = 400 μm.
Primer sequences for real time-PCR.
| Gene | Forward Primer | Reverse Primer | Product Length (bp) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| AGCTGCAGAGGATGATTGCC | CCCCAGTTGAAGTTGCCGTC | 100 |
|
| TGTGTGTGGAGAGCGTCAAC | CTACCCAGCCTCCGTTATCC | 120 |
|
| CATAGTGTGGTGGTGCCCTATGAG | CAAAGCTGTTCCGTCCCAGTAGA | 172 |
|
| CTCTGCTCCTCCTGTTCGAC | GCGCCCAATACGACCAAATC | 121 |