Qingguo Zhao1, Bo Hai1, Jack Kelly1, Samuel Wu1, Fei Liu2. 1. Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Molecular and Cellular Medicine Department, College of Medicine, Texas A&M University Health Science Center, College Station, TX, 77843, USA. 2. Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Molecular and Cellular Medicine Department, College of Medicine, Texas A&M University Health Science Center, College Station, TX, 77843, USA. fliu@tamu.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Extracellular vesicles (EVs) and their mimics from mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are promising drug carriers to improve cancer treatment, but their application is hindered by donor variations and expansion limitations of conventional tissue-derived MSCs. To circumvent these issues, we made EV-mimicking nanovesicles from standardized MSCs derived from human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) with a theoretically limitless expandability, and examined the targeting capacity of these nanovesicles to prostate cancer. METHODS: Nanovesicles are made from intact iPSC-MSCs through serial extrusion. The selective uptake of fluorescently labeled nanovesicles by prostate cancer cells vs. non-tumor cells was examined with flow cytometry. For in vivo tracing, nanovesicles were labeled with fluorescent dye DiR or renilla luciferase. In mice carrying subcutaneous or bone metastatic PC3 prostate cancer, the biodistribution of systemically infused nanovesicles was examined with in vivo and ex vivo imaging of DiR and luminescent signals. A chemotherapeutic drug, docetaxel, was loaded into nanovesicles during extrusion. The cytotoxicities of nanovesicle-encapsulated docetaxel on docetaxel-sensitive and -resistant prostate cancer cells and non-tumor cells were examined in comparison with free docetaxel. Therapeutic effects of nanovesicle-encapsulated docetaxel were examined in mice carrying subcutaneous or bone metastatic prostate cancer by monitoring tumor growth in comparison with free docetaxel. RESULTS: iPSC-MSC nanovesicles are more selectively taken up by prostate cancer cells vs. non-tumor cells in vitro compared with EVs, membrane-only EV-mimetic nanoghosts and liposomes, which is not affected by storage for up to 6 weeks. In mouse models of subcutaneous and bone metastatic PC3 prostate cancer, systemically infused nanovesicles accumulate in tumor regions with significantly higher selectivity than liposomes. The loading of docetaxel into nanovesicles was efficient and did not affect the selective uptake of nanovesicles by prostate cancer cells. The cytotoxicities of nanovesicle-encapsulated docetaxel are significantly stronger on docetaxel-resistant prostate cancer cells and weaker on non-tumor cells than free docetaxel. In mouse models of subcutaneous and bone metastatic prostate cancer, nanovesicle-encapsulated docetaxel significantly decreased the tumor growth and toxicity to white blood cells compared with free docetaxel. CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate that EV-mimicking iPSC-MSC nanovesicles are promising to improve the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer.
BACKGROUND: Extracellular vesicles (EVs) and their mimics from mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are promising drug carriers to improve cancer treatment, but their application is hindered by donor variations and expansion limitations of conventional tissue-derived MSCs. To circumvent these issues, we made EV-mimicking nanovesicles from standardized MSCs derived from human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) with a theoretically limitless expandability, and examined the targeting capacity of these nanovesicles to prostate cancer. METHODS: Nanovesicles are made from intact iPSC-MSCs through serial extrusion. The selective uptake of fluorescently labeled nanovesicles by prostate cancer cells vs. non-tumor cells was examined with flow cytometry. For in vivo tracing, nanovesicles were labeled with fluorescent dye DiR or renilla luciferase. In mice carrying subcutaneous or bone metastatic PC3prostate cancer, the biodistribution of systemically infused nanovesicles was examined with in vivo and ex vivo imaging of DiR and luminescent signals. A chemotherapeutic drug, docetaxel, was loaded into nanovesicles during extrusion. The cytotoxicities of nanovesicle-encapsulated docetaxel on docetaxel-sensitive and -resistant prostate cancer cells and non-tumor cells were examined in comparison with free docetaxel. Therapeutic effects of nanovesicle-encapsulated docetaxel were examined in mice carrying subcutaneous or bone metastatic prostate cancer by monitoring tumor growth in comparison with free docetaxel. RESULTS: iPSC-MSC nanovesicles are more selectively taken up by prostate cancer cells vs. non-tumor cells in vitro compared with EVs, membrane-only EV-mimetic nanoghosts and liposomes, which is not affected by storage for up to 6 weeks. In mouse models of subcutaneous and bone metastatic PC3prostate cancer, systemically infused nanovesicles accumulate in tumor regions with significantly higher selectivity than liposomes. The loading of docetaxel into nanovesicles was efficient and did not affect the selective uptake of nanovesicles by prostate cancer cells. The cytotoxicities of nanovesicle-encapsulated docetaxel are significantly stronger on docetaxel-resistant prostate cancer cells and weaker on non-tumor cells than free docetaxel. In mouse models of subcutaneous and bone metastatic prostate cancer, nanovesicle-encapsulated docetaxel significantly decreased the tumor growth and toxicity to white blood cells compared with free docetaxel. CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate that EV-mimicking iPSC-MSC nanovesicles are promising to improve the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer.
Authors: Young In Yun; Se Yeon Park; Hyun Ju Lee; Jung Hwa Ko; Mee Kum Kim; Won Ryang Wee; Roxanne L Reger; Carl A Gregory; Hosoon Choi; Samuel F Fulcher; Darwin J Prockop; Joo Youn Oh Journal: Cytotherapy Date: 2016-11-10 Impact factor: 5.414
Authors: J Yang; K Fizazi; S Peleg; C R Sikes; A K Raymond; N Jamal; M Hu; M Olive; L A Martinez; C G Wood; C J Logothetis; G Karsenty; N M Navone Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2001-07-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Qingguo Zhao; Carl A Gregory; Ryang Hwa Lee; Roxanne L Reger; Lizheng Qin; Bo Hai; Min Sung Park; Nara Yoon; Bret Clough; Eoin McNeill; Darwin J Prockop; Fei Liu Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2014-12-29 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Amanda J O'Neill; Maria Prencipe; Catherine Dowling; Yue Fan; Laoighse Mulrane; William M Gallagher; Darran O'Connor; Robert O'Connor; Aoife Devery; Claire Corcoran; Sweta Rani; Lorraine O'Driscoll; John M Fitzpatrick; R William G Watson Journal: Mol Cancer Date: 2011-10-07 Impact factor: 27.401