Sarah Lane1, Luis Alberto More1, Aarti Asnani1,2. 1. CardioVascular Institute, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA 02215, USA. 2. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Both traditional and novel cancer therapies can cause cardiovascular toxicity in patients. In vivo models integrating both cardiovascular and cancer phenotypes allow for the study of on- and off-target mechanisms of toxicity arising from these agents. The zebrafish is the optimal whole organism model to screen for cardiotoxicity in a high throughput manner, while simultaneously assessing the role of cardiotoxicity pathways on the cancer therapy's antitumor effect. Here we highlight established zebrafish models of human cardiovascular disease and cancer, the unique advantages of zebrafish to study mechanisms of cancer therapy-associated cardiovascular toxicity, and finally, important limitations to consider when using the zebrafish to study toxicity. RECENT FINDINGS: Cancer therapy-associated cardiovascular toxicities range from cardiomyopathy with traditional agents to arrhythmias and thrombotic complications associated with newer targeted therapies. The zebrafish can be used to identify novel therapeutic strategies that selectively protect the heart from cancer therapy without affecting antitumor activity. Advances in genome editing technology have enabled the creation of several transgenic zebrafish lines valuable to the study of cardiovascular and cancer pathophysiology. SUMMARY: The high degree of genetic conservation between zebrafish and humans, as well as the ability to recapitulate cardiotoxic phenotypes observed in patients with cancer, make the zebrafish an effective model to study cancer therapy-associated cardiovascular toxicity. Though this model provides several key benefits over existing in vitro and in vivo models, limitations of the zebrafish model include the early developmental stage required for most high-throughput applications.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Both traditional and novel cancer therapies can cause cardiovascular toxicity in patients. In vivo models integrating both cardiovascular and cancer phenotypes allow for the study of on- and off-target mechanisms of toxicity arising from these agents. The zebrafish is the optimal whole organism model to screen for cardiotoxicity in a high throughput manner, while simultaneously assessing the role of cardiotoxicity pathways on the cancer therapy's antitumor effect. Here we highlight established zebrafish models of humancardiovascular disease and cancer, the unique advantages of zebrafish to study mechanisms of cancer therapy-associated cardiovascular toxicity, and finally, important limitations to consider when using the zebrafish to study toxicity. RECENT FINDINGS:Cancer therapy-associated cardiovascular toxicities range from cardiomyopathy with traditional agents to arrhythmias and thrombotic complications associated with newer targeted therapies. The zebrafish can be used to identify novel therapeutic strategies that selectively protect the heart from cancer therapy without affecting antitumor activity. Advances in genome editing technology have enabled the creation of several transgeniczebrafish lines valuable to the study of cardiovascular and cancer pathophysiology. SUMMARY: The high degree of genetic conservation between zebrafish and humans, as well as the ability to recapitulate cardiotoxic phenotypes observed in patients with cancer, make the zebrafish an effective model to study cancer therapy-associated cardiovascular toxicity. Though this model provides several key benefits over existing in vitro and in vivo models, limitations of the zebrafish model include the early developmental stage required for most high-throughput applications.
Entities:
Keywords:
cancer therapy; cardiac development; cardiovascular toxicity; vascular development; zebrafish
Authors: Anand P Singh; Michael S Glennon; Prachi Umbarkar; Manisha Gupte; Cristi L Galindo; Qinkun Zhang; Thomas Force; Jason R Becker; Hind Lal Journal: Cardiovasc Res Date: 2019-04-15 Impact factor: 10.787
Authors: Gregory T Armstrong; Toana Kawashima; Wendy Leisenring; Kayla Stratton; Marilyn Stovall; Melissa M Hudson; Charles A Sklar; Leslie L Robison; Kevin C Oeffinger Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-03-17 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Giorgio Seano; Giulia Chiaverina; Paolo Armando Gagliardi; Laura di Blasio; Roberto Sessa; Federico Bussolino; Luca Primo Journal: Blood Date: 2013-03-07 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Anne Limbourg; Thomas Korff; L Christian Napp; Wolfgang Schaper; Helmut Drexler; Florian P Limbourg Journal: Nat Protoc Date: 2009-11-05 Impact factor: 13.491
Authors: Chuan Yan; Dalton C Brunson; Qin Tang; Daniel Do; Nicolae A Iftimia; John C Moore; Madeline N Hayes; Alessandra M Welker; Elaine G Garcia; Taronish D Dubash; Xin Hong; Benjamin J Drapkin; David T Myers; Sarah Phat; Angela Volorio; Dieuwke L Marvin; Matteo Ligorio; Lyle Dershowitz; Karin M McCarthy; Murat N Karabacak; Jonathan A Fletcher; Dennis C Sgroi; John A Iafrate; Shyamala Maheswaran; Nick J Dyson; Daniel A Haber; John F Rawls; David M Langenau Journal: Cell Date: 2019-04-25 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Zain Z Zakaria; Fatiha M Benslimane; Gheyath K Nasrallah; Samar Shurbaji; Nadin N Younes; Fatima Mraiche; Sahar I Da'as; Huseyin C Yalcin Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2018-09-27 Impact factor: 3.411