Cancer stem cells (CSCs) are the tumor cell subpopulation responsible for resistance to chemotherapy, tumor recurrence, and metastasis. An efficient therapy must act on low proliferating quiescent-CSCs (q-CSCs). We here investigate the effect of magnetic hyperthermia (MHT) in combination with local chemotherapy as a dual therapy to inhibit patient-derived colorectal qCR-CSCs. We apply iron oxide nanocubes as MHT heat mediators, coated with a thermoresponsive polymer (TR-Cubes) and loaded with DOXO (TR-DOXO) as a chemotherapeutic agent. The thermoresponsive polymer releases DOXO only at a temperature above 44 °C. In colony-forming assays, the cells exposed to TR-Cubes with MHT reveal that qCR-CSCs struggle to survive the heat damage and, with a due delay, restart the division of dormant cells. The eradication of qCR-CSCs with a complete stop of the colony formation was achieved only with TR-DOXO when exposed to MHT. The in vivo tumor formation study confirms the combined effects of MHT with heat-mediated drug release: only the group of animals that received the CR-CSCs pretreated, in vitro, with TR-DOXO and MHT lacked the formation of tumor even after several months. For DOXO-resistant CR-CSCs cells, the same results were shown, in vitro, when choosing the drug oxaliplatin rather than DOXO and applying MHT. These findings emphasize the potential of our nanoplatforms as an effective patient-personalized cancer treatment against qCR-CSCs.
Cancer stem cells (CSCs) are the tumor cell subpopulation responsible for resistance to chemotherapy, tumor recurrence, and metastasis. An efficient therapy must act on low proliferating quiescent-CSCs (q-CSCs). We here investigate the effect of magnetic hyperthermia (MHT) in combination with local chemotherapy as a dual therapy to inhibit patient-derived colorectal qCR-CSCs. We apply iron oxide nanocubes as MHT heat mediators, coated with a thermoresponsive polymer (TR-Cubes) and loaded with DOXO (TR-DOXO) as a chemotherapeutic agent. The thermoresponsive polymer releases DOXO only at a temperature above 44 °C. In colony-forming assays, the cells exposed to TR-Cubes with MHT reveal that qCR-CSCs struggle to survive the heat damage and, with a due delay, restart the division of dormant cells. The eradication of qCR-CSCs with a complete stop of the colony formation was achieved only with TR-DOXO when exposed to MHT. The in vivo tumor formation study confirms the combined effects of MHT with heat-mediated drug release: only the group of animals that received the CR-CSCs pretreated, in vitro, with TR-DOXO and MHT lacked the formation of tumor even after several months. For DOXO-resistant CR-CSCs cells, the same results were shown, in vitro, when choosing the drug oxaliplatin rather than DOXO and applying MHT. These findings emphasize the potential of our nanoplatforms as an effective patient-personalized cancer treatment against qCR-CSCs.
Entities:
Keywords:
cancer stem cells; colorectal cancer; doxorubicin; magnetic hyperthermia; magnetic nanoparticles
Tumor heterogeneity
is a major obstacle for the successful treatment
of solid cancers.[1] CSCs have been identified
as the subpopulation of tumor mass able to self-renew through asymmetric
divisions, providing fast proliferating cells and quiescent cells.
The latter ones are able to repopulate and re-establish an entire
tumor mass starting from one single cell under stress-related conditions.[2−6] Therefore, the existence of this subset of tumor cells significantly
contributes to tumor heterogeneity with consequent resistance to chemo-
or radiotherapy.[5,7,8] Hence,
many efforts have been dedicated to identify and isolate CSCs from
different tumors, including colorectal (CR) cancer, the third most
common cancer worldwide, to study their survival to antitumoral treatment
and to design more efficacious targeted therapies for their eradication.[5,6,9] In particular, when using antiproliferating
agents such as chemotherapeutic agents or radiation therapy, it was
found that reduced cell cycling and increased DNA repairing capacity
are typical resistance mechanisms of q-CSCs that make them less susceptible
to therapy than the bulk cancer cells.[10,11] Several studies
have shown that by eradicating the fast proliferating tumor cells
while sparing q-CSCs, the disease’s progression is only temporarily
suppressed. In fact, killing the proliferating cells stimulates the
reawakening of q-CSCs that have evaded therapy, eventually leading
to cancer relapse.[3,10]Among all the different
therapeutic approaches for treating cancer,
hyperthermia employs a moderate temperature (ca. 41–46 °C)
to damage tumor cells.[12] It is currently
used in clinics as an adjuvant treatment to the more common types
of antitumoral therapies.[13] Indeed, if
applied simultaneously or shortly after radiotherapy or chemotherapy,
hyperthermia can interfere with the repair of therapy-induced DNA
damage, thereby contributing to kill tumor cells.[14−16] Novel nanoparticle-based
platforms are emerging as a promising new technology to deposit heat
in a more localized and selective mode enabling, simultaneously, the
remote activation of the nanoparticles working as heat transducers.
In MHT, the heat is produced by magnetic nanoparticles exposed to
an alternating magnetic field (AMF) at a radiofrequency range (100
kHz) that has no body penetration restrictions and is not harmful
for humanpatients. MHT has been introduced in clinics for the treatment
of glioblastoma and is now under clinical trials for prostate and
metastatic bone cancers.[17,18] While many works have
optimized the use of nanoparticles for cancer treatment, less is reported
on the effect of nanoparticle-based hyperthermia on CSC eradication.
In photothermal therapy, when using an infrared (IR) source to activate
nanoparticles (such as carbon nanotubes[19] or gold nanoparticles[20]) and generate
heat, clear indications of CSCs’ sensibility to heat were observed
through viability studies, heat-shock protein (HSP) expression, and
DNA damage analysis. However, low tissue penetration depth is a major
drawback of light sources used in photothermal treatment.Sadhukha et al. demonstrated for the first time
the in vivo potential of using superparamagnetic
iron oxide nanoparticles (SPIONs) as MHT agents to reduce the tumorigenic
potential of CSCs from immortalized adenocarcinoma cell lines.[21] More recently, Kwon and co-workers have reported
the use of magnetic nanoclusters to demonstrate the cytotoxic effect in vitro of MHT treatment on CSCs using a breast cancer
cell line.[22] While this study is pioneering
the field of MHT on CSCs, it employs AMF field conditions (f = 290 kHz; H = 60 kA/m) that are not
suitable for the safe application of MHT therapy in clinics (the product Hf should not exceed 5 × 109 Am–1 s–1 to avoid patient discomfort due to eddy currents
at the patient tissue).[23] The effects of
the MHT on CSCs urge to be conducted and evaluated under clinically
applied conditions (100 kHz and 24 kA/m) or at an Hf factor that is clinically safe.[23] This
requires the use of magnetic nanoparticles with outstanding MHT heat
properties.In a more advanced study, Liu et al. exploited
the CD20 antibody as a molecular target to accumulate silica-based
magnetic nanoparticles on CSCs in a humanlung cancer model.[24] Furthermore, multiple cycles of MHT (up to 10
cycles) under clinically acceptable magnetic field conditions in combination
with chemotherapy were performed to effectively reduce the tumor growth in vivo.Recently, we have developed a magnetic nanoparticle-based
platform
consisting of cubic shape iron oxide nanoparticles (IONCs) coated
with a thermoresponsive polymer (TR-Cubes) that can carry and release
doxorubicin (TR-DOXO).[25] Using such TR-DOXO,
the release of DOXO is achieved following a heat stimulus provided
by the nanocubes under MHT. Our group proved that the DOXO released
from the TR-DOXO is significantly accelerated under clinically acceptable
AMF conditions. The synergic therapeutic effects of the heat-mediated
chemotherapy and the direct heat damage caused a complete eradication
of humanadenocarcinoma tumors in a xenograft mice model only when
the animals were treated with the TR-DOXO and exposed to clinically
MHT conditions.[25] Remarkably, the dose
of DOXO needed for the combination therapy was much lower than that
used in other in vivo studies.[26,27] This might eventually reduce the side effects of standard chemotherapy
doses.Herein, by exploiting this innovative magnetic nanoplatform
(TR-DOXO),
we aim to understand the effect of MHT in combination with heat-mediated
chemotherapeutic drug release not only on the whole tumor but on a
unique dormant cancer subset, the quiescent CSCs. For this purpose,
we performed our experiments on CSCs, growing as spheroids, isolated
from CRcancer specimens since their resistance to chemotherapeutic
treatments is by far more aggressive than that of immortalized tumor
cells. More specifically, we have implemented standard assays for
identifying qCR-CSCs and study the effects of the MHT with TR-Cubes
and TR-DOXO on those cells. Through a variety of in vitro analyses including colony-forming assay after fluorescence-activated
cell sorting (FACS), confocal and transmission electron microcopy
analysis of tumor cells, viability assays such as trypan blue, and
apoptotic/necrotic cell quantification by flow cytometry analysis,
our study proves the synergistic effects of the dual therapy (MHT
and chemotherapy) to completely stop tumor growth. The use of MHT
only or drug chemotherapy (DOXO) treatment alone has an effect on
the overall viability of tumor spheroids, but it does not fully eradicate
the qCR-CSCs as they reawake and regrow the tumor mass both in vitro and in vivo. Instead, when the
cells are treated with TR-DOXO and exposed to MHT, this dual therapy
enables the complete eradication of the tumor cells. Moreover, by
checking over time the evolution of the number of alive PKHpos qCR-CSCs, after MHT, we have found that the heat stress leads the
qCR-CSCs to exit quiescence and start to divide to react and repopulate
the tumor colony. At this stage, the DOXO released by the nanocubes
is favorably internalized by the dividing CSCs, inducing an additional
cytotoxic drug action on the tumor cells. These data were also supported
by in vivo studies revealing the absence of initiation
and relapse potential for the cells previously exposed in
vitro to MHT with TR-DOXO.
Results and Discussion
Characterization
and Isolation of Quiescent PKHpos CR-CSCs
Spheroids
derived from CRcancerpatient tissues
(hereafter referred to as CR-CSCs) were isolated as described by Todaro et al.[28,29] CR-CSCs are characterized by
the expression of different stemness markers, including CD133 and
CD44v6, and by their in vivo tumorigenic potential.[28,29]To study the effects of MHT using TR-Cubes or TR-DOXO on the
qCR-CSC spheroid population, we needed to discriminate the qCR-CSCs
within the spheroids. A diluting dye proliferative assay based on
the use of the membrane green fluorescent PKH67 dye, adapted from
a protocol reported for primary breast CSCs, was implemented.[30] The concept here is to exploit the difference
in fluorescent intensity between the two cell populations after the
initial staining procedure. The highly proliferative tumor cells were
diluting PKH67 in a faster rate, leading to lower to no fluorescence
(10–11 days) compared to the slow-dividing qCR-CSCs that retained
a strong fluorescent signal for a prolonged period of time as observed
by confocal microscopy (Figure a). This result was also corroborated by flow cytometry: nearly
10% of green stained cells, representing the qCR-CSCs (PKHpos), were found 11 days post-staining (Figure b). The self-renewal ability of the sorted
PKHpos cells in respect to the nonstained fraction containing
the fast proliferating tumor cells (PKHneg) was evaluated in vitro through a spheroid-forming assay. Plating a single
sorted PKHpos qCR-CSC in a 96-well plate led to the formation
of small spheroids by day 3, after which they continued to grow, developing
a larger cell mass between day 6 and 2 weeks post-seeding, as observed
under an optical microscope (Figure c). Contrarily, in PKHneg cells, colony
formation from a single cell was not observed. In a comparative study,
the colony formation assay was slightly modified: after FACS sorting,
the PKHpos and PKHneg cells were separately
seeded at low cell density (1000 PKHneg cells/well or 100
PKHpos cells/well) and the colony formation was monitored
over time (Figure S1). The results confirmed
the presence of PKHpos spheroids already after 2 days of
culture, indicating a higher self-renewal capacity. On the contrary,
PKHneg cells show a much slower growth rate with no signs
of sphere formation even after 7 days of culture. Such outcome is
in line with data from the literature reporting that fast proliferating
cells eventually become exhausted after dividing.[31] To further verify if the sorted PKHpos cells
were enriched in CSCs, we evaluated the expression of CD44v6 as a
marker of metastatic cells[29] (Figure d). In accordance
with functional studies, PKHpos CR-CSCs displayed higher
levels of CD44v6 than the PKHneg cells (Figure d). Likewise, PKHpos CR-CSCs showed a more than threefold upregulation in the expression
of several crucial stemness genes with respect to fast proliferating
PKHneg cells (Figure e and Figure S2).
Figure 1
Identification
of quiescent colorectal cancer stem cells (PKHpos qCR-CSCs
#21). Proliferative PKH67 staining assay enables
to identify, after 11 days, the qCR-CSCs by (a) confocal microscopy
(the green cells) and (b) flow cytometry analysis. The y axis of the histograms represents the counts, while the x axis represents the fluorescent signal measured for green
PKH67. (c) Self-renewal capability of PKHpos qCR-CSC sorted
by FACS and cultured in an isolated environment (one cell per well,
scale bars: 50 μm). (d) Flow cytometry analysis of CD44v6 in
PKH67-stained CR-CSC (#21) after 11 days of PKH67 staining. (e) Stemness-related
gene expression analysis of up- and downregulated genes in FACS-sorted
PKHpos and PKHneg CR-CSCs following 11 days
of PKH67 staining. Genes showing a more than threefold change in PKHposg than PKHneg CR-CSCs are shown in red and green,
respectively.
Identification
of quiescent colorectal cancer stem cells (PKHpos qCR-CSCs
#21). Proliferative PKH67 staining assay enables
to identify, after 11 days, the qCR-CSCs by (a) confocal microscopy
(the green cells) and (b) flow cytometry analysis. The y axis of the histograms represents the counts, while the x axis represents the fluorescent signal measured for green
PKH67. (c) Self-renewal capability of PKHpos qCR-CSC sorted
by FACS and cultured in an isolated environment (one cell per well,
scale bars: 50 μm). (d) Flow cytometry analysis of CD44v6 in
PKH67-stained CR-CSC (#21) after 11 days of PKH67 staining. (e) Stemness-related
gene expression analysis of up- and downregulated genes in FACS-sorted
PKHpos and PKHneg CR-CSCs following 11 days
of PKH67 staining. Genes showing a more than threefold change in PKHposg than PKHneg CR-CSCs are shown in red and green,
respectively.
TR-Cubes and TR-DOXO Preparation
and Characterization for the
Treatment of CR-CSCs
Iron oxide nanocubes (IONCs) functionalized
with a thermoresponsive polymer (TR-Cubes), namely, poly(diethylene
glycol methyl ether methacrylate-co-polyethylene glycol methyl ether
methacrylate) (P(DEGMA-co-PEGMA)), were used as a smart nanocarrier
to combine controlled drug delivery and MHT. The TR-Cubes were synthesized
by the surface-initiated photoinduced atom transfer radical polymerization
(Photo-ATRP) following a recently published protocol of our group
(see the scheme of the synthesis in Figure a). Initially, IONCs (18 nm) underwent ligand
exchange with catechol functionalized ATRP initiators (DOPA-BiBAm)
to introduce initiating sites on their surface. Afterward, the solution
containing the modified ATRP initiator, the polymer monomers, and
the copper catalyst was exposed to a commercial UV lamp (excitation
at 365 nm) for a short period (3 h) to induce the formation of P(DEGMA-co-PEGMA)
on IONCs’ surface. Recovery of TR-Cubes was obtained by precipitation
in diethyl ether followed by ultracentrifugation in a sucrose gradient
to remove the nongrafted polymer. Here, Photo-ATRP offers the peculiarity
to grow a thick and uniform shell of polymer on the surface of IONCs
in a quick manner, thus preventing the IONCs’ tendency to cluster.
This feature results in the formation of individual IONCs coated with
P(DEGMA-co-PEGMA) that is crucial to maintain their heating performance
under clinically relevant MHT. Indeed, a SAR value as high as 250
W·g–1 (20 kA·m–1, 110
kHz) was determined by calorimetric measurement. Additionally, as
shown in Figure c,
the TR-Cubes deposited from water exhibit a well-dispersed feature
on TEM grid, indicating a high stability in aqueous media. In addition,
the DLS trace of TR-Cubes in saline reveals a single peak at 86 nm
with no sign of aggregation, thus being in good agreement with the
TEM result (Figure d, blue curve). Notably, a thick and uniform polymer shell surrounding
IONCs can be identified at high-magnification TEM, which further confirms
a successful surface-initiated polymerization step. Finally, by transmittance
measurements, a transition temperature (lower critical solution temperature
(LCST)) of 43 °C was determined for the TR-Cubes (Figure b).
Figure 2
Preparation and characterization
of TR-Cubes and TR-DOXO. (a) Scheme
of the preparation of TR-Cubes by photoinduced atom transfer radical
polymerization and DOXO loading process. IONCs (18 ± 2 nm) first
underwent ligand exchange with catechol functionalized ATRP initiators
(green–orange molecule) to introduce polymerization initiating
sites directly on the nanocube surface. In the second step, monomers
and copper catalyst addition under exposure to a UV lamp induce the
formation of a P(DEGMA-co-PEGMA) thermoresponsive polymer shell after
only 3 h reaction. (b) Transmittance vs temperature curve of TR-Cubes
used in this study, resulting in an LCST of 43 °C. (c) TEM image
of TR-Cubes (blue frame) and TR-DOXO (red frame). (d) Hydrodynamic
size by number for TR-Cubes (blue curve) and TR-DOXO (red curve).
Insets of the TEM image of TR-Cubes (blue frame) and TR-DOXO (red
frame) showing the polymer shell.
Preparation and characterization
of TR-Cubes and TR-DOXO. (a) Scheme
of the preparation of TR-Cubes by photoinduced atom transfer radical
polymerization and DOXO loading process. IONCs (18 ± 2 nm) first
underwent ligand exchange with catechol functionalized ATRP initiators
(green–orange molecule) to introduce polymerization initiating
sites directly on the nanocube surface. In the second step, monomers
and copper catalyst addition under exposure to a UV lamp induce the
formation of a P(DEGMA-co-PEGMA) thermoresponsive polymer shell after
only 3 h reaction. (b) Transmittance vs temperature curve of TR-Cubes
used in this study, resulting in an LCST of 43 °C. (c) TEM image
of TR-Cubes (blue frame) and TR-DOXO (red frame). (d) Hydrodynamic
size by number for TR-Cubes (blue curve) and TR-DOXO (red curve).
Insets of the TEM image of TR-Cubes (blue frame) and TR-DOXO (red
frame) showing the polymer shell.Doxorubicin hydrochloride (DOXO) was loaded onto TR-Cubes by simple
mixing of the drug and the nanocubes in a saline solution at room
temperature for an overnight incubation. TR-DOXO were recovered and
separated by free DOXO by means of magnetic collection, and the amount
of loaded DOXO in the nanocubes was found to be of 40 μg/mg
of Fe as determined by DMSO release, as previously described.[25] Even the TR-DOXO show no sign of aggregation
and very good stability in the solution (Figure c,d). Interestingly, 30% of loaded DOXO can
be released within 1.5 h under MHT when a temperature of 45 °C
is reached (110 kHz and 24 kAm–1), while at room
temperature (25 °C), it took several days (8 days) to release
the equivalent amount of DOXO just by diffusion. Along with the outstanding
SAR value and the heat-triggered DOXO release, TR-DOXO are an interesting
candidate for novel treatment against cancer stem cells.
MHT Effect
of TR-Cubes and TR-DOXO on CR-CSC Colonies
Due to the peculiar
shape of our cubic TR-Cubes and TR-DOXO that
determined their outstanding SAR values and thus heat performances
in MHT, the needed dose of magnetic materials to achieve a therapeutic
temperature at the tumor is one order of magnitude lower than that
of spherical nanoparticles employed in clinics.[18,32,33] Moreover, we have also previously shown
by in vivo biodistribution studies that TR-Cubes
can be renally excreted within a few months.[25]Herein, we first look at the effects caused by MHT with TR-Cubes
and then the combination of MHT and chemotherapy with TR-DOXO.To mimic the MHT treatment applied in vivo, 5
million CR-CSCs, simulating a tumor mass with a size of a few millimeters,
were treated with TR-Cubes (50 μL at 4 g Fe/L or 0.2 mg Fe)
or TR-DOXO (50 μL at 4 g Fe/L corresponding to 0.2 mg Fe and
containing approximately 40 μg of DOXO/mg Fe) and exposed to
MHT. First, we evaluated the effect of the MHT by varying the exposure
time to the radiofrequency while ensuring that the therapeutic temperature
reached during the MHT treatment never exceeded 45 °C. To achieve
this constant temperature, the radiofrequency (f)
was set at a clinically accepted 182 kHz and the field intensity was
varied such that it never exceeded 27 kA/m (this also guaranteed that
the Hf factor was below 5 × 109 Am–1 s–1) (see Figure and FigureS3).
MHT cycles were applied for 10, 30, 60 (2 × 30 min), and 90 (3
× 30 min) min. The three cycles of 30 min each of MHT correspond
to MHT cycles as applied in our preclinical studies.[25] The overall cell response was followed by monitoring the
cell growth rate of the spheroids (Figure b and Figures S4−S6) and by estimating cell survival by trypan blue assay (Figure c–f). When
the MHT treatment exposure was increased (from 30 to 90 min), a proportional
decrease in cell survival and spheroid formation was observed (Figure c−e and Figures S4–S6). This was also accompanied
by extensive and evident signs of cellular damage after longer MHT
treatments as observed by morphological cell changes under TEM analysis
of treated cells (Figures S7–S11). As also indicated by cell viability and cell growth curves (Figure c–f and Figure S12), the cells treated with TR-Cubes
and TR-DOXO did not show a significant difference in their survival
profiles at the first days after MHT treatment (up to day 3). These
data suggest that in the first stage post-MHT, the cells’ sufferance
is mainly due to the heat therapy.
Figure 3
CR-CSCs #21 response to MHT alone (TR-Cubes)
or combined with chemotherapy
(TR-DOXO). (a) Schematic representation of the experimental protocols
followed to study the effect of TR-Cubes and TR-DOXO upon exposure
to MHT on CR tumor cells containing quiescent PKHpos qCR-CSCs.
The first step consists of identifying the qCR-CSCs followed by the
use of TR-Cubes or TR-DOXO for MHT (f = 182 kHz with
a fixed temperature of 45 °C) and finally reseeding the cells
in culture to evaluate their response to the treatment in
vitro. (b) Optical microscope representative pictures of
control cells, cells exposed to MHT for 90 min (three cycles of 30
min), and cells treated with only DOXO 1 and 16 days post-treatment
showing no spheroid formation for the cells treated with TR-DOXO.
Scale bars: 200 μm. Viability profiles, analyzed by trypan blue
assay, of the CR-CSCs treated with TR-Cubes (green bars) or TR-DOXO
(red bars) after different exposure times of MHT: (c) 30 min, (d)
two cycles of 30 min (2 × 30 min) for a maximum duration of 60
min, and (e) three cycles of 30 min (3 × 30 min) for a maximum
duration of 90 min. The blue bars indicate the control untreated cells.
(f) Viability profiles, analyzed by trypan blue assay, of the CR-CSCs
treated with TR-DOXO in the presence (red bars) or absence (black
bars) of MHT. Values are presented as mean with error bars indicating
the standard deviation (SD) for n = 3 independent
experiments. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA with a
Tukey post hoc test. *p < 0.05, * *p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, and *** *p < 0.0001.
CR-CSCs #21 response to MHT alone (TR-Cubes)
or combined with chemotherapy
(TR-DOXO). (a) Schematic representation of the experimental protocols
followed to study the effect of TR-Cubes and TR-DOXO upon exposure
to MHT on CRtumor cells containing quiescent PKHpos qCR-CSCs.
The first step consists of identifying the qCR-CSCs followed by the
use of TR-Cubes or TR-DOXO for MHT (f = 182 kHz with
a fixed temperature of 45 °C) and finally reseeding the cells
in culture to evaluate their response to the treatment in
vitro. (b) Optical microscope representative pictures of
control cells, cells exposed to MHT for 90 min (three cycles of 30
min), and cells treated with only DOXO 1 and 16 days post-treatment
showing no spheroid formation for the cells treated with TR-DOXO.
Scale bars: 200 μm. Viability profiles, analyzed by trypan blue
assay, of the CR-CSCs treated with TR-Cubes (green bars) or TR-DOXO
(red bars) after different exposure times of MHT: (c) 30 min, (d)
two cycles of 30 min (2 × 30 min) for a maximum duration of 60
min, and (e) three cycles of 30 min (3 × 30 min) for a maximum
duration of 90 min. The blue bars indicate the control untreated cells.
(f) Viability profiles, analyzed by trypan blue assay, of the CR-CSCs
treated with TR-DOXO in the presence (red bars) or absence (black
bars) of MHT. Values are presented as mean with error bars indicating
the standard deviation (SD) for n = 3 independent
experiments. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA with a
Tukey post hoc test. *p < 0.05, * *p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, and *** *p < 0.0001.However, between days 3 and 7,
a remarkable cell viability difference
occurs when comparing the cells treated with TR-DOXO or TR-Cubes exposed
to MHT. For the TR-DOXO treated CR-CSC samples, a significant decrease
in cell survival contrasting that of the cells treated with TR-Cubes
was clearly visible, suggesting a synergistic therapeutic effect of
DOXO in addition to the heat generated via MHT. Figure c–e shows that depending on the heat
stress provided by the MHT exposure, the cellular survival response
is tuned and this response is delayed if stronger stress stimuli (longer
MHT treatments) are provided. For the cells treated with 10 or 30
min of MHT, this effect was observed between days 2 and 5, while for
the cells exposed to 60 or 90 min of MHT, a later cellular response
is observed around days 7–14 post-treatment. Noteworthily,
in all cases in which sole MHT therapy was applied, we observed a
critical period, post-MHT, after which the cells were able to recover
from the damage and start regrowing the spheroids. Differently, for
the TR-DOXO at all MHT durations, a lower cell resistance (higher
cell death) was observed, with complete cell death only when applying
90 min of MHT (Figure e). It is worth noting that for the cells treated with TR-DOXO but
not exposed to MHT, the nonspecific drug release provides a reduction
of cell viability, but after a week of culture, the remaining alive
cells were able to restart the spheroid growth (Figure f). Overall, these data suggest that the
samples treated with TR-DOXO are preferred to those treated with TR-Cubes
and an overall MHT duration of 90 min is the most efficient treatment
to reach the best therapeutic effect and completely suppress the spheroid
growth. These cytotoxicity data and MHT conditions are also in agreement
with the magnetic field conditions used by us in the in vivo efficacy study on a xenograft tumor model of adenocarcinoma when
employing the same TR-DOXO.[25]To
better understand the cytotoxic effects caused by the heat generated
during MHT on the CR-CSCs, flow cytometry analysis was used to count
the number of cells in apoptotic or necrotic stages (Figure a). Annexin/propidium iodide
staining was conducted on the cells exposed to TR-Cubes for 90 min
of MHT. Most of the CRcancer cells (>80%) died mainly by necrosis
during MHT, while a small fraction was detected in the apoptotic stage
(ca. 10%) and an even smaller cellular fraction was found alive (4%),
which may be responsible for regrowing the spheroids (Figure e).
Figure 4
TR-Cubes MHT damage on
patient CR-CSCs #21 and more specifically
on qCR-CSCs #21. (a) Flow cytometry analysis of annexin V–FITC
and PI staining was used to evaluate the cell viability following
MHT treatment (f = 182 kHz reaching a fixed temperature
of 45 °C for 90 min). Triplicates from the control nontreated
cells and the cells exposed to MHT for 90 min were measured. The purple
population in the dot plot represents live cells; green, the apoptotic
fraction; and red, the dead PI-stained cells. (b) PKHpos cell death estimation based on confocal microscope analysis using
Sytox blue staining, specific for dead cells. Left panel, images acquired
by confocal microscopy: the green signal represents PKHpos cells, the blue signal represents dead cells, and colocalized green
and blue represent dead PKHpos cells. Right panel, cumulative
representation of live (green) vs dead (blue) PKHpos cell
quantified from the acquired confocal images. At least 500 PKHpos cells were counted per each time point in n = 3 independent experiments. The mean data are reported, and error
bars represent SD. Scale bar of 50 μm.
TR-Cubes MHT damage on
patientCR-CSCs #21 and more specifically
on qCR-CSCs #21. (a) Flow cytometry analysis of annexin V–FITC
and PI staining was used to evaluate the cell viability following
MHT treatment (f = 182 kHz reaching a fixed temperature
of 45 °C for 90 min). Triplicates from the control nontreated
cells and the cells exposed to MHT for 90 min were measured. The purple
population in the dot plot represents live cells; green, the apoptotic
fraction; and red, the dead PI-stained cells. (b) PKHpos cell death estimation based on confocal microscope analysis using
Sytox blue staining, specific for dead cells. Left panel, images acquired
by confocal microscopy: the green signal represents PKHpos cells, the blue signal represents dead cells, and colocalized green
and blue represent dead PKHpos cells. Right panel, cumulative
representation of live (green) vs dead (blue) PKHpos cell
quantified from the acquired confocal images. At least 500 PKHpos cells were counted per each time point in n = 3 independent experiments. The mean data are reported, and error
bars represent SD. Scale bar of 50 μm.To verify if, after 90 min of MHT, the quiescent PKHpos green cells were a fraction of the dying population, a confocal
microscopy study was conducted after co-staining the cells with Sytox
blue, a marker for dead cells. The number of PKHpos (green)
cells colocalized with Sytox blue was counted at different time points
post-MHT (Figure b
and Figure S13). Quantitatively, out of
the PKHpos green-stained cells that represented the qCR-CSCs,
we could count a progressively higher number of dying PKHpos cells over time, reaching 50% of dead PKHpos cells 5
days after MHT. This was followed by a gradual increase in the percentage
of live PKHpos cells between days 5 and 15 from 43 to 67%
indicating that the surviving PKHpos fraction started to
divide and repopulate the culture. Instead, when looking at the cells
exposed to the same MHT treatment using TR-DOXO, remarkable differences
were observed (Figure ). One day post-MHT treatment, a clear red signal due to DOXO internalization
was already diffusively present within cells. Colocalization of DOXO
(red) and PHKpos cells (green) is clearly evident since
each of these components occupies different subcellular compartments
of the cells (DOXO in nucleus and PKH in cell membrane, Figure a for day 1 and also Figures S14 and S15). Additionally, after adding
Sytox blue representing dead cells, at day 1, we observed lower incidences
of PKHpos cell death, represented by no blue co-staining
with PKHpos green cells. On the contrary, later by day
5, these PKHpos cells showed colocalization of the blue
signal for the cell death with green and red signals. This represents
dead PHKpos cells that had internalized DOXO after MHT
(Figurea and Figure S16).
Figure 5
TR-DOXO dual-therapy effect on qCR-CSCs
#21. (a) Confocal microscope
analysis of CR-CSCs treated with TR-DOXO and exposed to MHT (90 min;
three cycles of 30 min). PKHpos cell (green signal), Sytox
blue (blue signal) for dead cells, and uptake of DOXO (red signal).
The colocalization of green, blue, and red signals at day 5 confirms
the death of quiescent PKHpos cells that have also internalized
the released DOXO following MHT. (b) Spheroid growth monitoring after
MHT (f = 182 kHz reaching a fixed temperature of
45 °C for 90 min; three cycles of 30 min) using TR-DOXO compared
to control cells. The lack of spheroid formation on the figures on
the right panel, at day 5, confirms the dual cytotoxic effects of
the treatment. All scale bars are 50 μm. (c) Estimation of PKHpos cell death based on confocal images acquired using Sytox
blue for 4 weeks after MHT and TR-DOXO administration. (d) Estimation
of PKHpos cell death based on confocal images acquired
using Sytox blue for 4 weeks after treatment with DOXO. For panels
(c) and (d), at least 500 PKHpos cells were counted per
each time point and per each experimental condition in n = 3 independent experiments. The mean data are reported, and error
bars represent SD. Statistical analysis was done using ANOVA followed
by Dunn’s multiple comparison test. The statistical difference
***p < 0.001 was calculated for each time point.
TR-DOXO dual-therapy effect on qCR-CSCs
#21. (a) Confocal microscope
analysis of CR-CSCs treated with TR-DOXO and exposed to MHT (90 min;
three cycles of 30 min). PKHpos cell (green signal), Sytox
blue (blue signal) for dead cells, and uptake of DOXO (red signal).
The colocalization of green, blue, and red signals at day 5 confirms
the death of quiescent PKHpos cells that have also internalized
the released DOXO following MHT. (b) Spheroid growth monitoring after
MHT (f = 182 kHz reaching a fixed temperature of
45 °C for 90 min; three cycles of 30 min) using TR-DOXO compared
to control cells. The lack of spheroid formation on the figures on
the right panel, at day 5, confirms the dual cytotoxic effects of
the treatment. All scale bars are 50 μm. (c) Estimation of PKHpos cell death based on confocal images acquired using Sytox
blue for 4 weeks after MHT and TR-DOXO administration. (d) Estimation
of PKHpos cell death based on confocal images acquired
using Sytox blue for 4 weeks after treatment with DOXO. For panels
(c) and (d), at least 500 PKHpos cells were counted per
each time point and per each experimental condition in n = 3 independent experiments. The mean data are reported, and error
bars represent SD. Statistical analysis was done using ANOVA followed
by Dunn’s multiple comparison test. The statistical difference
***p < 0.001 was calculated for each time point.The presence of DOXO in PKHpos cells
and the sign of
cell sufferance that are more evident at a prolonged time post-MHT
may explain why the spheroid growth is compromised when the cells
are exposed to MHT using TR-DOXO (Figure b).Further quantification of PKHpos cells (green) and Sytox
blue cells, based on the confocal images, confirmed the complete death
of the qCR-CSCs after MHT with TR-DOXO (Figure c), contrarily to the cells treated with
TR-Cubes + MHT (Figure b) or the cells treated only with DOXO (Figure d). These findings demonstrate that MHT and
chemotherapy are capable of eradicating the tumor cell completely
by directly affecting qCR-CSCs (PHKpos cells). To test
the effectiveness of our nanoplatform for a future personalized treatment,
the DOXO-sensitive CR-CSC #21 used for all the above-mentioned studies
was compared to another patient-derived DOXO-resistant CR-cell line,
CR-CSC #27, in a long-term study conducted for at least 28 days.Besides cell viability, we have also monitored the presence of
DOXO signal over time in PHKpos cells. Together with TR-DOXO
(see Figure c), free
DOXO, at a dose that corresponded to the DOXO amount loaded on TR-DOXO,
was also tested (it is worth noting that the amount of DOXO released
by the TR-DOXO is always lower than the one loaded) (Figure S17).
Figure 6
Cytotoxic effects on qCR-CSCs. Comparative cytotoxic study
on DOXO-sensitive
(CR-CSC #21, a) and DOXO-resistant (CR-CSC #27, b) patient cells from
24 h up to 1 month post-MHT treatment. Experimental conditions: control
(not treated cells), DOXO (DOXO amount of 15 μg), TR-Cubes (cells
treated only with TR-Cubes), TR-Cubes + MHT (MHT of three cycles of
30 min each at 182 kHz and 21.68 kA/m), TR-DOXO (cells treated with
TR-DOXO), TR-DOXO + MHT (cells treated with TR-DOXO and exposed to
MHT), and DOXO + MHT (cells treated with DOXO alone at an amount of
15 μg and exposed to MHT). Statistical analysis was done using
ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s multiple comparison test. The statistical
difference was calculated for each sample in each time point in comparison
to the control at that same time point. The significant decrease in
cell survival is annotated as * for p < 0.001.
(c) Representative confocal pictures of CR-CSC #21 and CR-CSC #27
after 72 h and 1 week of TR-DOXO treatment showing the almost total
absence of DOXO drug (red signal) inside the CR-CSC #27 line after
1 week. This is not the case for DOXO-sensitive CR-CSC #21. Green
signal: PKHpos cells. Scale bar: 50 μm. (d) Statistical
estimation of PKHpos DOXOpos cells for CR-CSC #21 and CR-CSC #27 from
24 h until 1 month after DOXO treatment based on the images acquired.
At least 500 PKHpos cells were counted per each time point
and per each experimental condition.***p < 0.001
when comparing qCR-CSC #21 DOXOpos cells vs qCR-CSC #27
DOXOpos cells at 1, 2, and 4 weeks, respectively; ANOVA
test.
Cytotoxic effects on qCR-CSCs. Comparative cytotoxic study
on DOXO-sensitive
(CR-CSC #21, a) and DOXO-resistant (CR-CSC #27, b) patient cells from
24 h up to 1 month post-MHT treatment. Experimental conditions: control
(not treated cells), DOXO (DOXO amount of 15 μg), TR-Cubes (cells
treated only with TR-Cubes), TR-Cubes + MHT (MHT of three cycles of
30 min each at 182 kHz and 21.68 kA/m), TR-DOXO (cells treated with
TR-DOXO), TR-DOXO + MHT (cells treated with TR-DOXO and exposed to
MHT), and DOXO + MHT (cells treated with DOXO alone at an amount of
15 μg and exposed to MHT). Statistical analysis was done using
ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s multiple comparison test. The statistical
difference was calculated for each sample in each time point in comparison
to the control at that same time point. The significant decrease in
cell survival is annotated as * for p < 0.001.
(c) Representative confocal pictures of CR-CSC #21 and CR-CSC #27
after 72 h and 1 week of TR-DOXO treatment showing the almost total
absence of DOXO drug (red signal) inside the CR-CSC #27 line after
1 week. This is not the case for DOXO-sensitive CR-CSC #21. Green
signal: PKHpos cells. Scale bar: 50 μm. (d) Statistical
estimation of PKHpos DOXOpos cells for CR-CSC #21 and CR-CSC #27 from
24 h until 1 month after DOXO treatment based on the images acquired.
At least 500 PKHpos cells were counted per each time point
and per each experimental condition.***p < 0.001
when comparing qCR-CSC #21 DOXOpos cells vs qCR-CSC #27
DOXOpos cells at 1, 2, and 4 weeks, respectively; ANOVA
test.As shown in Figure , even after 28 days, for CR-CSC #21, the
complete cell growth suppression
was achieved only with TR-DOXO + MHT treatment (Figure a). On the contrary, for DOXO-resistant CR-CSC
#27, the survival rate suggests that no treatment is effective, as
colonies were able to regrow after day 7 (Figure b). Notably, even the response to dual therapy
when employing either TR-DOXO + MHT or DOXO + MHT is not enough to
block the cell regrowth (Figure b and Figure S18).To better understand why the dual therapy was effective for DOXO-sensitive
CR-CSC #21 but not for DOXO-resistant CR-CSC #27, we focused on the
effect of DOXO on the cells. On both patient cells, quantitative fluorescent
analysis based on images acquired by confocal microscopy was used
to estimate the number of PKHpos cells (green signal) that
were also DOXO positive (red signal). We found that DOXO was present
from the beginning of the drug treatment on both cell types and it
was still present after a month on a small fraction of CR-CSC #21-PKHpos cells (ca. 17% of the cells) (Figure d). For CR-CSC #21, no regrowth of colony
appeared up to 28 days (Figure a). Instead, on PKHpos CR-CSC #27, where a regrowth
of cell colonies appeared 7 days post-treatment (Figure b), by analyzing confocal images,
a remarkable decrease in DOXO red signal is clearly evident between
days 1 and 7 post-MHT (Figure c,d).These qualitative and quantitative data confirm
that for these
DOXO-resistant cells, the rate of expulsion of DOXO occurs very quickly
between 72 h and day 7 (less % of red signal out of the PKHpos CR-CSC #27), in accordance with published data regarding the overexpression
of drug-efflux transporters in CSCs.[34] It
is worth noting that even in this case to evaluate the toxicity of
the treatment the main difference occurs between 3 and 7 days post-treatment.
The DOXO elimination could suggest a possible mechanism of recovery
of this DOXO-resistant cell line even if it went through MHT.Next, to validate the efficiency of the dual treatment on the DOXO-resistant
CR-CSC #27, we designed an experiment in which we co-administered
the TR-Cubes as MHT heating agents together with oxaliplatin (OXA),
a drug that can overcome drug resistance shown by CR-CSC #27 (MHT
+ OXA, single step). The clinically sensitive dose range of OXA for
CR-CSCs as reported by Todaro et al. is between 5
and 100 μM.[28]We also aimed
by combining the therapeutic effect of OXA and MHT
to reduce the OXA dose required to achieve the elimination of CR-CSC
#27. In a first set of experiments, CR-CSC #27 was first treated with
TR-Cubes and exposed to MHT and then seeded in a fresh medium containing
OXA at 10 or 100 μM (Figure a, treatment 1). Cells treated with MHT and 100 μM
OXA were completely eradicated by day 7 post-treatment (Figure b, purple line). Contrarily,
if a 10 μM OXA dose was administered to the cell media, a 70%
cell mortality was reached by day 7 after treatment, after which the
survival of the cells started to increase again (Figure b, green dashed line). Please
note that cell viability was also tested for the free OXA drug in
the solution at 50 μM (Figure S19). The viability data obtained are in accordance with those reported
by Todaro et al.: there is about 60% cell death after
48 h.[28] However, while the cells treated
with 100 μM OXA were not able to recover from the treatment,
the ones treated with 50 μM OXA started recovering very quickly
as shown by the increase in cell viability after only 4 days post-treatment
(Figure S19).
Figure 7
Dual-therapy effect on
DOXO-resistant CR-CSCs #27 using TR-Cubes
for MHT and OXA as chemotherapeutic agent. (a) Schematic diagrams
of experimental treatment for MHT combined with OXA administration.
(b) Viability profiles, analyzed by trypan blue assay, for the DOXO-resistant
CR-CSC #27 treated with MHT using TR-Cubes (red dashed line), TR-Cubes
followed by OXA administration in the medium (100 μM, purple
dashed line), TR-Cubes plus OXA administration in the medium (10 μM,
green dashed line), and TR-Cubes plus OXA 10 μM added during
hyperthermia (orange dashed line). All MHT treatments were performed
for three cycles of 30 min at 45 °C (f = 182
kHz, H ∼ 13). The blue dashed line indicates
the control cells incubated at 37 °C. All values were calculated
and normalized to the viability of the control cells at day 0.
Dual-therapy effect on
DOXO-resistant CR-CSCs #27 using TR-Cubes
for MHT and OXA as chemotherapeutic agent. (a) Schematic diagrams
of experimental treatment for MHT combined with OXA administration.
(b) Viability profiles, analyzed by trypan blue assay, for the DOXO-resistant
CR-CSC #27 treated with MHT using TR-Cubes (red dashed line), TR-Cubes
followed by OXA administration in the medium (100 μM, purple
dashed line), TR-Cubes plus OXA administration in the medium (10 μM,
green dashed line), and TR-Cubes plus OXA 10 μM added during
hyperthermia (orange dashed line). All MHT treatments were performed
for three cycles of 30 min at 45 °C (f = 182
kHz, H ∼ 13). The blue dashed line indicates
the control cells incubated at 37 °C. All values were calculated
and normalized to the viability of the control cells at day 0.In a second set of experiments, TR-Cubes and OXA
were co-administered
directly to the cells before performing MHT (Figure a, treatment 2). Interestingly, the presence
of OXA during the MHT treatment (Figure a, orange dashed line) brought to the complete
cell elimination at a much lower OXA dose (10 μM). In fact,
after 7days, the cells do not show any sign of recovery, with a complete
elimination achieved by day 12 post-treatment (Figure b). This result indicates the importance
of having the drug during the MHT as, in this case, the heat facilitates
its cell internalization and enables a more effective therapeutic
effect at reduced drug dosage. Our TR-DOXO nanoplatforms are indeed
able to encapsulate and release the drug only upon a heat stimulus,
thus enabling a significant reduction in the drug dose.
In
Vivo Tumorigenicity Study
To confirm
the effective combinatorial therapeutic effects of our TR-DOXO nanoplatforms,
an in vivo tumor formation and relapse evaluation
study was performed after the cells were exposed to the treatments in vitro. Nanoplatforms were added to CR-CSC #21 (50 μL
at 4 g Fe/L of TR-Cubes and TR-DOXO containing 50 mg of DOXO per gram
of Fe) and exposed to MHT treatment at 45 °C in an ex
vivo setup (three cycles at 182 kHz and the field intensity
never exceeded 21.87 kA/m to maintain the 45 °C during the 30
min cycle). These treated cells were then injected subcutaneously
in the flank of animals. With this study, the ability of CR-CSC #21
to reinitiate tumor growth was evaluated in a xenograft murine model
(Figure a), after
the cells were treated in vitro with the TR-Cubes or TR-DOXO with
or without the exposure to MHT (three cycles of 30 min, at 45 °C).[19,35] For the animal groups where no MHT exposure was foreseen, the nanoparticles
were added to the cells and incubated at 37 °C for the equivalent
time of MHT before proceeding with the subcutaneous injection in the
right flank of the 8-week-old female animals. We then monitored the
tumor formation ability, tumor volume growth, animal survival, and
general animal health state. As expected only for the animal group
injected with CR-CSC #21 treated with TR-DOXO and exposed to MHT (TR-
DOXO + MHT), in vivo tumor formation results showed
a complete inhibition of tumor growth for the whole duration of the
experiment (250 days). Indeed, none of the animals in the group exposed
to the dual therapy developed tumors throughout the whole experimental
duration. This was not the case for control animals injected with
nontreated CR-CSC #21, the CR-CSC #21 treated with nonspecific DOXO
release (TR-DOXO with no MHT exposure), or free DOXO (the latter administered
at the same dose amount that is loaded within the TR-Cubes) or for
the MHT heat damage alone (TR-Cubes + MHT). Animals belonging to these
groups gradually developed tumors along the experiment, with different
rates of tumor growth (Figure b and Figure S20). Instead, only
in the group of the combined treatment of TR-DOXO + MHT was the complete
tumor growth suppression induced, with no detectable tumor appearing
in any of the animals of this group (Figure c). It is worth noting that, once more, the
main viability difference between treatments occurs between days 3−7
post-treatment. Surprisingly, after 150 days of cell injection, two
animals in the TR-Cubes + MHT group with absolutely no visible external
tumor mass demonstrated physical signs of swallowed abdomen, and thus,
they were sacrificed, respecting the humane end point of the study.
Post-mortem analysis of these two animals showed the presence of bloody
ascites in the peritoneal cavity, and few tumor nodules were found
in the mesenterium and retroperitoneum, indicating the presence of
metastasis (Figure S21e).[36] These animals however had no evidence of cachexia and weight
loss. These results are indicative of the inefficiency of hyperthermia
alone (TR-Cubes + MHT) to fully eradicate the qCR-CSCs: the heat can
indeed delay the tumor growth, but it cannot avoid resistant tumor
cells to restart growing and cause cancer relapse or even more dangerous
metastasis (Figure S21e). The presence
of a low percentage of animals without tumor in DOXO, TR-DOXO, and
TR-Cubes + MHT groups may be due to the random presence of quiescent
CSCs in the cell population initially injected in the animal.[37]
Figure 8
In vivo monitoring of tumor initiation
and relapse
capacity of CR-CSCs #21 after in vitro pretreatment
with MHT using TR-Cubes or TR-DOXO nanoplatforms. (a) Scheme of the in vivo experiment steps. CR-CSC #21 cells subjected to
administration of TR-DOXO or TR-Cubes with or without the MHT exposure
(182 kHz for three cycles of MHT of 30 min each) were injected subcutaneously
on the flank of NMRI nude mice (1 × 106 live cells
per animal). A follow-up of the animals was prolonged up to 8 months.
A tumor of 2 cm in at least one of its side marked the end point of
the experiment.(b) Percentage of tumor-free animals over time (8 months
of experiment). * **p < 0.001 control vs TR-DOXO
+ MHT and ***p < 0.001 TR-DOXO vs TR-DOXO + MHT
for days 120, 155, and 180, respectively; ANOVA and Tukey post hoc
test. (c) Tumor growth curves (tumor volume: mm3) for animals
injected with CR-CSC #21 cells (control, not treated) or cells previously
treated with TR-Cubes + MHT, TR-DOXO, or free DOXO or TR-DOXO + MHT
cells. ANOVA and Dunn post hoc test. Statistical analysis shows statistical
differences, ***p < 0.001, on the experimental
groups: control vs TR-DOXO + MHT, TR-Cubes + MHT vs TR-DOXO + MHT,
DOXO vs TR-DOXO + MHT, and TR-DOXO vs TR- DOXO + MHT for days 45,
60, 75, 90, 105, and 120, respectively. (d) Kaplan–Meier survival
plot showing the difference in tumor suppression and improved survival
between the TR-DOXO + MHT and the other groups studied up to 8 months;
*p = 0.030; p value is calculated
with the log-rank test. (e) Weight graphs of animals in control (no
treated), DOXO, TR-DOXO, TR-Cubes + MHT, and TR-DOXO + MHT groups
showing no weight loss for the 8 months of experiment. For graphs
in panels (b), (c), (d), and (e), data shown are mean ± SD, with n = 6 of two independent experiments.
In vivo monitoring of tumor initiation
and relapse
capacity of CR-CSCs #21 after in vitro pretreatment
with MHT using TR-Cubes or TR-DOXO nanoplatforms. (a) Scheme of the in vivo experiment steps. CR-CSC #21 cells subjected to
administration of TR-DOXO or TR-Cubes with or without the MHT exposure
(182 kHz for three cycles of MHT of 30 min each) were injected subcutaneously
on the flank of NMRI nude mice (1 × 106 live cells
per animal). A follow-up of the animals was prolonged up to 8 months.
A tumor of 2 cm in at least one of its side marked the end point of
the experiment.(b) Percentage of tumor-free animals over time (8 months
of experiment). * **p < 0.001 control vs TR-DOXO
+ MHT and ***p < 0.001 TR-DOXO vs TR-DOXO + MHT
for days 120, 155, and 180, respectively; ANOVA and Tukey post hoc
test. (c) Tumor growth curves (tumor volume: mm3) for animals
injected with CR-CSC #21 cells (control, not treated) or cells previously
treated with TR-Cubes + MHT, TR-DOXO, or free DOXO or TR-DOXO + MHT
cells. ANOVA and Dunn post hoc test. Statistical analysis shows statistical
differences, ***p < 0.001, on the experimental
groups: control vs TR-DOXO + MHT, TR-Cubes + MHT vs TR-DOXO + MHT,
DOXO vs TR-DOXO + MHT, and TR-DOXO vs TR- DOXO + MHT for days 45,
60, 75, 90, 105, and 120, respectively. (d) Kaplan–Meier survival
plot showing the difference in tumor suppression and improved survival
between the TR-DOXO + MHT and the other groups studied up to 8 months;
*p = 0.030; p value is calculated
with the log-rank test. (e) Weight graphs of animals in control (no
treated), DOXO, TR-DOXO, TR-Cubes + MHT, and TR-DOXO + MHT groups
showing no weight loss for the 8 months of experiment. For graphs
in panels (b), (c), (d), and (e), data shown are mean ± SD, with n = 6 of two independent experiments.Recent reports have suggested that the percentage of CSCs within
a tumor cell population of patient cells can vary from 0.02 to 25%
depending on the tumor type. However, this CSC fraction resisting
treatments is sufficient to restart the tumor growth by an asymmetric
cell division generating the growth of self-renewing cells (carrying
stemness) and general progenitor tumor cells that can further differentiate.[38−40] Survival rate was also monitored, and mice were sacrificed when
the animal reached the humanr endpoint (the tumor reached 2 cm in
one of its side). Control and TR-DOXO animal groups presented a higher
probability of mortality due to the fast tumor growth before 100 days
post-treatment. For DOXO and TR-Cubes + MHT groups, the probability
of mortality was delayed to 150 days compared to control and TR-DOXO
groups. This might be explained by the slower nonspecific DOXO release
from the TR-DOXO compared to administering free DOXO directly. In
contrast, the CR-CSC #21 treated with TR-DOXO + MHT led to significantly
enhanced overall survival (probability = 1) relative to the control
groups (p < 0.05, p = 0.030).
Eight months after study initiation, all the animals of this group
were still alive without tumor recurrence. (Figure d, Figure S20).
All the animals in the study groups showed an increase in body weight
over time. No significant differences in the weight of the animals
among different treatment groups were observed (Figure e).
Conclusions
Our
study demonstrates that patient-derived CR-CSCs are susceptible
to the heat produced by TR-Cubes under multiple MHT exposures (3 ×
30 min), at a therapeutic temperature of 45 °C, showing necrosis
as the major cause of death. However, even after MHT, a small fraction
of surviving qCR-CSCs can regrow the whole tumor mass. Interestingly,
the longer the heat exposure time was, the longer was the delay of
qCR-CSCs to reawake and restart the tumor growth (Figures and ). To inhibit the self-renewal capacity of
this subcellular population, a dual therapeutic approach was required.
Here, TR-DOXO, which combine the heat generated by the magnetic nanocubes
under MHT with the triggered heat-mediated DOXO release, were proven
to successfully eradicate qCR-CSCs (PKHpos stained cells)
and avoid tumor relapse (Figures and ). Under MHT, the heat produced by TR-DOXO generates a stress on
the qCR-CSCs cells, inducing them to divide. At the same time, the
heat facilitates DOXO diffusion and prompts drug internalization by
qCR-CSCs cells, thus making them more sensitive to DOXO (Figures and ). These in vitro findings were also supported by tumor initiation and relapse in vivo studies when using patient-derived DOXO-sensitive
cells (CR-CSC #21). Notably, tumor growth was completely absent only
in the animals injected with the cells pretreated with TR-DOXO and
exposed to MHT (TR-DOXO + MHT, Figure ). The heat effect of TR-Cubes under MHT (TR-Cubes
+ MHT) was instead not able, by itself, to completely stop the tumor
formation. Remarkably, in this study, the complete tumor inhibition
with TR-DOXO was observed when applying MHT parameters that are used
in clinics.Importantly, we have also proved that the dual therapy
can be adjusted
to provide personalized therapy by choosing the most effective chemotherapeutic
drug to be combined with TR-Cubes for MHT depending on the drug resistance
of patienttumor cells. Indeed, for DOXO-resistant patient-derived
CR-CSCs #27, the combination of MHT and DOXO did not work but the
combination of MHT using TR-Cubes with OXA, another chemotherapeutic
agents, could stop in vitro tumor cell growth (Figure ). Interestingly,
this could be achieved using a much lower dose of OXA (10 μM)
than the standard OXA treatment (100 μM) only when the drug
and MHT were co-administered. This outcome highlights the importance
of using a smart multifunctional nanoplatform, like our TR-DOXO, to
provide efficient hyperthermia and trigger chemotherapy in a single
step to eliminate qCSCs.Finally, our data suggest that it is
reasonable to predict in vitro the cellular response
of patient cells to MHT in
combination with chemotherapy in a short time, with a critical time
window set around 5–7 days. We consider the results obtained
in this work relevant for the clinical translation of MHT therapeutic
effects in combination with drug release to develop a patient-specific
personalized therapy. In perspective, efforts should be made to encapsulate
different chemotherapeutic drugs in such types of magnetic nanoplatform,
thus providing more efficient and patient-specific therapeutic tools.
Materials and Methods
In Vitro Cell Culture
Colorectal (CR)
cancer specimens were supplied by the “P. Giaccone”
University Hospital following the ethical guidelines for human experimentation
of the Institutional Ethics Committee. The isolation and propagation
of CR-CSCs #21 and CR-CSCs #27 were performed as previously described.[29] CR-CSCs were checked routinely for mycoplasma
contamination by using the MycoAlert Plus Mycoplasma Detection Kit
(Lonza). The authentication of CR-CSCs was assessed by performing
a short tandem repeat (STR) analysis (GlobalFiler STR Kit, Applied
Biosystems) followed by ABIPRISM 3130 genetic analyzer (Applied Biosystems)
sequencing. CR-CSCs (both CR-CSC#21 and CR-CSC #27) were cultured
as spheroids in Corning ultra-low attachment flasks at 37 °C
and 5% CO2. The cells were plated at an optimal density
of 1 × 105 cells/mL in an Advanced DMEM/F12 medium
(Gibco) freshly supplemented with HEPES (10 mM), l-glutamine
(2 mM), penicillin–streptomycin (100 U/mL), N-acetylcysteine (1 mM), N-2 Supplement (1×), bFGF (100 ng/mL),
EGF (50 ng/mL), B-27 (1×), Gastrin I (human) (10 mM), and nicotinamide
(10 mM).
Identification of Quiescent CR-CSCs: Cellular Membrane PKH Labeling
Typically, the staining was performed after the cells were in culture
for at least a week. The cells were labeled with the lipophilic fluorescent
dye PKH67 (Sigma) according to the manufacturer’s protocol.
Briefly, cells were washed and incubated with the dye for 4 min. The
staining was blocked with fetal bovine serum (FBS), and the cells
were seeded in the supplemented medium as described above. The medium
was changed every 2 days, the cells were examined daily by an optical
microscope (Motic AE31) to confirm the spheroid formation, and pictures
were acquired by the confocal microscope (A1R Resonant Confocal System
on TiE inverted microscope, NIS Elements software) to follow the fluorescent
signal dilution.
Flow Cytometry of CD44v6 in PKH67-Stained
CR-CSC (#21) and Stemness-Related
Gene Expression Analysis
After being stained with PKH67,
PKH67-stained CR-CSC (#21) cells were washed in PBS and stained with
the CD44v6/APC antibody (2F10, R&D systems) or isotype matched
control (IMC) (IC002A, R&D systems). Samples were analyzed using
the BD FACS Melody cell sorter.Total RNA extraction was performed
by using the Trizol Reagent (Thermo Fisher). RNA samples were retrotranscribed
with the iSCRIPT reverse transcription supermix kit (Bio-Rad). Real-time
PCR for genes related to stemness was performed using a PrimePCR custom
array (Bio-Rad). Data were analyzed with the Bio-Rad PRIME PCR analysis
software.
Fluorescent-Activated Cell Sorting (FACS) of PKH-Positive (PKHpos) and PKH-Negative (PKHneg) Cells
For
PKHpos and PKHneg discrimination, FACS sorting
was performed on a single-cell suspension 11 days after labeling with
PKH using a BD FACSAriaII to obtain PKHpos and PKHneg cells. After gating to eliminate debris and dead cells,
thresholds were set based on the signal of a control unlabeled population.
All cells that were found above the established threshold were considered
PKHpos.
Spheroid Forming Ability of PKH-Sorted CR-CSCs
The
bright fluorescent cells, based on PKH intensity (7–10%), representing
the quiescent PKHpos were sorted and plated as a single
cell per well in a 96-well plate with an ultra-low attachment surface.
Spheroid formation was observed by using the optical microscope for
acquiring pictures with the Motic Images Plus 2.0 digital software
and the confocal microscope.
MHT In Vitro Experiments
A total of
5 × 106 cells were suspended in 50 μL of the
complete medium containing 4 g Fe L–1 of TR-Cubes
or TR-DOXO. The cell suspension was exposed to an alternated magnetic
field (AMF) with a fixed frequency at 182 kHz generated by a NanoScale
DM100 Series (Biomagnetics Corp.). The temperature was kept at 45
°C (see Figure S3). Following the
treatment, the cells were seeded in ultra-low attachment flasks at
the optimal density of 6 × 104 cells per mL and the
viability plus spheroid growth was analyzed. Every 2 days, half of
the medium was replaced with a fresh one and the cell density was
diluted to half.
Spheroid Growth Assay
After MHT,
the spheroids were
monitored by taking pictures using the optical microscope and by counting
the total number of cells using an automated cell counter (Nucleocounter
NC-100, ChemoMetec).
Cell Viability
All methods were
applied following the
manufacturers’ procedures. The resistance of the CR-CSC population
after exposure to MHT was evaluated by trypan blue and Sytox blue
analysis. Cells were analyzed immediately after treatment and then
followed for at least a week. Images were acquired using a confocal
microscope (A1R Resonant Confocal System on a TiE inverted microscope;
Nikon, Amsterdam, the Netherlands) for Sytox blue staining specific
for dead cells (S34857, Thermo Fisher). To evaluate the induction
of apoptosis/necrosis by flow cytometry dead cell apoptosis kit with
annexin V–FITC and PI from Invitrogen assay was performed on
triplicate samples.
TEM Analysis of Cellular Integrity and Nanoparticle
Internalization
after MHT
After treatment, the cell suspension was fixed
and analyzed for transmission electron microscopy (TEM). At least
500,000 cells were incubated in a growth medium supplemented with
glutaraldehyde (2%) for 45 min at room temperature (RT). Cells were
then centrifuged at 14,000 rpm for 10 min. The obtained pellet was
then dispersed in a Na-cacodylate buffer (0.1 M, pH 7.4) supplemented
with glutaraldehyde (2%) and mixed for 1 h at RT. Afterward, cells
were centrifuged at 14,000 rpm for 10 min. Three washes of 10 min
each were repeated in the Na-cacodylate buffer (0.1 M). Subsequently,
the pellet was incubated with the Na-cacodylate buffer (0.1 M) supplemented
with OsO4 (1%) for 1 h at RT. Three washes of 10 min each
in the Na-cacodylate buffer (0.1 M) were performed. Then, the pellet
was washed three times for 5 min with mQ water and incubated overnight
(ON) in a uranyl acetate buffer 1% (in water). Next, the sample was
gradually dehydrated in ethanol (EtOH) at increasing concentrations
of 70, 90, 96, and 100%. Then, the pellet was washed three times for
15 min with propylene oxide. Afterward, samples were incubated in
a solution of Spurr and propylene oxide (1:3) and for 3 h in a Spurr
and propylene oxide solution (1:1). Finally, the pellet was incubated
for 3 h in Spurr and included into it by curing at 70 °C ON.
A thin section of 70 nm of selected zones was observed with the JEOL
Jem1011 electron microscope operated at 100 keV.
In
Vivo Studies
The study was carried
out in compliance with the protocol approved by the Italian Ministry
of Health Protocol No. 059 according to the DLgs 116/1992. Pathogen-free
8-week-old female immunodeficient athymic NMRInude mice were used
for all the procedures. They were housed in IVC cages in a temperature-controlled
room with a 12/12-h dark/light cycle, with ad libitum access to water and food. A total of 1 × 106 CR-CSC
#21 colorectal cancerpatient cells, which were previously treated
with TR-DOXO (50 μL at 4 g Fe/L that corresponds to 0.2 mg Fe
and containing approximately 8 μg of DOXO) and exposed to an
alternating magnetic field of 22 kA/m and to a frequency of 182 kHz
for 90 min (three cycles of 30 min each) (TR-DOXO + MHT experimental
group), were injected subcutaneously in 150 μL of the complete
cell culture medium (DMEM-F12 and Matrigel (1:1)) in the flank of
each animal to induce the xenograft model. Animals that received a
similar number of untreated cells (Control) or cells treated previously
with TR-DOXO cubes only (50 μL at 4 g Fe/L that corresponds
to 0.2 mg Fe and containing approximately 8 μg of DOXO), the
TR-DOXO experimental group, DOXO free-drug (10 μg DOXO) (DOXO
experimental group), or previously treated with of TR-Cubes (50 μL
at 4 g Fe/L that corresponds to 0.2 mg Fe) and exposed for 90 min
to an alternating magnetic field (TR-Cubes + MHT experimental group),
served as controls (n = 6 mice/group). Animals were
observed every 3 days for the appearance of palpable tumors. Tumor
dimensions were measured using a digital caliper once a week, and
they were calculated using the following formula: V = (a × b2)/2,
where a = length and b = width.
The following marked the end of the study for each animal: when the
tumor size reached 1.5–2 cm/side or when the tumors became
ulcerated. Weight values of the animals were also recorded at the
same time as the tumoral volume measurement. It was considered by
veterinary advice that all the animals with a decrease of 20% in weight
should be sacrificed in compliance with animal welfare rules.
Survival
Study
Kaplan–Meier survival analysis
was performed to plot the time vs the fraction of all individuals
surviving as of that time. Each step in the curve marks an event in
the study, which, in this case, is when the animal was sacrificed
as a result of the tumor lengths reaching 2 cm/side. This curve was
generated in the SigmaPlot software with a 95% confidence interval
for fractional survival at any particular time.
Statistics
For in vitro studies, n = 3 and
the statistical calculations within multiple groups
were done using ANOVA and Tukey’s, or ANOVA and Dunnett’s
multiple comparison test, as specified in the caption of each figure,
with 95% confidence interval using the GraphPad or SigmaPlot software.
Significant differences were reported as ***p <
0.001 unless reported otherwise in the figures.For in vivo experiments, n = 6 animals per
experimental condition were used. Randomization was used to allocate
animals in different groups for the nude mice xenograft of CR-CSC
#21 using the EXCEL software method. For the tumor growth and weight
curve, the mean and SD of the tumor volume/animal weights at the end
point of each group were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and pairwise
multiple comparison procedures (Dunn’s method) post hoc nonparametric
test. The survival analysis of the animals was done using a Kaplan–Meier
survival plot in the SigmaPlot software. p value
was calculated with the log-rank test.
Authors: Andrew R Burke; Ravi N Singh; David L Carroll; James C S Wood; Ralph B D'Agostino; Pulickel M Ajayan; Frank M Torti; Suzy V Torti Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2012-01-14 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: Evangelia Christou; John R Pearson; Ana M Beltrán; Yilian Fernández-Afonso; Lucía Gutiérrez; Jesús M de la Fuente; Francisco Gámez; María L García-Martín; Carlos Caro Journal: Pharmaceutics Date: 2022-03-14 Impact factor: 6.321