| Literature DB >> 33800198 |
Miguel Á Tejada1, Ana I Santos-Llamas1, María José Fernández-Ramírez2,3, Juan J Tarín1,4, Antonio Cano1,3, Raúl Gómez1,5.
Abstract
Dopamine receptor 2 agonists (D2-ags) have been shown to reduce the size of tumors by targeting aberrant angiogenesis in pathological tissue. Because of this, the use of a D2-ag was inferred for endometriosis treatment. When assayed in mouse models however, D2-ags have been shown to cause a shift of the immature vessels towards a more mature phenotype but not a significant reduction in the amount of vascularization and size of lesions. These has raised concerns on whether the antiangiogenic effects of these compounds confer a therapeutic value for endometriosis. In the belief that antiangiogenic effects of D2-ags in endometriosis were masked due to non-optimal timing of pharmacological interventions, herein we aimed to reassess the antiangiogenic therapeutic potential of D2-ags in vivo by administering compounds at a timeframe in which vessels in the lesions are expected to be more sensitive to antiangiogenic stimuli. To prove our point, immunodeficient (NU/NU) mice were given a D2-ag (cabergoline), anti-VEGF (CBO-P11) or vehicle (saline) compounds (n = 8 per group) starting 5 days after implantation of a fluorescently labeled human lesion. The effects on the size of the implants was estimated by monitoring the extent of fluorescence emitted by the lesion during the three-week treatment period. Subsequently mice were sacrificed and lesions excised and fixed for quantitative immunohistochemical/immunofluorescent analysis of angiogenic parameters. Lesion size, vascular density and innervation were comparable in D2-ag and anti-VEGF groups and significantly decreased when compared to control. These data suggest that D2-ags are as powerful as standard antiangiogenic compounds in interfering with angiogenesis and lesion size. Our preliminary study opens the way to further exploration of the mechanisms beneath the antiangiogenic effects of D2-ags for endometriosis treatment in humans.Entities:
Keywords: anti-VEGF; antiangiogenic; dopamine agonist; endometriosis; heterologous mouse model
Year: 2021 PMID: 33800198 PMCID: PMC8001569 DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines9030269
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomedicines ISSN: 2227-9059
Figure 1In vivo imaging of fluorescence emitted by endometriotic implants in control, D2-ag (cabergoline) and anti-VEGF (CBO-P11) treated animals. Images show illustrative examples of the fluorescence signaling provided by mCherry-labeled endometriotic implants during monitoring throughout the treatment time course in a representative animal of the control (A,B) D2-ag and (C) anti-VEGF groups. (D) Graph shows quantitative analysis of normalized average fluorescence intensity provided by implants in the three groups during the time course (mean ± SD). Raw fluorescence signal was normalized to the time point at which the signal (usually Day 5 or Day 8) was maximal. * p < 0.05 vs. control group in each time.
Figure 2Effects of pharmacological interventions on vessel density and vascularization patterns of endometriotic implants. (A) Shows representative staining patterns for CD31 (endothelial marker, green color) and α-SMA (muscular layer marker, red color) in endometriotic implants of vehicle (control), D2-ag or anti-VEGF treated mice. Mature vessels surrounded by α-SMA are easily identified by overlapping yellow color. Note the increased number of yellow vessels in D2-ag and anti-VEGF treated vs. control groups. Also note the increased number of immature green vessels devoid of α-SMA in controls. Scale bar = 100 µm. (B) Graph shows the percentage (mean ± SD) of mature vessels as represented by the number of vessels surrounded by a red muscular layer (CD31+/α-SMA+) divided by the total number of vessels (CD31+/α-SMA-) +(CD31+/α-SMA+). ** p < 0.001 vs. control group. (C) Graph shows the vascular density of endometriotic implants as represented by the percentage (mean ± SD) of CD31 stained area vs. total area. * p < 0.05 vs. control group.
Figure 3Effect of D2-ag and anti-VEGF on cell proliferation of endometriotic implants. Pictures correspond to representative images of proliferating cells stained against the proliferation marker Ki67 (brown color) in endometriotic implants of (A) control, (B) D2-ag and (C) anti-VEGF treated mice at sacrifice. Scale bar = 100 µm. (D) Graph corresponds to cellular proliferation among the three groups (mean ± SD). * p < 0.05 vs. control group.
Figure 4Effect of D2-ag and anti-VEGF treatments on apoptosis of endometriotic implants. Pictures correspond to representative images of apoptotic cells recognized by TUNEL (red color) in endometriotic implants of (A) control, (B) D2-ag and (C) anti-VEGF groups. Scale bar = 100 µm. (D) Graph shows apoptotic stained area normalized against DAPI area (mean ± SD). ** p < 0.001 vs. control group.
Figure 5Pictures correspond to representative images of nerve fibers recognized by Beta III tubulin staining (red color) in (A) control, (B) D2-ag and (C) anti-VEGF groups. Scale bar = 20 µm. (D) Graphcorresponds to quantification of nerve fibers among the three groups (mean ± SD). *p < 0.05, **p < 0.001 vs. control group.