Bas M Bavelaar1, Lei Song1, Mark R Jackson2, Sarah Able1, Ole Tietz1, Irini Skaripa-Koukelli1, Philip A Waghorn3, Martin R Gill1, Robert C Carlisle4, Madalena Tarsounas1, Katherine A Vallis1. 1. Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus Research Building, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford OX3 7DQ, U.K. 2. Institute of Cancer Sciences, Wolfson Wohl Cancer Research Centre, University of Glasgow, University Avenue, Glasgow G12 8QQ, U.K. 3. Charles River Laboratories, Elphinstone Research Centre, Elphinstone, Tranent EH33 2NE, U.K. 4. Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus Research Building, Oxford OX3 7DQ, U.K.
Abstract
Telomerase represents an attractive target in oncology as it is expressed in cancer but not in normal tissues. The oligonucleotide inhibitors of telomerase represent a promising anticancer strategy, although poor cellular uptake can restrict their efficacy. In this study, gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) were used to enhance oligonucleotide uptake. "match" oligonucleotides complementary to the telomerase RNA template subunit (hTR) and "scramble" (control) oligonucleotides were conjugated to diethylenetriamine pentaacetate (DTPA) for 111In-labeling. AuNPs (15.5 nm) were decorated with a monofunctional layer of oligonucleotides (ON-AuNP) or a multifunctional layer of oligonucleotides, PEG(polethylene glycol)800-SH (to reduce AuNP aggregation) and the cell-penetrating peptide Tat (ON-AuNP-Tat). Match-AuNP enhanced the cellular uptake of radiolabeled oligonucleotides while retaining the ability to inhibit telomerase activity. The addition of Tat to AuNPs increased nuclear localization. 111In-Match-AuNP-Tat induced DNA double-strand breaks and caused a dose-dependent reduction in clonogenic survival of telomerase-positive cells but not telomerase-negative cells. hTR inhibition has been reported to sensitize cancer cells to ionizing radiation, and 111In-Match-AuNP-Tat therefore holds promise as a vector for delivery of radionuclides into cancer cells while simultaneously sensitizing them to the effects of the emitted radiation.
Telomerase represents an attractive target in oncology as it is expressed in cancer but not in normal tissues. The oligonucleotide inhibitors of telomerase represent a promising anticancer strategy, although poor cellular uptake can restrict their efficacy. In this study, gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) were used to enhance oligonucleotide uptake. "match" oligonucleotides complementary to the telomerase RNA template subunit (hTR) and "scramble" (control) oligonucleotides were conjugated to diethylenetriamine pentaacetate (DTPA) for 111In-labeling. AuNPs (15.5 nm) were decorated with a monofunctional layer of oligonucleotides (ON-AuNP) or a multifunctional layer of oligonucleotides, PEG(polethylene glycol)800-SH (to reduce AuNP aggregation) and the cell-penetrating peptide Tat (ON-AuNP-Tat). Match-AuNP enhanced the cellular uptake of radiolabeled oligonucleotides while retaining the ability to inhibit telomerase activity. The addition of Tat to AuNPs increased nuclear localization. 111In-Match-AuNP-Tat induced DNA double-strand breaks and caused a dose-dependent reduction in clonogenic survival of telomerase-positive cells but not telomerase-negative cells. hTR inhibition has been reported to sensitize cancer cells to ionizing radiation, and 111In-Match-AuNP-Tat therefore holds promise as a vector for delivery of radionuclides into cancer cells while simultaneously sensitizing them to the effects of the emitted radiation.
Telomerase is a ribonucleoprotein
with a key role in the replicative
immortality of cancer. Human telomerase is composed of a telomerase
RNA subunit (hTR), which contains the internal template for the synthesis
of telomeric hexanucleotide DNA repeats, and an enzymatic component,
telomerase reverse transcriptase (hTERT), which catalyzes the addition
of nucleotides at telomere ends. In addition, a number of accessory
proteins (dyskerin, NHP2, NOP10, and GAR1) are associated with telomerase.[1,2] The holoenzyme catalyzes de novo addition of TTAGGG
nucleotide telomeric repeats to chromosome ends. Telomeres erode in
somatic cells during each cell division as a result of the inability
of the DNA synthesis machinery to perform complete replication (the
“end replication problem”).[3] Telomere shortening limits the number of possible cell divisions
since critically short telomeres induce senescence or apoptosis.[4,5] In 85% of cancers, however, telomerase activity is upregulated,
counteracting the process of telomere shortening and conferring unlimited
proliferative potential to malignant cells.[6] As a result, therapeutic strategies have been developed to inhibit
telomerase function in cancers.[7]One of the most promising therapeutic approaches is the use of
anti-hTR oligonucleotides that bind the RNA template and thus act
as catalytic inhibitors of telomerase.[8−11] Therapeutic efficacy has been
demonstrated in various in vitro and in vivo settings, and positive results have been reported for Imetelstat/GRN163L
in essential thrombocytopenia and myelofibrosis.[12,13] Interestingly, several studies have shown that the use of oligonucleotide
template inhibitors causes cancer cell sensitization to radiotherapy
and chemotherapy as a result of telomere length-dependent and telomere
length-independent mechanisms.[14−20] To exploit this radiosensitizing effect, an oligonucleotide hTR
inhibitor was conjugated to indium-111 (111In) for concomitant
telomerase inhibition and targeted radionuclide therapy (TRT).[21]111In emits Auger electrons that
cause dense ionizations over a short range (nm to μm), thus
allowing for irradiation of individual cells and sparing of non-targeted
tissue.[22,23] This 111In-labeled hTR-targeted
oligonucleotide construct causes sequence- and telomerase-dependent
DNA damage and cell-killing effects in cancer cells.[21] However, the use of oligonucleotides as anticancer agents
is hampered by poor cellular uptake and unfavorable pharmacokinetics.
There is therefore an impetus in the field of DNA therapeutics to
devise new oligonucleotide delivery methods that can overcome this
barrier to the clinic.[24]Nanosized
drug carriers provide a platform for target-specific
delivery.[25] In particular, gold nanoparticles
(AuNPs) exploit unique physicochemical properties that can augment
intra-cellular uptake of oligonucleotides. The AuNP surface can be
decorated with multiple moieties, allowing the design of nanoparticles
with a shell of targeting agents, cell-penetrating peptides (CPPs),
oligonucleotides, and other elements.[25] AuNP–oligonucleotide constructs have been used for various
applications, including antisense gene control,[26] gene expression knockdown with siRNA,[27] intracellular detection of RNA,[28] and TRT.[29−31] However, their potential as a vector for hTR inhibition
has not been explored, and the combination with Auger electron radiotherapy
has not been tested previously.Here, we describe the design,
characterization, and in
vitro effect of a dual-modality therapeutic approach that
uses 111In-labeled anti-hTR oligonucleotide-functionalized
AuNP constructs. Radiolabeled anti-hTR oligonucleotides were conjugated
to 15.5 nm AuNPs to increase their cellular uptake and resistance
to endonuclease degradation. AuNPs were further modified with attachment
of polyethylene glycol (PEG) for stability and Tat, a CPP/nuclear
localization sequence (NLS), for cellular and nuclear delivery.[32−35] Detailed in vitro characterization indicates that 111In-labeled anti-hTR oligonucleotide- and Tat-functionalized
AuNP constructs have a telomerase-dependent cell-killing effect, thereby
providing a new avenue for the treatment of telomerase-positive cancers.
Experimental
Section
Tissue Culture
The melanoma cell line MDA-MB-435 and
the osteosarcoma cell line U20S were used for cell studies. The cell
lines were obtained from the American Type Tissue Culture Collection.
The cells were kept in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium
(Sigma-Aldrich #D5796) with 10% fetal bovine serum (Gibco #10270)
and 1% penicillin/streptomycin/glutamate (Sigma-Aldrich #G1146). The
cells were regularly passaged using 0.05% trypsin–EDTA (Gibson
#25300-054) and checked monthly for mycoplasma contamination (MycoAlert
testing kit; Lonza#LT07).
Gold Nanoparticles
AuNPs (15.5 nm)
were synthesized
as described previously.[26] The size and
distribution of AuNPs were determined by dynamic light scattering
(DLS) with a Zetasizer instrument (Malvern Instruments). The samples
were diluted to a concentration of 5 nM in Milli-Q water and transferred
to disposable plastic cuvettes at room temperature. The samples were
measured in triplicate, and the hydrodynamic radius was calculated
using Stoke–Einstein’s relation for the Brownian motion
of particles. Particle size and morphology were further analyzed using
transmission electron microscopy (TEM). The samples were lyophilized
for 24 h on TEM grids of 150 mesh (Agar Scientific AGG201N) and images
acquired using a Fei Tecnai 12 TE microscope and imaged with a 16
megapixel Gatan OneView camera with CMOS sensors. Images were obtained
using a 1 s exposure time and a pixel saturation of 5000–6000.
Analysis was performed using ImageJ software.
Fluorophore Labeling of
Oligonucleotides
High-performance
liquid chromatography-purified 2′OMeRNA with hTR complementary
(Match) and random (Scramble) oligonucleotide sequences with 5′-amino
linkers and 3′-thiols were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich. Oligonucleotides
were conjugated to Cy3-monoreactive dye (GE Healthcare #PA23001) according
to the manufacturer’s protocol. Using P4 (BioRad #150-4120)
size exclusion chromatography (SEC), reaction products were separated
into 50 μL phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) fractions. The fractions
were analyzed by a spectrophotometer at wavelengths of 260 nm (oligonucleotides)
and 550 nm (Cy3).
Radiolabeling of Oligonucleotides
Oligonucleotides
were dissolved in NaHCO3 buffer (0.1 M, pH 8.3) to a concentration
of 100 μM. Diethylenetriamine pentaacetate (DTPA) (Sigma-Aldrich
#284025-1G) was dissolved in DMSO and added to the oligonucleotide
solution in 10-fold molar excess. The reaction was incubated for at
least 120 min. The reaction products were separated by SEC with P4-Biogel
into 50 μL of sodium citrate (0.1 M, pH 5.0; Sigma-Aldrich #71498)
fractions. The concentration was determined using a spectrophotometer
at a wavelength of 260 nm. Radiolabeling was performed in sodium citrate
(0.1 M, pH 5.0) by incubating DTPA-labeled oligonucleotides with 111InCl3 (PerkinElmer NEZ304A000MC) at a specific
activity of 0.8 MBq/μg. Radiolabeling efficiency was determined
using a radio thin-layer chromatography (TLC) imaging scanner (Bioscan
#AR-2000).
ON–AuNP Conjugates
ON–AuNP
and ON–AuNP–Tat
conjugates were synthesized as described previously.[26] For ON–AuNPs, oligonucleotides (final concentration
3 μM) were added to a 15 nM solution of 15.5 nm AuNPs. For ON–AuNP–Tat,
PEG800-SH (Sigma-Aldrich #729108) (final concentration 45 μM)
was dissolved in a 15 nM AuNP solution for 20 min prior to the addition
of oligonucleotides (final concentration 1.5 μM). After a 10
min incubation with oligonucleotides, Tat (sequence: GRKKRRQRRRPQGYGCG;
Cambridge Peptides; final concentration 1.5 μM) was added to
the solution. Both ON–AuNP and ON–AuNP–Tat were
subsequently incubated overnight. On day 2, Au-NP-containing suspensions
were salt-aged for 8 h to achieve a final sodium chloride (NaCl; Sigma-Aldrich
#S7653) concentration of 0.3 M and then shaken overnight. The functionalized
AuNPs were purified by centrifugation (20,000g; 40
min; 4 °C, three times) (Eppendorf #5417R), after which the pellet
was resuspended in Milli-Q water. New batches of AuNPs were prepared
prior to each experiment, and the particle size and morphology were
determined as described above. The AuNP constructs were reconstituted
in sodium citrate (0.1 M, pH 5.0) prior to radiolabeling. Subsequently, 111InCl3 at the desired specific activity was added
and incubated overnight. The next day, radiolabeling was confirmed
with TLC, and AuNPs were purified by centrifugation (20,000g; 40 min). The number of oligonucleotides per particle
was determined by 111In-labeling oligonucleotides with
a known 111In/oligonucleotide ratio prior to AuNP functionalization.
ON–AuNP and ON–AuNP–Tat were synthesized as described
above, and radiolabeled functionalized particles were centrifuged
and washed to remove unbound 111In. Subsequently, the concentration
of the pellet was measured with a spectrophotometer, and 111In counts per minute (CPM) in the pellet were measured using a Wizard3”
automatic gamma-counter (PerkinElmer 2480). The number of oligonucleotides
per pellet was calculated by comparing the 111In CPM of
the resuspended pellet with a known standard of 111In CPM
per oligonucleotide. The stated concentration in an experiment refers
to the concentration of oligonucleotides conjugated to the AuNP. The
ON–AuNP concentration and quality were determined by UV–vis
spectrometry and DLS as described above. A final ON concentration
of 210 nM was determined in clonogenic assays to exert the maximum
effect and was used in all other studies unless stated otherwise.
Telomeric Repeat Amplification Protocol
Cells were
harvested and lysed according to the TRAPeze XL Telomerase Detection
kit (EMD-Millipore #S7707) protocol. A known concentration of inhibitor
was added to the reaction mix, and the polymerase chain reaction (PCR)
protocol was started with the following alterations: the first cycle
was set to 30 °C for 30 min, followed by 36 cycles at 94 °C
for 30 s, 53.5 °C for 30 s, 72 °C for 60 s, and a final
extension at 72 °C for 3 min. After PCR, the samples were centrifuged
(20,000g, 30 min, 4 °C) to remove AuNPs and
measured using a plate reader.
Internalization and Fractionation
Assays
For internalization
assays, the cells were incubated for 24 h, washed to remove membrane-bound
AuNPs using 0.1 M glycine HCl at pH 2.5, and lysed with 0.1 M NaOH
as previously described.[36] A Nuclei EZ
Prep Nuclei Isolation kit (Sigma-Aldrich #NUC101-1KT) was used to
determine the subcellular distribution of AuNP constructs. The cytosol
and nuclei were isolated according to the manufacturer’s protocol.
After separation of fractions, the samples were counted in a Wizard3”
automatic gamma-counter.
Confocal Microscopy
The cells (2
× 105/well) were seeded in eight-well chamber slides
(Thermo Scientific
#177402), incubated overnight, and then treated with 210 nM Cy3–Match–AuNP
or Cy3–Match–AuNP–Tat for 2.5 or 24 h in 200
μL media. The cells were then washed in PBS before fixation
in 200 μL of 4% formaldehyde (Sigma-Aldrich #252549) for 10
min at room temperature. Before the removal of the medium chamber
from the slide, the cells were washed three times with PBS. A drop
of Vectashield (Vector #H-1200) with 4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole
(DAPI) was added to each well, after which the samples were mounted
using a 24 × 24 mm coverslip (VWR International #6310127). Images
were obtained using a laser scanning Leica microscope (TCS SP8). Confocal
planes were imaged using line-scanned consecutive acquisition channels
with a 63×/1.40 oil immersion lens (pixel dwell time, 0.64 μs;
pin-hole, 1 Airy unit).
Transmission Electron Microscopy
MDA-MB-435 cells were
plated onto Thermanox plastic coverslips (13 mm diameter; Thermo Scientific,
#174950) in six-well plates at a seeding density of 8 × 105 cells and left to adhere overnight. Fresh medium was added
before incubation with 210 nM Match–AuNP or Match–AuNP–Tat.
After 24 h, the medium was removed, and cells were washed twice in
1,4-piperazinediethanesulfonic acid buffer (PIPES buffer; 0.1 M; pH
7.2; Sigma-Aldrich # P8203) for 5 min. The samples were prepared and
stained as previously described.[29] After
staining, the sections were analyzed on a Tecnai 12 TEM and imaged
with a 16 megapixel Gatan OneView camera with CMOS sensors. Images
were obtained using a 1 s exposure time, and a pixel saturation of
5000–6000.
Clonogenic Assays
The cells were
seeded in 96-well
plates at 2 × 104 cells/well overnight. The cells
were incubated with radiolabeled and non-radiolabeled free oligonucleotides,
ON–AuNP and ON–AuNP–Tat (27 MBq/nmol), for 24
h. For radiosensitivity experiments, the cells were incubated with
AuNP constructs for 24 h and then exposed to external ionizing radiation
(IR) using a cesium-137 (137Cs)-irradiator (0.662 MeV)
to deliver a dose of 2, 4, or 6 Gy. After incubation for 1 h, the
cells were harvested following washing in PBS and 50 μL of trypsin–EDTA
was added. The harvested cells were counted before plating in six-well
plates at a density sufficient to give more than 75 colonies per sample.
The untreated cells were typically seeded at 600 cells/well. Colonies
were grown for at least 7 days, washed in PBS, and stained with 1%
methylene blue (Alfa Aesar #A18174) in 50% methanol (Fisher Scientific
#M/4000/PC17). Excess stain was washed off with water. Colonies containing
more than 50 cells were counted. The surviving fraction (SF) was calculated
using the plating efficiency of untreated cells. The mean inactivation
dose (MID), defined as MID = ∫0∞SF(D)dD, was calculated for each curve following fitting of a linear-quadratic
model.[37,38] MIDs were compared using one-way ANOVA with
Bonferroni correction for multiple comparison. For radiosensitivity
assays, the sensitizer enhancement ratio (SER) was calculated by dividing
the MID of the non-AuNP-treated sample by the MID of the AuNP-treated
sample (SER = MIDNo AuNP/MIDAuNP).
γH2AX
Assay
The cells (2 × 105/well) were seeded
in an eight-well chamber slide (Thermo Scientific
#177402) and incubated overnight. The cells were treated with 210
nM 111In-labeled ON–AuNP–Tat (18 MBq/nmol)
or medium for 24 h in 200 μL medium. The positive control consisted
of cells exposed to external beam irradiation (4 Gy). After incubation,
the cells were washed twice in PBS, fixed in paraformaldehyde, permeabilized
with 1% Triton X-100 in PBS, and blocked for 1 h at 37 °C with
2% BSA in PBS.[39] Fixed cells were incubated
with the anti-γH2AX primary antibody (JBW301; Millipore; 1:800
dilution) for 1 h at 37 °C, washed three times, and exposed to
AF488-labeled goat-anti-mouse antibody (Invitrogen; 1:250 dilution)
for 1 h at 37 °C. The cells were washed three times with PBS
before removal of the medium chamber. One drop of DAPI was added to
each well, after which the samples were mounted with a 24 × 24
mm coverslip (VWR International #6310127). Images were obtained using
a laser scanning Leica confocal microscope (TCS SP8). Confocal planes
were imaged using line-scanned consecutive acquisition channels through
a 63×/1.40 oil immersion lens. The number of γH2AX foci
and nuclear surface area (NSA) were automatically calculated using
ImageJ software. All data is expressed as foci/NSA.
In
Vivo Imaging and Biodistribution
111In–Match–AuNP–Tat
or 111In–Scramble–AuNP–Tat (2.5 μg
oligonucleotide;
10 MBq) was administered intravenously (i.v.) to female athymic nude
mice bearing MDA-MB-435 xenografts on the right flank (n = 3 per group). Single-photon emission computerized tomography (SPECT)
images were acquired 24, 48, and 72 h post-injection (p.i.) using
the VECTor4CT system (Milabs). Whole-body images were acquired
over 30 min per mouse with an ultrahigh-resolution rat/mouse 1.8 mm
collimator (HE-UHR-RM) (6 timeframes, 30 s per bed position, 10 positions).
A CT scan (55 kV, 0.19 mA) was performed for anatomical reference.
SPECT images were reconstructed using MiLabs ImageJ software. Animals
were euthanized after the 72 h p.i. imaging session, and organs were
removed and transferred to pre-weighed tubes. Tubes were weighed again,
and radioactivity was measured using a Wizard3” automatic gamma-counter.
Measurements were decay-corrected to the activity at the time of injection.
A calibration curve was used to convert CPM to MBq, allowing calculation
of the percentage of injected dose per gram of tissue (% ID/g).
Results
Synthesis of hTR-Targeting AuNP Radiopharmaceuticals
AuNPs were functionalized with either a monofunctional layer of DTPA-
or Cy3-tagged oligonucleotides (ON–AuNP) or a multifunctional
layer of DTPA- or Cy3-tagged oligonucleotides plus PEG thiol (MW:
800; PEG800-SH) and Tat peptide (ON–AuNP–Tat) (Figure A). AuNPs were synthesized
by citrate reduction of HAuCl4 as described previously,[40] resulting in the formation of spherical AuNP
with a mean diameter of 15.5 ± 1.9 nm and a hydrodynamic diameter
in Milli-Q water of 25.4 nm [polydispersity index (PDI) 0.247] (Figure B,C,E). Match and
Scramble sequence oligonucleotides (Table ) with 5′-end amino modification were
conjugated to the metal chelator DTPA using NHS/EDC chemistry for
labeling with 111In or with the fluorophore Cy3 for confocal
microscopy. DTPA conjugation was confirmed by radiolabeling with 111In, and Cy3-conjugation was assessed by UV–vis spectrometry
(Figure D and S1). Based on the method by Rosi et al., AuNPs were functionalized with 3′-end thiol-labeled oligonucleotides
(ON–AuNP) by overnight incubation, salt-aging, and purification.[26] DLS analysis and UV–vis spectrophotometry
demonstrated that functionalized AuNPs did not aggregate and were
monodisperse: the PDI of Match–AuNP and Scramble–AuNP
was 0.23 and 0.22, respectively (Figure E,F). The hydrodynamic diameter of the constructs
increased from 25.4 nm for unmodified AuNPs to 33.3 nm when decorated
with either DTPA–Match (hereafter referred to as Match) or
DTPA–Scramble (hereafter referred to as Scramble) oligonucleotides,
which is consistent with an increase in size due to oligonucleotide
conjugation. Labeling of Match and Scramble with 111In
prior to AuNP functionalization allowed determination of the average
number of oligonucleotides per AuNP (Match–AuNP, 76; Scramble–AuNP,
67), giving an oligonucleotide radiolabeling efficiency of 33–38%.
Several mixing strategies and concentrations were tested for ON–AuNP–Tat
synthesis. Direct mixing of oligonucleotides and Tat with AuNPs resulted
in aggregation after salt-aging (data not shown). To minimize this
undesirable aggregation, hydrophilic PEG800-SH was incorporated into
the constructs. It was found that an AuNP/PEG800-SH mixing ratio of
1:3000 was sufficient to avoid aggregation when combined with AuNP/ON
and AuNP/Tat ratio of 1:100 after addition of 0.3 M NaCl. DLS demonstrated
that constructs were monodisperse in Milli-Q water with a PDI value
of 0.33 and 0.26 for Match–AuNP–Tat and Scramble–AuNP–Tat,
respectively (Figure H). UV–vis spectrophotometry indicated that there was no significant
aggregation (Figure I). The hydrodynamic diameter after functionalization increased from
25.4 nm (AuNP) to 38.4 nm (Match–AuNP–Tat) and 37.7
nm (Scramble–AuNP–Tat). The total number of oligonucleotides
per AuNP was 14 for Match–AuNP–Tat and 16 for Scramble–AuNP–Tat,
corresponding to labeling efficiencies of 14 and 16% as determined
by labeling Match and Scramble with 111In prior to AuNP
functionalization. ON–AuNP and ON–AuNP–Tat were
labeled with 111In and purified by centrifugation prior
to each experiment. The maximum molar activity for ON–AuNP
and ON–AuNP–Tat was 27 and 18 MBq/nmol oligonucleotide,
respectively. The radiochemical purity after centrifugation was consistently
between 90 and 95% (Figure G,J).
Figure 1
AuNP properties and functionalization. (A) Schematic of 111In–ON–AuNP and 111In–ON–AuNP–Tat.
(B) Size distribution of 15.5 ± 1.9 nm AuNPs. (C) TEM image of
AuNPs. (D) TLC reading of 111In–DTPA-labeled Match
oligonucleotides. A peak at position = 25 mm, revealing the presence
of 111In–Match, covers the surface of 98% of the
graph. A small amount of radioactivity is seen at approximately 75
mm, indicating a trace amount of free 111In. (E) DLS of
Match–AuNP and Scramble–AuNP in water. A rightward shift
(from 25.4 to 33.3 nm) of Match–AuNP and Scramble–AuNP
indicates surface functionalization. (F) UV–vis spectrum of
ON–AuNP in water. The overlapping of the curves for AuNPs,
Match–AuNP, and Scramble–AuNP suggests no aggregation,
a rightward shift would indicate an increase in particle size. (G)
Typical TLC result for 111In–Match–AuNP and 111In–Scramble–AuNP (radiochemical purity 95
and 90%, respectively). (H) DLS of Match–AuNP–Tat and
Scramble–AuNP–Tat in water. A rightward shift from 25.4
to 38.4 nm (Match–AuNP–Tat) and 37.7 nm (Scramble–AuNP–Tat)
indicates surface functionalization. (I) UV–vis spectrum of
ON–AuNP–Tat in water. The overlapping curves for AuNPs,
Match–AuNP–Tat, and Scramble–AuNP–Tat
indicate particle stability with little or no aggregation. (J) Typical
TLC for 111In–Match–AuNP–Tat and 111In–Scramble–AuNP–Tat (radiochemical
purity 98 and 99%, respectively).
Table 1
Oligonucleotide Sequences and Modifications
oligonucleotide
sequence 5′–3′
modification
5′-end
3′-end
Match
CAGUUAGGGUUAG
2′OMeRNA
amine(AmC6)
thiol
Scramble
GCAGUGUGAUGAU
2′OMeRNA
amine(AmC6)
thiol
AuNP properties and functionalization. (A) Schematic of 111In–ON–AuNP and 111In–ON–AuNP–Tat.
(B) Size distribution of 15.5 ± 1.9 nm AuNPs. (C) TEM image of
AuNPs. (D) TLC reading of 111In–DTPA-labeled Match
oligonucleotides. A peak at position = 25 mm, revealing the presence
of 111In–Match, covers the surface of 98% of the
graph. A small amount of radioactivity is seen at approximately 75
mm, indicating a trace amount of free 111In. (E) DLS of
Match–AuNP and Scramble–AuNP in water. A rightward shift
(from 25.4 to 33.3 nm) of Match–AuNP and Scramble–AuNP
indicates surface functionalization. (F) UV–vis spectrum of
ON–AuNP in water. The overlapping of the curves for AuNPs,
Match–AuNP, and Scramble–AuNP suggests no aggregation,
a rightward shift would indicate an increase in particle size. (G)
Typical TLC result for 111In–Match–AuNP and 111In–Scramble–AuNP (radiochemical purity 95
and 90%, respectively). (H) DLS of Match–AuNP–Tat and
Scramble–AuNP–Tat in water. A rightward shift from 25.4
to 38.4 nm (Match–AuNP–Tat) and 37.7 nm (Scramble–AuNP–Tat)
indicates surface functionalization. (I) UV–vis spectrum of
ON–AuNP–Tat in water. The overlapping curves for AuNPs,
Match–AuNP–Tat, and Scramble–AuNP–Tat
indicate particle stability with little or no aggregation. (J) Typical
TLC for 111In–Match–AuNP–Tat and 111In–Scramble–AuNP–Tat (radiochemical
purity 98 and 99%, respectively).
Uptake and Trafficking
of hTR-Targeting AuNP Radiopharmaceuticals
To assess the
cellular uptake of AuNP constructs, a 24 h internalization
assay was performed in telomerase-positive MDA-MB-435 cells, and the
uptake was measured and calculated as a percentage of the total amount
of the added radioactivity (Figure A). The uptake of oligonucleotides was markedly improved
by linking them to AuNPs: 111In–Match versus 111In–Match–AuNP, 0.30 ± 0.01 versus 3.62
± 0.20% (p < 0.005); 111In–Scramble
versus 111In–Scramble–AuNP, 0.26 ± 0.02
versus 4.17 ± 0.39% (p < 0.0001). The addition
of Tat and PEG800-SH to the nanocomplex further improved cellular
internalization: 111In–Match–AuNP versus 111In–Match–AuNP–Tat, 3.62 ± 0.20
versus 5.61 ± 0.969% (p = 0.0005); 111In–Scramble–AuNP versus 111In–Scramble–AuNP–Tat,
4.17 ± 0.39 versus 5.67 ± 1.34% (p = 0.0095).
To further investigate the subcellular distribution of internalized
AuNP constructs, fractionation assays were performed in MDA-MB-435
cells (Figure B). 111In–Match–AuNP–Tat was taken up in the
cytosol to a significantly greater extent than 111In–Match–AuNP
(4.88 ± 0.99 versus 2.13 ± 1.03%; p <
0.0001), and both were taken up more than 111InCl3 (0.34 ± 0.15%; p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0024 for comparison to 111In–Match–AuNP–Tat
and 111In–Match–AuNP, respectively). The
nuclear uptake of 111In–Match–AuNP–Tat
(1.65 ± 1.00%) was also significantly greater than that of 111InCl3 (0.08 ± 0.044%, p = 0.0071). However, the difference observed in the nuclear uptake
of 111In–Match–AuNP–Tat and 111In–Match–AuNP was not statistically significant (1.65
± 1.00 versus 0.48 ± 0.17%, p = 0.06).
Figure 2
Subcellular
distribution of hTR-targeting AuNPs. (A) Internalization
of ON–AuNP and ON–AuNP–Tat. * = significant difference
compared to free oligonucleotides (ON); † = significant difference
compared to ON–AuNP (one-way ANOVA, multiple comparison, each
performed in three independent experiments). (B) Intracellular distribution
(fractionation assays) of AuNPs, 111In–Match–AuNP,
and 111In–Match–AuNP–Tat. * = significant
difference compared to 111InCl3; † =
significant difference compared to 111In–Match–AuNP.
* or †, p < 0.05; ** or ††, p < 0.01: *** or †††, p < 0.001; **** or ††††, p < 0.0001. Two-way ANOVA, multiple comparison, n = 3 replicates,
four independent experiments. (C) Subcellular distribution of AuNP
constructs in MDA-MB-435 cells after incubation for 2.5 or 24 h. The
cells were incubated with medium only, Cy3–Match–AuNP
(500 nM), or Cy3–Match–AuNP–Tat (500 nM). Images
were acquired using a 63×/1.4 objective lens with an additional
4× digital zoom. Nuclei were stained with DAPI. The scale bar
is 10 μm. (D) Whole-cell TEM image of Match–AuNP-treated
cells. (D-1) Lysosome-like vesicle with Match–AuNP. (D-2) Endosomal
vesicles with Match–AuNP. (E) Whole-cell image of Match–AuNP–Tat-treated
cells. (E-1) Large lysosomal vesicle with Match–AuNP–Tat.
(E-2) Nucleus with Match–AuNP–Tat.
Subcellular
distribution of hTR-targeting AuNPs. (A) Internalization
of ON–AuNP and ON–AuNP–Tat. * = significant difference
compared to free oligonucleotides (ON); † = significant difference
compared to ON–AuNP (one-way ANOVA, multiple comparison, each
performed in three independent experiments). (B) Intracellular distribution
(fractionation assays) of AuNPs, 111In–Match–AuNP,
and 111In–Match–AuNP–Tat. * = significant
difference compared to 111InCl3; † =
significant difference compared to 111In–Match–AuNP.
* or †, p < 0.05; ** or ††, p < 0.01: *** or †††, p < 0.001; **** or ††††, p < 0.0001. Two-way ANOVA, multiple comparison, n = 3 replicates,
four independent experiments. (C) Subcellular distribution of AuNP
constructs in MDA-MB-435 cells after incubation for 2.5 or 24 h. The
cells were incubated with medium only, Cy3–Match–AuNP
(500 nM), or Cy3–Match–AuNP–Tat (500 nM). Images
were acquired using a 63×/1.4 objective lens with an additional
4× digital zoom. Nuclei were stained with DAPI. The scale bar
is 10 μm. (D) Whole-cell TEM image of Match–AuNP-treated
cells. (D-1) Lysosome-like vesicle with Match–AuNP. (D-2) Endosomal
vesicles with Match–AuNP. (E) Whole-cell image of Match–AuNP–Tat-treated
cells. (E-1) Large lysosomal vesicle with Match–AuNP–Tat.
(E-2) Nucleus with Match–AuNP–Tat.Cy3-labeled oligonucleotides were used to image AuNP intracellular
localization using confocal microscopy. MDA-MB-435 cells were treated
with medium only, Cy3–Match–AuNP or Cy3–Match–AuNP–Tat
for 2.5 or 24 h (Figure C). After exposure to Cy3–Match–AuNP for 2.5 h, several
intracellular perinuclear Cy3 foci were observed, confirming cellular
uptake. A more intense Cy3 signal was seen for Match–AuNP–Tat,
in particular at the cell membrane with some foci of fluorescence
also observed in the perinuclear region. After incubation for 24 h,
the Cy3 signal in Match–AuNP-treated cells was predominantly
localized to large cytoplasmic foci. Some perinuclear foci were noted,
but no nuclear fluorescence was observed. In contrast, in Match–AuNP–Tat-treated
cells, there was a marked Cy3 signal in the perinuclear region at
2.5 h of treatment, and by 24 h, intranuclear foci were clearly observed.To investigate the subcellular distribution with greater resolution,
AuNPs were visualized in cells exposed for 24 h to Match–AuNP
and Match–AuNP–Tat using TEM (Figure D,E). Figure D shows a representative TEM image demonstrating the
subcellular distribution of Match–AuNP. Black dots (AuNPs)
were present in endosomal vesicles in the cytosol, in agreement with
the fluorescence images. Figure D-1 shows a large lysosome-like vesicle that contains
several AuNPs. Figure D-2 highlights a smaller endosomal vesicle with clustered AuNPs.
No particles were observed in the nucleus. In a representative image
of a cell treated with Match–AuNP–Tat (Figure E), most particles were located
in lysosomal vesicles in the perinuclear area (Figure E-1), but individual particles were also
observed in the nucleus (Figure E-2). The AuNPs predominantly appear as individual
particles, indicating that intracellular Match–AuNP and Match–AuNP–Tat
do not aggregate (Figure S3).
Telomerase
Activity Inhibition by hTR-Targeting AuNPs
The ability of
AuNPs to inhibit telomerase activity was measured
with a gold standard cell-free PCR-based technique, the telomeric
repeat amplification protocol (TRAP) assay (Figure S2A). Match, but not Scramble, oligonucleotides inhibited telomerase
in telomerase-expressing MDA-MB-435 (log IC50 −6.93
± 0.072) (Figure A), consistent with previous results.[21] The effect of ON–AuNPs on telomerase activity was also tested
using TRAP assays (Figure B). Match–AuNP inhibited the telomerase activity in
a dose-dependent manner (log IC50 −7.49 ± 0.04,
Hill slope −1.46 ± 0.19). Scramble–AuNP did not
significantly alter the telomerase activity over the concentration
range of 0.1–100 nm. Successful amplification of a pre-elongated
primer, TSR8, demonstrated that the construct did not inhibit the
telomerase-independent downstream steps of the TRAP assay (Figure S2B).
Figure 3
Telomerase activity inhibition by hTR-targeting
AuNP constructs.
(A) Dose effect of oligonucleotides on telomerase activity. The y-axis represents the telomerase activity signal relative
to the signal of untreated cells. The x-axis represents
the logarithm of the concentration of oligonucleotides (M). The plotted
data points are the results for Match and Scramble. (B) Dose–response
curve of ON–AuNP concentration versus telomerase activity.
(C) Dose–response curve of ON–AuNP–Tat concentration
versus telomerase activity (n = 3 independent experiments).
(D) Effect of ON–AuNP–Tat on radiosensitivity. ON–AuNP–Tat
(210 nM) was added to MDA-MB-435 cells for 24 h prior to exposure
to external IR and plated for clonogenic survival analysis. Curves
were plotted using the linear-quadratic model. n =
4, three repeats per experiment. Data points represent averages ±
SEM.
Telomerase activity inhibition by hTR-targeting
AuNP constructs.
(A) Dose effect of oligonucleotides on telomerase activity. The y-axis represents the telomerase activity signal relative
to the signal of untreated cells. The x-axis represents
the logarithm of the concentration of oligonucleotides (M). The plotted
data points are the results for Match and Scramble. (B) Dose–response
curve of ON–AuNP concentration versus telomerase activity.
(C) Dose–response curve of ON–AuNP–Tat concentration
versus telomerase activity (n = 3 independent experiments).
(D) Effect of ON–AuNP–Tat on radiosensitivity. ON–AuNP–Tat
(210 nM) was added to MDA-MB-435 cells for 24 h prior to exposure
to external IR and plated for clonogenic survival analysis. Curves
were plotted using the linear-quadratic model. n =
4, three repeats per experiment. Data points represent averages ±
SEM.TRAP assays were also conducted
following exposure of cells to
ON–AuNP–Tat constructs (Figure C). Match–AuNP–Tat inhibited
the telomerase activity in a dose-dependent manner (log IC50 −7.99 ± 0.05, Hill slope −1.05 ± 0.27).
Scramble–AuNP–Tat also demonstrated a dose-dependent
relationship (log IC50 −7.39 ± 0.03, Hill slope
−0.90 ± 0.06), although log IC50 was significantly
higher than for Match–AuNP–Tat (p <
0.0001). This result raised the possibility that the Scramble–AuNP–Tat
construct itself interferes with the quantification technique, rather
than specifically inhibiting the telomerase activity. Consistent with
this, a significant reduction in the TRAP assay signal was observed
when the Tat-functionalized AuNP was added to TSR8, indicating a telomerase-independent
experimental artifact (Figure S2C).
Match–AuNP–Tat
Sensitizes Cells to External Beam
Radiation
Telomerase inhibition has been reported to radiosensitize
cells to IR,[16,19,41] and AuNPs also demonstrate this property.[42] To investigate whether AuNPs and AuNP-mediated delivery of hTR-inhibiting
oligonucleotides were able to sensitize cells to externally delivered
IR, MDA-MB-435 cells were treated with non-radiolabeled ON–AuNP–Tat
(210 nM), exposed to external beam IR (0-6 Gy), and then processed
for clonogenic survival assays (Figure D). The MID of Match–AuNP–Tat (2.02 ±
0.26) was significantly lower than for the untreated (control) (3.23
± 0.56, p = 0.022) and Scramble–AuNP–Tat-treated
samples (3.48 ± 0.66, p = 0.008). This resulted
in an SER of 1.60 ± 0.12 for Match–AuNP–Tat compared
to an SER of 0.93 ± 0.06 for Scramble–AuNP–Tat.
The greater SER for match–AuNP–Tat is attributed to
its telomerase-inhibiting properties resulting in radiosensitization.
hTR-Targeting AuNP Radiopharmaceuticals Reduce Clonogenic Survival
by Increasing Radiation-Induced DNA Double-Strand Breaks
Since the ON–AuNP constructs are designed to be deployed as
radiopharmaceuticals, the clonogenic survival of cells exposed to
radiolabeled ON–AuNP and ON–AuNP–Tat was evaluated
using the linear quadratic model in telomerase-positive MDA-MB-435
cells and telomerase-negative U2OS cells (Figure A–D). 111In-labeled ON–AuNP
(Match and Scramble) constructs had no significant impact on clonogenic
survival of MDA-MB-435 cells (Figure A) (p = 0.23). In contrast, 111In–Match–AuNP–Tat significantly reduced clonogenic
survival (SF at 210 nm 111In–Match–AuNP–Tat:
0.20 ± 0.11). 111In–Match–AuNP–Tat
showed a greater cell killing effect than 111In–Scramble–AuNP–Tat
(MID: 0.11 ± 0.02 versus 0.15 ± 0.02, p = 0.03, one-way ANOVA, multiple comparison), indicating a sequence-dependent
effect of 111In–ON–AuNP–Tat (Figure B). Furthermore, 111In–Match–AuNP–Tat had a significant
impact on clonogenic survival compared to non-radiolabeled Tat-modified
AuNP control: Match–AuNP–Tat (p = 0.006),
Scramble–AuNP–Tat (p = 0.002). 111In–Scramble–AuNP–Tat showed a similar,
although less pronounced, difference compared to controls (p = 0.0237 for Match–AuNP–Tat, p = 0.0037 for Scramble–AuNP–Tat). Unconjugated 111InCl3, 111In-Match, and 111In-Scramble did not significantly alter clonogenic survival (Figure C). A control experiment
in U2OS cells, which lack telomerase activity, demonstrated a modest
reduction in clonogenic survival following treatment with 111In–Match–AuNP–Tat and 111In–Scramble–AuNP–Tat
at the highest concentration (SF 0.73 ± 0.53 and 0.73 ±
0.37, respectively). This reduction did not differ significantly from
control treatments with 111InCl3, 111In–Match–AuNP, and 111In–Scramble–AuNP
(Figure D), indicating
a modest telomerase-independent effect.
Figure 4
Radiobiological impact
of radiolabeled hTR-targeting AuNPs. Clonogenic
survival of MDA-MB-435 cells after treatment for 24 h with (A) ON–AuNP,
(B) ON–AuNP–Tat, and (C) 111InCl3, 111In–Scramble, and 111In–Match.
(D) Clonogenic survival of U2OS after treatment for 24 h with 111In–ON–AuNP and 111In–ON–AuNP–Tat.
In (A–D), curves were plotted using the linear quadratic model; n = 4–6, three replicates per experiment. The y-axis represents the cell survival fraction. The x-axis represents the logarithm of the concentration of
oligonucleotides (M). Data points represent the mean ± SEM. γH2AX
foci after treatment of (E) MDA-MB-435 and (F) U2OS cells with 111In–ON–AuNP–Tat. Cells were treated
with 111In–ON–AuNP–Tat (210 nM) or
control for 24 h before fixation and staining for γH2AX. †
= significant difference compared to untreated control. * = significant
difference compared to 111In–Scramble–AuNP–Tat.
† or *, p < 0.05; †† or **, p < 0.01: ††† or ***, p < 0.001; †††† or ****, p < 0.0001. Differences between samples were analyzed using one-way
ANOVA, multiple comparison (n = 65–125 cells).
Radiobiological impact
of radiolabeled hTR-targeting AuNPs. Clonogenic
survival of MDA-MB-435 cells after treatment for 24 h with (A) ON–AuNP,
(B) ON–AuNP–Tat, and (C) 111InCl3, 111In–Scramble, and 111In–Match.
(D) Clonogenic survival of U2OS after treatment for 24 h with 111In–ON–AuNP and 111In–ON–AuNP–Tat.
In (A–D), curves were plotted using the linear quadratic model; n = 4–6, three replicates per experiment. The y-axis represents the cell survival fraction. The x-axis represents the logarithm of the concentration of
oligonucleotides (M). Data points represent the mean ± SEM. γH2AX
foci after treatment of (E) MDA-MB-435 and (F) U2OS cells with 111In–ON–AuNP–Tat. Cells were treated
with 111In–ON–AuNP–Tat (210 nM) or
control for 24 h before fixation and staining for γH2AX. †
= significant difference compared to untreated control. * = significant
difference compared to 111In–Scramble–AuNP–Tat.
† or *, p < 0.05; †† or **, p < 0.01: ††† or ***, p < 0.001; †††† or ****, p < 0.0001. Differences between samples were analyzed using one-way
ANOVA, multiple comparison (n = 65–125 cells).To elucidate whether the observed radiotoxic effect
of AuNP- and
Tat-mediated internalization of 111In is caused by an increase
in DNA damage, MDA-MB-435 and U2OS cells were treated with radiolabeled
AuNP constructs. Following incubation for 24 h, the cells were exposed
to the anti-γH2AX antibody, as γH2AX is a well-validated
marker of DNA double-strand breaks (DSB).[43] Cells exposed to 4 Gy external beam IR were used as a positive control.
Strong induction of γH2AX was noted in MDA-MB-435 cells following
4 Gy of external beam IR (foci/NSA was 0.12 ± 0.04 μm–2) (Figure E). 111In–Match–AuNP–Tat also
caused a highly significant upregulation of γH2AX foci/NSA in
comparison to an untreated control (0.12 ± 0.04 versus 0.07 ±
0.03 μm–2; p < 0.0001)
and to 111In–Scramble–AuNP–Tat (0.12
± 0.04 versus 0.07 ± 0.03 μm–2; p < 0.0001). There was no difference between untreated
control and Scramble–AuNP–Tat. Furthermore, the number
of foci induced by 111In–Match–AuNP–Tat
was similar to that induced by IR (4 Gy)-treated positive control
cells (p = 0.303). The telomerase-dependency of this
effect was assessed using the telomerase-negative cell line U20S (Figure F).As with
MDA-MB-435, robust induction of foci was observed after
treatment with 4 Gy IR compared to the untreated control (p < 0.0001). 111In–Scramble–AuNP–Tat
caused a modest induction of γH2AX foci in U2OS cells as did 111In–Match–AuNP–Tat in this cell line.
Both AuNP constructs had a significantly higher number of foci/NSA
than the untreated control (111In–Scramble–AuNP–Tat: p = 0.0017; 111In–Match–AuNP–Tat: p = 0.0004) but did not show a difference to each other
(p = 0.9818). These results indicate that the ability
of 111In–Match–AuNPs to induce DSBs is mediated
by telomerase activity inhibition.
Biodistribution of 111In–ON–AuNP–Tat
A pilot study
of the in vivo biodistribution of 111In–Match–AuNP–Tat
and 111In–Scramble–AuNP–Tat was performed
in a murine
MDA-MB-435 xenograft model. Employing a combination of SPECT imaging
and ex vivo radioactivity quantification, radiolabeled
AuNPs demonstrated high liver and spleen sequestration along with
low tumor accumulation, 0.7% ID/g (Figure S4).
Discussion
Since the discovery of telomerase, strategies
aiming to inhibit
this enzyme have been of great interest to the cancer research community.
Several studies have reported that optimal tumor control has been
achieved when telomerase inhibition is combined with either external
beam radiation or chemotherapy.[20,44−46] It was therefore hypothesized that the combination of telomerase
inhibition plus radionuclide therapy would be beneficial in the treatment
of telomerase-positive malignancies. This study is the first to report
that 111In-labeled anti-hTR oligonucleotide-functionalized
AuNPs have a specific anticancer therapeutic potential. Both the ON–AuNP
and ON–AuNP–Tat constructs delivered their payload into
cells with a roughly 10–20 times higher efficiency than free
oligonucleotides, strongly improving the uptake kinetics that were
reported previously.[21] The extent of internalization
of AuNPs was comparable to previous reports by us and others.[30,47,48] Match–AuNP–Tat
was internalized significantly more than Match–AuNP, and there
was a marked difference in the fate of these two constructs after
internalization. Match–AuNP were concentrated in small foci
around the cell membrane and in the cytoplasm and were not observed
outside endosomal vesicles in TEM images, which is in agreement with
earlier research by Brandenberger et al. (2010) who
showed that AuNPs remained within vesicles in the perinuclear space.[49]The addition of PEG800-SH and Tat to the
AuNP ligand shell markedly
enhanced the uptake kinetics of the particle. The internalization
of Cy3–Match–AuNP–Tat after 2.5 h resulted in
the formation of intense foci, indicating clustering in endosomal
vesicles, but a less intense uniform signal was also noted in the
cytosol and nucleus. This was more obvious after 24 h, when high-density
Cy3 focal spots were detected in the perinuclear area and a more diffuse
signal through the cytosol and nucleus. This correlated with findings
by TEM, where AuNP dots were found in endosomal vesicles, as well
as in the nucleus and cytosol. A similar phenomenon was observed by
de la Fuente and Berry (2005), who used Tat for the delivery of 2.4–8.2
nm AuNPs.[32] Consistent with this, Nativo et al. (2008) found that AuNPs loaded with PEG-SH, Tat,
and two other NLS exhibited perinuclear localization after internalization.[50] These investigators suggested that the accumulation
of Tat-functionalized AuNPs in unusual perinuclear membranous structures
was the result of disruption of endosomal membranes. Although perinuclear
accumulation was also detected in the current study, TEM revealed
no evidence of endosomal disruption. While a favorable intracellular
distribution of 111In-ON–AuNP-Tat was observed
in in vitro analyses, limited tumor accumulation in vivo was noted. These findings are in agreement with
a recent meta-analysis by Wilhelm et al. and highlight
the need for further optimization of the delivery system through,
for example, addition of a tumor-specific ligand.[51]In line with the data reported previously, it was
shown that telomerase
activity can be inhibited by anti-hTR 2′OMeRNA oligonucleotides
in a concentration-dependent manner.[21,52] Using the
TRAP assay, addition of Match to AuNP resulted in inhibition of telomerase
activity (log IC50 −7.99 ± 0.05), indicating
that oligonucleotide conjugation to AuNP did not hamper the anti-telomerase
effect of Match. However, although Scramble–AuNP did not exert
an effect on telomerase enzymatic activity, Scramble–AuNP–Tat
did induce dose-dependent telomerase inhibition (log IC50 −7.39 ± 0.03). This apparently inconsistent result may
be due to the presence of Tat, which is highly positively charged
and which disrupted the PCR amplification stages of the TRAP assay.
The interference of this assay is a phenomenon that has been reported
in the literature[53] and makes the result
of the TRAP assay hard to interpret in the presence of Tat. However,
it is interesting to point out that the inhibitory effect of Match–AuNP–Tat
is significantly higher than that of Scramble–AuNP–Tat.
This suggests that Match–AuNP–Tat may have a specific
effect on telomerase, which is detectable even when the sensitivity
of the assay is impaired due to the interference by Tat.Previously,
researchers have demonstrated that hTR-binding oligonucleotides
can cause sensitization to external IR.[14−20] To investigate whether there was a telomerase-specific radiosensitizing
effect when oligonucleotides were conjugated to AuNPs, the cells were
incubated with non-radiolabeled Match–AuNP–Tat constructs
and exposed to increasing doses of externally delivered IR. The result
of this experiment showed a highly radiosensitizing effect with an
SER for Match–AuNP–Tat of 1.6, which is in line with
the results reported by Wu et al. (2017).[19] These authors showed that treatment with imetelstat
prior to irradiation of Kyse410 and Kyse520 cells led to SERs of 1.9
and 1.6, respectively. However, although Wu et al. treated cells for 40 days prior to irradiation, our results suggest
that a 24 h treatment is sufficient to elicit radiosensitization.
This indicates that telomere shortening is not the sole mechanism
of action of hTR inhibition-induced radiosensitization.111In–Match–AuNP–Tat had a significant,
dose-dependent effect on the clonogenic survival of MDA-MB-435 cells. 111In–Scramble–AuNP–Tat also led to a
reduction in clonogenicity, although this construct was significantly
less effective. The effect of the latter compound is likely the result
of cellular internalization of radiotoxic 111In.[54] In this study, a correlation is shown between
the cytosolic and nuclear uptake of particles and their capacity to
reduce clonogenic survival of the telomerase-positive cell line MDA-MB-435.
Both Match–AuNP and Match–AuNP–Tat inhibit the
telomerase activity in a cell-free system, but only 111In-labeled Match–AuNP–Tat has a significant and telomerase-specific
effect on clonogenic survival. There is a discrepancy in the subcellular
distribution of both constructs, which is hypothesized to be the result
of the addition of Tat. For the constructs to inhibit hTR, they must
reach the nucleus. Furthermore, the effect of 111In is
most profound within a range of about 11 nm from DNA.[55] Since Match–AuNP–Tat is present in the nucleus
in greater amount than Match–AuNP, this may explain the greater
reduction in clonogenic survival with the Tat-modified construct.
The difference in effect between 111In–Match–AuNP–Tat
and 111In–Scramble–AuNP–Tat can be
explained by the difference in oligonucleotide sequence in the ligand
shell of the two constructs and is consistent with effective targeting
of telomerase by 111In–Match–AuNP–Tat
but not 111In–Scramble–AuNP–Tat. Crucially,
there is no difference in effect between these two constructs in cells
that lack telomerase expression (Figure F). Furthermore, these constructs have a
minimal effect on clonogenic survival when not radiolabeled, which
is keeping with previous findings.[56−58] Chen et al. reported that a treatment time of 2 weeks with a 2′OMe anti-hTR
oligonucleotide was enough to exert a telomerase-specific radiosensitizing
effect.[56] Interestingly, this time would
be too short to induce critical telomere shortening, implicating a
non-canonical effect of hTR inhibition. This correlates with the direct
induction of DNA damage observed in the current study which, it is
proposed, is the underlying cause of the reduction in clonogenic survival.
Non-canonical properties of hTR have been described and may account
for these observed effects. hTR has been shown to protect against
oxidative stress and apoptosis,[59,60] as well as to stimulate
DNA-dependent kinase (DNA-PKcs) to phosphorylate hnRNPA1, a protein
critical for capping telomeres.[61,62] Impairment of these
functions may result in increased DNA damage when combined with radiation.When taken together, the data showing sequence-specific and radiolabel-dependent
effects lead to the conclusion that short-term hTR inhibition results
in sensitization to the radiotoxic effects of Auger electrons and
external irradiation. In agreement with this, we observed strong upregulation
of γH2AX foci after treatment with 111In–Match–AuNP–Tat
but not after treatment with 111In–Scramble–AuNP–Tat
in telomerase-positive cells. Furthermore, there was a modest upregulation
of γH2AX foci following exposure of telomerase-negative cells
to 111In–Match–AuNP–Tat and 111In–Scramble–AuNP–Tat, but this was sequence-independent,
and likely the result of modest accumulation of intranuclear 111In. These results suggest that 111In–Match–AuNP–Tat
either causes more DNA damage than 111In–Scramble–AuNP–Tat
or inhibits the repair of such damage in telomerase-positive cells.
The results shown here are in line with our previous work, which demonstrated
that 111In-labeled anti-hTR oligonucleotides have a telomerase-specific
anti-proliferative and cytotoxic effect via the induction
of DNA damage in three telomerase-positive cell lines.[21] The current study builds on this, demonstrating
that AuNPs can function as efficient cellular delivery vehicles for
radiolabeled oligonucleotides, eliminating the need for non-clinically
relevant transfectants.
Conclusions
In this paper, progress
toward effective cellular delivery of 111In-labeled hTR-targeting
oligonucleotides is reported. AuNP
constructs functionalized with a multivalent ligand shell of PEG800-SH,
Tat and 111In-labeled oligonucleotides exhibited a superior
subcellular distribution profile in comparison to AuNP constructs
with a monovalent ligand shell of 111In-labeled oligonucleotides
only. Treatment with 111In–Match–AuNP–Tat
led to a sequence- and telomerase-dependent DNA damage-induced reduction
in clonogenic survival of malignant cells, underlining its potential
as a specific anticancer agent. Overall, this work supports the concept
that nucleic acid-based anticancer radiopharmaceuticals represent
a promising strategy for targeting tumors.
Authors: Jaime Gomez-Millan; Erin M Goldblatt; Sergei M Gryaznov; Marc S Mendonca; Brittney-Shea Herbert Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-12-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: B Herbert; A E Pitts; S I Baker; S E Hamilton; W E Wright; J W Shay; D R Corey Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 1999-12-07 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Nathaniel L Rosi; David A Giljohann; C Shad Thaxton; Abigail K R Lytton-Jean; Min Su Han; Chad A Mirkin Journal: Science Date: 2006-05-19 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Christina Brandenberger; Christian Mühlfeld; Zulqurnain Ali; Anke-Gabriele Lenz; Otmar Schmid; Wolfgang J Parak; Peter Gehr; Barbara Rothen-Rutishauser Journal: Small Date: 2010-08-02 Impact factor: 13.281
Authors: Gabriela M Baerlocher; Elisabeth Oppliger Leibundgut; Oliver G Ottmann; Gary Spitzer; Olatoyosi Odenike; Michael A McDevitt; Alexander Röth; Michael Daskalakis; Bart Burington; Monic Stuart; David S Snyder Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-09-03 Impact factor: 91.245