| Literature DB >> 35177088 |
Qian Li1,2,3, Qiubing Chen1,2,3, Xue Yang1,2, Yuelan Zhang1,2, Linyue Lv1,2, Zhuyou Zhang1,2, Shaowei Zeng1,2, Jiaxi Lv4, Sijin Liu5, Bishi Fu6,7,8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitor-mediated immunotherapy cannot be carried out on a large scale clinically due to its low universality. In recent years, cyclic guanosine monophosphate synthase/interferon gene stimulating factor (cGAS/STING)-mediated innate immune signaling pathway-mediated immunotherapy has attracted more and more attention. In addition, metabolic inhibitors also show good effects on tumor treatment, but their application is often limited because of their large first pass effect or difficult administration.Entities:
Keywords: Hepa1–6 cells; Metabolism inhibitors; STING agonists; cGAS/STING
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35177088 PMCID: PMC8851817 DOI: 10.1186/s12951-022-01241-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Nanobiotechnology ISSN: 1477-3155 Impact factor: 10.435
Scheme 1Illustration of the the anti-tumor mechanism of BCP NPs
Fig. 2Viability of Hepa1–6 cells treated with BCP NPs under gradient concentrations (a) and different drugs for 24 h and 48 h (b); viability of Hepa1–6 cells incubated with blank PLGA NPs at different concentrations for 24 h and 48 h (c); Fluorescence images of Hepa1–6 cells tumor cells after various treatments analyzed by JC-1 staining (scale bar: 20 µm, JC-1/A and JC-1/M signified the aggregate and monomer form of JC-1 (d); Flow cytometry analysis of cell apoptosis by staining with Alexa Fluor 488 annexin V-FITC and PI after various treatments (e)
Fig. 1In vitro cytotoxicity of CPI/BPA (1:5) (a), CPI/BPA-NP (1:2) (c), CPI/BPA (1:1) (e), CPI/BPA (2:1) (g), CPI/BPA (5:1) (i) against Hepa1–6 cells, determined by MTT assays; CI versus Fa plots for CPI/BPA (1:5) (b), CPI/BPA-NP (1:2) (d), CPI/BPA (1:1) (f), CPI/BPA (2:1) (h) and CPI/BPA (5:1) (j); Synthesis process of BCP nanoparticles (k); TEM images of BCP NPs (l); size distribution of BCP NPs measured by DLS (m); Zeta potentials of Blank PLGA NPs and BCP NPs (n); XRD of CPI-613,3-BPA, Blank PLGA NPs and CBP NPs (o); Cumulative Release of Cy-7 (p) and Coumarin (q) in PLGA NPs
Fig. 3Intracellular changes of ATP (a, b); lactic acid (c, d) and gluconolactic acid (e, f)
Fig. 4The mRNA expression of metabolism-related genes of AML12 cells and Hepa1–6 cells (a); Western blot analysis of HK-II, c-Myc and GAPDH. β-actin was used as an internal reference (b); The activity of α-KGDH (c); The Western blot analysis of TBK1 and STING in AML12 cells and Hepa1–6 cells (d); Effects of BCP NPs, ABZI and BCP NPs + ABZI treated Hepa1–6 cells triggered dimerization of STING (e); Effects of BCP NPs, ABZI and BCP NPs + ABZI treated Hepa1–6 cells triggered phosphorylation of TBK1 in AML12 cells (f) and Hepa1–6 cells (g); Different concentration BCP NPs treated Hepa1–6 cells triggered phosphorylation of TBK1 in Hepa1-6 cells (h); The relatived production of IFN-β after the treatment of different concentration BCP NPs treated Hepa1–6 cells (i)
Fig. 5Primary indicators of blood routine test (a–f) and liver and kidney function (g–i) after C57BL/6 mice treated with or without BCP NPs. The blue pink hatched areas represent the reference ranges of hematology index of healthy mice
Fig. 6Fluorescence images of C57BL/6 mice bearing Hepa1–6 tumors at different time points after the injection of BCP NPs, and the fluorescence images of tumors and different organs excised at 48 h post-injection (a–c); Schematic of treatment on a Hepa1–6 tumor model (d); Body weight over 18 days after the injection of different treatment (e); Tumor volume variation after different treatments (f); The weight of different resected tumors on day 18 (g); Mean fluorescence intensity of TUNEL section staining (h); Tumor tissue section analysis of tumor sections by H&E staining,TUNEL assays and Ki-67 staining (scale bar: 100 µm) (i)
Fig. 7The combination of metabolic therapy and Sting agonists can enhance the anti-tumor effect. Schematic of treatment on a Hepa1–6 tumor model (a); Mouse body weight during the administration of different treatment protocols (b); Tumor volume variation during the administration of different treatment protocols (c); Weight of different resected tumors on day 18 (d); Tumor tissue section analysis of tumor sections by H&E staining, CD8+ T cells, TUNEL assays and Ki67 staining (e) (scale bar: 100 µm). The flow cytometry analysis of CD8+ T cells (f–h)