| Literature DB >> 35601559 |
Cuiqing Huang1,2, Yuan Xu1,3, Duo Wang1,3, Zerong Chen1,3, Weimin Fang1,3, Changzheng Shi1,3, Zeyu Xiao1, Liangping Luo1,3.
Abstract
Sonodynamics has emerged as a new potential therapy for breast cancer in recent years. However, GSH-mediated redox systems in cancer cells make them tolerable to oxidative stress-related therapy. Herein, in this study, with G6PD, the gatekeeper enzyme of the pentose phosphate pathway, as the regulative target, a self-assembled thermosensitive chitosan-pluronic hydrogel coloaded with ICG (sono-sensitive agent) and RRx-001 (IR@CPGel) was successfully prepared to enhance SDT through interference with redox homeostasis. Both in vitro and in vivo antitumor investigations verified that when integrated with sonodynamic therapy applied in breast cancer treatment, local administration of IR@CPgel could enhance ROS generation under LIFU irradiation and trigger the intrinsic apoptotic pathway of cancer cells, thus effectively inhibiting tumor growth in a safe manner. Moreover, RRx-001 may interfere with redox homeostasis in cancer cells by downregulating G6PD expression. Due to this redox imbalance, proapoptotic signals, such as P21 and P53, were enhanced, and metastasis-related signals, including MMP-2, ZEB1 and HIF-1α, were effectively reduced. Taken together, this work aimed to enhance the efficacy of sonodynamic therapy through local administration of self-assembled IR@CPGel to interfere with redox homeostasis and thus amplify the oxidative stress microenvironment in tumor tissues. In a word, this work provides a new strategy for the SDT enhancement in breast cancer therapy.Entities:
Keywords: RRx-001; glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase; redox homeostasis; self-assembled hydrogel; sonodynamic therapy
Year: 2022 PMID: 35601559 PMCID: PMC9114499 DOI: 10.3389/fchem.2022.908892
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Chem ISSN: 2296-2646 Impact factor: 5.545
SCHEME 1Potential mechanism of IR@CPGel for synergistic breast cancer therapy integrated with LIFU.
FIGURE 1Preparation and characterization of IR@CPGel. (A) Schematic illustration of procedures for IR@CPGel preparation; (B) representative photos of CPGel undergoing the sol-gel transition; (C) dynamic mechanical analysis of CPGel; (D) representative photos of IR@CPGel undergoing the sol-gel transition; (E) dynamic mechanical analysis of IR@CPGel.
FIGURE 2In vitro antitumor efficacy of IR@CPGel. (A) ROS level induced by different formulations in MDA-MB-231 cells; scale bar = 100 µm (B) Semiquantitative analysis of ROS levels from different treatment groups; (C) Calcein-AM/PI staining of MDA-MB-231 cells treated with different formulations; scale bar = 100 µm (D) Semiquantitative analysis of apoptosis rate in MDA-MB-231 cells treated with different formulations. All data are shown as the mean ± SD. (n = 3), ∗∗p < 0.01 and ∗∗∗p < 0.001 vs. Control.
FIGURE 3In vivo antitumor efficacy of IR@CPGel. (A) Schematic diagram of the animal experiment; (B) Phots of resected tumors collected from different treatment groups (C) Plot of tumor volume vs. time from different treatment groups; (D) Tumor weight resected from different treatment groups; (E) Survival rate of mice from different treatment groups; (F) Body weights of mice from different treatment groups; (G) Histological analysis including H&E staining and TUNEL assay of tumor tissues from different treatment groups, scale bar = 50 µm. All data are shown as the mean ± SD. (n = 5), ∗p < 0.05 and ∗∗∗p < 0.001 vs. Control.
FIGURE 4Antitumor mechanism of IR@CPGel. (A) ROS levels in mouse tumors treated with different formulations; scale bar = 50 µm. (B) Semiquantitative analysis of ROS levels in mouse tumors treated with different formulations. (C) Western blotting analysis of G6PD, P21, P53 and Bcl-2 expression levels in mouse tumors treated with different formulations. Semiquantitative analysis of (D) G6PD, (E) P21, (F) P53, and (G) Bcl-2 expression in mouse tumors treated with different formulations. All data are shown as the mean ± SD. (n = 3), ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01 and ∗∗∗p < 0.001 vs. Control.
FIGURE 5(A) Immunofluorescence analysis of MMP-2, ZEB1 and HIF-1α expression levels in mouse tumors treated with different formulations; scale bar = 50 µm. Semiquantitative analysis of MMP-2, ZEB1 and HIF-1α expression levels in mouse tumors treated with different formulations. All data are shown as the mean ± SD. (n = 3), ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01 and ∗∗∗p < 0.001 vs. the LIFU + IR@CPGel group.