| Literature DB >> 35887120 |
Renato José da Silva-Oliveira1, Izabela Natalia Faria Gomes1, Luciane Sussuchi da Silva1, André van Helvoort Lengert1, Ana Carolina Laus1, Matias Eliseo Melendez1, Carla Carolina Munari1, Fernanda de Paula Cury1, Giovanna Barbarini Longato1, Rui Manuel Reis1,2,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: EGFR mutations are present in approximately 15-50% of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), which are predictive of anti-EGFR therapies. At variance, NSCLC patients harboring KRAS mutations are resistant to those anti-EGFR approaches. Afatinib and allitinib are second-generation pan-EGFR drugs, yet no predictive biomarkers are known in the NSCLC context. In the present study, we evaluated the efficacy of pan-EGFR inhibitors in a panel of 15 lung cancer cell lines associated with the KRAS mutations phenotype.Entities:
Keywords: KRAS mutations; NSCLC; afatinib; allitinib; everolimus; mTOR; pan-EGFR
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35887120 PMCID: PMC9317664 DOI: 10.3390/ijms23147774
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 6.208
Mutation analysis and anti-EGFR drug response of NSCLC cell lines.
| Cell Line | IC50 ± (SD) µM | Mutation Status | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Allitinib | Afatinib | Lapatinib | Erlotinib |
|
|
|
|
| |
| NCI-H1975 | 0.21 ± 0.09 | 0.34 ± 0.03 | 20.9 ± 5.91 | 18.3 ± 3.94 | WT | WT | p.G118D | L858R + T790M | WT |
| HCC-827 | 0.31 ± 0.07 | 0.51 ± 0.13 | 9.68 ± 0.27 | 11.8 ± 1.12 | WT | WT | WT | del19 | WT |
| PC9 | 0.29 ± 0.03 | 0.72 ± 0.05 | 8.49 ± 0.51 | 10.2 ± 0.39 | WT | WT | WT | del19 | WT |
| SK-MES-1 | 0.96 ± 0.10 | 1.51 ± 0.52 | 30.3 ± 2.52 | 36.07 ± 1.95 | WT | WT | WT | WT | WT |
| SK-LU-1 | 0.87 ± 0.07 | 2.16 ± 0.63 | 31.24 ± 4.05 | 48.02 ± 5.15 | p.G12D | WT | WT | WT | WT |
| A549 | 3.92 ± 1.03 | 5.18 ± 1.02 | 25.23 ± 2.98 | 36.42 ± 4.03 | p.G12S | WT | WT | WT | WT |
| NCI-H292 | 1.32 ± 0.94 | 3.96 ± 0.98 | 27.8 ± 3.15 | >50 | WT | WT | WT | WT | WT |
| COR-L23 | 3.27 ± 1.08 | 6.34 ± 0.72 | >50 | >50 | p.G12V | WT | WT | WT | WT |
| COR-L105 | 0.98 ± 0.76 | 0.92 ± 0.12 | 1.39 ± 0.79 | 2.22 ± 0.92 | WT | WT | WT | WT | WT |
| LUDLU-1 | 7.35 ± 1.26 | 2.47 ± 1.05 | >50 | 10.4 ± 2.19 | WT | WT | WT | WT | WT |
| NCI-H322 | 1.54 ± 0.89 | 0.35 ± 0.03 | 12.81 ± 3.05 | 6.19 ± 1.17 | WT | WT | WT | WT | WT |
| NCI-H358 | 1.24 ± 0.65 | 0.81 ± 0.04 | 12.25 ± 2.98 | 8.32 ± 2.01 | p.G12C | WT | WT | WT | WT |
| NCI-H727 | 1.65 ± 0.65 | 0.42 ± 0.06 | 6.34 ± 1.12 | 9.64 ± 2.45 | p.G12V | WT | WT | WT | WT |
| NCI-H2228 | 1.50 ± 0.01 | 3.98 ± 0.02 | >50 | 30.0 ± 0.71 | WT | WT | WT | WT | WT |
| Calu-3 | 4.52 ± 0.31 | 7.12 ± 0.80 | >50 | >50 | WT | WT | WT | WT | WT |
Figure 1The comparative effect between afatinib and allitinib. The growth inhibition score (GI) of NSCLC cells was calculated for afatinib (A) and allitinib (B) at 1000 nM, classified as highly sensitive-HS (green bars), moderate sensitivity-MS (orange bars), and resistant-R (red bars). (C) Western blot analysis of EGFR, ERK, and AKT total or phosphorylated and cleaved PARP. EGF ligand was used at 10 ng/mL for 10 min. CTR: control; AFA: afatinib, ALI: allitinib at 0.2 μM.
Figure 2H292 KRAS wild-type and mutant cell lines were exposed to both EGFR inhibitors at 0.2 μM. Cell–protein adhesion assay (A) and bar graphs indicate the number of attaching cells (B); clonogenic assay (C) and bar graphs indicate the relative colony number (D); invasion assay (E) and bar graphs represent the relative number of invading cells (F). Cells at 10× magnification. CTR: control; AFA: afatinib, ALI: allitinib. * p-values < 0.01, ** p-Value < 0.001, *** p-value < 0.0001.
Figure 3Molecular alterations in KRAS mutated cell lines. Representative pictures of phospho-RTK arrays for H292 KRAS wild-type, KRAS (G12D), and KRAS (G12S) cell lines (A). Each RTK is duplicate in the arrays (two spots side by side) and four pairs of phosphotyrosine positive controls in the corners of each array. Densitometric analyses are represented by bar graphs and red arrow show mTOR in KRAS mutated cells. Red squares show the mTOR phosphorylated levels (B). Analysis of proliferation markers (C), Wnt/β-catenin (D), and epithelial–mesenchymal transition (E) markers by Western blot. In vivo effect of KRAS mutations on H292 cell line growth (F). Representative pictures (×16 magnification) of CAM assay in ovo and ex ovo at 14 and 17 days. Data presented as a mean of 18 eggs per group.
Figure 4Gene expression analysis of a pan-cancer panel by NanoString™ and functional pathways analysis. Heatmap of genes altered in H292-KRAS mutated cells H292 KRAS-G12D (A) and H292 KRAS-G12S (B) compared to H292-KRAS wild-type. In red represents the overexpressed genes, and in blue, the down expressed genes. Genetic interaction network associated with KRAS mutations on String platform (C). Each circle represents a gene (node) in this figure, and each connection represents a direct or indirect connection (edge). Kaplan–Meier plot survival of mTOR expression in a cohort of NSCLC patients (n = 117) by PrognoScan analyses (D).
Figure 5Cell viability assay of wild-type-WT (A) KRAS mutated cell G12D (B) and KRAS mutated cell G12S (C) exposed to EGFR inhibitors in combination with everolimus (1 μM) for 72 h. Squares represent combination index (CI) values. Synergy (CI < 1.0); antagonism (CI > 1.0); and additivity (CI = 1.0). AFA: afatinib, ALI: allitinib, EVER: everolimus. Data presented as the mean of three independent experiments.