Synergistic activity of Pitstop-2 and 1,6-hexanediol in aggressive human lung cancer cells
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Metastatic cancer cells undergo metabolic reprogramming, which involves changes in the metabolic fluxes, including endocytosis, nucleocytoplasmic transport, and mitochondrial metabolism, to satisfy their massive demands for energy, cell division, and proliferation compared to normal cells. We have previously demonstrated the ability of two different types of compounds to interfere with linchpins of metabolic reprogramming, Pitstop-2 and 1,6-hexanediol (1,6-HD). 1,6-HD disrupts glycolysis enzymes and mitochondrial function, enhancing reactive oxygen species production and reducing cellular ATP levels, while Pitstop-2 impedes clathrin-mediated endocytosis and small GTPases activity. Besides, both compounds interfere with the integrity of nuclear pore complexes, the gatekeepers for all nucleocytoplasmic transport. Herein, we investigate the possible synergistic effects of both compounds on lowly, highly metastatic, and erlotinib-resistant non-small cell lung cancer. We observe a synergistic cytotoxic effect on erlotinib-resistant cells. Moreover, motility assays show that the compounds combination significantly impedes the motility of all cells. Drug safety and tolerability assessments were validated using the in vivo model organism Caenorhabditis elegans, where fairly high doses showed negligible impact on survival, development, or behavioral parameters. Our findings propose that the 1,6-HD and Pitstop-2 combination may usher in the design of potent strategies for treating advanced lung cancer.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Microtubule and mitosis dynamics · Photosynthetic Processes and Mechanisms · Mitochondrial Function and Pathology
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (35)
Show source-provided references
1. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013.10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013 ↗
2. Heiden MGV, et al. Understanding the warburg effect: the metabolic requirements of cell proliferation. Science. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1160809.10.1126/science.1160809 ↗
3. Martínez-Reyes I, Chandel NS. Cancer metabolism: looking forward. Nat Rev Cancer. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41568-021-00378-6.10.1038/s41568-021-00378-6 ↗
4. Faubert B, et al. Metabolic reprogramming and cancer progression. Science. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw5473.10.1126/science.aaw5473 ↗
5. Vander Heiden MG, DeBerardinis RJ. Understanding the intersections between metabolism and cancer biology. Cell. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2016.12.039.10.1016/j.cell.2016.12.039 ↗
6. De Berardinis RJ, Chandel NS. Fundamentals of cancer metabolism. Sci Adv. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1600200.10.1126/sciadv.1600200 ↗
7. Scheid AD, et al. Roles of mitochondria in the hallmarks of metastasis. Br J Cancer. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-020-01125-8.10.1038/s41416-020-01125-8 ↗
8. Kroemer G, Pouyssegur J. Tumor cell metabolism: cancer’s Achilles’ heel. Cancer Cell. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccr.2008.05.005.10.1016/j.ccr.2008.05.005 ↗
9. Hill R, et al. Targeting nucleocytoplasmic transport in cancer therapy. Oncotarget. 2014;5:11–28.10.18632/oncotarget.1457 ↗
10. Nataraj NB, et al. Nucleoporin-93 reveals a common feature of aggressive breast cancers: robust nucleocytoplasmic transport of transcription factors. Cell Rep. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2022.110418.10.1016/j.celrep.2022.110418 ↗
11. Jones NP, Schulze A. Targeting cancer metabolism—aiming at a tumour’s sweet-spot. Drug Discov Today. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2011.12.017.10.1016/j.drudis.2011.12.017 ↗
12. Stefanello ST, et al. Five-to-seven carbon glycols severely impair bioenergetics and metabolism of aggressive lung cancer cells. Adv NanoBiomed Res. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1002/anbr.202200050.10.1002/anbr.202200050 ↗
13. Warburg O. On the origin of cancer cells. Science. 1956. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.123.3191.309.10.1126/science.123.3191.309 ↗
14. Stefanello ST, et al. Impact of the nuclear envelope on malignant transformation, motility, and survival of lung cancer cells. Adv Sci. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.202102757.10.1002/advs.202102757 ↗
15. Azzam I, et al. Facilitating plasmid nuclear delivery by interfering with the selective nuclear pore barrier. Bioeng Transl Med. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/btm2.10136.10.1002/btm2.10136 ↗
16. Liashkovich I, et al. Pitstop-2 and its novel derivative RVD-127 disrupt global cell dynamics and nuclear pores integrity by direct interaction with small GTPases. Bioeng Transl Med. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1002/btm2.10425.10.1002/btm2.10425 ↗
17. Terry LJ, et al. Crossing the nuclear envelope: hierarchical regulation of nucleocytoplasmic transport. Science. 2007. https://doi.org/10.1126/SCIENCE.1142204.10.1126/SCIENCE.1142204 ↗
18. Bosco EE, et al. Rac1 GTPase: a “Rac” of all trades. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-008-8552-x.10.1007/s00018-008-8552-x ↗
19. Dogterom M, Koenderink GH. Actin–microtubule crosstalk in cell biology. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41580-018-0067-1.10.1038/s41580-018-0067-1 ↗
20. Hascher A, et al. DNA methyltransferase inhibition reverses epigenetically embedded phenotypes in lung cancer preferentially affecting polycomb target genes. Clin Cancer Res. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-1483.10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-1483 ↗
21. Glaser F, et al. KCa channel blockers increase effectiveness of the EGF receptor TK inhibitor erlotinib in non-small cell lung cancer cells (A549). Sci Rep. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-97406-0.10.1038/s41598-021-97406-0 ↗
22. Odds FC. Synergy, antagonism, and what the chequerboard puts between them. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2003. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkg301.10.1093/jac/dkg301 ↗
23. Brenner S. The genetics of Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics. 1974;77:71–94.10.1093/genetics/77.1.71 ↗
24. Raizen D, et al. Methods for measuring pharyngeal behaviors. WormBook Online Rev C elegans Biol. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1895/wormbook.1.154.1.10.1895/wormbook.1.154.1 ↗
25. Wu Q, et al. Comparison of toxicities from three metal oxide nanoparticles at environmental relevant concentrations in nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Chemosphere. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.09.019.10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.09.019 ↗
26. Mirela Bratu M, et al. Biological activities of Zn(II) and Cu(II) complexes with quercetin and rutin: antioxidant properties and UV-protection capacity. Rev Chim. 2014;65:544.
27. Khan I, Steeg PS. Endocytosis: a pivotal pathway for regulating metastasis. Br J Cancer. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-020-01179-8.10.1038/s41416-020-01179-8 ↗
28. Pao W, Chmielecki J. Rational, biologically based treatment of EGFR-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc2947.10.1038/nrc2947 ↗
29. Kanda R, et al. Erlotinib resistance in lung cancer cells mediated by integrin β1/Src/Akt-driven bypass signaling. Can Res. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-4502.10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-4502 ↗
30. Kyriakakis E, et al. Caenorhabditis elegans as a model for cancer research. Mol Cell Oncol. 2015. https://doi.org/10.4161/23723556.2014.975027.10.4161/23723556.2014.975027 ↗
31. Hunt PR, et al. C. elegans development and activity test detects mammalian developmental neurotoxins. Food Chem Toxicol. 2018;121:583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2018.09.061.10.1016/j.fct.2018.09.061 ↗
32. Hunt PR, et al. The C. elegans Model in Toxicity Testing. FDA. 2022. https://www.fda.gov/food/toxicology-research/c-elegans-model-toxicity-testing.
33. Hunt PR. The C. elegans model in toxicity testing. J Appl Toxicol. 2017;37:50–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/jat.3357.10.1002/jat.3357 ↗
34. Stefanello ST, et al. Protective effects of novel organic selenium compounds against oxidative stress in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Toxicol Rep. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxrep.2015.06.010.10.1016/j.toxrep.2015.06.010 ↗
35. Cordeiro LM, et al. Toxicity of copper and zinc alone and in combination in Caenorhabditis elegans model of Huntington’s disease and protective effects of rutin. Neurotoxicology. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuro.2023.06.005.10.1016/j.neuro.2023.06.005 ↗