Lewis Louisa J, Mistry Prakash, Charlton Peter A, Thomas Hilary, Coley Helen M
Postgraduate Medical School, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, UK.
Anticancer Drugs. 2007 Feb;18(2):139-48. doi: 10.1097/CAD.0b013e328010772f.
The substituted phenazines XR11576 and XR5944 were originally described as dual topoisomerase-I/II poisons. Subsequent reports, however, indicated that the association of their cytotoxicity with cellular topoisomerases was not clear. We set out to study this further using human tumour cell lines, PEO1 ovarian cancer, MDA-MB-231 breast cancer and variants with acquired resistance to VP-16 and XR11576: PEO1VPR, MB-231VPR, MB-231-11576R and camptothecin: PEO1CamR. Cytotoxicity testing [3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2yl)-2,5-diphenyl tetrazolium bromide assay], DNA-protein crosslink formation, cell cycle analysis (flow cytometry) for DNA content, apoptosis (flow cytometry) for Annexin V and Western blotting for apoptotic factors. Cytotoxicity testing showed potent cytotoxicity with no cross-resistance to XR11576 or XR5944 in VP-16 or camptothecin-resistant lines. Importantly, we have shown for the first time that the activities of XR5944 and XR11576 are similar as MB-231-11576R cells were resistant to both agents and to a similar extent. XR5944 showed the greatest, albeit slower, interaction with DNA with high levels of DNA-protein crosslinks. Levels of apoptosis in XR5944-treated cells were significantly less than those in VP-16 or XR11576 treatments, suggestive of a more cytostatic rather than cytotoxic mode of action. Interestingly, XR5944 failed to give rise to a G2/M blockade, in contrast to VP-16 or XR11576. XR5944 and XR11576, in line with a dual topoisomerase-I/II-directed mechanism of action, retain potent activity in tumour cells with acquired resistance to VP-16 and camptothecin. Although these agents appear to behave differently from each other according to experimental conditions, this study suggests a substantial overlap in their mechanism(s) of action.
取代吩嗪类化合物XR11576和XR5944最初被描述为双功能拓扑异构酶-I/II毒药。然而,随后的报告表明,它们的细胞毒性与细胞拓扑异构酶之间的关联并不明确。我们着手使用人肿瘤细胞系进行进一步研究,包括PEO1卵巢癌、MDA-MB-231乳腺癌以及对VP-16和XR11576获得性耐药的变体:PEO1VPR、MB-231VPR、MB-231-11576R,以及对喜树碱耐药的变体:PEO1CamR。进行细胞毒性测试[3-(4,5-二甲基噻唑-2-基)-2,5-二苯基溴化四氮唑法]、DNA-蛋白质交联形成分析、用于DNA含量的细胞周期分析(流式细胞术)、用于膜联蛋白V的凋亡分析(流式细胞术)以及用于凋亡因子的蛋白质免疫印迹分析。细胞毒性测试显示,在对VP-16或喜树碱耐药的细胞系中,对XR11576或XR5944具有强大的细胞毒性且无交叉耐药性。重要的是,我们首次表明,XR5944和XR11576的活性相似,因为MB-231-11576R细胞对这两种药物均耐药且耐药程度相似。XR5944与DNA的相互作用最强,尽管速度较慢,会形成高水平的DNA-蛋白质交联。XR5944处理的细胞中的凋亡水平明显低于VP-16或XR11576处理的细胞,这表明其作用模式更具细胞生长抑制性而非细胞毒性。有趣的是,与VP-16或XR11576不同,XR5944不会导致G2/M期阻滞。与双功能拓扑异构酶-I/II导向的作用机制一致,XR5944和XR11576在对VP-16和喜树碱获得性耐药的肿瘤细胞中仍保持强大活性。尽管根据实验条件这些药物的表现似乎有所不同,但本研究表明它们的作用机制存在大量重叠。