Inhibition of CRM1 activity sensitizes endometrial and ovarian cell lines to TRAIL-induced cell death.

BACKGROUND

CRM1 enrichment has been shown to be indicative of invasive as well as chemoresistant tumors. On the other hand, TRAIL, a powerful and specific anti-tumoral agent, has yet to be used effectively to treat gynecological tumors in patients. In the present study, we examined if CRM1, a nuclear exporter capable of mediating protein transport, could be a relevant target to restore chemosensitivity in chemoresistant cells. We thus explored the hypothesis that CRM1-driven nuclear exclusion of tumor suppressors could lead to chemoresistance and that CRM1 inhibitors could present a novel therapeutic approach, allowing sensitization to chemotherapeutic agents.

METHODS

Ovarian cancer cell lines, as well as endometrial cancer cell lines, were treated with leptomycin B (LMB), cisplatin and TRAIL, either singly or in combination, in order to induce apoptosis. Western blot and flow cytometry analysis were used to quantify caspases activation and apoptosis induction. Immunofluorescence was used to determine nuclear localization of p53. Colony formation assays were performed to determine therapeutic effectiveness; p53 siRNA were used to establish p53 role in sensitization. Additional information from GEO database and Prognoscan allowed us to contextualise the obtained results. Finally, qRT-PCR was performed to measure apoptotic regulators expression.

RESULTS

TRAIL and LMB combination therapy lead to cleavage of caspase-3 as well as the appearance of cleaved-PARP, and thus, apoptosis. Further experiments suggested that sensitization was achieved through the synergistic downregulation of multiple inhibitor of apoptosis, as well as the activation of apoptotic pathways. p53 was enriched in the nucleus following LMB treatments, but did not seem to be required for sensitization; additional experiments suggested that p53 opposed the apoptotic effects of LMB and TRAIL. Results obtained from public data repositories suggested that CRM1 was a driver of chemoresistance and poor prognostic; DR5, on the other hand, acted as as a marker of positive prognostic.

CONCLUSIONS

Taken together, our results suggest that the use of CRM1 inhibitors, in combination to chemotherapeutic compounds, could be highly effective in the treatment of gynecological malignancies.