Differential response of lung cancer cell lines to vitamin D derivatives depending on EGFR, KRAS, p53 mutation status and VDR polymorphism.

Vitamin D reveals antiproliferative activity against many types of cancer cells. Calcitriol (1,25D3), the most active form of vitamin D3, acts mainly through the vitamin D receptor, regulating the expression of target genes. Cells with reasonable expression of VDR are considered to be sensitive to antiproliferative activity of 1,25D3. However, a few alleles of the VDR gene are correlated with higher or lower response to 1,25D3 treatment. The goal of our study was to establish if cells differing in EGFR, KRAS, p53 mutation status and VDR polymorphism were sensitive to antiproliferative activity of selected vitamin D derivatives (VDDs). In our search for the lead VDD against human lung cancer cells, we selected, for this study, low calcemic analogs of active forms of vitamin D2 and D3 that had previously shown anticancer potential. The selected cell lines revealed differential response to VDDs. The highest proliferation inhibition was observed for EGFR mutant cells while a weaker response was observed for KRAS and/or p53 mutant cells. 24,24-Dihomo-1,25D3 (PRI-1890) showed the highest activity on the VDD-sensitive cell lines (A549, HCC827, NCI-H1299, and NCI-H1703). Therefore, PRI-1890 was selected as the lead VDD for further structure optimization. None of the VDDs used in this study showed antiproliferative activity against A-427 and Calu-3. VDR polymorphisms correlated inversely with sensitivity to the antiproliferative activity of VDDs since we observed less transcriptionally active form of VDR in HCC827 cells sensitive to VDD, while more transcriptionally active form was observed in NCI-H358 cells that were stimulated by VDDs to proliferate. Lack of KRAS and p53 mutations in HCC827 cells may be, therefore, responsible for the higher antiproliferative activity of VDDs, while the presence of KRAS and/or p53 mutations in other cell lines might prevent antiproliferative activity even though the VDDs were transcriptionally active as assessed on increased CYP24A1 expression. VDR gene polymorphism is not directly responsible for the sensitivity of tested cells to VDDs.