Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology

, Volume 56, Issue 4, pp 379–390 | Cite as

Potent reversal of multidrug resistance by ningalins and its use in drug combinations against human colon carcinoma xenograft in nude mice

  • Ting-Chao Chou
  • Yongbiao Guan
  • Danielle R. Soenen
  • Samuel J. Danishefsky
  • Dale L. Boger
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the pharmacological properties and the possible therapeutic applications of a series of synthetic marine natural product analogs, ningalins (N1–N6), in terms of cytotoxicity, MDR-reversing activity, and enhancement of drug combinations with antitumor agents in vitro and in vivo. Methods: XTT assays, [3H]azidopine binding to P-glycoprotein (Pgp), cellular accumulation and efflux of labeled drugs were carried out in vitro. Drug combinations using combination index, dose-reduction index, and isobologram were performed in vitro and enhancement of efficacy in drug combinations against human colon carcinoma HCT-116 xenografts were conducted with nude mice. Results: N3 at sub-IC50 cytotoxic concentration (10 μM) was capable of enhancing vinblastine (VBL) cytotoxicity toward human leukemic CCRF-CEM cells about 50,000-fold as measured by the decrease of IC50 of VBL. For CCRF-CEM/VBL1000 (1,500-fold resistant to VBL and overexpressing Pgp), N3 and N5 enhanced VBL cytotoxicity as much as 6.2 million-fold and 210,000-fold, respectively. Moreover, N3 and N5 collaterally made CCRF-CEM/VBL1000 cells 4,000-fold and 130-fold, respectively, more susceptible to VBL than the parent CCRF-CEM cells. In human mammary carcinoma cells MX-1/paclitaxel which were 170-fold resistant to taxol and 38-fold resistant to VBL, N3 was capable of enhancing VBL effect as much as 6,000-fold. Combination therapy on murine P388/doxorubicin (DX) leukemia with DX + N3 or taxol + N3 achieved greater efficacy than the therapy with each drug alone. Impressively, nude mice, bearing human colon carcinoma HCT-116 cells, treated with a suboptimal dosage of taxol in combination with N3, N5 or N6 led to shrinkage of established tumor and achieved total tumor remission, while taxol alone had no tumor disappearance in this xenograft model. Furthermore, the enhancement of antitumor effect by ningalins, at least in parts, are due to inhibiting Pgp which was supported by the observation that the ningalins compete for [3H]azidopine binding to Pgp, increase the cellular accumulation of VBL or taxol, and inhibit drug efflux from the tumor cells. Conclusion: The profound enhancement of antitumor cytotoxicity of vinblastine and taxol in vitro by ningalins may have multiple mechanisms including the MDR-reversing effects. The mechanisms for collateral sensitivity by ningalins against sensitive (parent) cells are not yet clear. The marked enhancement of therapeutic effect of taxol by ningalins against xenograft tumors in nude mice suggests potential applications of therapeutic use of ningalins.

Keywords

Ningalin MDR-reversal Combination index Therapeutic potentiation 

Abbreviations

N

Ningalin

MDR

Multidrug resistance

Pgp

P-glycoprotein

CI

Combination index

NAA or 5N-Ac-Ard

5-N-acetyl ardeemin

VRPL

Verapamil

DX

Doxorubicin

VBL

Vinblastine

DMSO

Dimethylsulfoxide

Taxol

Paclitaxel

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Quen-Hui Tang and Luan-Ing Chen for technical assistance. This research was supported by National Institute of Health Grant CA-28824 (S.J.D.) and Core Grant CA-08748 (T.-C. C.)

References

  1. 1.
    Laing NM, Tew KD (1997) Drug resistance to chemotherapy: mechanisms. In: Bertino JR (ed) Encyclopedia of cancer. San Diego, vol 1, pp 560–570Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anthony A, Kayne SB (1999) Drug resistance: the clinical perspective. In: Brow R, Bouger-Brown U (eds) Cytotoxic drug resistance mechanisms. Humana Press, Totowa, pp 1–16Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kuska B (1999) As easy as ABC: scientists fish out another drug resistance gene. J Natl Cancer Inst 91:402–404CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kellen JA (1994) Multidrug resistance. In: Kellen JA (ed) Reversal of multidrug resistance in cancer. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 1–19Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Robert J (1999) Multidrug resistance in oncology: diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. Eur J Clin Invest 29:535–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chou T-C, Chang T-T (2001) Models for drug development and drug resistance. In: Nicolson GL, Haier J (eds) Cancer handbook, chap 76. MacMillan Publishers, Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chou T-C, Depew KM, Zheng Y-H, Safer ML, Chan D, Helfrich B, Zatorska D, Zatorski A, Bornmann W, Danishefsky SJ (1998) Reversal of anticancer multidrug resistance by the ardeemins. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:8369–8374CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Volm M (1998) Multidrug resistance and its reversal. Anticancer Res 18:2905–2917PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boger DL, Boyce CW, Labroli MA, Sehon CA, Jin Q (1999) Total syntheses of ningalin A, lamellarin O, lukianol A, and permethyl storniamide A utilizing heterocyclic azadiene diels-alder reactions. J Am Chem Soc 121:54–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boger DL, Soenen DR, Boyce CW, Hedrick MP, Jin Q (2000) Total synthesis of ningalin B utilizing a heterocyclic azadiene diels-alder reaction and discovery of a new class of potent multidrug resistant (MDR) reversal agents. J Org Chem 65:2479–2483CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Soenen DR, Hwang I, Hedrick MP, Boger DL (2003) Multidrug resistance reversal activity of key ningalin analogs. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 13:1777–1781CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Skehan P, Storeng RH, Scudiero D, Monks A, McMahon J, Vistica D, Warren JT, Bokesch H, Kenny S, Boyd MR (1990) New colorimetric cytotoxicity assay for anticancer-drug screening. J Natl Cancer Inst 82:1107–1112PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Scudiero DA, Shoemaker RH, Pauli KD, Monks A, Tierney S, Nofziger TH, Currens MJ, Seniff D, Boyd MR (1988) Evaluation of a soluble tetrazolium/formazan assay for cell growth and drug sensitivity in culture using human and other tumor cell lines. Cancer Res 48:4827–4833PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chou T-C, Talalay PT (1984) Quantitative analysis of dose–effect relationships: the combined effects of multiple drugs or enzyme inhibitors. Adv Enzyme Regul 22:27–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chou T-C (1991) In: Chou T-C, Rideout DC (eds) Synergism and antagonism in chemotherapy. Academic, San Diego, pp 61–102Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chou J, Chou T-C (1987) Dose-effect with microcomputers quantitation of ED 50, synergism, antagonism, low-dose risk, reception-ligand binding and enzyme kinetics. Biosoft, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chou T-C, Hayball M (1996) CalcuSyn for Windows 3.1 and Windows 95: multiple drug dose-effect analyzer and manual for IBM-PC. Biosoft, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chou T-C, O’Connor OA, Tong WP, Guan Y, Zhang X-G, Stachel SJ, Lee C, Danishefsky SJ (2001) The synthesis, discovery, and development of a highly promising class of microtubule stabilization agents: curative effects of desoxyepothilones B and F against human tumor xenografts in nude mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:8113–8118CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wohlhueter RM, Marz R, Graff JC, Plagemann RGW (1978) A rapid-mixing technique to measure transport in suspended animal cells: applications to nucleoside transport in Novikoff rat hepatoma cells. Methods Cell Biol 20:211–236PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ting-Chao Chou
    • 1
  • Yongbiao Guan
    • 1
  • Danielle R. Soenen
    • 2
  • Samuel J. Danishefsky
    • 1
  • Dale L. Boger
    • 2
  1. 1.Molecular Pharmacology and Chemistry ProgramSloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer ResearchUSA
  2. 2.Department of ChemistryThe Scripps Research InstituteJollaUSA

Personalised recommendations