Advertisement

Ultrasound-targeted microbubble destruction improved the antiangiogenic effect of Endostar in triple-negative breast carcinoma xenografts

  • Yang Jing
  • Zhang Xiu-Juan
  • Cai Hong-Jiao
  • Chen Zhi-KuiEmail author
  • Qian Qing-Fu
  • Xue En-Sheng
  • Lin Li-Wu
Original Article – Cancer Research

Abstract

Purpose

Ultrasound-targeted microbubble destruction (UTMD) has been reported to be a meritorious technique for drug targeting delivery. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the synergistic antiangiogenic effect of UTMD combined with Endostar on triple-negative breast carcinoma tumors.

Materials and methods

The lipid-shelled microbubbles (MBs) conjugated with Endostar were constructed using a biotin–avidin bridging chemistry method, and the morphological characteristics and drug-conjugating content were determined. MBs were administered intravenously to nude mice bearing MDA-MB-231 breast carcinoma xenografts and ultrasound exposure followed. The tumor microcirculation was observed by contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) and the Endostar biodistribution was detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Twenty-four breast carcinoma-bearing nude mice were divided into four groups. After treatment, every 3 days for 15 days the in vivo antitumor effects were assessed by calculating the tumor growth inhibition rate (TGIR). The tumor microcirculation was observed by CEUS, the tumor microvessel density (MVD) was calculated by immunohistochemistry under a microscope, and the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) gene expression was detected by real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction.

Results

The prepared Endostar-conjugated MBs were round and well-dispersed with a mean size of 2.8 ± 0.7 µm and a drug conjugating content of 800.72 ± 70.53 µg/108 MBs. UTMD blocked the tumor microcirculation, and improved Endostar release in the targeted tumor tissue with a drug content of 1.12 ± 0.43 µg/gram protein, which was about three times higher than that in Endostar group or Endostar conjugated MBs group. Endostar-conjugated MBs combined with UTMD treatment achieved the optimal antitumor effects in vivo with a TGIR of 46.29%, and apparent antiangiogenic effects with minimal tumor blood perfusion, MVD and VEGF gene expression level.

Conclusion

UTMD can improve Endostar delivery in the targeting tumor tissue and mediate synergistic antiangiogenetic and antitumor effects, which may be a potential therapeutic strategy for refractory breast cancer.

Keywords

Ultrasound-targeted microbubble destruction Endostar Antiangiogenesis Triple-negative breast carcinoma Vascular endothelial growth factor 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Key Project for Youth Academic Talents (2015-ZQN-ZD-13), Medical Innovation Project (2015-CXB-17) from Health and Family Planning Commission of Fujian Province and the General Program (2016J01710) of Science and Technology Department of Fujian Province of China.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

References

  1. Avivi LS, Gedanken A (2005) The preparation of avidin microspheres using the sonochemical method and the interaction of the microspheres with biotin. Ultrason Sonochem 12(5):405–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bastarrachea RA, Chen J, Kent JW Jr et al (2017) Engineering brown fat into skeletal muscle using ultrasound-targeted microbubble destruction gene delivery in obese Zucker rats: Proof of concept design. Iubmb Life 69(9):745–755PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauer KR, Brown M, Cress RD et al. (2007) Descriptive analysis of estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, progesterone receptor (PR)-negative, and HER2-negative invasive breast cancer, the so-called triple-negative phenotype: a population-based study from the California. Cancer Regist Cancer 109(1):1721–1728Google Scholar
  4. Bekeredjian R, Kroll RD, Fein E et al (2007) Ultrasound targeted microbubble destruction increases capillary permeability in hepatomas. Ultrasound Med Biol 33(10):1592–1598PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bettinger T, Bussat P, Tardy I et al (2012) Ultrasound molecular imaging contrast agent binding to both E- and P-selectin in different species. Invest Radiol 47(9):516–523PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Butcher NJ, Mortimer GM, Minchin RF (2016) Drug delivery: unravelling the stealth effect. Nat Nanotechnol 11:310–311PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carmeliet P, Jain RK (2011) Principles and mechanisms of vessel normalization for cancer and other angiogenic diseases. Nat Rev Drug Discov 10(6):417–427PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chang S, Guo J, Sun J et al (2013) Targeted microbubbles for ultrasound mediated gene transfection and apoptosis induction in ovarian cancer cells. Ultrason Sonochem 20(1):171–179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen S, Grayburn PA (2017) Ultrasound-targeted microbubble destruction for cardiac gene delivery. Methods Mol Biol 1521:205–218PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Danquah MK, Zhang XA, Mahato RI (2011) Extravasation of polymeric Nanomedicines across tumor vasculature. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 63(8):623–639PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Temmerman ML, Dewitte H, Vandenbroucke RE et al (2011) mRNA-Lipoplex loaded microbubble contrast agents for ultrasound-assisted transfection of dendritic cells. Biomaterials 32(34):9128–9135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Delalande A, Kotopoulis S, Postema M et al (2013) Sonoporation: mechanistic insights and ongoing challenges for gene transfer. Gene 525(2):191–199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dent R, Trudeau M, Pritchard KI et al (2007) Triple-negative breast cancer: clinical features and patterns of recurrence. Clin Cancer Res 13:4429–4434PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Deshpande N, Ren Y, Foygel K et al (2011) Tumor angiogenic marker expression levels during tumor growth: longitudinal assessment with molecularly targeted microbubbles and US imaging. Radiology 258(3):804–811PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fredenberg S, Wahlgren M, Reslow M et al (2011) The mechanisms of drug release in poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid)-based drug delivery systems—a review. Int J Pharm 415(1–2):34–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fukumura D, Jain RK (2007) Tumor microvasculature and microenvironment: targets for anti-angiogenesis and normalization. Microvasc Res 74(2–3):72–84PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hwang JH, Brayman AA, Reidy MA et al (2005) Vascular effects induced by combined 1-MHz ultrasound and microbubble contrast agent treatments in vivo. Ultrasound Med Biol 31(4):553–564PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Karaca O, Ertekin T, Canoz O et al (2012) Effect of endostatin on 1,2-dimethylhydrazine-induced colon tumor in mice. Toxicol Ind Health 28(1):21–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Keam B, Im SA, Lee KH et al (2011) Ki-67 can be used for further classification of triple negative breast cancer into two subtypes with different response and prognosis. Breast Cancer Res 13(2):R22PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kopechek JA, Carson AR, McTiernan CF et al (2015) Ultrasound targeted microbubble destruction-mediated delivery of a transcription factor decoy inhibits STAT3 signaling and tumor growth. Theranostics 5(12):1378–1387PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leon AD, Perera R, Nittayacharn P et al (2018) Ultrasound contrast agents and delivery systems in cancer detection and therapy. Adv Cancer Res 139:57–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lindner JR, Song J, Christiansen J et al (2001) Ultrasound assessment of inflammation and renal tissue injury with microbubbles targeted to P-selectin. Circulation 104(17):2107–2112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lucidarme O, Kono Y, Corbeil J et al (2006) Angiogenesis: noninvasive quantitative assessment with contrast-enhanced functional US in murine model. Radiology 239(3):730–739PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Luo H, Xu M, Zhu X et al (2015) Lung cancer cellular apoptosis induced by recombinant human endostatin gold nanoshell-mediated near-infrared thermal therapy. Int J Clin Exp Med 8(6):8758–8766PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Maruyama K (2011) Intracellular targeting delivery of liposomal drugs to solid tumors based on EPR effects. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 63(3):161–169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Matsumoto G, Hirohata R, Hayashi K et al (2014) Control of angiogenesis by VEGF and endostatin-encapsulated protein microcrystals and inhibition of tumor angiogenesis. Biomaterials 35(4):1326–1333PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miller DL, Li P, Dou C et al (2005) Influence of contrast agent dose and ultrasound exposure on cardiomyocyte injury induced by myocardial contrast echocardiography in rats. Radiology 237(1):137–143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Molinari F, Meiburger KM, Giustetto P et al (2014) Quantitative assessment of cancer vascular architecture by skeletonization of high-resolution 3-D contrast-enhanced ultrasound images: role of liposomes and microbubbles. Technol Cancer Res Treat 13(6):541–550PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. O’Reilly MS, Boehm T, Shing Y et al (1997) Endostatin: an endogenous inhibitor of angiogenesis and tumor growth. Cell 88(2):277–285PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Paprottka PM, Cyran CC, Zengel P et al (2010) Non-invasive contrast enhanced ultrasound for quantitative assessment of tumor microcirculation. Contrast mixed mode examination vs. only contrast enhanced ultrasound examination. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc 46(2–3):149PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Salmaso S, Caliceti P (2013) Stealth properties to improve therapeutic efficacy of drug nanocarriers. J Drug Deliv 2013:374252PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sharma G, Mirza S, Parshad R,et al (2011) Clinical significance of maspin promoter methylation and loss of its protein expression in invasive ductal breast carcinoma: correlation with VEGF-A and MTA1 expression. Tumour Biol 32(1):23–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sirsi S, Feshitan J, Kwan J et al (2010) Effect of microbubble size on fundamental mode high frequency ultrasound imaging in mice. Ultrasound Med Biol 36(6):935–948PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Suzuki J, Ogawa M, Takayama K et al (2010) Ultrasound microbubble mediated intercellular adhesion molecule small interfering ribonucleic acid transfection attenuates neointimal formation after arterial injury in mice. J Am Coil Cardiol 55(9):904–913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tan PH, Manunta M, Ardjomand N et al (2003) Antibody targeted gene transfer to endothelium. J Gene Med 5(4):311–323PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Teulon JM, Delcuze Y, Odorico M et al (2011) Single and multiple bonds in (strept) avidin–biotin interactions. J Mol Recognit 24(3):490–502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tinkov S, Coester C, Serba S et al (2010) New doxorubicin-loaded phospholipid MBs for targeted tumor therapy: in-vivo characterization. J Control Release 148(3):368–372PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Toi M, Hoshina S, Takayanagi T et al (1994) Association of vascular endothelial growth factor expression with tumor angiogenesis and with early relapse in primary breast cancer. Jpn J Cancer Res 85(10):1045–1049PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wand Y, Zhou J, Zhang Y et al (2010) Delivery of TFPI-2 using SonoVue and adenovirus results in the suppression of thrombosis and aerial restenosis. Exp Biol Med (Maywood) 235(9):1072–1081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wen Q, Wan S, Liu Z et al (2014) Ultrasound contrast agents and ultrasound molecular imaging. J Nanosci Nanotechnol 14(1):190–209PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Willmann JK, Paulmurugan R, Chen K et al (2008) US imaging of tumor angiogenesis with microbubbles targeted to vascular endothelial growth factor receptor type 2 in mice. Radiology 246(2):508–518PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wu XL Kim JH, Koo H et al (2010) Tumor-targeting peptide conjugated pH-responsive micelles as a potential drug carrier for cancer therapy. Bioconjug Chem 21(2):208–213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Xiang X, Tang Y, Leng Q et al (2016) Targeted gene delivery to the synovial pannus in antigen-induced arthritis by ultrasound-targeted microbubble destruction in vivo. Ultrasonics 65:304–314PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Xu M, Xu CX, Bi WZ et al (2013) Effects of endostar combined multidrug chemotherapy in osteosarcoma. Bone 57(1):111–115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yuan J, Wu CW, Liu ZJ et al (2010) Observation of the antitumor effect of endostar combined with docetaxel under different administration sequences. Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi 32(8):580–585PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Yue P, Gao L, Wang X et al (2018) Ultrasound-triggered effects of the microbubbles coupled to GDNF- and Nurr1-loaded PEGylated liposomes in a rat model of Parkinson’s disease. J Cell Biochem 119(6):4581–4591PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zhai J, Yang X, Zhang Y et al (2013) Reduced expression levels of the death-associated protein kinase and E-cadherin are correlated with the development of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Exp Ther Med 5(3):972–976PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zhang MB, Qu EZ, Liu JB et al (2011) Quantitative assessment of hepatic fibrosis by contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. Chin Med Sci J 26(4):208–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zhang J, Wang S, Deng Z et al (2018) Ultrasound-triggered drug delivery for breast tumor therapy through iRGD-targeted paclitaxel-loaded liposome- microbubble complexes. J Biomed Nanotechnol 14(8):1384–1395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PharmacyAffiliated Union Hospital of Fujian Medical UniversityFuzhouChina
  2. 2.Department of UltrasoundAffiliated Union Hospital of Fujian Medical UniversityFuzhouChina
  3. 3.Fisheries College of Jimei UniversityXiamenChina

Personalised recommendations