Advertisement

Tumor Biology

, Volume 35, Issue 8, pp 7611–7616 | Cite as

Inhibition of macrophage polarization prohibits growth of human osteosarcoma

Research Article

Abstract

Osteosarcoma is the most malignant bone tumor characterized by high local aggressiveness and poor therapeutic outcome. Tumor-associated macrophages (TAM) have been shown to participate in the development and progress of many types of cancer cells. However, whether TAM may play a role in the pathogenesis of osteosarcoma is largely unknown. In a mouse model of human osteosarcoma implantation, we showed that the recruited macrophages at the site of the implanted tumor were polarized to an M2 subtype (same as TAM) during the development and growth of the osteosarcoma. In a loss-of-function experiment, we deleted these TAM with a specific macrophage-eliminating liposome, which resulted in decreased tumor growth. Moreover, when the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) in the implanted cancer cells was inhibited by shRNA, the tumor failed to grow in response to the recruited macrophages. Taken together, for the first time, we show that the growth of an osteosarcoma is EGFR signaling-dependent and TAM-mediated. Our data suggest that TAM and EGFR may be good targets for treating human osteosarcoma.

Keywords

Osteosarcoma Macrophage TAM Epidermal growth factor 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by internal funding from Liaoning Medical University.

Conflicts of interest

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

  1. 1.
    Yang J, Zhang W. New molecular insights into osteosarcoma targeted therapy. Curr Opin Oncol. 2013;25:398–406.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tsuchiya H, Tomita K, Mori Y, Asada N, Morinaga T, Kitano S, et al. Caffeine-assisted chemotherapy and minimized tumor excision for nonmetastatic osteosarcoma. Anticancer Res. 1998;18:657–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buddingh EP, Kuijjer ML, Duim RA, Burger H, Agelopoulos K, Myklebost O, et al. Tumor-infiltrating macrophages are associated with metastasis suppression in high-grade osteosarcoma: a rationale for treatment with macrophage activating agents. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17:2110–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Endo-Munoz L, Evdokiou A, Saunders NA. The role of osteoclasts and tumour-associated macrophages in osteosarcoma metastasis. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1826;2012:434–42.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ponten J, Saksela E. Two established in vitro cell lines from human mesenchymal tumours. Int J Cancer. 1967;2:434–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gordon S. Alternative activation of macrophages. Nat Rev Immunol. 2003;3:23–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gordon S, Martinez FO. Alternative activation of macrophages: mechanism and functions. Immunity. 2010;32:593–604.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Geissmann F, Manz MG, Jung S, Sieweke MH, Merad M, Ley K. Development of monocytes, macrophages, and dendritic cells. Science. 2010;327:656–61.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ricardo SD, van Goor H, Eddy AA. Macrophage diversity in renal injury and repair. J Clin Invest. 2008;118:3522–30.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Biswas SK, Mantovani A. Macrophage plasticity and interaction with lymphocyte subsets: cancer as a paradigm. Nat Immunol. 2010;11:889–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coffelt SB, Hughes R, Lewis CE. Tumor-associated macrophages: effectors of angiogenesis and tumor progression. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2009;1796:11–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lamagna C, Aurrand-Lions M, Imhof BA. Dual role of macrophages in tumor growth and angiogenesis. J Leukoc Biol. 2006;80:705–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Rooijen N, Bakker J, Sanders A. Transient suppression of macrophage functions by liposome-encapsulated drugs. Trends Biotechnol. 1997;15:178–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    van Rooijen N, van Nieuwmegen R. Elimination of phagocytic cells in the spleen after intravenous injection of liposome-encapsulated dichloromethylene diphosphonate. An enzyme-histochemical study. Cell Tissue Res. 1984;238:355–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Plosker GL, Goa KL. Clodronate. A review of its pharmacological properties and therapeutic efficacy in resorptive bone disease. Drugs. 1994;47:945–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kanis JA, McCloskey EV. Clodronate. Cancer. 1997;80:1691–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Xiao X, Gaffar I, Guo P, Wiersch J, Fischbach S, Peirish L, et al. M2 macrophages promote beta-cell proliferation by up-regulation of smad7. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111:E1211–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sica A, Mantovani A. Macrophage plasticity and polarization: in vivo veritas. J Clin Invest. 2012;122:787–95.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Klambt C. Egf receptor signalling: the importance of presentation. Curr Biol. 2000;10:R388–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of Oncology and BioMarkers (ISOBM) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Department of Hand and Foot SurgeryThe First Affiliated Hospital of Liaoning Medical UniversityJinzhouChina

Personalised recommendations