Project description:Background: The combination of Proteasome inhibitor with Glucocorticoid is one of the most promising antileukemic treatments. Both agents act through pluripotent signal mediators. The two types of agents inhibit key signals that are considered crucial to their effects on malignant cells. Methodology/Principal Findings: Combined use of the two reagents on the lymphoblastic leukemia cell line CCRF-CEM has a range of effects on the viability that depend on the dose and the time used. Even though both reagents are capable of enhancing cell death on the CEM cell line, no combinatorial increase in cell death is detectable, until after the first 120 hours of treatment. In contrast, there are a number of combinatorial effects on the cell cycle phase distribution of treated cells, which indicates a potential for mutual signal disruption between glucocorticoid and proteasome inhibitor at multiple levels. Microarray analysis indicates that Prednisolone and MG132 elicit highly divergent, early-response molecular signatures on this cell line. We assayed levels of the antiapoptotic protein Mcl-1 as a potential model of late, downstream target regulation by both glucocorticoid and proteasome. Synchronized use of Prednisolone with MG132 results in temporary stabilization of Mcl-1 in CEM cells. Stabilization is not the result of a common mechanism of action on the genome, as Prednisolone and MG132 elicit nonreduntant molecular signatures, and it occurs also when the cells are treated at different timepoints with either agent. Conclusions/Significance: Our results show that this glucocorticoid-resistant ALL lymphoblast line is highly sensitive to proteasome inhibitor, and suggest that the proteasome inhibitor and the glucocorticoid regulate different direct target genes. This difference in immediate targets, when the two agents are applied in combination, may lead to negative or positive interference with mechanisms regulating viability of the leukemic lymphoblast. Signal interference between glucocorticoid Prednisolone and the proteasome inhibitor MG132 is expected to occur at more than one level, resulting in complex effects on intracellular signal transduction pathways. The net result depends on the development of individual downstream effects and interactions between key signal mediators. Elucidation of the conditions of interference between glucocorticoid and proteasome targets on leukemic cell fate is expected to improve effects of applied treatment combinations. Experimental setups consisted of the three following samples obtained after 4 h treatment: control, 10nM prednisolone, 1uM prednisolone, 10uM prednisolone, 100M-NM-<M prednisolone, 700M-NM-<M prednisolone, 200nM MG132, 2M-NM-<M MG132 and 20M-NM-<M MG132. Untreated cells were used as reference.

Project description:Background: The combination of Proteasome inhibitor with Glucocorticoid is one of the most promising antileukemic treatments. Both agents act through pluripotent signal mediators. The two types of agents inhibit key signals that are considered crucial to their effects on malignant cells. Methodology/Principal Findings: Combined use of the two reagents on the lymphoblastic leukemia cell line CCRF-CEM has a range of effects on the viability that depend on the dose and the time used. Even though both reagents are capable of enhancing cell death on the CEM cell line, no combinatorial increase in cell death is detectable, until after the first 120 hours of treatment. In contrast, there are a number of combinatorial effects on the cell cycle phase distribution of treated cells, which indicates a potential for mutual signal disruption between glucocorticoid and proteasome inhibitor at multiple levels. Microarray analysis indicates that Prednisolone and MG132 elicit highly divergent, early-response molecular signatures on this cell line. We assayed levels of the antiapoptotic protein Mcl-1 as a potential model of late, downstream target regulation by both glucocorticoid and proteasome. Synchronized use of Prednisolone with MG132 results in temporary stabilization of Mcl-1 in CEM cells. Stabilization is not the result of a common mechanism of action on the genome, as Prednisolone and MG132 elicit nonreduntant molecular signatures, and it occurs also when the cells are treated at different timepoints with either agent. Conclusions/Significance: Our results show that this glucocorticoid-resistant ALL lymphoblast line is highly sensitive to proteasome inhibitor, and suggest that the proteasome inhibitor and the glucocorticoid regulate different direct target genes. This difference in immediate targets, when the two agents are applied in combination, may lead to negative or positive interference with mechanisms regulating viability of the leukemic lymphoblast. Signal interference between glucocorticoid Prednisolone and the proteasome inhibitor MG132 is expected to occur at more than one level, resulting in complex effects on intracellular signal transduction pathways. The net result depends on the development of individual downstream effects and interactions between key signal mediators. Elucidation of the conditions of interference between glucocorticoid and proteasome targets on leukemic cell fate is expected to improve effects of applied treatment combinations.

Project description:Background: Glucocorticoids are important pharmaceutical agents in the treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children. Resistance or sensitivity to glucocorticoids is considered to be of crucial importance for disease prognosis. Prednisolone is a first-line chemotherapeutic agent in the treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Here, the effects of prednisolone on the resistant CCRF-CEM leukemic cell line were studied. Methods: Prednisolone’s cytotoxic and cell cycle effects were studied with flow cytometry. NF-κB translocation was studied with Western Blotting and differential gene expression was studied with cDNA microarrays. Results: Prednisolone exerted a delayed biphasic effect, necrotic at low doses and apoptotic at higher doses. At low doses, prednisolone exerted a pre-dominant mitogenic effect despite its induction on total cell death, while at higher doses, prednisolone’s mitogenic and cell death effects were counterbalanced. NF-κB was constitutively present in the nucleus. Early gene microarray analysis revealed 40 differentially expressed genes upon 4 hours of prednisolone’s exposure. Notable differences in gene regulation were observed between the lowest and the highest glucocorticoid doses. Prednisolone activated genes related to apoptosis/tumor suppression, cell cycle progression, metabolism and intra-/ extra-cellular signaling pathways. Conclusions: The mitogenic/biphasic effects of prednisolone are of clinical importance in the case of resistant leukemic cells. This approach might lead to the identification of gene candidates for future molecular drug targets in combination therapy with glucocorticoids, along with early markers for glucocorticoid resistance. Elucidation of the mechanisms of GC action may lead to identification of gene targets responsible for GC resistance. Key tools in this process are high-throughput technologies such as microarray-based gene expression analysis. For this purpose, the parental CCRF-CEM cell line was chosen as the system of study for the effects of prednisolone treatment. This is a T-cell leukemia cell line characterized by a mutation (L753F) on one GR gene allele that impairs ligand binding (Thompson and Johnson 2003). It is known that both the DNA and ligand binding domains of the GR are required in order to repress NF-κB transactivation (Wissink, van Heerde et al. 1997). Interestingly, concerning the question whether this mutation would affect GC resistance, it has been reported previously that both the GC-resistant as well as the GC-sensitive CCRF-CEM subclones express heterogeneous populations of the GR (GRwt/GRL753F) (Palmer and Harmon 1991; Powers, Hillmann et al. 1993). The CCRF-CEM cell line has been reported to be resistant to GCs, presumably due to the accumulation of more resistant variants after long periods of prolonged culture (Norman and Thompson 1977). It is possible that these cells are clonally inhomogeneous, as possibly the cells obtained in vivo by patients. Moreover, the large number of the CCRF-CEM subclone studies in the literature makes it difficult to choose an appropriate resistant cell model. In addition, the utilization of an in vitro system for this study offered reproducibility, an opportunity to closely examine intracellular signals and avoid interference from other in vivo-participating systems. Thus, the cell line used for this study was considered to be useful in studying GC action and resistance in leukemic cells. The aim of this work was to determine the cytotoxic, cell cycle phase distribution and early cancer-specific gene expression effects of prednisolone in CCRF-CEM cells, as an in vitro model of ALL resistance to glucocorticoids. The early gene expression profile allowed identification of genes initiating pivotal, early onset regulatory mechanisms activated by GC and excluded ensuing feedback responses and further downstream signals. Samples tested were in the form of a loop-design i.e. control vs. 10nM prednisolone (designated 0vs1) , 10nM prednisolone vs.700uM prednisolone (designated 1vs3) and control vs. 700uM prednisolone (designated 0vs3), the sum of the logarithms of the first two should equal the third. In other words if Rj,i is the ratio of the ith gene in the jth experiment then R0vs1,i+R1vs3,i=R0vs3,i. We tested this using a statistical test. We have applied an intensity-dependent z-score where the sum of the ratios was compared to the ratio of the third experiment. If the difference was significant genes, in a standard deviation threshold of ±1.5 in relative units, were rejected from further analysis (Kerr and Churchill 2001; Kerr and Churchill 2001; Altman and Hua 2006; Kerr and Churchill 2007).

Dataset Information

RNA sequencing/Gene expression studies of prednisolone in aggressive B-cell lymphomas [JC1]

Dataset's files

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets