Journal of translational medicine · 2023
Treatment with decitabine induces the expression of stemness markers, PD-L1 and NY-ESO-1 in colorectal cancer: potential for combined chemoimmunotherapy.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Taib Nassiba, Merhi Maysaloun, Inchakalody Varghese, Mestiri Sarra, Hydrose Shereena, Makni-Maalej Karama, Raza Afsheen, Sahir Fairooz, Azizi Fouad, Nizamuddin Parveen B, Fernandes Queenie, Yoosuf Zeenath Safira K M, Almoghrabi Salam, Al-Zaidan Lobna, Shablak Alaaeldin, Uddin Shahab, Maccalli Cristina, Al Homsi Mohammed Ussama, Dermime Said
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The mechanism of tumor immune escape and progression in colorectal cancer (CRC) is widely investigated in-vitro to help understand and identify agents that might play a crucial role in response to treatment and improve the overall survival of CRC patients. Several mechanisms of immune escape and tumor progression, including expression of stemness markers, inactivation of immunoregulatory genes by methylation, and epigenetic silencing, have been reported in CRC, indicating the potential of demethylating agents as anti-cancer drugs. Of these, a chemotherapeutic demethylating agent, Decitabine (DAC), has been reported to induce a dual effect on both DNA demethylation and histone changes leading to an increased expression of target biomarkers, thus making it an attractive anti-tumorigenic drug.
METHODS: We compared the effect of DAC in primary 1076 Col and metastatic 1872 Col cell lines isolated and generated from patients' tumor tissues. Both cell lines were treated with DAC, and the expression of the NY-ESO-1 cancer-testis antigen, the PD-L1 immunoinhibitory marker, and the CD44, Nanog, KLF-4, CD133, MSI-1 stemness markers were analyzed using different molecular and immunological assays.
RESULTS: DAC treatment significantly upregulated stemness markers in both primary 1076 Col and meta-static 1872 Col cell lines, although a lower effect occurred on the latter: CD44 (7.85 fold; ***p = 0.0001 vs. (4.19 fold; *p = 0.0120), Nanog (4.1 fold; ***p < 0.0001 vs.1.69 fold; ***p = 0.0008), KLF-4 (4.33 fold; ***p < 0.0001 vs.2.48 fold; ***p = 0.0005), CD133 (16.77 fold; ***p = 0.0003 vs.6.36 fold; *p = 0.0166), and MSI-1 (2.33 fold; ***p = 0.0003 vs.2.3 fold; ***p = 0.0004), respectively. Interestingly, in the metastatic 1872 Col cells treated with DAC, the expression of both PD-L1 and NY-ESO-1 was increased tenfold (*p = 0.0128) and fivefold (***p < 0.0001), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the upregulation of both stemness and immune checkpoint markers by DAC treatment on CRC cells might represent a mechanism of immune evasion. In addition, induction of NY-ESO-1 may represent an immuno-therapeutic option in metastatic CRC patients. Finally, the combination of DAC and anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1 antibodies treatment should represent a potential therapeutic intervention for this group of patients.
METHODS: We compared the effect of DAC in primary 1076 Col and metastatic 1872 Col cell lines isolated and generated from patients' tumor tissues. Both cell lines were treated with DAC, and the expression of the NY-ESO-1 cancer-testis antigen, the PD-L1 immunoinhibitory marker, and the CD44, Nanog, KLF-4, CD133, MSI-1 stemness markers were analyzed using different molecular and immunological assays.
RESULTS: DAC treatment significantly upregulated stemness markers in both primary 1076 Col and meta-static 1872 Col cell lines, although a lower effect occurred on the latter: CD44 (7.85 fold; ***p = 0.0001 vs. (4.19 fold; *p = 0.0120), Nanog (4.1 fold; ***p < 0.0001 vs.1.69 fold; ***p = 0.0008), KLF-4 (4.33 fold; ***p < 0.0001 vs.2.48 fold; ***p = 0.0005), CD133 (16.77 fold; ***p = 0.0003 vs.6.36 fold; *p = 0.0166), and MSI-1 (2.33 fold; ***p = 0.0003 vs.2.3 fold; ***p = 0.0004), respectively. Interestingly, in the metastatic 1872 Col cells treated with DAC, the expression of both PD-L1 and NY-ESO-1 was increased tenfold (*p = 0.0128) and fivefold (***p < 0.0001), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the upregulation of both stemness and immune checkpoint markers by DAC treatment on CRC cells might represent a mechanism of immune evasion. In addition, induction of NY-ESO-1 may represent an immuno-therapeutic option in metastatic CRC patients. Finally, the combination of DAC and anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1 antibodies treatment should represent a potential therapeutic intervention for this group of patients.