Cancer Research Cancer Epigenetics Protein Translation and Cancer
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online
Cancer Research 66, 11298, December 1, 2006. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-0049
© 2006 American Association for Cancer Research
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplementary Data
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Geng, L.
Right arrow Articles by Hallahan, D. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Geng, L.
Right arrow Articles by Hallahan, D. E.

Experimental Therapeutics, Molecular Targets, and Chemical Biology

Histone Deacetylase (HDAC) Inhibitor LBH589 Increases Duration of {gamma}-H2AX Foci and Confines HDAC4 to the Cytoplasm in Irradiated Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

Ling Geng1,2, Kyle C. Cuneo1, Allie Fu2, Tianxiang Tu2, Peter W. Atadja6 and Dennis E. Hallahan1,2,3,4,5

1 Vanderbilt University School of Medicine; Departments of 2 Radiation Oncology and 3 Cancer Biology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center; 4 Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center; 5 Department of Biomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee and 6 Novartis Institute for Biomedical Research, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts

Requests for reprints: Dennis E. Hallahan, Department of Radiation Oncology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1301 22nd Avenue South, Nashville, TN 37232. Phone: 615-343-9244; Fax: 615-343-3075; E-mail: dennis.hallahan{at}vanderbilt.edu.


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Histone deacetylases (HDAC) have been identified as therapeutic targets due to their regulatory function in DNA structure and organization. LBH589 is a novel inhibitor of class I and II HDACs. We studied the effect of LBH589 and ionizing radiation (IR) on DNA repair in two human non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cell lines (H23 and H460). {gamma}-H2AX foci present at DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) were detected in the nuclei following 3 Gy irradiation for up to 6 hours. LBH589 administered before irradiation increased the duration of {gamma}-H2AX foci beyond 24 hours. Furthermore, radiation alone induced translocation of HDAC4 to the nucleus. In contrast, treatment with LBH589 followed by irradiation resulted in HDAC4 confinement to the cytoplasm, indicating that HDAC inhibition affects the nuclear localization of HDAC4. The findings that LBH589 confines HDAC4 to the cytoplasm and increases the duration of {gamma}-H2AX foci in irradiated cell lines suggest that HDAC4 participates in DNA damage signaling following IR. Annexin-propidium iodide flow cytometry assays, cell morphology studies, and cleaved caspase-3 Western blot analysis revealed a synergistic effect of LBH589 with IR in inducing apoptosis. Clonogenic survival showed a greater than additive effect when LBH589 was administered before irradiation compared with irradiation alone. In vivo tumor volume studies showed a growth delay of 20 days with combined treatment compared with 4 and 2 days for radiation or LBH589 alone. This study identifies HDAC4 as a biomarker of LBH589 activity and recognizes the ability of LBH589 to sensitize human NSCLC to radiation-induced DNA DSBs. (Cancer Res 2006; 66(23): 11298-304)


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
DNA methylation and histone deacetylation are the major epigenetic pathways identified that regulate gene expression (1). Histone modification plays an important regulatory role in many cellular processes, including gene transcription (2, 3) and proliferation (4). Transcriptionally active genes have high levels of core histone acetylation, whereas transcriptionally inactive genes have low levels (5, 6). The balance between these two states is regulated by two enzymes: histone deacetylase (HDAC) and histone acetyltransferase. It is estimated that 4% to 12% of genes are regulated by histone acetylation/deacetylation (7). Abnormal transcriptional repression occurs in many forms of cancer, and HDACs have been implicated in this process (7). For this reason, HDACs have been identified as molecular targets in cancer therapy (7–10). Previous studies have shown HDAC inhibition to result in cell growth arrest, differentiation, apoptosis, and alterations in gene expression in cancer cell lines (11, 12).

In addition to promoting growth arrest by themselves, HDAC inhibitors have been shown to have synergistic effects with cytotoxic cancer therapy (13–16). This synergy is related to the inhibition of DNA repair (17) and synthesis (18). Due to its ability to enhance the effects of anticancer therapy and the potential low side effect profile, HDAC inhibitors are a promising new class of antineoplastic pharmaceuticals.

Non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is often refractory to therapy due to late presentation and relative resistance to nonsurgical treatment modalities. Surgery remains the treatment of choice with 5-year survival rates of 24% to 61% (19). Unresectable lung cancer shows resistance to chemotherapy and radiotherapy, and recurrences are common within the field of irradiation (20). Improved effectiveness of nonsurgical treatments has the potential to improve patient outcomes by decreasing recurrence rates and providing more effective therapy to nonsurgical candidates.

LBH589 is a novel cinnamic hydroxamic acid analogue HDAC inhibitor currently in early clinical trials (21). The compound has been shown to induce acetylation of histones H3 and H4 and hsp90, increase p21 levels, and induce G1 cell cycle arrest in hematologic malignancies (22, 23). In the present study, the effects of LBH589 on irradiated NSCLC were studied. LBH589 enhanced radiation-induced apoptosis. Furthermore, HDAC inhibition increased the duration of {gamma}-H2AX foci and limited nuclear localization of HDAC4 in irradiated human NSCLC cell lines.


   Materials and Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Tumor model and cell culture. NCI-H23 (human lung adenocarcinoma, non–small cell) and NCI-H460 (human large cell lung cancer) cell lines were obtained from the American Type Culture Collection (Manassas, VA) and maintained in RPMI 1640 (Life Technologies, Carlsbad, CA) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum and 1% penicillin-streptomycin. Cell lines were maintained in a 37°C, 5% CO2 incubator. LBH589 was obtained from Novartis Oncology (East Hanover, NJ) and diluted in DMSO to 25 µmol/L stock solutions.

In vitro clonogenic assay. H460 cell lines were cultured, counted, and seeded onto plates at specific cell densities. After treatment with either 50 nmol/L LBH589 or ionizing radiation (IR), cells were returned to 37°C incubation for 10 days. Colonies were fixed for 15 minutes with 70% ethanol and then stained for 15 minutes with 1% methylene blue. After staining, colonies with at least 50 viable cells were counted with a low-power microscope. Surviving fraction was calculated as (mean colony counts) / (cells plated) x [plating efficiency (PE)], where PE was defined as (mean colony counts) / (cells plated for nonirradiated controls). Averages and SEs were calculated.

Apoptosis assays. Apoptosis was measured with Annexin-propidium iodide staining using the protocol from BD PharMingen (San Diego, CA). Briefly, H23 and H460 cell lines were treated with 25 nmol/L LBH589 and 3 Gy irradiation. Twenty-four hours later, cells were suspended, washed twice with PBS, and adjusted to 106 cells/mL in binding buffer. Cell solution (100 µL) was transferred to a 5-mL tube and stained with Annexin V-FITC and propidium iodide for 15 minutes. Binding buffer (400 µL) was added to the samples, and the samples were analyzed immediately by flow cytometry.

In separate experiments, cells were assayed for pyknotic nuclei after staining with 4',6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI). Near-confluent H23 and H460 cells were treated with or without 25 nmol/L LBH589, incubated for 18 hours, and then irradiated with 3 Gy. Cells were then fixed and stained with DAPI after 20 hours. One hundred cells from each group were counted by an observer who was blinded to the treatment of each culture. Pyknotic nuclei were recorded, and the percentage of cells undergoing apoptosis were determined from three separate experiments. The mean and SE were calculated for each treatment group.

Cell lysis and immunoblot analysis. H23 and H460 cell lines were treated with or without 25 nmol/L LBH589 and incubated for 18 hours. The cells were then irradiated with 3 Gy and incubated for 6 hours. Cells were washed twice with PBS followed by 180 µL lysis buffer (20 nmol/L Tris, 150 mmol/L NaCl, 1 mmol/L EDTA, 1% Triton X-100, 2.5 mmol/L NaPPi, 1 mmol/L phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride, 1 µg/mL leupeptin). Protein concentration was quantified by the Bio-Rad method (Hercules, CA). Total protein (40 µg) was loaded into each well of a 12% SDS-PAGE gel and separated. Protein was transferred onto a polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) membrane and probed with antibodies for actin and cleaved caspase-3 (Cell Signaling, Boston, MA) in a 5% milk TBS-Tween 20 (TBST) solution followed by goat anti-rabbit (Sigma, St. Louis, MO) in a 0.5% milk TBST solution. Membranes were exposed to film and later developed.

Tumor volume study. H460 cells (106) were suspended in 0.1 mL of cell medium and then injected into the hind limb of mice. Tumors were allowed to form for 1 week. The mice were then divided into one of four groups: control, IR, 40 mg LBH589, and 40 mg LBH589 plus IR. Groups receiving 40 mg LBH589 were treated twice during the 7-day course of IR. LBH589 and control vehicle were administered via oral gavage. Mice were irradiated 1 hour following drug administration with 2 Gy (X-ray generator) given as five fractions, once daily over a total of 7 days. Tumor volume measurements were taken every 2 to 3 days for the duration of the study, and the average and SE were calculated. The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee guidelines were followed during all aspects of treatment.

Cell immunostaining. H23 and H460 cell lines were cultured onto slides and then treated with 25 nmol/L LBH589 for 18 hours followed by 3 Gy. For HDAC4 immunostaining, cells were processed 2 hours after IR; for {gamma}-H2AX immunostaining, cells were processed at the indicated times. Cells were washed with cold PBS and fixed with 3.7% paraformaldehyde for 5 to 10 minutes and then with 100% methanol. Slides were washed with PBS and incubated with primary antibody to HDAC4 (Novus Biologicals, Littleton, CO) or {gamma}-H2AX (Novus Biologicals) at a 1:200 dilution overnight at 4°C followed by rhodamine red–labeled secondary or Alexa Fluor 488 secondary (Molecular Probes, Inc., Carlsbad, CA) antibody at a 1:700 dilution. Slides were counterstained with DAPI as described above and analyzed by microscopy. Photographs were taken and scanned into Adobe Photoshop. Positive {gamma}-H2AX staining cells were counted by an observer blinded to treatment conditions, and the mean and SE were determined.

Cytoplasmic and nuclear fractionalization. H460 cells were grown to 90% confluency, washed thrice with PBS, and then transferred to Eppendorf tubes. Hypotonic lysis buffer (200 µL; 10 mmol/L HEPES, 5 mmol/L KCl, 1.5 mmol/L MgCl2, 0.08% NP40) was added to the cells for 15 minutes. The solution was then centrifuged at 3,000 x g for 5 minutes. The supernatant was collected, and the pellet was washed. Dignin buffer (20 mmol/L HEPES, 1.5 mmol/L MgCl2, 0.2 mmol/L EDTA, 420 mmol/L NaCl, 50 mmol/L ß-glycerophosphate, 25% glycerol) was then added to the pellet for 30 minutes. The solution was centrifuged at 13,000 x g for 10 minutes, and the supernatant was collected. Protein concentration was then calculated as stated above. Western blot analysis of both cytoplasmic and nuclear fractions was done with PAGE and transfer to PVDF membranes. Immunostaining was done using anti-HDAC4, anti-lamin A (Cell Signaling), and anti-actin (Sigma) primary antibodies.

Statistical analysis. The mean and SE were calculated using Microsoft Excel. The Student's t test was used to compare treatment groups. Ps < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
LBH589 sensitizes NSCLC to the cytotoxic effects of IR. Clonogenic analysis of H460 cell lines was done using LBH589 and 0 to 6 Gy. Figure 1 shows the mean surviving fraction and SE for each treatment group (n = 3). Untreated control cells showed substantial radioresistance, with 6 Gy resulting in only one log reduction in survival. Use of LBH589 1 and 18 hours before IR resulted in a synergistic decrease in colony survival compared with untreated cells as evident by an increase in the negative slope of the dose-response curve. Treatment with LBH589 alone for 18 hours resulted in a significantly reduced PE, whereas treatment for 1 hour alone had no reduced PE compared with the control. These data show that LBH589 enhances the cytotoxic effects of IR in NSCLC cell lines.


Figure 1
View larger version (8K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 1. Clonogenic analysis of cells treated with LBH589 and IR. Cells were suspended, counted with a hemocytometer, and plated at specific cell densities. Once attached, cells were treated with LBH589 for 1 or 18 hours followed by 0, 2, 4, or 6 Gy. Medium was changed after IR, and the cells were allowed to proliferate for 10 days. Points, average (n = 3) of the relative fractions of colonies; bars, SE.

 
LBH589 enhances radiation-induced apoptosis. To study the effect of HDAC inhibition by LBH589 on apoptosis, three in vitro experiments were done. Figure 2 shows results from Annexin V-FITC/propidium iodide flow cytometry analysis of apoptosis. Use of 25 nmol/L LBH589 before 3 Gy significantly increased the number of apoptotic cells from 7% to 30% for H23 cell line (P < 0.001) and from 6% to 25% for H460 cell line (P = 0.003) compared with control. Use of IR alone or LBH589 alone produced only a minimal increase, and the effect of the combined treatment was greater than what would be predicted by an additive effect.


Figure 2
View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 2. Annexin-propidium iodide analysis of apoptosis in LBH589-treated cell lines. H23 and H460 cell lines were treated with 25 nmol/L LBH589 for 18 hours and then irradiated with 3 Gy. Twenty hours later, cells were harvested, stained with Annexin-FITC and propidium iodide, and analyzed by flow cytometry. Columns, number of apoptotic cells (n = 3) for each treatment condition; bars, SE. *, P < 0.05, compared with control.

 
To confirm the ability of LBH589 to sensitize human lung cancer cell lines to radiation-induced apoptosis, nuclear morphology studies were done. Figure 3 shows the mean percentage and SE of pyknotic nuclei determined by DAPI staining. Use of 25 nmol/L LBH589 18 hours before 3 Gy significantly increased the percentage of pyknotic nuclei to >10% for H23 (P < 0.001) and H460 (P = 0.042) cell lines. Untreated H23 and H460 cells had <1% apoptotic nuclei, H23 and H460 cells treated with 3 Gy had 3% and 2% apoptotic nuclei, and H23 and H460 cells treated with LBH589 alone had 4% and 2% apoptotic nuclei, respectively.


Figure 3
View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 3. DAPI staining of cells treated with LBH589 and IR. Cells were subcultured onto slides and treated with 25 nmol/L LBH589 for 18 hours followed by 3 Gy. Eighteen hours later, cells were fixed and stained with DAPI. Columns, percentage of pyknotic nuclei (n = 3) determined by manual counts from microscopy; bars, SE. *, P < 0.05, compared with control.

 
Cleavage of caspase-3 was analyzed to verify the role of apoptosis in cells treated with LBH589 and radiation. Western blot analysis was done on H23 and H460 whole-cell lysates. Figure 4 shows the Western immunoblots for cleaved caspase-3 and actin. An increase in caspase-3 cleavage was evident in both H23 and H460 cell lines following treatment with LBH589. Use of LBH589 before IR increased levels of caspase-3 cleavage in H460 cells. This increase, however, was not as prominent in the H23 cell line.


Figure 4
View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 4. LBH589 induced caspase-3 cleavage. H23 and H460 cells were treated with 25 nmol/L LBH589 for 18 hours and then irradiated with 3 Gy. Six hours later, protein was extracted, quantified, run in a 12% SDS-polyacrylamide gel, transferred, and probed with antibodies to cleaved caspase-3 and actin. Immunoblots of caspase-3, cleaved caspase-3, and actin from H23 and H460 cell lines.

 
LBH589 enhances tumor growth delay in vivo. H460 cells were injected into the hind limb of mice. After tumor formation, the mice were treated with two oral doses of 40 mg LBH589 and/or five 2 Gy fractions over 7 days. Figure 5 shows the fold increase in tumor volume (Fig. 5A) and the tumor growth delay (Fig. 5B) for each treatment group. Use of LBH589 alone resulted in a modest but significant tumor growth delay of 2 days (P < 0.001). IR alone delayed growth by ~4 days (P < 0.001). Combined treatment significantly delayed tumor growth by ~20 days (P < 0.001), indicating that HDAC inhibition enhances the effects of IR on NSCLC tumor growth. In addition, the mice receiving LBH589 showed minimal signs of toxicity during the course of the study as monitored by weight loss and mobility.


Figure 5
View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 5. Effect of LBH589 and IR in a xenograft tumor model. H460 cells were injected in the hind limb of nude mice and allowed to grow for 1 week. The mice were divided into four groups: control, IR, 40 mg LBH589, and 40 mg LBH589 + IR. LBH589 was administered via oral gavage 1 hour before IR. The mice were treated with two doses of LBH589 and five fractions of 2 Gy over the first 7 days. A, points, mean (n = 5) fold increase in tumor volume for each treatment group; bars, SE. B, columns, mean tumor growth delay calculated using a 10-fold increase in tumor volume as reference; bars, SE.

 
LBH589 prolongs the duration of radiation-induced {gamma}-H2AX foci. Immunostaining was done to study {gamma}-H2AX foci present at DNA double-strand breaks (DSB). Figure 6A shows representative photographs of the H23 cell line treated with combinations of LBH589 and IR. The green staining of {gamma}-H2AX foci is shown. Three grays induced {gamma}-H2AX foci as early as 30 minutes following treatment. These foci disappeared by 6 hours in cell lines treated with IR alone. Use of LBH589 alone for 20 hours resulted in a modest increase in {gamma}-H2AX foci. In comparison, LBH589 added 18 hours before IR prolonged the duration of {gamma}-H2AX foci for up to 24 hours after IR (42 hours after LBH589 administration). Furthermore, {gamma}-H2AX foci were seen at 18 and 24 hours after IR in cells undergoing apoptosis. Interestingly, no {gamma}-H2AX foci were present in cells undergoing apoptosis following treatment with radiation without HDAC inhibition. Similar results were seen in the H460 cell line (Supplementary Fig. S1).


Figure 6
View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 6. LBH589 prolongs the duration of {gamma}-H2AX foci in irradiated lung cancer cells. H23 cell line received the indicated treatment of 25 nmol/L LBH589 and/or 3 Gy. Anti-{gamma}-H2AX antibody was used for immunostaining with Alexa Fluor 488 secondary antibody (green). Representative photographs of the H23 cell line (A) at the indicated time points after IR. B, columns, mean of cells with {gamma}-H2AX nuclear foci; bars, SE. *, P < 0.05, compared with control.

 
We next studied the rate of {gamma}-H2AX foci resolution. Figure 6B shows the number of {gamma}-H2AX foci present 24 hours after IR. Treatment with 3 Gy alone and LBH589 alone resulted in rapid resolution of {gamma}-H2AX (<5% at 24 hours). Use of LBH589 before IR significantly delayed the resolution of {gamma}-H2AX foci with 60% residual foci in both cell lines at 24 hours (P < 0.001). The increased duration of {gamma}-H2AX foci following treatment with LBH589 and IR indicates that HDAC inhibition disrupts the DNA repair process, and this mechanism potentially sensitizes NSCLC to the cytotoxic effects of radiation.

HDAC4 nuclear translocation in irradiated lung cancer cell lines. Immunostaining of HDAC4 was done on H23 and H460 cell lines to identify the effect of LBH589 on HDAC4 compartmentalization. Figure 7 shows representative photographs of the H460 cell line probed with anti-HDAC4 antibodies and rhodamine-labeled secondary antibodies (red) and then counterstained with DAPI (blue). Untreated cells and cells treated with LBH589 alone showed background HDAC4 staining in the cytoplasm and nucleus. When H460 cells were treated with 3 Gy, HDAC4 localized to the nucleus at 2 hours and minimal HDAC4 was present in the cytoplasm. However, LBH589 added before IR markedly limited HDAC4 nuclear localization. A similar effect was seen in the H23 cell line (Supplementary Fig. S2). These results were confirmed in the H460 cell line using anti-HDAC4 antibodies for Western blot analysis of cytoplasmic and nuclear proteins (Fig. 7B).


Figure 7
View larger version (32K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 7. LBH589 limits nuclear localization of HDAC4. Cells were grown on slides and treated with 25 nmol/L LBH589 for 18 hours followed by 3 Gy. Two hours later, immunostaining was done with anti-HDAC4 antibody followed by rhodamine red–labeled secondary antibody (red). Blue, cells were counterstained with DAPI. Representative photographs for the H460 cell line (A) stained with DAPI and anti-HDAC4 antibody. B, using identical treatment conditions, a Western blot analysis of protein from nuclear and cytoplasmic fractions was done using anti-HDAC4 antibody. The nuclear subcellular marker lamin A and the cytoplasmic marker actin are included on the blot.

 

   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
Previous studies have shown radiosensitization with HDAC inhibitors in several cell lines, including melanoma (17), squamous (18), prostate (24), and colon carcinoma (14–17). In the current study, this radiosensitizing effect was shown in NSCLC cell lines in clonogenic studies. Interestingly, an effect was seen when LBH589 was administered 1 hour before IR. Although this enhancement was less than that of drug administered for 18 hours before IR, it is possible that the effects of LBH589 are in part due to a mechanism that does not require epigenetic changes. The biological effects of HDAC inhibitors were once focused on alteration of gene transcription through histone modification. Recently, many transcription-independent pathways affected by HDAC inhibitors have been identified. These pathways include histone-dependent processes, such as DNA repair (17, 24, 25) and cell cycle regulation (26–28), and histone-independent processes, such as activation of protein kinases, including AKT and extracellular signal-regulated kinase (23).

HDAC inhibition has been shown to induce apoptosis by affecting several pathways. Apoptotic genes activated by HDAC inhibitors include Bak, Bax, p53, caspase-9, caspase-8, caspase-3, Bid, Bad, etc. Antiapoptotic genes repressed by HDAC inhibitors include Bcl-2, C-FLIP, survivin, NF-{kappa}B, etc. (7, 13). The essential pathways for apoptosis induction continue to remain under debate; however, p21WAF1 has been implicated to play an important role in certain tumor cell lines (29–31). In this study, low doses of LBH589 had synergy with IR in inducing apoptosis as evident by Annexin-propidium iodide flow cytometry and nuclear morphology. These data suggest that apoptosis is one mechanism of interaction between LBH589 and IR.

The effect of LBH589 on tumor growth was studied in vivo using human lung cancer xenografts in the nude mouse model. In this study, mice receiving two oral doses of LBH589 and five 2 Gy fractions over 7 days showed significant delay in tumor growth compared with either agent alone. Drug (40 mg/kg) was administered 1 hour before irradiation on days 1 and 4 of the study. The relatively high dose and ~17 hour half-life (21) allowed for the drug to be theoretically available 1 to 2 days after administration. The mice receiving the drug exhibited few signs of toxicity. In the current experiment, there were no premature deaths and the mice in all groups had similar weights throughout the study. HDAC inhibitors are believed to be effective in enhancing both radiation and chemotherapy treatments while being safe for patients. Phase I clinical data from LBH589 showed minimal and tolerable side effects (21). Because of its potential as an anticancer agent and its low side effect profile, this class of pharmaceutical is promising for future cancer therapy.

Phosphorylation of H2AX ({gamma}-H2AX) is an evolutionarily conserved response to DNA DSBs (32–35). The formation of {gamma}-H2AX is necessary for the recruitment of many factors involved in DNA repair, including NBS1 (MRN complex) and 53BP1, both of which regulate cell cycle checkpoints (36). DNA DSBs induced by IR activate checkpoint pathways that inhibit progression of cells through G1 and G2 phases and delay the progression through S phase (36–38). Previous reports have shown the ability of HDAC inhibitors to prolong the duration of {gamma}-H2AX in irradiated melanoma (17) and prostate (24) cell lines. Both of these reports attribute the radiosensitization ability of HDAC inhibitors to the inhibition of DNA repair. The mechanisms behind the inhibition of DNA repair by HDAC inhibitors are not clear. Previous reports have shown that altered gene expression of ATM (39), DNA-PKcs (40), Ku70 (41), and Ku80 (42) leads to radiosensitization. Furthermore, mutations of acetylatable lysine residues on histone H4 have been shown to increase the effect of DNA-damaging agents (43). A recent study by Tamburini and Tyler (44) showed that dynamic changes in histone acetylation accompany homologous recombination and the modulation of histone acetylation is necessary for cell viability. In addition, Kusch et al. (45) have shown that loss of the dTip60 complex increases the duration of {gamma}-H2AX homologues following IR. The mechanism of HDAC inhibitors on DNA repair inhibition is potentially multifactorial, involving both transcriptional regulation of DNA repair genes and direct effects on the acetylation of repair complexes.

The importance of histone acetylation and deacetylation in DNA repair is emerging (46). Kao et al. have shown that IR induces HDAC4 foci formation in the nucleus and conclude that HDAC4 interacts with 53BP1 to mediate the response to DNA damage (47). In the present study, HDAC4 translocated to the nucleus in response to IR. LBH589 added before IR limited this radiation-induced nuclear localization. Inhibiting HDACs blocks the nuclear localization of complexes important in DNA repair, including HDAC4 and possibly 53BP1. DNA repair is also attenuated, and the cell is more susceptible to IR-induced apoptosis. Many proteins in addition to HDAC4 and 53BP1 have been shown to form nuclear foci following DNA damage, including BRCA1 (48), Rad51, and the NSB1/Mre11/Rad50 complex (49, 50). The effect of HDAC inhibitors on the localization and function of these complexes would provide further insight into the role of HDAC in DNA repair.

In this study, LBH589 was shown to sensitize NSCLC to the cytotoxic effects of IR. Furthermore, this compound was shown to be effective with oral administration in animal models. The IC50 in the nanomolar range for LBH589, along with the relatively long half-life and low toxicity, makes this compound promising for future clinical trials. The tumor-selective effect of HDAC inhibitors indicates that these drugs are exciting candidates for cancer therapy.


   Acknowledgments
 
Grant support: NIH grants RO1-CA112385, RO1-CA70937, RO1-CA88076, and RO1-CA89888; Vanderbilt Lung Cancer Specialized Programs of Research Excellence grant P50-CA90949; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center grant CCSG P30-CA6848. K.C. Cuneo is supported by the Vanderbilt University Medical Scholars Program.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.


   Footnotes
 
Note: Supplementary data for this article are available at Cancer Research Online (http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/).

L. Geng and K.C. Cuneo contributed equally to this work.

Received 1/ 6/06. Revised 7/28/06. Accepted 9/12/06.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Villar-Garea A, Esteller M. Histone deacetylase inhibitors: understanding a new wave of anticancer agents. Int J Cancer 2004;112:171–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
  2. Pazin MJ, Kadonaga JT. What's up and down with histone deacetylation and transcription? Cell 1997;89:325–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
  3. Grunstein M. Histone acetylation in chromatin structure and transcription. Nature 1997;389:349–52.[CrossRef][Medline]
  4. Kouzarides T. Histone acetylases and deacetylases in cell proliferation. Curr Opin Genet Dev 1999;9:40–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
  5. Wade PA, Pruss D, Wolffe AP. Histone acetylation: chromatin in action. Trends Biochem Sci 1997;22:128–32.[CrossRef][Medline]
  6. Wolffe AP. Transcriptional control. Sinful repression. Nature 1997;387:16–7.[CrossRef][Medline]
  7. Glaser KB, Staver MJ, Waring JF, Stender J, Ulrich RG, Davidsen SK. Gene expression profiling of multiple histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors: defining a common gene set produced by HDAC inhibition in T24 and MDA carcinoma cell lines. Mol Cancer Ther 2003;2:151–63.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Vigushin DM, Coombes RC. Histone deacetylase inhibitors in cancer treatment. Anticancer Drugs 2002;13:1–13.[CrossRef][Medline]
  9. Marks PA, Richon VM, Breslow R, Rifkind RA. Histone deacetylase inhibitors as new cancer drugs. Curr Opin Oncol 2001;13:477–83.[CrossRef][Medline]
  10. Yoshida M, Furumai R, Nishiyama M, Komatsu Y, Nishino N, Horinouchi S. Histone deacetylase as a new target for cancer chemotherapy. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2001;48 Suppl 1:S20–6.[Medline]
  11. Marks PA, Rifkind RA, Richon VM, Breslow R. Inhibitors of histone deacetylase are potentially effective anticancer agents. Clin Cancer Res 2001;7:759–60.[Free Full Text]
  12. Johnstone RW. Histone-deacetylase inhibitors: novel drugs for the treatment of cancer. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2002;1:287–99.[CrossRef][Medline]
  13. Lindemann RK, Gabrielli B, Johnstone RW. Histone-deacetylase inhibitors for the treatment of cancer. Cell Cycle 2004;3:779–88.[Medline]
  14. Arundel CM, Leith JT. Effects of nucleoside analogs and sodium butyrate on recovery from potentially lethal X ray damage in human colon tumor cells. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1987;13:593–601.[Medline]
  15. Leith JT. Effects of sodium butyrate and 3-aminobenzamide on survival of Chinese hamster HA-1 cells after X irradiation. Radiat Res 1988;114:186–91.[Medline]
  16. Arundel CM, Glicksman AS, Leith JT. Enhancement of radiation injury in human colon tumor cells by the maturational agent sodium butyrate (NaB). Radiat Res 1985;104:443–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
  17. Munshi A, Kurland JF, Nishikawa T, et al. Histone deacetylase inhibitors radiosensitize human melanoma cells by suppressing DNA repair activity. Clin Cancer Res 2005;11:4912–22.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Zhang Y, Jung M, Dritschilo A. Enhancement of radiation sensitivity of human squamous carcinoma cells by histone deacetylase inhibitors. Radiat Res 2004;161:667–74.[Medline]
  19. Mountain CF. Revisions in the International System for Staging Lung Cancer. Chest 1997;111:1710–7.[Medline]
  20. Choy H, Chakravarthy A, Kim JS. Radiation therapy for non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Treat Res 2001;105:121–48.[Medline]
  21. Beck J, George P, Cohen P, et al. Phase I PK and PD study of LBH589: a novel histone deacetylase inhibitor [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2005;23:3025.
  22. Bhalla K. Activity of the histone deacetylase inhibitors LBH589 and LAQ824 in hematological malignancies. Haematologica 2005;1:84–8.
  23. George P, Bali P, Annavarapu S, et al. LBH589 and 17-AAG are highly active against human CML-BC cells and AML cells. Blood 2005;105:1768–76.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Camphausen K, Burgan W, Cerra M, et al. Enhanced radiation-induced cell killing and prolongation of {gamma}H2AX foci expression by the histone deacetylase inhibitor MS-275. Cancer Res 2004;64:316–21.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Stoilov L, Darroudi F, Meschini R, van der Schans G, Mullenders LH, Natarajan AT. Inhibition of repair of X-ray-induced DNA double-strand breaks in human lymphocytes exposed to sodium butyrate. Int J Radiat Biol 2000;76:1485–91.[CrossRef][Medline]
  26. Qiu L, Burgess A, Fairlie DP, Leonard H, Parsons PG, Gabrielli BG. Histone deacetylase inhibitors trigger a G2 checkpoint in normal cells that is defective in tumor cells. Mol Biol Cell 2000;11:2069–83.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Sambucetti LC, Fischer DD, Zabludoff S, et al. Histone deacetylase inhibition selectively alters the activity and expression of cell cycle proteins leading to specific chromatin acetylation and antiproliferative effects. J Biol Chem 1999;274:34940–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Warrener R, Beamish H, Burgess A, et al. Tumor cell-selective cytotoxicity by targeting cell cycle checkpoints. FASEB J 2003;17:1550–2.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Vrana JA, Decker RH, Johnson CR, et al. Induction of apoptosis in U937 human leukemia cells by suberoylanilide hydroxamic acid (SAHA) proceeds through pathways that are regulated by Bcl-2/Bcl-XL, c-Jun, and p21CIP1, but independent of p53. Oncogene 1999;18:7016–25.[CrossRef][Medline]
  30. Burgess AJ, Pavey S, Warrener R, et al. Up-regulation of p21(WAF1/CIP1) by histone deacetylase inhibitors reduces their cytotoxicity. Mol Pharmacol 2001;60:828–37.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Rosato RR, Almenara JA, Yu C, Grant S. Evidence of a functional role for p21WAF1/CIP1 down-regulation in synergistic antileukemic interactions between the histone deacetylase inhibitor sodium butyrate and flavopiridol. Mol Pharmacol 2004;65:571–81.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Rogakou EP, Pilch DR, Orr AH, Ivanova VS, Bonner WM. DNA double-stranded breaks induce histone H2AX phosphorylation on serine 139. J Biol Chem 1998;27:5858–68.
  33. Petersen S, Casellas R, Reina-San-Martin B, et al. AID is required to initiate Nbs1/{gamma}-H2AX focus formation and mutations at sites of class switching. Nature 2001;414:660–5.[CrossRef][Medline]
  34. Celeste A, Fernandez-Capetillo O, Kruhlak MJ, et al. Histone H2AX phosphorylation is dispensable for the initial recognition of DNA breaks. Nat Cell Biol 2003;5:675–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  35. Pilch DR, Sedelnikova OA, Redon C, Celeste A, Nussenzweig A, Bonner WM. Characteristics of {gamma}-H2AX foci at DNA double-strand breaks sites. Biochem Cell Biol 2003;81:123–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  36. Eastman A. Cell cycle checkpoints and their impact on anticancer therapeutic strategies. J Cell Biochem 2004;91:223–31.[CrossRef][Medline]
  37. Datta R, Hass R, Gunji H, Weichselbaum R, Kufe D. Down-regulation of cell cycle control genes by ionizing radiation. Cell Growth Differ 1992;3:637–44.[Abstract]
  38. Gadbois DM, Lehnert BE. Cell cycle response to DNA damage differs in bronchial epithelial cells and lung fibroblasts. Cancer Res 1997;57:3174–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Jackson SP. Sensing and repairing DNA double-strand breaks. Carcinogenesis 2002;23:687–96.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  40. Collis SJ, Swartz MJ, Nelson WG, DeWeese TL. Enhanced radiation and chemotherapy-mediated cell killing of human cancer cells by small inhibitory RNA silencing of DNA repair factors. Cancer Res 2003;63:1550–4.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  41. Omori S, Takiguchi Y, Suda A, et al. Suppression of a DNA double-strand break repair gene, Ku70, increases radio- and chemosensitivity in a human lung carcinoma cell line. DNA Repair (Amst) 2002;1:299–310.[CrossRef][Medline]
  42. Marangoni E, Foray N, O'Driscoll M, et al. A Ku80 fragment with dominant negative activity imparts a radiosensitive phenotype to CHO-K1 cells. Nucleic Acids Res 2000;28:4778–82.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  43. Fisher-Adams G, Grunstein M. Yeast histone H4 and H3 N-termini have different effects on the chromatin structure of the GAL1 promoter. EMBO J 1995;14:1468–77.[Medline]
  44. Tamburini BA, Tyler JK. Localized histone acetylation and deacetylation triggered by the homologous recombination pathway of double-strand DNA repair. Mol Cell Biol 2005;25:4903–13.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  45. Kusch T, Florens L, Macdonald WH, et al. Acetylation by Tip60 is required for selective histone variant exchange at DNA lesions. Science 2005;306:2084–7.
  46. Gontijo AM, Green CM, Almouzni G. Repairing DNA damage in chromatin. Biochimie 2003;85:1133–47.[Medline]
  47. Kao GD, McKenna WG, Guenther MG, Muschel RJ, Lazar MA, Yen TJ. Histone deacetylase 4 interacts with 53BP1 to mediate the DNA damage response. J Cell Biol 2003;160:1017–27.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  48. Scully R, Chen J, Ochs RL, et al. Dynamic changes of BRCA1 subnuclear location and phosphorylation state are initiated by DNA damage. Cell 1997;90:425–35.[CrossRef][Medline]
  49. Maser RS, Monsen KJ, Nelms BE, Petrini JH. hMre11 and hRad50 nuclear foci are induced during the normal cellular response to DNA double-strand breaks. Mol Cell Biol 1997;17:6087–96.[Abstract]
  50. Paull TT, Rogakou EP, Yamazaki V, Kirchgessner CU, Gellert M, Bonner WMA. Critical role for histone H2AX in recruitment of repair factors to nuclear foci after DNA damage. Curr Biol 2000;10:886–95.[CrossRef][Medline]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
B. Cadot, M. Brunetti, S. Coppari, S. Fedeli, E. de Rinaldis, C. D. Russo, P. Gallinari, R. De Francesco, C. Steinkuhler, and G. Filocamo
Loss of Histone Deacetylase 4 Causes Segregation Defects during Mitosis of p53-Deficient Human Tumor Cells
Cancer Res., August 1, 2009; 69(15): 6074 - 6082.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Molecular Cancer TherapeuticsHome page
M. C. Crisanti, A. F. Wallace, V. Kapoor, F. Vandermeers, M. L. Dowling, L. P. Pereira, K. Coleman, B. G. Campling, Z. G. Fridlender, G. D. Kao, et al.
The HDAC inhibitor panobinostat (LBH589) inhibits mesothelioma and lung cancer cells in vitro and in vivo with particular efficacy for small cell lung cancer
Mol. Cancer Ther., August 1, 2009; 8(8): 2221 - 2231.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
R. L. Piekarz and S. E. Bates
Epigenetic Modifiers: Basic Understanding and Clinical Development
Clin. Cancer Res., June 15, 2009; 15(12): 3918 - 3926.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol. Biol. CellHome page
A. J. Wilson, D.-S. Byun, S. Nasser, L. B. Murray, K. Ayyanar, D. Arango, M. Figueroa, A. Melnick, G. D. Kao, L. H. Augenlicht, et al.
HDAC4 Promotes Growth of Colon Cancer Cells via Repression of p21
Mol. Biol. Cell, October 1, 2008; 19(10): 4062 - 4075.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
P. Chinnaiyan, D. Cerna, W. E. Burgan, K. Beam, E. S. Williams, K. Camphausen, and P. J. Tofilon
Postradiation Sensitization of the Histone Deacetylase Inhibitor Valproic Acid
Clin. Cancer Res., September 1, 2008; 14(17): 5410 - 5415.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Molecular Cancer TherapeuticsHome page
R. Feng, H. Ma, C. A. Hassig, J. E. Payne, N. D. Smith, M. Y. Mapara, J. H. Hager, and S. Lentzsch
KD5170, a novel mercaptoketone-based histone deacetylase inhibitor, exerts antimyeloma effects by DNA damage and mitochondrial signaling
Mol. Cancer Ther., June 1, 2008; 7(6): 1494 - 1505.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 BloodHome page
A. Scuto, M. Kirschbaum, C. Kowolik, L. Kretzner, A. Juhasz, P. Atadja, V. Pullarkat, R. Bhatia, S. Forman, Y. Yen, et al.
The novel histone deacetylase inhibitor, LBH589, induces expression of DNA damage response genes and apoptosis in Ph- acute lymphoblastic leukemia cells
Blood, May 15, 2008; 111(10): 5093 - 5100.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol. Biol. CellHome page
G. Paroni, N. Cernotta, C. Dello Russo, P. Gallinari, M. Pallaoro, C. Foti, F. Talamo, L. Orsatti, C. Steinkuhler, and C. Brancolini
PP2A Regulates HDAC4 Nuclear Import
Mol. Biol. Cell, February 1, 2008; 19(2): 655 - 667.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USAHome page
S. Adimoolam, M. Sirisawad, J. Chen, P. Thiemann, J. M. Ford, and J. J. Buggy
HDAC inhibitor PCI-24781 decreases RAD51 expression and inhibits homologous recombination
PNAS, December 4, 2007; 104(49): 19482 - 19487.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USAHome page
A. Lahm, C. Paolini, M. Pallaoro, M. C. Nardi, P. Jones, P. Neddermann, S. Sambucini, M. J. Bottomley, P. Lo Surdo, A. Carfi, et al.
Unraveling the hidden catalytic activity of vertebrate class IIa histone deacetylases
PNAS, October 30, 2007; 104(44): 17335 - 17340.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplementary Data
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Geng, L.
Right arrow Articles by Hallahan, D. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Geng, L.
Right arrow Articles by Hallahan, D. E.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online