| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Letters to the Editor |
Cancer Center Karolinska, Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
Department of Biochemistry and Biomedical Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
To the Editor:
The cyclolignan picropodophyllotoxin (PPP) was recently launched as an anticancer drug specifically targeting insulin-like growth factor-I receptor (IGF-IR; ref. 1). PPP is an epimer of podophyllotoxin (PPT), an established inhibitor of microtubule assembly used to treat genital warts. PPT binds to the colchicine binding site of tubulin (2). PPT-resistant cells are cross-resistant to colchicine, colcemid, and vinblastine (3). PPP is 20- to 50-fold less potent than PPT in inhibition of microtubule assembly (4) and the GI50 of PPP is
50-fold that of PPT (
500 versus
10 nmol/L). This would be expected if growth inhibition by PPP is due to microtubule inhibition (discussed in ref. 3). Also consistent with this notion is that PPT-resistant cells are resistant to PPP (3).
Despite the documented microtubule effects, an association between IGF-IR expression and sensitivity to PPT/PPP was reported (1). Eleven cell types expressing IGF-IR were found sensitive to PPP, and three cell types lacking IGF-IR expression were resistant in vitro and/or in vivo (1). The in vitro GI50 for cell types lacking IGF-IR expression (R cells, HepG2 cells) was >15 µmol/L for both drugs (1).
S. Linder and M. C. Shoshan reexamined PPT/PPP effects on IGF-IRdeficient R cells, which were reported resistant to 15 µmol/L PPT/PPP (1). R cells (from Dr. Renato Baserga, Kimmel Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA) and mouse embryo fibroblasts (MEFs) were exposed to 0.5 µmol/L PPT or PPP (from Dr. Girnita, Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden), a concentration used to inhibit IGF-IR (5). Both cell types were equally sensitive; PPP reduced viability of R1 cells to 52.6 ± 7.5% of control and of MEFs to 58.3 ± 6.4% of control, whereas PPT reduced viability to 51.8 ± 2.2% and 58.3 ± 6.4% of control, respectively [3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide assay; 40 h]. Four independent experiments yielded similar results. Both drugs induced sub-G1 debris in R cells, indicative of cell death (PPT, 64% of total counts; PPP, 56%; controls, 6%).
PPP induces G2-M arrest (5). This effect is not dependent on IGF-IR: PPP (0.5 µmol/L, 12 h) induced G2-M arrest in IGF-1Rdeficient cells (43.5% in G2-M; 24.8% in untreated cells).
R. S. Gupta reexamined PPT/PPP effects on HepG2 cells, which were reported resistant to >15 µmol/L PPT/PPP (1). HepG2 cells were sensitive to PPT and PPP; the IC90 was 30 nmol/L for PPT and 0.5 µmol/L for PPP.
PPT treatment of cancer is limited by severe side effects. Although IGF-IR is an attractive cancer therapy target, our data showing that PPT and PPP induce loss of viability and cell death in IGF-IRdeficient cells contest their potential as IGF-IRspecific anticancer drugs.
References
Related Article
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
Editor's Note Cancer Res., July 1, 2007; 67(13): 6529 - 6529. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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 |