Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2010 Genetics and Biology of Brain 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 68, 1843, March 15, 2008. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-5944
© 2008 American Association for Cancer Research
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Correction (v68,p4012)
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 Yi, T.
Right arrow Articles by Liu, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Yi, T.
Right arrow Articles by Liu, M.

Cell, Tumor, and Stem Cell Biology

Gambogic Acid Inhibits Angiogenesis and Prostate Tumor Growth by Suppressing Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor 2 Signaling

Tingfang Yi1, Zhengfang Yi3, Sung-Gook Cho1, Jian Luo3, Manoj K. Pandey2, Bharat B. Aggarwal2 and Mingyao Liu1,3

1 Center for Cancer and Stem Cell Biology, Institute for Bioscience and Technology, Texas A&M University System Health Science Center; 2 Cytokine Research Laboratory, Department of Experimental Therapeutics, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas and 3 Institute of Biomedical Sciences and School of Life Sciences, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China

Requests for reprints: Mingyao Liu, Institute of Biosciences and Technology, Texas A&M Health Science Center, 2121 W. Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030. Phone: 713-677-7505; Fax: 713-677-7512; E-mail: mliu{at}ibt.tamhsc.edu.


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Gambogic acid (GA), the main active compound of Gamboge hanburyi, has been previously reported to activate apoptosis in many types of cancer cell lines by targeting transferrin receptor and modulating nuclear factor-{kappa}B signaling pathway. Whether GA inhibits angiogenesis, which is crucial for cancer and other human diseases, remains unknown. Here, we found that GA significantly inhibited human umbilical vascular endothelial cell (HUVEC) proliferation, migration, invasion, tube formation, and microvessel growth at nanomolar concentration. In a xenograft prostate tumor model, we found that GA effectively inhibited tumor angiogenesis and suppressed tumor growth with low side effects using metronomic chemotherapy with GA. GA was more effective in activating apoptosis and inhibiting proliferation and migration in HUVECs than in human prostate cancer cells (PC3), suggesting GA might be a potential drug candidate in cancer therapy through angioprevention with low chemotoxicity. Furthermore, we showed that GA inhibited the activations of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 and its downstream protein kinases, such as c-Src, focal adhesion kinase, and AKT. Together, these data suggest that GA inhibits angiogenesis and may be a viable drug candidate in antiangiogenesis and anticancer therapies. [Cancer Res 2008;68(6):1843–50]


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Gambogic acid (GA; C38H44O8, MW 628.76), a polyprenylated xanthone, is the main active compound of Gamboge hanburyi (a traditional Chinese medicine) used as detoxification, homeostasis, antiinflammatory, and parasiticide medicines for thousands of years (1). Previous studies reported that GA-activated apoptosis in many cancer cell lines and inhibited human hepatoma SMMC-7721 tumor growth in vivo in a nude mouse model (2–7). Recent reports showed the molecular mechanism of apoptosis activation effect of GA by binding to the transferrin receptor (8) and suppressing nuclear factor-{kappa}B (NF-{kappa}B) signaling pathway (9). Whether GA inhibits angiogenesis, a crucial step in tumor growth and metastasis, is still unknown. Here, we examined the effects of GA on migration, invasion, and tube formation of endothelial cells and angiogenesis in vitro and in vivo.

Recently, increased interests focused on metronomic chemotherapy with comparatively low doses of drug on a frequent or continuous schedule based on antiangiogenesis. In the chemotherapy with angiogenesis inhibitors, endothelial cells were reported to be the first to undergo apoptosis compared with cancer cells in the tumor (10). In preclinical models of tumor treatment, metronomic chemotherapy showed its advantages of no tumor cell resistance to the same chemotherapeutics and less acute toxicity (11, 12). There are several angiogenesis inhibitors in phase I or phase II clinical trials, including vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR2) inhibitors (10). To test whether GA inhibits tumor angiogenesis and tumor growth, we used metronomic chemotherapy method with GA in a xenograft prostate tumor model and found that GA inhibited tumor angiogenesis and prevented tumor growth.

VEGFRs and their signaling pathways represent rate-limiting steps in physiologic angiogenesis (13, 14). VEGFRs undergo ligand-induced homodimerization or heterodimerization that activates their intrinsic tyrosine kinase activities (15). VEGFR1 is poorly autophosphorylated in response to VEGF in endothelial cells and is weakly involved in transducing the VEGF angiogenic signals (16). VEGFR3 mainly functions in the establishment and maintenance of lymphatics (15). In contrast, homodimerization of VEGFR2 leads to a strong autophosphorylation of several tyrosine residues of VEGFR2. VEGFR2 is the primary receptor mediating the angiogenic activity of VEGF through distinct signal transduction pathways that regulate endothelial cell proliferation, migration, differentiation, and tube formation. Major autophosphorylation sites on VEGFR2 have been described as Y1175 and Y951(15). In particular, phosphorylation of Tyr1175 is required for activation of AKT, which is critical for subsequent activation of endothelial cell survival, migration, and proliferation (17). Phosphorylation of Y951 is necessary for activation of c-Src, which regulates cell migration. VEGFR2 regulates cell migration and focal adhesion turnover by mediating the activation of focal adhesion kinase (FAK; refs. 15, 16, 18). Here, we examined the effect of GA on the activation of VEGFR2 and its downstream kinases: c-Src, FAK, and AKT.

In this study, we investigated the effects of GA on angiogenesis, tumor angiogenesis in the prostate tumor model, and the underlying molecular mechanisms. We found that GA significantly inhibited endothelial cell proliferation, migration, invasion, tube formation, angiogenesis in vitro and in vivo, and tumor-angiogenesis. GA acts as a VEGFR2 inhibitor and suppressed the VEGFR2 signaling pathway and its downstream kinases.


   Materials and Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Cell lines, cell culture, and reagents. GA was ordered from Gaia Chemical Corp. 98% by TLC/high performance liquid chromatography. A 25 mmol/L solution of GA was prepared in DMSO, stored at –20°C, and then diluted as needed. Human umbilical vascular endothelial cells (HUVEC) were kindly gifted from Dr. Xinli Wang (Cardiothoracic Surgery Division of the Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery at Baylor College of Medicine Hospital). The human prostate cancer cell line (PC3) was purchased from the American Type Culture Collection. VEGF was obtained from NIH experimental branch. HTScan VEGFR2 kinase assay kit was ordered from Cell Signaling Technology. Horseradish peroxidase (HRP)–labeled secondary antibody, TMB substrate, and stop solution were kindly gifted by Cell Signaling Technology. Streptavidin-coated yellow 96-well plates were kindly gifted by PerkinElmer Life Sciences. Matrigel was ordered from BD Biosciences. Mitomycin C was ordered from Roche.

Proliferation assay. HUVEC and PC3 cell proliferation assays with different concentrations of GA were followed the manual of CellTiter 96 Aqueous One Solution Cell Proliferation Assay (Promega) with VERSAmax microplate reader (Molecular Devices).

Flow cytometry fluorescence-activated cell sorting analysis. About 2 x 106 HUVEC and PC3 cells were treated with GA at 37°C, 5% CO2 incubator for 24 h. The cells were collected and analyzed in a FACS Vantage SE DiVa flow cytometer (Becton Dickinson) with propidium iodide staining. The cell population percentages at sub-G1 were defined as apoptotic cell percentages.

Migration assay. HUVECs were allowed to grow into full confluence in 6-well plates precoated with 0.1% gelatin and then incubated with 10 µg/mL mitomycin C at 37°C, 5% CO2 for 2 h to inactivate HUVECs. Monolayer inactivated HUVECs were wounded by scratching with 1 mL pipette tip. Fresh endothelial cell growth medium (ECGM) was added with or without 4 ng/mL VEGF and different concentrations of GA. Images were taken by Nikon digital camera after 7 to 10 h of incubation at 37°C, 5% CO2. For PC3 cell migration, migration assays as in HUVECs were performed on the inactivated PC3 cells (with the same inactivation treatment as HUVECs). The migrated cells were quantified by manual counting, and percentage inhibition was expressed using untreated wells at 100% (t test, P < 0.005). At least three independent experiments were performed.

Transwell migration assay. The transwell (Corning Incorporated) were coated with 0.1% gelatin (Sigma) for 30 min at 37°C. After washing the transwells thrice with 1 x PBS, the bottom chambers (600 µL) were filled with ECGM with 20% fetal bovine serum supplemented with 4 ng/mL VEGF and the top chambers were seeded with 100 µL ECGM and inactivated HUVECs (4 x 104 cells per well). The top and bottom chambers contained the same series of concentrations of gambogic acid. HUVECs were allowed to migrate for 4 h at 37°C, 5% CO2. After the incubation, cells on the top surface of the membrane (nonmigrated) were scraped with a cotton swab. Cells on the bottom side of the membrane (migrated cells) were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde for 20 min and washed thrice with 1 x PBS. The cells were stained by H&E staining and then destained with 1 x PBS. Images were obtained using an OLYMPUS inverted microscope and with invading cells being quantified by manual counting. Percentage inhibition of invading cells was quantified and expressed on the basis of untreated cells (control) representing 100% (t test, P < 0.01).

Tube formation assay. Matrigel (BD Biosciences) were thawed at 4°C for overnight, and each well of prechilled 24-well plates was coated with 100 µL Matrigel and incubated at 37°C for 45 min. HUVECs (4 x 104 cells) were added in 1 mL ECGM with various concentrations of GA. After 12 to 16 h of incubation at 37°C, 5% CO2, endothelial cell tube formation was assessed with OLYMPUS inverted microscope. Tubular structures were quantified by manual counting of low power fields (25x), and inhibition percentage was expressed using untreated wells as 100% (t test, P < 0.001).

Aortic ring assay. Aortic ring assay was performed, as previously described with some modifications (19, 20). Forty-eight–well plates were covered with 100 µL of Matrigel at 4°C and incubated at 37°C, 5% CO2 for 30 min. Aortas isolated from mice were cleaned of periadventitial fat and connective tissues, and cut into ~1-mm-long to 1.5-mm-long rings. After being rinsed five times with endothelial cell–based medium, the aortas were placed on the Matrigel-covered wells and covered with another 100 µL of Matrigel. Artery rings were cultured in 1.5 mL of ECGM without serum for 24 h, and then the medium was replaced with 1.5 mL of ECGM with or without GA. The medium was changed every 2 d with the exact composition as described above. After 4 d of incubation, the microvessel growth was quantified by taking photographs with Olympus IX 70 invert microscope with a 4x objective lens. After images were acquired, the outgrowth area was delineated and measured with the Pro plus software (Media Cybernetics).

Matrigel plug assay. Matrigel (0.5 mL/plug) with no VEGF or GA, VEGF (4 ng/mL) but no GA, VEGF (4 ng/mL) and 0.1/0.2 µmol/L GA in liquid form at 4°C, respectively, were injected s.c. in the midventral abdominal region of 5-week-old to 6-week-old C57BL/6 mice (five mice for each group). After 7 d, the mice were sacrificed and the plugs were removed. Each group had four to five Matrigel plugs. The Matrigel plugs were fixed with formalin and embedded with paraffin. The 5-µm sections were stained with H&E staining. The number of erythrocyte-filled blood vessels in high power field (HPF; 200 x) was counted (plug number, 4–5; t test, P < 0.005).

Xenograft mouse model. The 5-week-old to 6-week-old severe combined immune deficiency (SCID) male mice (ordered from NIH) weighing ~20 g were divided into groups with five mice per group. PC3 cells were s.c. injected (2 x 106 cells per mouse) into the mice (20). After the tumors had become established (~50 mm3), the mice were s.c. injected with or without 3 mg/kg GA everyday. The mice body weights and tumor sizes were recorded everyday, and the tumor sizes were determined by Vernier caliper measurements and calculated as length x width x height. After 15 d, mice with s.c. tumors not greater than 1.5 cm in diameter were sacrificed (21).

Histology and immunohistochemistry. Tumors were removed and fixed with Histochoice MB (Molecular Biology) tissue fixative (Amresco) and embedded with paraffin. Specific blood vessel staining was performed on the 5-µm sections with Chemicon's blood vessel staining kit (von Willebrand Factor, Chemicon International). Images were taken with ZEISS Axioskop 40 photo microscope. The number of blood vessels was counted (plug number, 4–5; t test, P < 0.005).

VEGFR2 inhibition assay. A 12.5-µL of the 4 x reaction cocktail containing 100 ng VEGFR2 (supplied from the HTScan VEGFR2 kinase assay kit, Cell Signaling Technology) was incubated with 12.5 µL/tube of GA for 5 min at room temperature. A 25-µL of 2x ATP/substrate peptide cocktail was added to the preincubated reaction cocktail/GA compound. After incubation at room temperature for 30 min, a 50-µL stop buffer (50 mmol/L EDTA, pH 8) was added per tube to stop the reaction. Then 25 µL of each reaction were transferred with 75 µL H2O/well to a 96-well streptavidin-coated plate (PerkinElmer Life Sciences) and incubated at room temperature for 60 min. After washing the wells thrice with 200 µL/well PBS/T (0.05% Tween 20 in 1 x PBS), a 100-µL primary antibody [phosphorylated tyrosine monoclonal antibody (pTyr-100), 1:1000 in PBS/T with 1% bovine serum albumin (BSA)] was added per well. After being incubated at room temperature for 60 min, the wells were washed thrice with 200 µL PBS/T. A 100-µL diluted HRP-labeled antimouse IgG (1:500 in PBS/T with 1% BSA) was added per well. After incubation at room temperature for 30 min, the wells were washed five times with 200 µL PBS/T per well. Then, a 100 µL/well TMB substrate was added per well, and the plate was incubated at room temperature for 15 min. The stop solution (100 µL/well) was added and mixed, followed by incubation at room temperature for 15 min. The plate was then detected at 405 nm with VERSAmax microplate reader (Molecular Devices), and the data (mean ± SE, n = 3) were repeated thrice.

Western immunoblotting. HUVECs pretreated with or without 4 nmol/L VEGF for 5 min were treated with or without GA for another 5 min. A 200-µg total cellular protein of each sample was immunoprecipitated with anti–c-Src, anti-FAK, and anti-AKT antibodies (Santa Cruz Biotech) and then subjected to the Western blotting. The pTyr antibody (Santa Cruz Biotech) was used for detecting c-Src phosphorylation, and pFAK397 antibody (Cell Signaling) was blotted for c-Src–associated FAK phosphorylation at multiple tyrosine residues. In addition, AKT phosphorylation was examined using pSer473-AKT antibody (Cell Signaling). Anticleaved caspase-3 antibody (Santa Cruz Biotech) was used for detecting cleaved caspase-3 and poly(ADP) ribose polymerase (PARP) cleavage was detected by anti-PARP p85 fragment (Promega) in apoptosis assay.

Statistical analysis. The data (mean ± SE, n = 3) were repeated thrice for cell proliferation, apoptosis, migration, invasion, and aortic ring assays. Statistical significance of differences between control and sample groups was determined by t test. The minimal level of significance was P < 0.05.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
GA inhibits HUVEC migration, invasion, and tube formation. As cell migration is necessary for endothelial cells in angiogenesis and for cancer cells in tumor growth and metastasis (22, 23), we performed wound healing migration assays to determine the effects of GA (Fig. 1A ) on HUVEC migration and found 10 nmol/L GA strongly inhibited the migration of inactivated HUVECs (Fig. 1B). Cell invasion is a critical aspect of endothelial cells in angiogenesis (24), we performed transwell assays to evaluate the ability of inactivated HUVECs to pass through the membrane barrier of the transwell in the presence of GA. As shown in Fig. 1C, 40 nmol/L GA inhibited almost all invasion activities of inactivated HUVECs, suggesting that GA significantly inhibited the invasion properties of endothelial cells at very low concentrations (nmol/L).


Figure 1
View larger version (55K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 1. GA inhibits HUVEC migration, invasion, and tube formation. A, the chemical structure of GA. B, effects of GA on HUVEC migration in wound migration assays. HUVECs were inactivated by incubating with 10 µg/mL mitomycin C, and migration assays were performed as described in Materials and Methods. Columns, mean; bars, SE (n = 3; t test, P < 0.005). C, effects of GA on HUVEC invasion in transwell assay. The bottom chambers (600 µL) of the transwells were filled with ECGM and 4 ng/mL VEGF whereas the top chambers were seeded with 100 µL ECGM containing HUVECs (4 x 104 per well) in the presence or absence of GA at the indicated concentrations. HUVECs were allowed to migrate for 4 h. The red cells with irregular shape in the images were invaded cells attached on outside surface of the top chamber. Columns, mean; bars, SE (n = 3; t test, P < 0.01). D, effects of GA on HUVEC tube formation. HUVECs (4 x 104) and GA were added on Matrigel layers. After 12 to 16 h of incubation, HUVEC tube-like formation was assessed with an inverted photomicroscope. Tubular structures were quantified by manual counting of low power fields (25x), and percentage inhibition was expressed using untreated wells as 100%. Columns, mean; bars, SE (n = 3; t test, P < 0.001).

 
Although angiogenesis is a complex procedure of several kinds of cells, tube formation of endothelial cells is the key step (25). To further investigate the effect of GA on endothelial cell tube formation, we added HUVECs (4 x 104) in 1 mL ECGM with different concentration of GA onto Matrigel layers. After 12 to 16 hours of incubation, the ability of endothelial cells forming tube-like structures was assessed with an inverted photomicroscope. Approximately, 50 nmol/L GA inhibited 50% tube formation of HUVEC cells on Matrigel assays and 100 nmol/L GA completely inhibited the tube formation ability of HUVECs on Matrigel (Fig. 1D).

GA inhibits angiogenesis in vitro and in vivo. To examine the inhibitory effect of GA on angiogenesis, we performed aortic ring assays using isolated aortas from mice. The 1-mm-long to 1.5-mm-long aortic rings were put on Matrigel and covered by another Matrigel layer and ECGM with or without GA. After 4 days of incubation, the numbers of microvessel growth of the aortic rings were quantified and compared in the presence or absence of GA. We found that 10 nmol/L GA (higher concentration not shown) inhibited almost all new microvessel growth (Fig. 2A ), suggesting that GA dramatically inhibited angiogenesis in vitro.


Figure 2
View larger version (44K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 2. GA inhibits angiogenesis in vitro and in vivo. A, effects of GA on angiogenesis in the aortic ring assays. About 1-mm-long to 1.5-mm-long cleaned mice aortic rings were placed in the Matrigel-covered wells with 100 µL of Matrigel. After 4 d of incubation with 1.5 mL of ECGM with or without GA, images were taken with Olympus IX 70 invert microscope. The number of microvessels was counted as described in the Materials and Methods. Columns, mean; bars, SE (n = 4; t test, P < 0.05). B, effects of GA on angiogenesis in vivo in Matrigel plug assay. Matrigel plugs (0.5 mL/plug) with neither GA nor VEGF, VEGF (4 ng/mL) but no GA, VEGF (4 ng/mL) and 0.1 µmol/L GA, and VEGF (4 ng/mL) and 0.2 µmol/L GA were injected s.c. in the midventral abdominal region of 5-week-old to 6-week-old C57BL/6 mice (five mice for each group). After 7 d, the Matrigel plugs were removed and fixed with formalin, and the 5-µm sections were stained with H&E staining. The number of erythrocyte-filled blood vessels in HPF (200x) was counted. Columns, mean; bars, SE (n = 4; t test, P < 0.005).

 
To further verify the inhibitory effect of GA on angiogenesis, we used Matrigel plug assay for antiangiogenesis effect of GA in vivo. We s.c. injected Matrigel (0.5 mL/plug) with no VEGF, VEGF (4 ng/mL), VEGF (4 ng/mL) and 0.1 µmol/L GA, or 0.2 µmol/L GA in the midventral abdominal region of 5-week-old to 6-week-old C57BL/6 mice (five mice for each group). After 7 days, the mice were sacrificed and the Matrigel plugs were removed, sectioned, and H&E stained. As shown in Fig. 2B, 100 nmol/L GA inhibited VEGF-dependent angiogenesis whereas 200 nmol/L GA totally abolished angiogenesis in the Matrigel plug assays, indicating GA strongly inhibited angiogenesis in vivo. Based on the above analyses, we concluded that GA inhibited angiogenesis in vitro and in vivo using different angiogenesis assays.

GA inhibits tumor angiogenesis and tumor growth in vivo. Tumor angiogenesis provides oxygen, nutrients, and main routes for tumor growth and metastasis and acts as a rate-limiting step in tumor procedures (26). Metronomic chemotherapy is an effective method to suppress tumor growth for angiogenesis inhibitors with low dose of drug (10). To determine the effect of GA on tumor angiogenesis and tumor growth at low dosage, we used a xenograft mouse prostate tumor model. It has been shown that 4 mg/kg of GA at a frequency of one treatment every 2 days is a nontoxic dosage (27). We injected s.c. (2 x 106 PC3 cells per mouse) into the mice. After the tumors had become established (~50 mm3), the mice were s.c. injected with or without 3 mg/kg GA everyday. The mouse body weights and tumor sizes were recorded everyday, and the tumor sizes were measured by Vernier caliper and calculated as length x width x height, as previously described (21). After 15 days, mice were sacrificed and the tumors were removed. As shown in Fig. 3A , at day 15 after injection of tumor cells, the average tumor size of control group was 1,144 ± 169 mm3, whereas that of GA-treated group was 169.1 ± 25.6 mm3. The average tumor weight of control group was 0.28 ± 0.08 g, whereas that of GA-treated group was 0.012 ± 0.0008 g (Fig. 3B), indicating that GA significantly inhibited tumor growth with metronomic chemotherapy.


Figure 3
View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 3. GA inhibits tumor angiogenesis and tumor growth in vivo. PC3 cells were injected s.c. (2 x 106 per mouse) into the 5-week-old to 6-week-old SCID male mice. After the tumors had established (~50 mm3), the mice were injected with or without 3 mg/kg/d GA. After 15 d, mice were sacrificed and tumors were removed and taken images by Nikon camera. A, tumors of control group increased from 51.18 ± 5.3 to 1144 ± 169 mm3, whereas tumors from GA-treated group increased only from 51.74 ± 3.8 to 127.4 ± 25.6 mm3. B, tumors from the mice with GA treatment were significantly smaller than that from control group. The average weight of tumors from control group was 0.28 ± 0.08 g, whereas that from GA-treated groups was 0.012 ± 0.0008 g. Columns, mean; bars, SE (n = 5; t test, P < 0.001). C, effects of GA on tumor angiogenesis in xenograft mouse tumor model. Tumors were fixed with Histochoice MB (Molecular Biology) tissue fixative (Amresco) and embedded with paraffin. The 5-µm sections were stained with specific blood vessel staining kit. The average vessel number in tumors of control group was 14 ± 2/HPF (200x), whereas that in GA-treated group was 1.8 ± 1.3/HPF. Columns, mean; bars, SE (n = 5; t test, P < 0.001). D, the average mouse body weight of control group decreased from 22.3 ± 1.2 to 21.2 ± 1.3 g, whereas that of GA-treated group increased from 22.4 ± 1 to 24.6 ± 0.9 g.

 
To examine the inhibitory effect of GA on tumor angiogenesis, we stained the 5-µm tumor sections with specific blood vessel staining kit. The average vessel number in tumors of control group was 14 ± 2 (HPF), whereas that in GA-treated group was 1.8 ± 1.3 (HPF; Fig. 3C), indicating that GA significantly inhibited tumor angiogenesis and prevented prostate tumor growth. To evaluate the side effect or chemotoxicity of GA on mice normal growth, we recorded the mice body weights everyday. During the 15 days, the average body weight of control group decreased 1 ± 1.3 g, whereas that of the GA-treated group increased 3.2 ± 0.9 g (Fig. 3D), indicating that 3 mg/kg/day GA for mice is not a toxic dosage or at least a low-toxic dosage. The observed mouse body weight decrease in control group is probably due to the tumor burden compared with the GA-treated group.

GA is more effective in inhibiting cell migration and proliferation and activating apoptosis in HUVECs than in PC3 cancer cells. To better understand the inhibitory effects of GA on angiogenesis/tumorangiogenesis and tumor growth, it is important to explore whether GA has different effects on cell migration, proliferation, and apoptosis in endothelial and tumor cells. Considering that VEGFR2 is the primary receptor through which VEGFs regulate the angiogenic activities in both normal angiogenesis and tumor angiogenesis and that HUVECs express VEGFR2 (KDR/Flk-1) but PC3 cancer cells do not express VEGFR2 (28), we firstly examined the effects of GA on VEGF-dependent cell migration in HUVEC and PC3 cells. We found 10 nmol/L GA strongly inhibited VEGF-dependent migration of HUVECs (Fig. 4A ), whereas >100 nmol/L GA was required to inhibit VEGF-dependent migration for PC3 cancer cells (Fig. 4B), indicating that GA suppressed VEGF-induced cell migration for both endothelial cells and cancer cells and that endothelial cells were more sensitive to GA inhibition compared with PC3 cancer cells. Then we performed proliferation assays of HUVEC and PC3 cancer cells with GA. We found that 80 nmol/L GA inhibited 50% HUVEC cell proliferation (Fig. 4C), whereas >400 nmol/L GA were required to obtain the same inhibitory effect on PC3 cancer cells (Fig. 4D), indicating that GA was more effective in inhibiting proliferation of endothelial cells than that of PC3 cancer cells. Before we examined the effects of GA in activating apoptosis in HUVEC and PC3 cancer cells, we identified GA-promoted apoptosis in HUVECs with anticleaved caspase-3 and anticleaved PARP antibodies (Fig. 4E). Finally, we measured the apoptotic population of HUVEC and PC3 cancer cells treated with GA by flow cytometry analysis (fluorescence-activated cell sorting assays). As shown in Table 1 , 80 nmol/L GA induced 40% HUVECs into apoptosis, whereas only 4% of PC3 cancer cells were induced into apoptosis by the same concentration of GA, indicating that GA was much more effective on endothelial cells than on PC3 cancer cells in promoting cell apoptosis. Taken together, the above different effects of GA on HUVECs and PC3 cancer cells suggest VEGFR2 is primarily, if not exclusively, expressed on endothelial cells. Thus, the inhibitory effects seen with PC-3 cell xenografts in mice (Fig. 3) are due to inhibition of angiogenesis and GA regulates the activity of VEGFR2.


Figure 4
View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 4. GA is more effective in activating apoptosis and inhibiting cell proliferation and migration in HUVECs than in PC3 cells. A and B, effects of GA on VEGF-induced migration of HUVECs and PC3 cells. B, columns, mean; bars, SE (n = 3; t test, P < 0.01). C and D, effects of GA on cell proliferation in HUVECs and PC3 cells. D, columns, mean; bars, SE (n = 3; t test, P < 0.01). IC50 was identified as the GA concentration to inhibit 50% cell proliferation. E, GA activates apoptosis in HUVECs. HUVECs were treated with GA for 24 h, and whole-cell proteins were analyzed by Western blotting with anticleaved caspase-3 antibodies and anticleaved PARP p85 antibody.

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1. GA activates apoptosis in HUVECs and PC3 cells

 
GA is an inhibitor of VEGFR2. VEGFR2 is the primary receptor in VEGF signaling pathway that regulates endothelial cell proliferation, migration, differentiation, tube formation, and angiogenesis (14, 15). To understand the molecular mechanism of GA-mediated antiangiogenesis effect, we examined whether GA inhibits the activation of VEGFR2. We found GA dramatically inhibited the phosphorylation of VEGFR2 in the assays (Fig. 5A ), suggesting that GA is a potential inhibitor of VEGFR2. To verify the inhibitory effect of GA on VEGFR2, we further examined the effects of different concentrations of GA on the specific activation of VEGFR2 using HTScan VEGFR2 kinase assay kit according to suggested methods (Cell Signaling Technology and PerkinElmer Life Sciences). We found that GA inhibited VEGFR2 kinase activity with the IC50 of 12 pmol/L (Fig. 5B), indicating GA is a potent VEGFR2 inhibitor.


Figure 5
View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 5. GA inhibits the activation of VEGFR2 and its downstream protein kinases. A, 1 nmol/L GA strongly inhibited VEGF-induced phosphorylation and activation of VEGFR2. After starvation in ECGM without serum for overnight, HUVECs were washed with 1 x PBS twice, followed by incubation in M199 medium. Then HUVECs were treated with 1 nmol/L of GA in the presence or absence of 4 nmol/L of VEGF for 5 min. VEGFR2 was immunoprecipitated using anti-VEGFR2 antibody. Anti–phosphorylated tyrosine antibody was used for the detection of phosphorylation of tyrosine residue of VEGFR2. B, inhibition of GA on VEGFR2 activation in a specific VEGFR2 inhibition assay. The calculated IC50 is 12 pmol/L, and the IC50 was identified as the concentration of GA to inhibit 50% of the activity of 100 ng VEGFR2. The data (mean ± SE, n = 3) repeat three times. C, GA suppressed VEGFR2-mediated protein kinase activation of c-Src, FAK, and AKT. HUVECs, pretreated with or without 4 nmol/L VEGF for 5 min, were treated with GA for another 5 min. D, diagram of signaling pathways for GA-mediated antiangiogenesis.

 
GA inhibits VEGFR2 signaling pathway. VEGFR2 regulates cell migration and proliferation by regulating the activation of FAK and c-Src (29–31). To understand the inhibitory effects of GA on cell proliferation and migration, we examined the effects of GA on the phosphorylation of Src and FAK. As shown in Fig. 5C, GA significantly inhibited the phosphorylation of both c-Src and FAK but not affected the total protein expression of c-Src or FAK, suggesting that GA inhibited cell migration and proliferation by inhibiting VEGFR2 and its downstream protein kinase activities. The activation of c-Src with VEGF pretreatment (Fig. 5C, left) was stronger than that without VEGF treatment (Fig. 5C, right), which was consistent with VEGF-promoted c-Src activation by stimulating VEGFR2.

The phosphorylation of Y1175 of VEGFR2 mediates the activation of AKT to regulate cell proliferation (32). To further examine the downstream signaling pathways mediated by VEGFR2, we examined the activation of the serine/threonine kinase AKT (PKB). As shown in Fig. 5C, GA inhibited AKT phosphorylation (Fig. 5C), suggesting GA inhibited cell proliferation by regulating the activation of AKT signaling pathways.


   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
We identified GA as a novel VEGFR2 inhibitor and comprehensively showed that GA inhibited angiogenesis and tumor progression. Our work focuses on inhibitory effects of GA on HUVEC proliferation, migration, invasion, and tube formation—four key characteristics of endothelial cells in angiogenesis. By directly blocking VEGFR2 phosphorylation and activation, GA suppressed the AKT signaling pathway and inhibited cellular proliferation. As a consequence of VEGFR2 inhibition by GA, the phosphorylation and activation of c-Src and FAK were blocked. Using nontoxic dosage of GA, we showed that GA can inhibit tumor angiogenesis and prostate tumor growth in SCID mouse models.

We showed that GA is a potent VEGFR2 inhibitor, which could provide a new mechanism of actions for xanthone family members (33). We observed GA was more effective in activating apoptosis and inhibiting migration and proliferation in HUVECs than that in PC3 cancer cells, which was in agreement with previous reports that HUVECs express VEGFR2 but PC3 cancer cells do not express it (28). GA also arrested the migration and proliferation of PC3 cancer cells at relatively high concentration, indicating that GA may not specifically inhibit VEGFR2 and GA may attenuate the actions of other receptor tyrosine kinases (RTK) at high doses. As compounds that act as RTK inhibitors always show inhibitory characteristics for multiple kinases (34), we will further investigate whether GA can inhibit other receptor tyrosine kinases. Interestingly, we also found that GA was more effective in inhibiting HUVEC migration (10 nmol/L) and invasion (40 nmol/L) than in inhibiting HUVEC proliferation (100 nmol/L) and activating apoptosis, suggesting that GA could inhibit endothelial cell migration and invasion before its reported effects on cell proliferation and apoptosis during angioprevention. These findings may provide a molecular mechanism for GA as a new antiangiogenesis candidate with low chemotoxicity during chemotherapy.

Phosphorylation of VEGFR2 at Tyr1175 is required for the activation of AKT and endothelial cell proliferation (17). We found that GA inhibited the activation of VEGFR2 and AKT, as well as cell proliferation. Phosphorylation of Tyr951 of VEGFR2 is required for the binding site of TSAD, which mediates its substrate of c-Src and then regulates cell migration. VEGFR2 also directly regulates the phosphorylation of FAK and mediates cell migration (22, 35, 36). In this study, we show that GA inhibits the activation of FAK and c-Src and cell migration.

Although the relationship between antiinflammation and angioprevention has not been fully understood, recent studies have reported several "classic" antiinflammatory drugs lead to angioprevention (37), such as epigallocatechin gallate in green tea (38), through mechanisms that include interference with VEGF signaling pathway (39, 40). In this study, we showed significant inhibitory effects of GA, a traditional Chinese medicine used as antiinflammatory for thousands of years, on angiogenesis in vitro and in vivo. We identified GA as a VEGFR2 inhibitor for the first time, which might add a new classic drug member with both antiinflammatory and antiangiogenesis functions.

Pandey et al. showed GA potentiated tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–induced apoptosis and inhibits TNF-induced cellular invasion through NF-{kappa}B signaling pathway (9). TNF, via its receptor 2 (TNF receptor 2, TNFR2), regulates endothelial cell migration, invasion, and tube formation, but TNFR2 lacks an intrinsic kinase activity (41, 42). Interestingly, Zhang et al. reported that the activation of TNFR2 was VEGFR2 dependent and VEGFR2 inhibitor suppressed the activation of VEGFR2 and then inhibited activation of TNFR2 (17). We found that GA could function as a VEGFR2 inhibitor, significantly blocking endothelial cell migration, invasion, and tube formation. Therefore, it is possible that GA regulates NF-{kappa}B signaling pathway by inhibiting the activation of VEGFR2 and TNFR2.

In summary, our studies show an axis of action by GA, e.g., GA functions as an inhibitor of VEGFR2 and its signaling pathway, leading to the inhibition of angiogenesis and tumorigenesis (Fig. 5D). We showed the previously unreported inhibition of GA on HUVEC cell proliferation, migration, and tube formation, as well as the antiangiogenesis activity of GA in vitro and in vivo. Our data suggest a new mechanism of action for the well-known xanthone family and their potential as antiangiogenesis and anticancer drugs.


   Acknowledgments
 
Grant support: NIH National Cancer Institute grant 1R01CA106479 (M. Liu).

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: T. Yi and Z. Yi contributed equally to this report.

Received 10/21/07. Revised 1/ 2/08. Accepted 1/ 8/08.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Guo QL, Lin SS, You QD, et al. Inhibition of human telomerase reverse transcriptase gene expression by gambogic acid in human hepatoma SMMC-7721 cells. Life Sci 2006;78:1238–45.[CrossRef][Medline]
  2. Liu W, Guo QL, You QD, Zhao L, Gu HY, Yuan ST. Anticancer effect and apoptosis induction of gambogic acid in human gastric cancer line BGC-823. World J Gastroenterol 2005;11:3655–9.[Medline]
  3. Zhao L, Guo QL, You QD, Wu ZQ, Gu HY. Gambogic acid induces apoptosis and regulates expressions of Bax and Bcl-2 protein in human gastric carcinoma MGC-803 cells. Biol Pharm Bull 2004;27:998–1003.[CrossRef][Medline]
  4. Zhang HZ, Kasibhatla S, Wang Y, et al. Discovery, characterization and SAR of gambogic acid as a potent apoptosis inducer by a HTS assay. Bioorg Med Chem 2004;12:309–17.[CrossRef][Medline]
  5. Guo QL, You QD, Wu ZQ, Yuan ST, Zhao L. General gambogic acids inhibited growth of human hepatoma SMMC-7721 cells in vitro and in nude mice. Acta Pharmacol Sin 2004;25:769–74.[Medline]
  6. Wu ZQ, Guo QL, You QD, Zhao L, Gu HY. Gambogic acid inhibits proliferation of human lung carcinoma SPC-A1 cells in vivo and in vitro and represses telomerase activity and telomerase reverse transcriptase mRNA expression in the cells. Biol Pharm Bull 2004;27:1769–74.[CrossRef][Medline]
  7. Yu J, Guo QL, You QD, et al. Gambogic acid-induced G2/M phase cell-cycle arrest via disturbing CDK7-mediated phosphorylation of CDC2/p34 in human gastric carcinoma BGC-823 cells. Carcinogenesis 2007;28:632–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Kasibhatla S, Jessen KA, Maliartchouk S, et al. A role for transferrin receptor in triggering apoptosis when targeted with gambogic acid. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005;102:12095–100.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Pandey MK, Sung B, Ahn KS, Kunnumakkara AB, Chaturvedi MM, Aggarwal BB. Gambogic acid, a novel ligand for transferrin receptor, potentiates TNF-induced apoptosis through modulation of the nuclear factor-{{kappa}}B signaling pathway. Blood 2007;110:3517–25.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Kerbel RS, Kamen BA. The anti-angiogenic basis of metronomic chemotherapy. Nat Rev Cancer 2004;4:423–36.[CrossRef][Medline]
  11. Bello L, Carrabba G, Giussani C, et al. Low-dose chemotherapy combined with an antiangiogenic drug reduces human glioma growth in vivo. Cancer Res 2001;61:7501–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Man S, Bocci G, Francia G, et al. Antitumor effects in mice of low-dose (metronomic) cyclophosphamide administered continuously through the drinking water. Cancer Res 2002;62:2731–5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Brunelleschi S, Penengo L, Santoro MM, Gaudino G. Receptor tyrosine kinases as target for anti-cancer therapy. Curr Pharm Des 2002;8:1959–72.[CrossRef][Medline]
  14. Ferrara N, Gerber HP, LeCouter J. The biology of VEGF and its receptors. Nat Med 2003;9:669–76.[CrossRef][Medline]
  15. Olsson AK, Dimberg A, Kreuger J, Claesson-Welsh L. VEGF receptor signalling - in control of vascular function. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2006;7:359–71.[CrossRef][Medline]
  16. Masson-Gadais B, Houle F, Laferriere J, Huot J. Integrin {alpha}vβ3, requirement for VEGFR2-mediated activation of SAPK2/p38 and for Hsp90-dependent phosphorylation of focal adhesion kinase in endothelial cells activated by VEGF. Cell Stress Chaperones 2003;8:37–52.[CrossRef][Medline]
  17. Zhang R, Xu Y, Ekman N, et al. Etk/Bmx transactivates vascular endothelial growth factor 2 and recruits phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase to mediate the tumor necrosis factor-induced angiogenic pathway. J Biol Chem 2003;278:51267–76.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Holmes K, Roberts OL, Thomas AM, Cross MJ. Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2: Structure, function, intracellular signalling and therapeutic inhibition. Cell Signal 2007;19:2003–12.[CrossRef][Medline]
  19. Masson VV, Devy L, Grignet-Debrus C, et al. Mouse Aortic Ring Assay: A New Approach of the Molecular Genetics of Angiogenesis. Biol Proced Online 2002;4:24–31.[CrossRef][Medline]
  20. Kaseb AO, Chinnakannu K, Chen D, et al. Androgen receptor and E2F-1 targeted thymoquinone therapy for hormone-refractory prostate cancer. Cancer Res 2007;67:7782–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Saffran DC, Raitano AB, Hubert RS, Witte ON, Reiter RE, Jakobovits A. Anti-PSCA mAbs inhibit tumor growth and metastasis formation and prolong the survival of mice bearing human prostate cancer xenografts. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2001;98:2658–63.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Shibuya M. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-receptor2: its biological functions, major signaling pathway, and specific ligand VEGF-E. Endothelium 2006;13:63–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  23. Nikitenko L, Boshoff C. Endothelial cells and cancer. Handb Exp Pharmacol 2006;176:307–34.[Medline]
  24. Petrovic N, Schacke W, Gahagan JR, et al. CD13/APN regulates endothelial invasion and filopodia formation. Blood 2007;110:142–50.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Patan S. Vasculogenesis and angiogenesis. Cancer Treat Res 2004;117:3–32.[Medline]
  26. Tozer GM, Kanthou C, Baguley BC. Disrupting tumour blood vessels. Nat Rev Cancer 2005;5:423–35.[CrossRef][Medline]
  27. Guo Q, Qi Q, You Q, Gu H, Zhao L, Wu Z. Toxicological studies of gambogic acid and its potential targets in experimental animals. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 2006;99:178–84.[CrossRef][Medline]
  28. Kitagawa Y, Dai J, Zhang J, et al. Vascular endothelial growth factor contributes to prostate cancer-mediated osteoblastic activity. Cancer Res 2005;65:10921–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Le Boeuf F, Houle F, Huot J. Regulation of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2-mediated phosphorylation of focal adhesion kinase by heat shock protein 90 and Src kinase activities. J Biol Chem 2004;279:39175–85.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Rousseau S, Houle F, Kotanides H, et al. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-driven actin-based motility is mediated by VEGFR2 and requires concerted activation of stress-activated protein kinase 2 (SAPK2/p38) and geldanamycin-sensitive phosphorylation of focal adhesion kinase. J Biol Chem 2000;275:10661–72.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Lamalice L, Le Boeuf F, Huot J. Endothelial cell migration during angiogenesis. Circ Res 2007;100:782–94.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Brazil DP, Park J, Hemmings BA. PKB binding proteins. Getting in on the Akt. Cell 2002;111:293–303.[CrossRef][Medline]
  33. Pinto MM, Sousa ME, Nascimento MS. Xanthone derivatives: new insights in biological activities. Curr Med Chem 2005;12:2517–38.[CrossRef][Medline]
  34. Gschwind A, Fischer OM, Ullrich A. The discovery of receptor tyrosine kinases: targets for cancer therapy. Nat Rev Cancer 2004;4:361–70.[CrossRef][Medline]
  35. Laramee M, Chabot C, Cloutier M, et al. The scaffolding adapter Gab1 mediates vascular endothelial growth factor signaling and is required for endothelial cell migration and capillary formation. J Biol Chem 2007;282:7758–69.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Wilhelm S, Carter C, Lynch M, et al. Discovery and development of sorafenib: a multikinase inhibitor for treating cancer. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2006;5:835–44.[CrossRef][Medline]
  37. Brown JR, DuBois RN. COX-2: a molecular target for colorectal cancer prevention. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:2840–55.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Garbisa S, Biggin S, Cavallarin N, Sartor L, Benelli R, Albini A. Tumor invasion: molecular shears blunted by green tea. Nat Med 1999;5:1216.[CrossRef][Medline]
  39. Fassina G, Vene R, Morini M, et al. Mechanisms of inhibition of tumor angiogenesis and vascular tumor growth by epigallocatechin-3-gallate. Clin Cancer Res 2004;10:4865–73.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  40. Albini A, Tosetti F, Benelli R, Noonan DM. Tumor inflammatory angiogenesis and its chemoprevention. Cancer Res 2005;65:10637–41.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  41. Aggarwal BB. Signalling pathways of the TNF superfamily: a double-edged sword. Nat Rev Immunol 2003;3:745–56.[CrossRef][Medline]
  42. He Y, Luo Y, Tang S, et al. Critical function of Bmx/Etk in ischemia-mediated arteriogenesis and angiogenesis. J Clin Invest 2006;116:2344–55.[CrossRef][Medline]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
S.-G. Cho, Z. Yi, X. Pang, T. Yi, Y. Wang, J. Luo, Z. Wu, D. Li, and M. Liu
Kisspeptin-10, a KISS1-Derived Decapeptide, Inhibits Tumor Angiogenesis by Suppressing Sp1-Mediated VEGF Expression and FAK/Rho GTPase Activation
Cancer Res., September 1, 2009; 69(17): 7062 - 7070.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Exp. Biol. Med.Home page
B. B. Aggarwal, M. E. Van Kuiken, L. H. Iyer, K. B. Harikumar, and B. Sung
Molecular Targets of Nutraceuticals Derived from Dietary Spices: Potential Role in Suppression of Inflammation and Tumorigenesis
Experimental Biology and Medicine, August 1, 2009; 234(8): 825 - 849.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
X. Pang, Z. Yi, X. Zhang, B. Sung, W. Qu, X. Lian, B. B. Aggarwal, and M. Liu
Acetyl-11-Keto-{beta}-Boswellic Acid Inhibits Prostate Tumor Growth by Suppressing Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor 2-Mediated Angiogenesis
Cancer Res., July 15, 2009; 69(14): 5893 - 5900.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
X. Pang, T. Yi, Z. Yi, S. G. Cho, W. Qu, D. Pinkaew, K. Fujise, and M. Liu
Morelloflavone, a Biflavonoid, Inhibits Tumor Angiogenesis by Targeting Rho GTPases and Extracellular Signal-Regulated Kinase Signaling Pathways
Cancer Res., January 15, 2009; 69(2): 518 - 525.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Molecular Cancer TherapeuticsHome page
T. Yi, S.-G. Cho, Z. Yi, X. Pang, M. Rodriguez, Y. Wang, G. Sethi, B. B. Aggarwal, and M. Liu
Thymoquinone inhibits tumor angiogenesis and tumor growth through suppressing AKT and extracellular signal-regulated kinase signaling pathways
Mol. Cancer Ther., July 1, 2008; 7(7): 1789 - 1796.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Molecular Cancer TherapeuticsHome page
D. Zhai, C. Jin, C.-w. Shiau, S. Kitada, A. C. Satterthwait, and J. C. Reed
Gambogic acid is an antagonist of antiapoptotic Bcl-2 family proteins
Mol. Cancer Ther., June 1, 2008; 7(6): 1639 - 1646.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
Correction: Gambogic Acid Inhibits Angiogenesis and Tumor Growth
Cancer Res., May 15, 2008; 68(10): 4012 - 4012.
[Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Correction (v68,p4012)
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 Yi, T.
Right arrow Articles by Liu, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Yi, T.
Right arrow Articles by Liu, M.

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