Advertisement
Therapeutics, Targets, and Chemical Biology

Targetable T-type Calcium Channels Drive Glioblastoma

Ying Zhang, Nichola Cruickshanks, Fang Yuan, Baomin Wang, Mary Pahuski, Julia Wulfkuhle, Isela Gallagher, Alexander F. Koeppel, Sarah Hatef, Christopher Papanicolas, Jeongwu Lee, Eli E. Bar, David Schiff, Stephen D. Turner, Emanuel F. Petricoin, Lloyd S. Gray and Roger Abounader
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-16-2347 Published July 2017

Abstract

Glioblastoma (GBM) stem-like cells (GSC) promote tumor initiation, progression, and therapeutic resistance. Here, we show how GSCs can be targeted by the FDA-approved drug mibefradil, which inhibits the T-type calcium channel Cav3.2. This calcium channel was highly expressed in human GBM specimens and enriched in GSCs. Analyses of the The Cancer Genome Atlas and REMBRANDT databases confirmed upregulation of Cav3.2 in a subset of tumors and showed that overexpression associated with worse prognosis. Mibefradil treatment or RNAi-mediated attenuation of Cav3.2 was sufficient to inhibit the growth, survival, and stemness of GSCs and also sensitized them to temozolomide chemotherapy. Proteomic and transcriptomic analyses revealed that Cav3.2 inhibition altered cancer signaling pathways and gene transcription. Cav3.2 inhibition suppressed GSC growth in part by inhibiting prosurvival AKT/mTOR pathways and stimulating proapoptotic survivin and BAX pathways. Furthermore, Cav3.2 inhibition decreased expression of oncogenes (PDGFA, PDGFB, and TGFB1) and increased expression of tumor suppressor genes (TNFRSF14 and HSD17B14). Oral administration of mibefradil inhibited growth of GSC-derived GBM murine xenografts, prolonged host survival, and sensitized tumors to temozolomide treatment. Our results offer a comprehensive characterization of Cav3.2 in GBM tumors and GSCs and provide a preclinical proof of concept for repurposing mibefradil as a mechanism-based treatment strategy for GBM. Cancer Res; 77(13); 3479–90. ©2017 AACR.

Introduction

Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common primary malignant brain tumor. GBM is associated with a dismal prognosis and an average life expectancy of approximately 15 months despite optimal therapy consisting of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation (1). Lack of therapeutic success is attributed to various factors, including rapid tumor cell infiltration of the brain, inter- and intratumoral heterogeneity, limited diffusion of therapeutic drugs across the blood–brain barrier, and brain/tumor parenchyma as well as to the presence within the tumor of GBM stem cells (GSC) that are resistant to radio- and chemotherapy and that are capable of tumor generation and unlimited self-renewal (2–5). Overcoming GSC resistance to existing therapies or induction of GSC differentiation could greatly enhance therapeutic outcome.

Calcium signaling plays a ubiquitous role in many cellular regulatory processes (6–9), including proliferation, apoptosis, and gene transcription (10, 11). In addition, alteration of free cytosolic calcium results in the transcription of immediate early genes (12, 13), such as c-fos, c-jun, the cyclic AMP response element, and the serum response element. Expression of these genes triggers entry into the cell cycle through expression of cyclins and cyclin-dependent kinases (14–17). Calcium influx is mediated by voltage-gated Ca++ (Cav) channels (18), of which there are five types: L-type, P-type, N-type, R-type, and T-type. Aberrant expression and activity of T-type calcium channels (Cav3.2) have been implicated in cancer (19) through their role in the regulation of cell-cycle progression. In line with this, an increase in intracellular calcium, regulated by Cav3.2 expression, has been shown to regulate GBM cell proliferation (20, 21). Furthermore, calcium entry participates in the complex network responsible for mouse embryonic stem cell self-renewal (22). A very recent study, published while this manuscript was in revision, showed that membrane-depolarizing channel blockers induce selective glioma cell death by impairing nutrient transport and unfolded protein/amino acid responses (23).

This work aimed at studying the expression, functions, mechanisms of action, and therapeutic targeting of calcium channels with mibefradil and shRNA in combination with cytotoxic therapies. Mibefradil (C29H38FN3O3; Supplementary Fig. S1) is a T-type FDA-approved calcium channel blocker previously marketed by Roche as Posicor for the treatment of hypertension. Our data demonstrate that Cav3.2 is highly expressed in human GBM and GSCs and that expression correlates with patient survival. Inhibition of Cav3.2 suppressed both GSC growth and stemness and in vivo xenograft growth and sensitized GSCs to chemotherapy. Mechanistically, mibefradil altered multiple cancer-regulatory pathways as well as the expression of several oncogenes and tumor suppressors in GSCs. Mibefradil inhibited HIF1α/HIF2 expression under hypoxic conditions.

Materials and Methods

Cells and tumor specimens

Human GBM cell lines U87, A172, U373, T98G, and SNB19 were obtained from ATCC within the past 4 years and used at less than 20 passages. U1242, U251, and SF767 were kind gifts from Drs. Isa Hussaini and Dr. Benjamin Purow (University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA), and Dr. Russel Pieper (University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA), respectively. They were obtained within the past 10 years and used at less than 35 passages. Primary GBM cells (GBM-6 and GMB-10), a gift from Dr. Jann Sarkaria (Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN), were isolated from patients who underwent surgery at the Mayo Clinic and were used at less than 10 passages (24). GSCs XO-1, XO-2, XO-3, XO-4, XO-8, and XO-9, kindly offered by Dr. Deric Park, were isolated from GBM specimens obtained from patients undergoing surgery at the University of Pittsburgh (Pittsburgh, PA) and were used at less than 8 passages. GSCs 206, 827, and 578 (used at less than 12 passages) were isolated from patient surgical specimens. GSCs were characterized for in vivo tumorigenesis, pluripotency, self-renewal, stem cell markers, and neurosphere formation (25). Matched CD133-positive and CD133-negative cells isolated from GBM surgical specimens (used at one passage) were kindly provided by Dr. Rainer Glass (University Clinics Munich, Germany). All cell lines underwent testing for species and mycoplasma infection using Mycoplasma Detection Kit-QuickTest (Biotool). GBM surgical specimens were obtained from the University of Virginia Brain Tumor Bank according to procedures that were approved by the Review Board of the University of Virginia. All tumors were characterized by an experienced neuropathologist.

Immunoblotting

Immunoblotting was performed as described previously (26). Antibodies used were Cav3.2, Nestin, Tuj-1, and HIF1α (Santa Cruz Biotechnology), p27, GFAP, BMI1, MAP2, Bax, Sox2, mTOR, HIF2, and PARP (Cell Signaling Technology), β-actin and GAPDH (Santa Cruz Biotechnology).

Quantitative RT-PCR

Total RNA was extracted from GSCs using RNeasy Extraction Kit (Qiagen). cDNA was synthesized using the iScript cDNA Synthesis Kit (Bio-Rad), and quantitative PCR analysis was performed using the CFX Connect Real-Time System (Bio-Rad). GAPDH was used as an endogenous control. Primer sequences are listed in the Supplementary Methods.

Cell transfections

Lentiviral control vectors (sh-control) or vectors encoding Cav3.2 shRNA (sh-Cav3.2; pooled; Santa Cruz Biotechnology) or two additional sh-Cav3.2 (Applied Biological Materials) were generated. GSCs were seeded in poly-l-ornithine precoated plates and infected with the lentiviruses.

Cell death and cell proliferation assays

Cell death was assessed by Trypan blue assay. Cell proliferation was assessed by cell counting for 5 days as described previously (27). The Alamar Blue assay was utilized according to the manufacturer's instructions. All experiments were performed three times.

The Cancer Genome Atlas and REMBRANDT data analyses

Differential expression of Cav3.2 was analyzed in GBM (n = 607) and normal unmatched brain samples (n = 11) from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) data. The effect of Cav3.2 expression on patient survival was assessed using the cBioportal website (www.cBioportal.org). Differential expression of Cav3.2 and its correlation with survival was also assessed in the REMBRANDT database, which used an Affymetrix HG U133 v2.0 Plus platform to analyze 178 GBM samples.

Hypoxia experiments

GSCs were incubated in a hypoxic incubator (Thermo Fisher Scientific) with a 94:5:1 mixture of N2/CO2/O2. The cells were treated with mibefradil (5 μmol/L) or vehicle (water) in normoxia (5% O2) or hypoxia (1% O2) for 24 to 48 hours. The cells were subsequently subjected to immunoblotting for hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) proteins.

Reverse-phase protein arrays

Proteomic screening was performed by reverse-phase protein array (RPPA) as described previously (28–30). Protein analytes were chosen for analysis based on their previously described involvement in key aspects of tumor biology. All antibodies were validated for single-band specificity and for ligand induction (phospho-specific antibodies) by immunoblotting prior to use on the arrays as described previously (28–30). Additional details are in the Supplementary Methods.

RNA sequencing

GSCs were treated with mibefradil (5 μmol/L) or vehicle control for 24 hours at 37°C prior to RNA extraction. RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) was performed by Hudson Alpha as described in the Supplementary Methods.

Rescue experiments

Functional rescue experiments were performed to determine whether molecules regulated by mibefradil from proteomic and transcriptomic screenings mediate the effects of mibefradil on GSCs. The experimental details are described in the Supplementary Methods.

In vivo experiments

The therapeutic effects of inhibiting Cav3.2 with mibefradil were assessed using an orthotopic GSC-based xenograft mouse model. GSC 827 cells (3 × 105) were stereotactically implanted into the corpus striatum of immunodeficient mice (n = 10/treatment group). Six days after implantation, the animals were treated with control (H2O) or mibefradil (24 mg/kg) by oral gavage every 6 hours and/or temozolomide (100 mg/kg body weight) intraperitoneally once a day for 4 days. Treatment stopped for 7 days. Mice were treated for two cycles. Tumor volumes were visualized and quantified by MRI, and animal survival was determined.

IHC

IHC was used to assess the expressions of Ki67, cleaved caspase-3, SOX2, and GFAP in brain tumor xenograft sections. IHC was performed as described previously (31) using antibodies against Ki67, cleaved caspase-3, SOX2, or GFAP (Cell Signaling Technology), and secondary antibodies were conjugated with the fluorescent dyes Alexa 488 or Alexa 555 (Thermo Fisher Scientific).

Statistical analyses

To evaluate the statistical significance of in vivo animal experiments, we used both two-sample t test and nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test. The continuous variable RPPA data generated were subjected to both unsupervised and supervised statistical analyses. Statistical analyses were performed on final microarray intensity values obtained using R version 2.9.2 software (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing). If the distribution of variables for the analyzed groups was normal, a two-sample t test was performed. If the variances of two groups were equal, two-sample t test with a pooled variance procedure was used to compare the means of intensity between two groups. Otherwise, two-sample t test without a pooled variance procedure was adopted. For nonnormally distributed variables, the Wilcoxon rank sum test was used. Significance levels were set at P < 0.05.

For RNA-seq, raw FASTQ sequencing reads were chastity filtered to remove clusters having outlying intensity corresponding to bases other than the called base. Filtered reads were assessed for quality using FastQC. Reads were splice-aware aligned to the Ensembl GRCh38 genome using STAR (32), and reads overlapping GRCh38.82 gene regions were counted using featureCounts (33). The DESeq2 Bioconductor package (34) in the R statistical computing environment was used for normalizing count data, performing exploratory data analysis, estimating dispersion, and fitting a negative binomial model for each gene comparing the expression for each cell line comparison. After obtaining a list of differentially expressed genes, log fold changes, and P values, Benjamini–Hochberg FDR was used to correct P values for multiple testing.

Results

Cav3.2 is highly expressed in GBM tumor specimens and GSCs, and expression correlates with patient survival

To determine whether Cav3.2 is deregulated in GSCs and human tumor specimens, we measured Cav3.2 protein expression by immunoblotting and compared it with the expression in commonly used established cell lines and normal brain. The data show that Cav 3.2 is highly expressed in all GSCs and in some GBM cell lines (Fig. 1A). To determine whether the expression of Cav3.2 is enriched in the stem cell fraction, we assessed the level of Cav3.2 in CD133-positive and CD133-negative cells derived from the same tumors (elevated SOX2 expression and reduced GFAP expression in CD133-positive cells compared with CD133-negative cells confirmed the stem cell identity of these cells). Cav3.2 expression was several fold higher expressed in the CD133-positive fraction than in the corresponding CD133-negative fraction. This suggests a link between elevated Cav3.2 expression and the stem cell state (Fig. 1B). The majority of GBM tumor samples expressed high levels of Cav3.2, while expression in normal brain was uniformly low (Fig. 1C).

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Cav3.2 expression in GBM and correlation with stemness and patient survival. A, The GBM cell lines U87, A172, U373, U251, T98G, U1242, SNB-19, SF-767, primary GBM cells GBM-6 and GBM-10, GBM stem cells XO-1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9 and 206, 827, and 578 were lysed and immunoblotted for Cav3.2 and/or β-actin/GAPDH loading controls. B, Primary GBM cells (other than the ones of A) were sorted for CD133 expression by FACS and subjected to quantitative RT-PCR to determine the expression of CD133, SOX2, GFAP, and Cav3.2. C, GBM human specimens G1-G31 and normal brains N1-4 were subjected to immunoblotting for Cav3.2 and β-actin. D, TCGA (top) and REMBRANDT (bottom) data analyses of Cav3.2 (CACNA1H) mRNA expression and correlation with patient survival, provisional, mRNA expression z-scores (RNA Seq V2 RSEM, with a z-score threshold 1.0) in the top panel. The analyses showed worse survival with high expression of Cav3.2. The above data show high expression of Cav3.2 in a subset of GBM and GSCs and a trend toward inverse correlation with patient survival.

We also analyzed Cav3.2 expression in the TCGA and REMBRANDT databases. The TCGA analysis showed that 11% of GBM patients display either amplification, mutations or mRNA upregulation of Cav3.2. Patients with an alteration of Cav3.2 demonstrated a trend toward worse survival than patients with normal Cav3.2 [Cav3.2 mRNA expression z-scores (RNA-Seq V2 RSEM), with a z-score threshold 1.0; Fig. 1D, top]. The REMBRANDT analysis also showed worse survival with high expression of Cav3.2 at thresholds of 25 percentile (Fig. 1D, bottom).

The above data demonstrate that Cav3.2 is highly expressed in a subset of GBM tumors and GSCs and that high expression may correlate with poor prognosis.

Cav3.2 blockade inhibits cell growth, induces cell death, and enhances the effect of temozolomide in GSCs

To assess the effects of Cav3.2 inhibition on GSC function, we first tested the effects of mibefradil on cell growth, proliferation, and death, also in combination with temozolomide. GSCs (827, 206, and 578) were treated with mibefradil (2.5–5 μmol/L) and/or with temozolomide (400 nmol/L) and analyzed for growth by Alamar blue assay. The results showed that mibefradil significantly inhibited cell growth and enhanced the inhibition of GSC growth by temozolomide (Fig. 2A). To determine the effects of mibefradil on GSC proliferation, cells were treated with mibefradil (5 μmol/L) and/or temozolomide (400 nmol/L) and counted for 5 days. Mibefradil significantly inhibited cell proliferation and enhanced the inhibition of GSC proliferation by temozolomide (Fig. 2B). To determine whether mibefradil affects cell death, we treated cells as above and performed a Trypan blue assay. The results showed that mibefradil significantly enhances cell death also in combination with temozolomide (Fig. 2C). The above data show that mibefradil exhibits anticancer stem cell effects also in combination with temozolomide.

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Cav3.2 blocker mibefradil inhibits GSC growth and enhances the effects of temozolomide in GSCs. A, GSCs 827, 206, and 578 were treated with mibefradil (Mi) and/or temozolomide (TMZ) for 48 hours. The cells were subsequently assessed for cell growth by Alamar blue assay. B, GSCs were treated with mibefradil and temozolomide or control (Con). The cells were subsequently assessed for proliferation by cell counting over a period of 5 days, and growth curves were established. C, GSCs were treated with mibefradil and temozolomide or control for 48 hours, and cell death was assessed by Trypan blue assay. These data show that mibefradil induces GSC cell death, which is further enhanced by combinational treatment with temozolomide (P < 0.05). D, GSCs were seeded in precoated dishes with poly-l-ornithine. The cells were treated with mibefradil for 48 hours, fixed, and immunostained with differentiation markers, GFAP and Tuj-1 and stem cell marker Sox2. E, The GSCs were treated with mibefradil for 48 hours and then subjected to immunoblotting (quantified, numbers under blots) for the stem cell markers Nestin, Bmi1, Sox2, and astrocyte and neuronal markers GFAP and MAP2 and GAPDH control. These data show that mibefradil induces stem cell differentiation, evidenced by the downregulation of Nestin Bmi1 and Sox2 and upregulation of GFAP, Tuj1, or MAP2. *, P < 0.05 (mibefradil vs. combination).

Cav3.2 blockade induces GSC differentiation

Cav3.2 has been associated with differentiation of mouse embryonic stem cells (35). On the basis of that, we hypothesized that Cav3.2 might also regulate GSCs. To test this hypothesis, we determined the effects of mibefradil on the in situ expression of stemness and differentiation markers in GSCs using immunocytochemistry for the stemness and differentiation markers Sox2, GFAP, and Tuj1. Mibefradil treatment increased the differentiation markers, GFAP (astrocytes) and Tuj1 (neurons; Fig. 2D) and inhibited the expression of stem cell marker Sox2 (Fig. 2D). We confirmed the downregulation of stemness markers Nestin, Bmi1, and Sox2 as well as the upregulation of differentiation markers GFAP and MAP2 through immunoblotting (Fig. 2E). We also found, through RPPA, that mibefradil treatment decreased the protein level of CD133 while simultaneously increasing the level of GFAP (Fig. 4D). The above data indicate that mibefradil induces GSC differentiation.

Cav3.2 knockdown induces cell death and inhibits proliferation of GSCs

To confirm that the cell death and growth suppression induced by mibefradil was attributed to inhibition of Cav3.2, we silenced Cav3.2 with shRNA and analyzed the effect on cell proliferation and death. Cells were infected with lentivirus encoding either sh-control or sh-Cav3.2 for 48 hours. Cav3.2 knockdown by sh-Cav3.2 was verified by immunoblotting (Fig. 3A). The cells were counted at 3 and 5 days after lentivirus infection. Cav3.2 silencing significantly inhibited cell proliferation of GSCs (Fig. 3B). To assess whether Cav3.2 silencing affected cell death, cells were infected as above and a Trypan blue assay was performed. The data showed that silencing of Cav3.2 significantly enhanced cell death (Fig. 3C). To exclude off-target effects of sh-Cav3.2, we used two additional sh-Cav3.2 and found similar effects on cell proliferation and death (Supplementary Fig. S3). The above data show that silencing of Cav3.2 expression leads to comparable anticancer effects on GSCs as mibefradil treatment.

Figure 3.
Figure 3.

Silencing of Cav3.2 induces GSC death and inhibits GSC growth. A, GSCs 827 and 206 were transfected with sh-Cav3.2 or sh-control for 48 hours and subjected to immunoblotting for Cav3.2 and β-actin. B, GSCs were either transfected with sh-Cav3.2 or sh-control for 48 hours or treated with mibefradil (Mi) for 48 hours. Con, control. The cells were subsequently assessed for proliferation by cell counting over a period of 5 days, and growth curves were established. C, Cell death was assessed by Trypan blue assay. These data show that silencing Cav3.2 inhibits GSC proliferation and induces cell death in a similar manner to mibefradil. *, P < 0.05.

Mibefradil inhibits hypoxia-inducible factors HIF1α and HIF2 in GSCs

Hypoxia and HIF levels have been associated with GSC maintenance and resistance to therapy (36, 37). We hypothesized that Cav3.2 inhibition might affect hypoxia-induced HIF1 and HIF2 in GSCs. Thus, we determined Cav3.2 expression in a hypoxic environment and the effect of mibefradil on HIF1α and HIF2 expression. GSCs were grown in 1% oxygen for 24 hours, and the level of Cav3.2 was determined by immunoblotting. Hypoxia induced Cav3.2 expression (Supplementary Fig. S2A). HIF1α and HIF2 were increased in GSCs under hypoxic conditions compared with normoxic conditions (Supplementary Fig. S2B and S2C). HIF1α and HIF2 expressions were significantly suppressed by mibefradil treatment (Supplementary Fig. S2B and S2C), suggesting that mibefradil might overcome GBM resistance to chemotherapy partially through inhibition of HIF1α and HIF2 in GSCs.

Cav3.2 blockade inhibits several major oncogenic pathways in GSCs

To investigate the mechanism of action of Cav3.2 blockade with mibefradil in GSCs, we performed proteomic screenings using RPPAs in GSCs treated with or without mibefradil for 1 or 24 hours. The arrays measured the expressions and activation of >300 proteins associated with cancer. Mibefradil induced dramatic and significant changes in GSC signaling including inhibition of the AKT/mTOR prosurvival pathway as evidenced by decreased activation of AKT, mTOR, and 4EBP1 and upregulation of LKB1 and Tuberin/TSC2 phosphorylation (Fig. 4A). Mibefradil also induced signaling changes associated with the induction of cell-cycle arrest and apoptosis, including inhibition of survivin and activation of BAX, caspase-9, PARP, p27, and Rb (Fig. 4B and C). Mibefradil also affected molecules associated with DNA damage repair and autophagy (activation of ATM and LC3B; Fig. 4C). In addition, mibefradil inhibited the expression of the stemness marker CD133 and increased the expression of the astrocytic marker GFAP (Fig. 4D). Select random RPPA results (changes in p27, BAX, and cleaved PARP) were verified by immunoblotting (Fig. 4E). The above data show that mibefradil-mediated Cav3.2 inhibition inhibits GSC malignancy by acting on multiple key cancer-regulatory pathways.

Figure 4.
Figure 4.

Mibefradil inhibits several oncogenic pathways in GSC. GSCs were treated with vehicle control (Con; red) or mibefradil for 1 hour (green) or 24 hours (blue), and the cell lysate was subjected to RPPA. A, Mibefradil (Mi) downregulated the AKT/mTOR pathway while simultaneously upregulating LKB1 and TSC2. B, Mibefradil downregulated survivin and upregulated BAX, cleaved caspase-9, and cleaved PARP. C, Mibefradil upregulated p27, ATM, and LC3B. D, Mibefradil downregulated CD133 and upregulated GFAP. E, RPPA verification by immunoblotting. These data show that mibefradil inhibits prosurvival pathways while inducing cell-cycle arrest, apoptosis, and DNA damage (P < 0.05).

Cav3.2 blockade induces apoptosis and inhibits cell proliferation via Bax, p27, and mTOR

To determine whether BAX and p27 mediate the proapoptotic effect of mibefradil, we assessed the effects of silencing p27 and BAX on mibefradil-induced cell death. We transfected GSC cells with either si-control, si-BAX, or si-p27 before treating them with mibefradil for 48 hours. Inhibition of either BAX or p27 abrogated mibefradil-induced cell death (Fig. 5A). Silencing of BAX and p27 was confirmed by immunoblotting (Fig. 5B). To deduce the role of mTOR in mibefradil-mediated suppression of proliferation and cell death, we overexpressed mTOR prior to treating GSCs with mibefradil for 48 hours. Overexpression of mTOR partially mitigated mibefradil-induced cell death and growth suppression (Fig. 5C). Overexpression of mTOR was confirmed by immunoblotting (Fig. 5D). The above data show that the anticancer effects of Cav3.2 inhibition are partly mediated by the induction of apoptosis and inhibition of cell-cycle progression via regulation of mTOR, BAX, and p27.

Figure 5.
Figure 5.

Mibefradil induces apoptosis via Bax, p27, and mTOR. A, GSCs 206 and 827 cells were transiently transfected with either si-control, si-p27, or si-Bax for 48 hours and then treated with mibefradil (Mi) or control (Con) for 48 hours. Cell death was then assessed by Trypan blue as described previously. Inhibition of either BAX or p27 abrogated mibefradil-induced cell death. These data show mibefradil acts to induce GSC cell death through the induction of apoptosis. B, Immunoblotting was undertaken to verify silencing of BAX and p27. C, GSCs were transfected with either control plasmid (p-con) or plasmid encoding mTOR (p-mTOR) for 48 hours and then treated with mibefradil or control for 48 hours. Cell death was assessed by Trypan blue assay. The data show mibefradil induces GSC cell death partly by inhibiting mTOR. D, Immunoblotting was undertaken to verify overexpression of mTOR. *, P < 0.05.

Cav3.2 blockade alters gene expression in GSCs

As calcium is required for gene transcription (38, 39), we hypothesized that mibefradil might alter gene expression in GSCs. To test this hypothesis, we performed RNA deep sequencing (RNA-seq) on GSCs treated with vehicle control or mibefradil for 24 hours. Mibefradil significantly altered the expression of many genes (Fig. 6A and B). The RNA-seq data were partially verified by qRT-PCR (Fig. 6C). Notably, mibefradil induced the expression of several tumors suppressors, such as TNFRSF14 and HSD17B14, while simultaneously downregulating the expression of several oncogenes such as PDGFA, PDGFB, TGFB1, METTL7B, EGR3, and TNFRSF12A in GSCs. Interestingly, mibefradil-induced inhibition of METTL7B, a novel oncogene found overexpressed in primary stem-like GBM (40), and EGR3 (41), both of which may partially account for mibefradil-induced differentiation as well as decreased GSC proliferation and survival. RNA-seq data were deposited at the GEO database (accession # GSE95106).

Figure 6.
Figure 6.

Mibefradil alters gene expression in GSCs. GSCs (827) were treated with mibefradil or control for 24 hours prior to total RNA extraction. RNA deep sequencing (RNA-seq) was performed. A, The data analysis shows blockage of Cav3.2 by mibefradil alters gene expression, including downregulation of several oncogenes such as PDGFA, PDGFB, TGFB1, METTL7B, EGR3, and TNFRSF12A in GSC 827 and upregulation of tumor-suppressive NRP2. B, Confirmation of RNA-seq data by quantitative PCR (P < 0.05 for all shown genes).

Cav3.2 blockade inhibits in vivo tumor growth and enhances the effects of temozolomide

We tested the effects of mibefradil alone and in combination with temozolomide on the growth of established GSC xenografts and animal survival. GSC 827 cells (3 × 105) were stereotactically implanted in the striata of immunodeficient mice (n = 10). Six days after implantation, mibefradil (24 mg/kg bodyweight) was administered per oral gavage every 6 hours for 4 days. Temozolomide (100 mg/kg bodyweight) was concurrently administered intraperitoneally once a day for 4 days. The above treatment plan was repeated 7 days later. MRI scans were performed 21 days after surgery, and tumor sizes were measured. Animal survival was also assessed. The data show that mibefradil alone significantly inhibited tumor growth. This inhibition was of similar magnitude as temozolomide alone. Combined treatment with mibefradil and temozolomide inhibited tumor growth in an additive fashion (Fig. 7A and B). Similarly, both mibefradil and temozolomide alone significantly prolonged animal survival with the combination of both drugs further prolonging animal survival (Fig. 7C). IHC analysis of the xenografts revealed downregulation of the proliferation marker Ki67 and upregulation of the apoptosis regulator cleaved caspase-3 in mibefradil-treated xenografts. The expression of stem cell marker SOX2 was decreased, whereas the astrocyte marker GFAP was elevated in mibefradil-treated tumors (Fig. 7D). These data suggest that mibefradil is a promising drug for GBM therapy.

Figure 7.
Figure 7.

Mibefradil inhibits GSC xenograft growth and prolongs animal survival, also in combination with temozolomide. A, GSC 827 cells were stereotactically implanted in the striatum of immunodeficient mice (n = 10). Mibefradil (Mi) or vehicle control (Con) was administered by daily oral gavage starting 6 days after tumor implantation. The animals were subjected to MRI scan at 3 weeks after tumor implantation and tumor volumes were quantified (B). C, Animals were treated as in A, and survival was analyzed. The data show that mibefradil significantly inhibits tumor growth and sensitizes tumors to temozolomide treatment. D, IHC staining of xenograft sections from A for the proliferation marker Ki67, the apoptotic marker cleaved caspase-3, stem cell marker Sox2, and astrocyte marker GFAP showing significantly reduced Ki67 and increased cleaved caspase-3, as well as reduced Sox2 and elevated GFAP level in mibefradil-treated xenografts (sections at ×40 magnification; staining was quantified on sections with control set at 100). *, P < 0.05.

Discussion

Changes in intracellular Ca2+ levels can modulate signaling pathways and gene transcription that control a broad range of cellular events, including those important to tumorigenesis and cancer progression (42). Calcium channels are differentially expressed in malignant cells and alterations in their activity highlight the possible use of calcium channels as targets for new therapies (43, 44). Mibefradil is an orally bioavailable blocker of T- and L-type calcium channels, marketed by Roche as Posicor, for the treatment of hypertension. Although blood pressure–lowering effects are mediated by L channel blockade, mibefradil has end organ-protective effects that are mediated by T-type calcium channel inhibition, resulting in reduced proliferation (45). Mibefradil was previously tested for effects upon GBM cell growth (46), but its mechanism of action in GBM and GSCs is not well understood. In this study, we investigated the expression, function, mechanisms of action, and therapeutic value of targeting of T-type calcium channels in GBM and GSCs.

We showed that expression of Cav3.2 is increased in GBM tumors and GSCs. Increased expression of Cav3.2 in GBM correlated with poor prognosis, suggesting the possibility of targeting Cav3.2 for GBM therapy and improved patient survival. We established that mibefradil sensitized GSCs to temozolomide treatment, a key chemotherapeutic agent used in the treatment of GBM. GSCs partly mediate resistance to chemo- and radiotherapy and have become vital targets for reversal of chemoresistance. Notably, after surgical intervention and chemotherapy, resistant GSCs survive and are able to initiate and maintain malignant growth of GBM (4). We showed that mibefradil induced the differentiation of GSCs, as evidenced by the downregulation of GSC stemness markers, CD133, Nestin, Bmi1, and Sox2, and upregulation of differentiation markers GFAP, Tuj1, and MAP2. Although Cav3.2 inhibition strongly impairs GSC malignant parameters, it likely also affects differentiated bulk GBM cells as has been shown for the U87 cell line (21).

To establish whether the anticancer properties of mibefradil are attributed to inhibition of Cav3.2, we used shRNA to specifically silence Cav3.2. Silencing of Cav3.2 displayed similar anticancer effects as mibefradil treatment. This indicates that inhibition of Cav3.2 is the primary mechanism through which mibefradil exerts its known anticancer effects. We also discovered that Cav3.2 is upregulated in GSCs under hypoxic conditions and, importantly, mibefradil downregulated HIF1α and HIF2. Hypoxia strongly correlates with poor patient survival, therapeutic resistance, and an aggressive tumor phenotype. It was also previously demonstrated that GSCs are critically dependent on the HIFs for survival, self-renewal, and growth (47, 48). This suggests that mibefradil can inhibit GSC malignant parameters by reducing hypoxic pressure and inhibiting HIFs.

We investigated the mechanism of action of mibefradil on GSCs. Using proteomic screening, immunoblot validation, and functional rescue experiments, we found that cell cycle and apoptosis signaling pathways are significantly activated by mibefradil in GSCs, including decreased phosphorylation of AKT, mTOR, and 4EBP1 and upregulation of p27 KIP1, BAX, FOXO1, and cleaved PARP, leading to decreased tumor cell proliferation through downregulation of key survival pathways and cell-cycle arrest, respectively. Furthermore, silencing of p27 or Bax, both of which are upregulated in response to mibefradil treatment, abrogated drug-induced cell death, suggesting a role for p27 and BAX in mediating mibefradil toxicity. Also, overexpression of mTOR, which is downregulated in response to mibefradil treatment, inhibited drug-induced cell death.

To understand the effect of mibefradil on the transcriptome, we performed RNA-seq. We found that mibefradil treatment resulted in a decrease in expression of several oncogenes, such as PDGFA, PDGFB, TGFB1, METTL7B, EGR3, and TNFRSF12A, and an increase in the expression of numerous tumor suppressors, including TNFRSF14 and HSD17B14, confirmed by qRT-PCR. These data provide insights into the molecular basis of responsiveness to Cav3.2 inhibition in cancer cells, suggesting an important role for mibefradil in the regulation of genes implicated in cancer. In addition to the changes in protein function and gene transcription described above, blocking Cav3.2 might also influence GSC function by affecting resting membrane potential. In fact, recently published research has shown that brain tumor stem cells have elevated resting membrane potential that is regulated by connexins and EAG2 potassium channels to influence these cells' malignant functions (49, 50).

Mibefradil significantly reduced in vivo tumor growth and prolonged animal survival. In addition, combination of mibefradil with temozolomide further enhanced therapeutic effect and survival. These data have promising translational potential. Mibefradil, an FDA-approved low-toxicity therapeutic, could easily translate into clinical trials. Cavion LLC undertook a trial to assess the safety of mibefradil in 30 healthy patients, followed by a second trial (NCT01480050), in conjunction with NCI (Rockville, MD), to assess the efficiency and optimal dosage of mibefradil sequentially administered in combination with temozolomide in patients with recurrent GBM. A third trial (NCT02202993) is currently enrolling recurrent GBM patients to study the effect and safety of mibefradil combined with hypofractionated radiotherapy. This emphasizes the relevance of our study in establishing the molecular and functional basis of Cav3.2 targeting for GBM therapy. Our data also suggest that mibefradil is likely to achieve greater clinical benefits in patients in combination with temozolomide.

Altogether, our data show novel roles and mechanisms of action of T-type calcium channel Cav3.2 in GSCs and GBM (Supplementary Fig. S4) and support the use of mibefradil in combination with temozolomide for GBM therapy.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

D. Schiff is a consultant/advisory board member for Cavion. E.F. Petricoin is the chief science officer/consultant at Perthera, Inc., is a consultant at Ceres Nanosciences, Inc., has ownership interest (including patents) in Ceres Nanosciences, Inc. and Perthera, Inc., is a consultant/advisory board member for Ceres Nanosciences, Inc. and Perthera, Inc. L.S. Gray has ownership interest (including patents) in Cavion, LLC. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed by the other authors.

Authors' Contributions

Conception and design: Y. Zhang, D. Schiff, L.S. Gray, R. Abounader

Development of methodology: Y. Zhang, N. Cruickshanks, F. Yuan, L.S. Gray, R. Abounader

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): Y. Zhang, N. Cruickshanks, F. Yuan, M. Pahuski, I. Gallagher, S. Hatef, J. Lee, E.F. Petricoin

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): Y. Zhang, N. Cruickshanks, F. Yuan, M. Pahuski, A.F. Koeppel, S.D. Turner, E.F. Petricoin

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: Y. Zhang, N. Cruickshanks, F. Yuan, J. Wulfkuhle, E.E. Bar, D. Schiff, S.D. Turner, R. Abounader

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): Y. Zhang, N. Cruickshanks, B. Wang, C. Papanicolas

Study supervision: Y. Zhang, R. Abounader

Other (consultant): E.E. Bar

Grant Support

This work was supported by grants from the Commonwealth Research Commercialization Fund of Virginia (CRCF), the Virginia Biosciences Health Research Corporation (VBHRC), and NIH R01 grants NS045209 to R. Abounader and NIHR01 CA134843 to R. Abounader.

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/).

  • Received September 2, 2016.
  • Revision received February 22, 2017.
  • Accepted April 28, 2017.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Wen PY,
    2. Reardon DA
    . Neuro-oncology in 2015: progress in glioma diagnosis, classification and treatment. Nat Rev Neurol 2016;12:69–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Galli R,
    2. Binda E,
    3. Orfanelli U,
    4. Cipelletti B,
    5. Gritti A,
    6. De Vitis S,
    7. et al.
    Isolation and characterization of tumorigenic, stem-like neural precursors from human glioblastoma. Cancer Res 2004;64:7011–21.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Singh SK,
    2. Hawkins C,
    3. Clarke ID,
    4. Squire JA,
    5. Bayani J,
    6. Hide T,
    7. et al.
    Identification of human brain tumour initiating cells. Nature 2004;432:396–401.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Lathia JD,
    2. Mack SC,
    3. Mulkearns-Hubert EE,
    4. Valentim CL,
    5. Rich JN
    . Cancer stem cells in glioblastoma. Genes Dev 2015;29:1203–17.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Bao S,
    2. Wu Q,
    3. McLendon RE,
    4. Hao Y,
    5. Shi Q,
    6. Hjelmeland AB,
    7. et al.
    Glioma stem cells promote radioresistance by preferential activation of the DNA damage response. Nature 2006;444:756–60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Allbritton NL,
    2. Meyer T,
    3. Stryer L
    . Range of messenger action of calcium ion and inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate. Science 1992;258:1812–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Brink F
    . The role of calcium ions in neural processes. Pharmacol Rev 1954;6:243–98.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Brini M,
    2. Carafoli E
    . Calcium signalling: a historical account, recent developments and future perspectives. Cell Mol Life Sci 2000;57:354–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Rasmussen H,
    2. Rasmussen JE
    . Calcium as intracellular messenger: from simplicity to complexity. Curr Topics Cell Regul 1990;31:1–109.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Silver RB
    . Imaging structured space-time patterns of Ca2+ signals: essential information for decisions in cell division. FASEB J 1999;13:S209–15.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Deliot N,
    2. Constantin B
    . Plasma membrane calcium channels in cancer: Alterations and consequences for cell proliferation and migration. Biochim Biophys Acta 2015;1848:2512–22.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    1. Roche E,
    2. Prentki M
    . Calcium regulation of immediate-early response genes. Cell Calcium 1994;16:331–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Rozengurt E
    . Early signals in the mitogenic response. Science 1986;234:161–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Werlen G,
    2. Belin D,
    3. Conne B,
    4. Roche E,
    5. Lew DP,
    6. Prentki M
    . Intracellular Ca2+ and the regulation of early response gene expression in HL-60 myeloid leukemia cells. J Biol Chem 1993;268:16596–601.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Sheng M,
    2. Thompson MA,
    3. Greenberg ME
    . CREB: a Ca(2+)-regulated transcription factor phosphorylated by calmodulin-dependent kinases. Science 1991;252:1427–30.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Lu KP,
    2. Means AR
    . Regulation of the cell cycle by calcium and calmodulin. Endocr Rev 1993;14:40–58.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Morgan DO
    . Principles of CDK regulation. Nature 1995;374:131–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Rao VR,
    2. Perez-Neut M,
    3. Kaja S,
    4. Gentile S
    . Voltage-gated ion channels in cancer cell proliferation. Cancers 2015;7:849–75.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Santoni G,
    2. Santoni M,
    3. Nabissi M
    . Functional role of T-type calcium channels in tumour growth and progression: prospective in cancer therapy. Br J Pharmacol 2012;166:1244–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Valerie NC,
    2. Dziegielewska B,
    3. Hosing AS,
    4. Augustin E,
    5. Gray LS,
    6. Brautigan DL,
    7. et al.
    Inhibition of T-type calcium channels disrupts Akt signaling and promotes apoptosis in glioblastoma cells. Biochem Pharmacol 2013;85:888–97.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Zhang Y,
    2. Zhang J,
    3. Jiang D,
    4. Zhang D,
    5. Qian Z,
    6. Liu C,
    7. et al.
    Inhibition of T-type Ca(2)(+) channels by endostatin attenuates human glioblastoma cell proliferation and migration. Br J Pharmacol 2012;166:1247–60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Rodriguez-Gomez JA,
    2. Levitsky KL,
    3. Lopez-Barneo J
    . T-type Ca2+ channels in mouse embryonic stem cells: modulation during cell cycle and contribution to self-renewal. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 2012;302:C494–504.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Niklasson M,
    2. Maddalo G,
    3. Sramkova Z,
    4. Mutlu E,
    5. Wee S,
    6. Sekyrova P,
    7. et al.
    Membrane-depolarizing channel blockers induce selective glioma cell death by impairing nutrient transport and unfolded protein/amino acid responses. Cancer Res 2017;77:1741–52.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Sarkaria JN,
    2. Carlson BL,
    3. Schroeder MA,
    4. Grogan P,
    5. Brown PD,
    6. Giannini C,
    7. et al.
    Use of an orthotopic xenograft model for assessing the effect of epidermal growth factor receptor amplification on glioblastoma radiation response. Clin Cancer Res 2006;12:2264–71.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    1. Kim E,
    2. Kim M,
    3. Woo DH,
    4. Shin Y,
    5. Shin J,
    6. Chang N,
    7. et al.
    Phosphorylation of EZH2 activates STAT3 signaling via STAT3 methylation and promotes tumorigenicity of glioblastoma stem-like cells. Cancer Cell 2013;23:839–52.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Li Y,
    2. Guessous F,
    3. DiPierro C,
    4. Zhang Y,
    5. Mudrick T,
    6. Fuller L,
    7. et al.
    Interactions between PTEN and the c-Met pathway in glioblastoma and implications for therapy. Mol Cancer Ther 2009;8:376–85.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. Zhang Y,
    2. Kim J,
    3. Mueller AC,
    4. Dey B,
    5. Yang Y,
    6. Lee DH,
    7. et al.
    Multiple receptor tyrosine kinases converge on microRNA-134 to control KRAS, STAT5B, and glioblastoma. Cell Death Differ 2014;21:720–34.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Einspahr JG,
    2. Calvert V,
    3. Alberts DS,
    4. Curiel-Lewandrowski C,
    5. Warneke J,
    6. Krouse R,
    7. et al.
    Functional protein pathway activation mapping of the progression of normal skin to squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Prev Res 2012;5:403–13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    1. Pierobon M,
    2. Vanmeter AJ,
    3. Moroni N,
    4. Galdi F,
    5. Petricoin EF III.
    . Reverse-phase protein microarrays. Methods Mol Biol 2012;823:215–35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Paweletz CP,
    2. Charboneau L,
    3. Bichsel VE,
    4. Simone NL,
    5. Chen T,
    6. Gillespie JW,
    7. et al.
    Reverse phase protein microarrays which capture disease progression show activation of pro-survival pathways at the cancer invasion front. Oncogene 2001;20:1981–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Zhang Y,
    2. Schiff D,
    3. Park D,
    4. Abounader R
    . MicroRNA-608 and microRNA-34a regulate chordoma malignancy by targeting EGFR, Bcl-xL and MET. PLoS One 2014;9:e91546.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Dobin A,
    2. Davis CA,
    3. Schlesinger F,
    4. Drenkow J,
    5. Zaleski C,
    6. Jha S,
    7. et al.
    STAR: ultrafast universal RNA-seq aligner. Bioinformatics 2013;29:15–21.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    1. Liao Y,
    2. Smyth GK,
    3. Shi W
    . featureCounts: an efficient general purpose program for assigning sequence reads to genomic features. Bioinformatics 2014;30:923–30.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. 34.↵
    1. Love MI,
    2. Huber W,
    3. Anders S
    . Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol 2014;15:550.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Yanagi K,
    2. Takano M,
    3. Narazaki G,
    4. Uosaki H,
    5. Hoshino T,
    6. Ishii T,
    7. et al.
    Hyperpolarization-activated cyclic nucleotide-gated channels and T-type calcium channels confer automaticity of embryonic stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes. Stem Cells 2007;25:2712–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Pajonk F,
    2. Vlashi E,
    3. McBride WH
    . Radiation resistance of cancer stem cells: the 4 R's of radiobiology revisited. Stem Cells 2010;28:639–48.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Crowder SW,
    2. Balikov DA,
    3. Hwang YS,
    4. Sung HJ
    . Cancer stem cells under hypoxia as a chemoresistance factor in breast and brain. Curr Pathobiol Rep 2014;2:33–40.
    OpenUrl
  38. 38.↵
    1. Lyons MR,
    2. West AE
    . Mechanisms of specificity in neuronal activity-regulated gene transcription. Prog Neurobiol 2011;94:259–95.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Azimi I,
    2. Roberts-Thomson SJ,
    3. Monteith GR
    . Calcium influx pathways in breast cancer: opportunities for pharmacological intervention. Br J Pharmacol 2014;171:945–60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Ernst A,
    2. Hofmann S,
    3. Ahmadi R,
    4. Becker N,
    5. Korshunov A,
    6. Engel F,
    7. et al.
    Genomic and expression profiling of glioblastoma stem cell-like spheroid cultures identifies novel tumor-relevant genes associated with survival. Clin Cancer Res 2009;15:6541–50.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. 41.↵
    1. Liu D,
    2. Evans I,
    3. Britton G,
    4. Zachary I
    . The zinc-finger transcription factor, early growth response 3, mediates VEGF-induced angiogenesis. Oncogene 2008;27:2989–98.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Marchi S,
    2. Pinton P
    . Alterations of calcium homeostasis in cancer cells. Curr Opin Pharmacol 2016;29:1–6.
    OpenUrl
  43. 43.↵
    1. Monteith GR,
    2. Davis FM,
    3. Roberts-Thomson SJ
    . Calcium channels and pumps in cancer: changes and consequences. J Biol Chem 2012;287:31666–73.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 44.↵
    1. Stewart TA,
    2. Yapa KT,
    3. Monteith GR
    . Altered calcium signaling in cancer cells. Biochim Biophys Acta 2015;1848:2502–11.
    OpenUrl
  45. 45.↵
    1. Tzivoni D
    . End organ protection by calcium-channel blockers. Clin Cardiol 2001;24:102–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    1. Keir ST,
    2. Friedman HS,
    3. Reardon DA,
    4. Bigner DD,
    5. Gray LA
    . Mibefradil, a novel therapy for glioblastoma multiforme: cell cycle synchronization and interlaced therapy in a murine model. J Neurooncol 2013;111:97–102.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    1. Zhang C,
    2. Samanta D,
    3. Lu H,
    4. Bullen JW,
    5. Zhang H,
    6. Chen I,
    7. et al.
    Hypoxia induces the breast cancer stem cell phenotype by HIF-dependent and ALKBH5-mediated m6A-demethylation of NANOG mRNA. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2016;113:E2047–56.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. 48.↵
    1. Mathieu J,
    2. Zhang Z,
    3. Zhou W,
    4. Wang AJ,
    5. Heddleston JM,
    6. Pinna CM,
    7. et al.
    HIF induces human embryonic stem cell markers in cancer cells. Cancer Res 2011;71:4640–52.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. 49.↵
    1. Hitomi M,
    2. Deleyrolle LP,
    3. Mulkearns-Hubert EE,
    4. Jarrar A,
    5. Li M,
    6. Sinyuk M,
    7. et al.
    Differential connexin function enhances self-renewal in glioblastoma. Cell Rep 2015;11:1031–42.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. 50.↵
    1. Huang X,
    2. He Y,
    3. Dubuc AM,
    4. Hashizume R,
    5. Zhang W,
    6. Reimand J,
    7. et al.
    EAG2 potassium channel with evolutionarily conserved function as a brain tumor target. Nat Neurosci 2015;18:1236–46.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
Back to top
View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Targetable T-type Calcium Channels Drive Glioblastoma
Ying Zhang, Nichola Cruickshanks, Fang Yuan, Baomin Wang, Mary Pahuski, Julia Wulfkuhle, Isela Gallagher, Alexander F. Koeppel, Sarah Hatef, Christopher Papanicolas, Jeongwu Lee, Eli E. Bar, David Schiff, Stephen D. Turner, Emanuel F. Petricoin, Lloyd S. Gray and Roger Abounader
Cancer Res July 1 2017 (77) (13) 3479-3490; DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-16-2347
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo

Jump to section

Advertisement