Ayyappan Nair, Ph.D.
Head, Business Development (Technologies, Discovery Biology), Anthem Biosciences & DavosPharma, New Jersey, USA
Inhibition of NF-κB regulated gene expression by chrysoeriol suppresses tumorigenesis in breast cancer cells
Amrutha K1, Pandurangan Nanjan1, Sanu K Shaji1, Damu Sunilkumar1, Subhalakshmi K1, Rashmi U Nair1, Lakshmi Rajakrishna2, Asoke Banerji1, Ayyappan Ramesh Nair1*,2
- School of Biotechnology, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Amritapuri Campus, Clappana P.O., Kollam – 690 525, Kerala, India
- Anthem Biosciences, No 49, Canara Bank Road, Bommasandra Industrial Area, Phase 1, Hosur Road, Bangalore – 560 099, Karnataka, India
Abstract: A large number of effective cancer-preventing compounds inhibit the activation of nuclear factor-κ B (NF-κB). It has been previously demonstrated that some flavonoids that are a vital component of our diet inhibits this pathway. As a consequence, many flavonoids inhibit genes involved in various aspects of tumorigenesis and have thus emerged as potential chemopreventive candidates for cancer treatment. We studied the effect of 17 different flavonoids, including the highly evaluated quercetin on the NF-κB pathway, and on the expression of MMP-9 and COX-2 (two NF-κB regulated genes involved in metastasis) in the highly invasive human breast cancer cell line MDA-MB-231. The findings suggest that not all the quercetin like flavone backbone compounds inhibit the NF-κB pathway, and that the highly hydoxylated flavonols quercetagetin and gossypetin did not inhibit this pathway, nor did it inhibit the expression of MMP-9 and COX-2. This indicates a correlation between inhibition of NF-κB and subsequent suppression of these NF-κB regulated genes. Here, we also report the novel observation that the not so well characterized methoxylated flavone chrysoeriol inhibited the NF-κB pathway, and was most potent in reducing the expression of MMP-9 and COX-2. Based on these observations, the cellular effects of chrysoeriol were evaluated in MDA-MB-231. Chrysoeriol caused cell cycle arrest at G2/M, inhibited migration and invasion, and caused cell death of macrophages that contributed to migration of these cancer cells. These effects of chrysoeriol make it a potential therapeutic candidate for breast cancer metastasis.
Abhijeet Kate, Arpana G Panicker, Diana Writer, Giridharan P, Keshav K V Ramamoorthy, Saji George, Shailendra K Sonawane
Protoplast fusion and transformation: A tool for activation of latent gene clusters
In the quest to discover new bioactive leads for unmet medical needs, actinomycetes present a treasure trove of undiscovered molecules. The ability of actinomycetes to produce antibiotics and other bioactive secondary metabolites has been underestimated due to sparse studies of cryptic gene clusters. These gene clusters can be tapped to explore scaffolds hidden in them. The up-regulation of the dormant genes is one of the most important areas of interest in the bioactive compounds discovery from microbial resources. Genome shuffling is a powerful tool for the activation of such gene clusters. Lei Yu, et al.1, reported enhancement of the lactic acid production in Lactobacillus rhamnosus through genome shuffling brought about by protoplast fusion. D. A. Hopwood et al.2 suggested that an interspecific recombination between strains producing different secondary metabolites, generate producers of ‘hybrid’ antibiotics. They also mentioned that an intraspecific fusion of actinomycetes protoplast bring about random and high frequency recombination. Protoplasts can also be used as recipients for isolated DNA, again in the presence of polyethylene glycol (PEG). In our study we had undertaken random genome shuffling by protoplast fusion of two, rather poorly expressed actinomycetes strains A (Figure 1) & B (Figure 2), mediated by PEG; and also by naked DNA transformation of Strain A protoplast with the DNA of Strain B. We generated eight protoplast fusants and seven transformants from parents considering their morphological difference from the two parent strains. These 15 recombinants were checked for their same colony morphologies for five generations to ensure phenotypic stability. Antibiotic resistance pattern was established by using antibiotic octodisc to generate a marker profile of the recombinants and the parent strains. Eight fusants (AP-18, AP-25, AP-2, AP-11, AP-14, AP-19, AP-11 and AP-27) and four transformants (TAP-30, TAP-31, TAP-32 and TAP-33) (Table 1) have shown a different antibiotic sensitivity pattern as compared to the parent strains. We envisage that these recombinants harbor shuffled gene clusters. To support array of conditions to express such shuffled/cryptic genes the recombinants were fermented in 11 different nutrient stress variants. The extracts generated were subjected to metabolite profiling by HPLC-ELSD, bioactivity screening for cytotoxicity and anti-infective capabilities. Two fusants AP-11 (Figure 3) and AP-25; one transformant TAP-32 (in growth media MBA-5 and MBA-7) displayed antifungal activity unlike parent strains (Table 2) Fusant AP-11 (Table 5) exhibited significant cell growth inhibition of five different cancer cell lines. The parents Strain A and Strain B did not exhibit any cell growth inhibition of these cell lines (Table 5). The metabolite profiling of fusant AP-11 and transformant TAP-32 was done by HPLC-ELSD. AP-11 showed the presence of five additional peaks (Figure 5 & Figure 6); TAP-32 extract from medium MBA-5 (Figure 7 & Figure 8) showed the presence of four additional peaks and TAP-32 extract from MBA-7 (Figure 9 & Figure 10) showed 14 additional peaks as compared to parent strains in similar medium and media controls. The study indicated that protoplast fusion and transformation have not only caused morphological changes but also shuffled genes responsible for synthesis of bioactive molecules. Further characterization of these new peaks is warranted.
Binu K Aa, Jem Prabhakarb, Thara Sc and Lakshmi Sd,∗
aDepartment of Clinical Diagnostics Services and Translational Research, Malabar Cancer Centre, Thalassery, Kerala, India.
bDivision of Surgical Oncology, Division of Pathology
dDivision of Cancer Research, Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India.
Introduction
AIB1, a member of the nuclear co activators, promotes the transcriptional activity of multiple nuclear receptors such as the ER and other transcription factors. Chemokines produced by stromal cells have potential to influence ERα-positive breast cancer progression to metastasis. CXCR4 is the physiological receptor for SDF1, together shown to stimulate the chemotactic and invasive behavior of breast cancer cells to serve as a homing mechanism to sites of metastasis. We propose that over expression of AIB1 in breast cancer cells leads to increased SDF1 and CXCR4 expression, which induces invasion and metastasis of cancer cells.
Materials and Methods
Breast tumor and normal breast tissues from patients in Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram were used for study. The modulatory effect of AIB1 was studied in MCF-7 cells with AIB1 siRNA transfection along with treatment of 17β-Estradiol (E2), 4-hydroxytamoxifen (4OHT), combinations of E2 and 4OHT. The gene expression pattern and protein localization were assessed by RT-PCR and immunofluorescence microscopy respectively. The metastatic and invasive properties were assessed by wound healing assay. Quantitative colocalization analyses were done to assess the association of proteins using Pearson’s correlation coefficient.
Result and Conclusion
The mRNA and protein level expression of AIB1, CXCR4 and SDF1 were higher in tumor samples than in normal samples. AIB1 was localized to the nuclei whereas CXCR4 and SDF1 immunoreactivity were observed in the cytoplasm and to a lesser extent in the nuclei of tumor epithelial cells. In tumor samples the gene level expressions of AIB1 showed significant positive correlations with SDF1(r = 0.213, p = 0.018). CXCR4 showed significant positive correlation with SDF1 in gene (r = 0.498, p = 0.000) and protein levels(r = 0.375, p = 0.002). Quantitative colocalization analyses showed a marked reduction in expression of CXCR4 and SDF1 in siAIB1MCF-7 cells than MCF-7 cells with different treatment groups. Wound healing assay shows reduced wound healing in siAIB1 treated MCF-7 cells.
In recent years, targeting specific cancer pathways and key molecules to arrest tumor growth and achieve tumor eradication have proven a challenge; due to acquired resistance and homing of cancer cells to various metastatic sites. The present study revealed that silencing AIB1 can prevent the over expression of SDF1 and CXCR4. Co activator levels determine the basal and estrogen-inducible expression of SDF1, a secreted protein that controls breast cancer cell proliferation and invasion through autocrine and paracrine mechanisms (Hall et al. 2003). The effects of CXCR4 overexpression has been correlated with SDF1 mediated activation of downstream signaling via ERK1/2 and p38 MAPK and with an enhancement of ER-mediated gene expression (Rhodes et al. 2011). It is possible that over expression of AIB1 as a stimulant involved in the expression of CXCR4 might up-regulate the expression of prometastatic and angiogenic genes. Thus based on these observations it can be concluded that SDF1/CXCR4 overexpression, with significant association with AIB1 expression, itself contribute to the development of mammary cancer and metastatic progression.
Leland H. Hartwell Ph.D.
2001 Nobel Laureate, Physiology & Medicine
Dr. Lee Hartwell received the 2001 Nobel Prize in Physiology / Medicine for his discovery of protein molecules that control the division of cells. He was the President and Director of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington before moving to Arizona State University’s Center for Sustainable Health.
Dr. Hartwell is also adjunct faculty at Amrita University. He spoke to the delegates at Bioquest from his office in the US, over Amrita’s e-learning platform A-View. Given below are excerpts from his address.
I would like to address the young people in the audience. I know that many of you may have come to this meeting wondering, “How can I become a successful scientist? How can I prepare myself to make a contribution in this world?”
These questions are interesting to me also.
Believe it or not, I am still trying to be a successful scientist. That may surprise you since you probably think that a Nobel laureate must have found the answers. But the problem is that the answers to these questions change with time and the answers are different today than what they were when I began my career fifty years ago. The strategy of the 1960’s doesn’t work so well anymore. What is different now?
First, what we know now is much more. For example, by 1970, no genes from any organisms were sequenced. In 2013, we have the complete sequence of the human genome. Second, not only do we know much more today, accessing that knowledge is easy. Third, obtaining new information is much faster today.
Our rich understanding of science and technology is now needed to solve many serious problems. The human population has reached the size where we are utilizing all available resource of the planet. We are utilizing all of the agricultural land, all of the water, all of the forest and fishing resources. We are also polluting the planet that we live on.
We are polluting the land with fertilizers and pesticides; the oceans with acids and the atmosphere with carbon dioxide. We are using up top soil and ground water, thereby reducing our capacity to feed ourselves. We are using up petroleum, the energy source that our entire economy is dependent on. These are problems we were largely unaware of, fifty years ago. But these are problems that must be solved in your life times.
The big question facing your generation is, how can human beings live sustainably on planet earth. Your two broad goals on sustainability are 1) leave the planet as you first found it for your future generations; don’t use up the resources and don’t pollute the planet 2) everyone deserves to have an equal share of the earth’s resources.
Income strongly determines one’s opportunities in life. Many poor people succumb to chronic diseases and unhealthy environments. This inequality undermines our ability to live sustainably. We can’t ask the poor to leave the planet as they found it if they can’t support their families. Education, healthcare, employment are essential to having a sustainable society.
How can we be a successful scientist in 2013?
1. First choose a problem to solve
2. Ask questions to understand why it is not solved
3. Collaborate with those who can help
4. Develop a solution that works in the real worldChronic diseases are our major burden and this burden will get worse. Heart disease, diabetes, cancer, dementia and other diseases. The good news is that the chronic diseases are largely preventable and more easily curable if detected early. One question that attracts me is how can we detect disease earlier when it can be more easily cured?
Can we use our increasing knowledge in molecular biology to identify biomarkers for early disease detection?
We need to collaborate very closely with clinicians who care for patients to find out exactly where they need help.
I think if we apply our technology to important clinical questions we will actually save medical expenditure and be well on our way to making a great contribution to society.
Nader Pourmand, Ph.D.
Director, UCSC Genome Technology Center,University of California, Santa Cruz
Biosensor and Single Cell Manipulation using Nanopipettes
Approaching sub-cellular biological problems from an engineering perspective begs for the incorporation of electronic readouts. With their high sensitivity and low invasiveness, nanotechnology-based tools hold great promise for biochemical sensing and single-cell manipulation. During my talk I will discuss the incorporation of electrical measurements into nanopipette technology and present results showing the rapid and reversible response of these subcellular sensors to different analytes such as antigens, ions and carbohydrates. In addition, I will present the development of a single-cell manipulation platform that uses a nanopipette in a scanning ion-conductive microscopy technique. We use this newly developed technology to position the nanopipette with nanoscale precision, and to inject and/or aspirate a minute amount of material to and from individual cells or organelle without comprising cell viability. Furthermore, if time permits, I will show our strategy for a new, single-cell DNA/ RNA sequencing technology that will potentially use nanopipette technology to analyze the minute amount of aspirated cellular material.