Article

Phosphatidylserine is a marker of tumor vasculature and a potential target for cancer imaging and therapy

Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75390-8594, USA.
International Journal of Radiation OncologyBiologyPhysics (Impact Factor: 4.18). 01/2003; 54(5):1479-84. DOI: 10.1016/S0360-3016(02)03928-7
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT (1) To determine whether exposure of phosphatidylserine (PS) occurs on vascular endothelium in solid tumors in mice. (2) To determine whether PS exposure can be induced on viable endothelial cells in tissue culture by conditions present in the tumor microenvironment.
Externalized PS in vivo was detected by injecting mice with a monoclonal anti-PS antibody and examining frozen sections of tumors and normal tissues for anti-PS antibody bound to vascular endothelium. Apoptotic cells were identified by anti-active caspase-3 antibody or by TUNEL assay. PS exposure on cultured endothelial cells was determined by 125I-annexin V binding.
Anti-PS antibody bound specifically to vascular endothelium in six tumor models. The percentage of PS-positive vessels ranged from 4% to 40% in different tumor types. Vascular endothelium in normal organs was unstained. Very few tumor vessels expressed apoptotic markers. Hypoxia/reoxygenation, acidity, inflammatory cytokines, thrombin, or hydrogen peroxide induced PS exposure on cultured endothelial cells without causing loss of viability.
Vascular endothelial cells in tumors, but not in normal tissues, externalize PS. PS exposure might be induced by tumor-associated oxidative stress and activating cytokines. PS is an abundant and accessible marker of tumor vasculature and could be used for tumor imaging and therapy.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
89 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite enormous progress in radiation technologies (high precision image-guided irradiation, proton irradiation, heavy ion irradiation), and radiotherapeutic concepts (hypofractionated irradiation schemes), the clinical outcome of radiotherapy in locally advanced and metastasized tumors and in hypoxic tumors which are radiation-resistant remain unsatisfactory. Given their key influence on a number of biological and immunological parameters, this article considers the influence of irradiation-induced stress proteins on radiation-induced immunomodulation. Depending on its location, the major stress-inducible Heat shock protein 70 (Hsp70) has been found to fulfill multiple roles. On the one hand, increased intracellular Hsp70 levels have been found to play a key role in the recovery from stress such as radio(chemo)therapy, and on the other hand extracellular Hsp70 proteins are potent stimulators of the innate immune system and mediators of anti-tumor immunity. Furthermore, if loaded with tumor-derived peptides, members of the Heat Shock Protein 70 (HSP70) and 90 (HSP90) families can stimulate the adaptive immune system via antigen cross-presentation. An irradiation-induced enhancement of the selective expression of a membrane form of Hsp70 on the surface of tumor cells which can act as a recognition structure for activated NK cells might have significant clinical relevance, in that the outcome of irradiation therapy for advanced tumors could be improved by combining it with cell-based and other immunotherapies that target this membrane form of Hsp70.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and melanoma are malignant human cancers of the skin with an annual mortality that exceeds 10,000 cases every year in the USA alone. In this study, the lysosomal protein saposin C (SapC) and the phos-pholipid dioloylphosphatidylserine (DOPS) were assembled into cancer-selective nanovesicles (SapC-DOPS) and suc-cessfully tested using several in vitro and in vivo skin cancer models. Using MTT assay that measures the percentage of cell death, SapC-DOPS cytotoxic effect on three skin tumor cell lines (squamous cell carcinoma, SK-MEL-28, and MeWo) was compared to two normal nontumorigenic skin cells lines, normal immortalized keratinocyte (NIK) and human fibroblast cell (HFC). We observed that the nanovesicles selectively killed the skin cancer cells by inducing apoptotic cell death whereas untransformed skin cancer cells remained unaffected. Using subcutaneous skin tumor xenografts, animals treated with SapC-DOPS by subcutaneous injection showed a 79.4% by volume tumor reduced compared to the control after 4 days of treatment. We observed that the nanovesicles killed skin cancer cells by induc-ing apoptotic cell death compared to the control as revealed by TUNEL staining of xenograft tumor sections.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Anti-vascular tumor therapy represents a promising new strategy for cancer treatment. Anti-vascular treatment may be divided in anti-angiogenic and vascular targeting therapy. Whereas anti-angiogenic drugs aim on the inhibition of new vessel formation, vascular targeting compounds are designed to selectively destruct preexisting tumor blood vessels leading to secondary tumor cell death. Both anti-angiogenic drugs and vascular targeting agents have proven effective anti-tumoral activity in numerous preclinical studies over the last decade. In vivo, a combination with anti-vascular tumor therapy enhances the effects of other treatment modalities as chemo- and radiotherapy. Phase I clinical studies revealed a number of well-tolerated candidates. As monotherapy, however, anti-angiogenic treatment lacked efficacy in randomized clinical studies so far. In contrast, combination of anti-angiogenic therapy with chemotherapy was highly effective in an encouraging, large randomized phase III trial on metastatic colorectal cancer. This review will outline recent advances in the preclinical and clinical development of anti-vascular therapy with focus on vascular targeting. Conceptual differences between anti-angiogenic and vascular targeting therapies will be discussed with emphasis on specific problems and pitfalls in the conversion into the clinic.
    Drug Resistance Updates 04/2004; 7(2):125-138. DOI:10.1016/S1368-7646(04)00024-X · 8.82 Impact Factor