Epigenetic Perspective of Immunotherapy for Cancers.

Immunotherapy has brought new hope for cancer patients in recent times. However, despite the promising success of immunotherapy, there is still a need to address major challenges including heterogeneity in response among patients, the reoccurrence of the disease, and iRAEs (immune-related adverse effects). The first critical step towards solving these issues is understanding the epigenomic events that play a significant role in the regulation of specific biomolecules in the context of the immune population present in the tumor immune microenvironment (TIME) during various treatments and responses. A prominent advantage of this step is that it would enable researchers to harness the reversibility of epigenetic modifications for their druggability. Therefore, we reviewed the crucial studies in which varying epigenomic events were captured with immuno-oncology set-ups. Finally, we discuss the therapeutic possibilities of their utilization for the betterment of immunotherapy in terms of diagnosis, progression, and cure for cancer patients.

Evaluation of Epigenetic Drug Targeting of Heterogenous Tumor Cell Fractions Using Potential Biomarkers of Response in Ovarian Cancer.

PURPOSE: Resolution of aberrant epigenetic changes leading to altered gene expression during transformation and tumor progression is pertinent for mechanistic understanding of disrupted pathways in cancer. Such changes provide for biomarkers that can be applied in drug screening and improved disease management. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Genome-wide profiling and analyses of promoter DNA methylation, histone modifications, and gene expression of an in vitro progression model of serous ovarian adenocarcinoma were carried out. Similar in silico analyses and comparison of methylation and gene expression of early- and late-grade ovarian cancer samples in The Cancer Genome Atlas assigned a clinical relevance to our study. Candidate biomarkers were evaluated for epigenetic drug treatments in experimental animal models on a background of differing tumor cell responses arising from intratumor heterogeneity. RESULTS: Differentially regulated genes during tumor progression were identified through the previously mentioned analyses as candidate biomarkers. In examining the tumor suppressor PTGIS as a potential biomarker for treatment with either 5-Aza-dC or TSA, 5-Aza-dC effectively stabilized cell cycling, restricted genetic instability, and derepressed PTGIS expression, while TSA led to emergence of drug-resistant progenitors lacking PTGIS expression. Profiling MEST and RXRγ for curcumin and CBB1007, respectively, indicated an inability of curcumin and CBB1007 in restricting residual tumor regenerative capabilities. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides novel insights into epigenetic regulation in ovarian cancer progression and potential biomarkers for evaluating efficacy of epigenetic drugs in restricting residual tumor regeneration. Such approaches may assign a new functional interpretation of drug efficacy and cell tumor responses in ovarian cancer.

Differences in DNA condensation and release by lysine and arginine homopeptides govern their DNA delivery efficiencies.

Designing of nanocarriers that can efficiently deliver therapeutic DNA payload and allow its smooth intracellular release for transgene expression is still a major constraint. The optimization of DNA nanocarriers requires thorough understanding of the chemical and structural characteristics of the vector-nucleic acid complexes and its correlation with the cellular entry, intracellular state and transfection efficiency. L-lysine and L-arginine based cationic peptides alone or in conjugation with other vectors are known to be putative DNA delivery agents. Here we have used L-lysine and L-arginine homopeptides of three different lengths and probed their DNA condensation and release properties by using a multitude of biophysical techniques including fluorescence spectroscopy, gel electrophoresis and atomic force microscopy. Our results clearly showed that although both lysine and arginine based homopeptides condense DNA via electrostatic interactions, they follow different pattern of DNA condensation and release in vitro. While lysine homopeptides condense DNA to form both monomolecular and multimolecular complexes and show differential release of DNA in vitro depending on the peptide length, arginine homopeptides predominantly form multimolecular complexes and show complete DNA release for all peptide lengths. The cellular uptake of the complexes and their intracellular state (as observed through flow cytometry and fluorescence microscopy) seem to be controlled by the peptide chemistry. The difference in the transfection efficiency of lysine and arginine homopeptides has been rationalized in light of these observations.