The tumor-enriched small molecule gambogic amide suppresses glioma by targeting WDR1-dependent cytoskeleton remodeling.

Glioma is the most prevalent brain tumor, presenting with limited treatment options, while patients with malignant glioma and glioblastoma (GBM) have poor prognoses. The physical obstacle to drug delivery imposed by the blood‒brain barrier (BBB) and glioma stem cells (GSCs), which are widely recognized as crucial elements contributing to the unsatisfactory clinical outcomes. In this study, we found a small molecule, gambogic amide (GA-amide), exhibited the ability to effectively penetrate the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and displayed a notable enrichment within the tumor region. Moreover, GA-amide exhibited significant efficacy in inhibiting tumor growth across various in vivo glioma models, encompassing transgenic and primary patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models. We further performed a genome-wide clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) knockout screen to determine the druggable target of GA-amide. By the combination of the cellular thermal shift assay (CETSA), the drug affinity responsive target stability (DARTS) approach, molecular docking simulation and surface plasmon resonance (SPR) analysis, WD repeat domain 1 (WDR1) was identified as the direct binding target of GA-amide. Through direct interaction with WDR1, GA-amide promoted the formation of a complex involving WDR1, MYH9 and Cofilin, which accelerate the depolymerization of F-actin to inhibit the invasion of patient-derived glioma cells (PDCs) and induce PDC apoptosis via the mitochondrial apoptotic pathway. In conclusion, our study not only identified GA-amide as an effective and safe agent for treating glioma but also shed light on the underlying mechanisms of GA-amide from the perspective of cytoskeletal homeostasis.

Gambogic amide inhibits angiogenesis by suppressing VEGF/VEGFR2 in endothelial cells in a TrkA-independent manner.

CONTEXT: Gambogic amide (GA-amide) is a non-peptide molecule that has high affinity for tropomyosin receptor kinase A (TrkA) and possesses robust neurotrophic activity, but its effect on angiogenesis is unclear. OBJECTIVE: The study investigates the antiangiogenic effect of GA-amide on endothelial cells (ECs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The viability of endothelial cells (ECs) treated with 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5 µM GA-amide for 48 h was detected by MTS assay. Wound healing and angiogenesis assays were performed on cells treated with 0.2 µM GA-amide. Chicken eggs at day 7 post-fertilization were divided into the dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), bevacizumab (40 µg), and GA-amide (18.8 and 62.8 ng) groups to assess the antiangiogenic effect for 3 days. mRNA and protein expression in cells treated with 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.8, and 1.2 µM GA-amide for 6 h was detected by qRT-PCR and Western blots, respectively. RESULTS: GA-amide inhibited HUVEC (IC50 = 0.1269 µM) and NhEC (IC50 = 0.1740 µM) proliferation, induced cell apoptosis, and inhibited the migration and angiogenesis at a relatively safe dose (0.2 µM) in vitro. GA-amide reduced the number of capillaries from 56 ± 14.67 (DMSO) to 20.3 ± 5.12 (62.8 ng) in chick chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) assay. However, inactivation of TrkA couldn't reverse the antiangiogenic effect of GA-amide. Moreover, GA-amide suppressed the expression of VEGF and VEGFR2, and decreased activation of the AKT/mTOR and PLCγ/Erk1/2 pathways. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the antiangiogenic effect of GA-amide, it might be developed as a useful agent for use in clinical combination therapies.

Unique Responses of Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Cholangiocarcinoma Cell Lines toward Cantharidin and Norcantharidin.

The present study aimed to investigate whether cell lines from human gastric and liver cancers respond differently toward cantharidin (CTD) and norcantharidin (NCTD) than other types of cancer cells. We first established the half maximal inhibitory concentrations (IC50s) of CTD for a large panel of cancer cell lines representing the 12 major types of human cancers and the mode of cell death induced by the two compounds. We next compared the growth inhibitory effects as well as the corresponding modes of action of CTD and NCTD. The IncuCyte ZOOM system was used as a semi-high throughput means to define IC50s and 90% inhibitory doses (IC90s) as a reference for the maximal tolerable doses (MTDs) for the two compounds in 72 cancer cell lines. Classical clonogenic survival assay was used to assess the anti-proliferative effect of CTD on selected cell lines of interest. In addition, DNA content-based flow was used to interrogate the modes of cell death following CTD or NCTD exposure. The results of these experiments led to several findings. 1). Cell lines representing hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) and cholangiocarcinomas (CCs) were among the most sensitive toward CTD, consistent with the previous clinical study of this compound and its source of origin, Mylabris. 2). Among the individual cell lines of a given cancer types, the sensitivity trends for CTD and NCTD did not exhibit a good correlation. 3) CTD and NCTD caused distinctive cytotoxic effects on HepG2 cells. Specifically, while a cytostatic effect is the primary cause of growth inhibition of CTD, cytotoxic effect is the main contributing factor for the growth inhibition of NTCD. These results indicate that liver cancer cell lines are among the most sensitive to CTD and that CTD and NCTD exhibit their effects through distinct mechanisms.