ABSTRACT
Our aim was to evaluate whether pulsed high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) therapy enhances the effect of an epidermal growth factor receptor-targeted chemotherapeutic drug, cetuximab, in treating human colon cancer xenografts in a mouse model. Balb/c nude mice with subcutaneous xenografts of HT-29 cells were randomly categorized into control (n = 9), pulsed HIFU alone (n = 10), cetuximab monotherapy (n = 8) or combined pulsed HIFU and cetuximab therapy (n = 9) group. Cetuximab, pulsed HIFU therapy, or both were administered three times per week starting from day 8 after tumor cell injection. Based on tumor growth curves up to 34 days, the combination therapy group showed more suppressed tumor growth than all other groups (p < 0.05). The final relative tumor volumes were 5.4 ± 2.1, 5.2 ± 1.3, 4.8 ± 1.8, and 3.1 ± 0.9 for control, pulsed HIFU alone, cetuximab monotherapy, and combination therapy groups, respectively. In conclusion, pulsed HIFU therapy appears to enhance the anti-tumor effect of epidermal growth factor receptor-targeted cetuximab on human colon cancer xenograft models in mice.
Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/administration & dosage , Colonic Neoplasms/drug therapy , Disease Models, Animal , Electrochemotherapy/methods , High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation/methods , Animals , Antineoplastic Agents/administration & dosage , Cell Line, Tumor , Cetuximab , Colonic Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , HT29 Cells , Humans , Male , Mice , Mice, Inbred BALB C , Mice, Nude , Treatment Outcome , UltrasonographyABSTRACT
Negative transcriptional feedback loops are a core feature of eukaryotic circadian clocks and are based on rhythmic interactions between clock-specific repressors and transcription factors. In Drosophila, the repression of dCLOCK (dCLK)-CYCLE (CYC) transcriptional activity by dPERIOD (dPER) is critical for driving circadian gene expression. Although growing lines of evidence indicate that circadian repressors such as dPER function, at least partly, as molecular bridges that facilitate timely interactions between other regulatory factors and core clock transcription factors, how dPER interacts with dCLK-CYC to promote repression is not known. Here, we identified a small conserved region on dPER required for binding to dCLK, termed CBD (for dCLK binding domain). In the absence of the CBD, dPER is unable to stably associate with dCLK and inhibit the transcriptional activity of dCLK-CYC in a simplified cell culture system. CBD is situated in close proximity to a region that interacts with other regulatory factors such as the DOUBLETIME kinase, suggesting that complex architectural constraints need to be met to assemble repressor complexes. Surprisingly, when dPER missing the CBD (dPER(ΔCBD)) was evaluated in flies the clock mechanism was operational, albeit with longer periods. Intriguingly, the interaction between dPER(ΔCBD) and dCLK is TIM-dependent and modulated by light, revealing a novel and unanticipated in vivo role for TIM in circadian transcription. Finally, dPER(ΔCBD) does not provoke the daily hyperphosphorylation of dCLK, indicating that direct interactions between dPER and dCLK are necessary for the dCLK phosphorylation program but are not required for other aspects of dCLK regulation.
