Advertisement
Research ArticleABSORPTION, DISTRIBUTION, METABOLISM, AND EXCRETION

Rescue from Enhanced Alkylator-Induced Cell Death with Low Molecular Weight Sulfur-Containing Chemoprotectants

Leslie L. Muldoon, Shannan L. Walker-Rosenfeld, Christopher Hale, Shawna E. Purcell, Lisa C. Bennett and Edward A. Neuwelt
Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics March 2001, 296 (3) 797-805;

Abstract

Modulation of glutathione has been proposed as a mechanism to alter the efficacy and toxicity of chemotherapeutic agents. We investigated in vitro cytoenhancement of chemotherapy toxicity by reducing cellular glutathione levels withl-buthionine-[S,R]-sulfoximine (BSO), and chemoprotection with small molecular weight sulfur-containing agents that mimic or replace glutathione. Cytotoxicity, caspase-2 enzymatic activity, and in situ DNA staining for apoptosis were assessed in cultured human small cell lung carcinoma cells and fibroblasts. BSO treatment reduced the half-maximal cytotoxic dose of the alkylating chemotherapeutics melphalan, carboplatin, and cisplatin, and increased the total magnitude of cell death. Melphalan was more sensitive than carboplatin or cisplatin to BSO. The chemoprotective agents sodium thiosulfate, N-acetylcysteine, and glutathione ethyl ester reduced the cytotoxicity of all three alkylating chemotherapeutics regardless of BSO treatment, butd-methionine was effective only against the platinum agents. N-Acetylcysteine was the most effective protectant tested. Chemoprotection against melphalan toxicity was maximally effective only if administered concurrent with chemotherapy, whereas chemoprotection for the platinum agents remained effective if delayed 4 h after chemotherapy. BSO enhancement andN-acetylcysteine chemoprotection for melphalan toxicity occurred at least partially through an apoptotic mechanism. Modulation of glutathione levels will be valuable in the clinical setting if chemotherapy and chemoprotectant can be physically and/or temporally separated. Cytoenhancement and chemoprotection may be particularly useful in the central nervous system where the blood-brain barrier of the cerebral vasculature creates two compartments, for cytoenhancement in brain tumors and systemic chemoprotection.

Alkylating chemotherapeutic agents, such as melphalan, carboplatin, and cisplatin, show variable efficacy against human tumors. To increase chemotherapy efficacy against human cancer it is desirable to increase dose intensity at the tumor without increasing the toxicity of chemotherapy side effects. Positive or negative modulation of intracellular and extracellular thiol levels, particularly glutathione, may provide the means to enhance chemotherapy activity at the tumor and protect against toxicity in normal tissues.

Glutathione is an endogenous cysteine-containing tripeptide important for chemotherapy detoxification through a number of mechanisms, including antioxidant and free-radical scavenging activity (Zhang et al., 1998), DNA repair (Chen and Zeller, 1991; Yen et al., 1995), conjugation of cellular toxins (Gamcsik et al., 1997), and pumping toxic chemotherapeutics out of cells via the multidrug resistance-associated proteins (Barrand et al., 1997). Elevated intracellular glutathione is associated with resistance to chemotherapeutic agents such as cisplatin and melphalan in tumors and tumor cell lines (Zhang et al., 1998; Vukovic and Osmak, 1999). Reducing glutathione levels may therefore be a means of enhancing the response of tumor cells to alkylating agents and improving the efficacy of chemotherapy.

Depletion of cellular glutathione can be achieved through inhibition of the rate-limiting enzyme in glutathione biosynthesis, γ-glutamylcysteine synthetase, by use of the highly specific agentl-buthionine-[S,R]-sulfoximine (BSO) (Griffith, 1982; Ali-Osman et al., 1996). BSO treatment reduces glutathione levels and enhances chemotherapeutic activity in cultured cells (Hamilton et al., 1985; Ali-Osman et al., 1996; Anderson et al., 1999b; Iida et al., 1999) and in animal models (Ozols et al., 1987;Vahrmeijer et al., 1999b). Clinical trials of BSO pretreatment followed by melphalan chemotherapy demonstrate that BSO has low toxicity alone, but in combination with melphalan can enhance toxicity, particularly myelosuppression (Bailey et al., 1994; O'Dwyer, 1996; Anderson et al., 1999a). In one clinical study, BSO enhanced melphalan efficacy in patients with neuroblastoma, even in patients who had recurred after bone marrow transplantation and high-dose melphalan (Anderson et al., 1999a). BSO cytoenhancement of other alkylating chemotherapeutics, such as cisplatin or carboplatin, has not been evaluated in the clinic.

It may be possible to reduce the toxicities of DNA-alkylating drugs such as carboplatin or melphalan by using sulfur-containing chemoprotective agents (thio, thiol, and thioether compounds) to mimic one or many of the activities of glutathione (Dedon and Borch, 1988;Links and Lewis, 1999; Safirstein et al., 2000). Such agents may also be effective against the enhanced toxicity due to BSO reduction of glutathione. Clinically relevant compounds that may provide chemoprotection include sodium thiosulfate,N-acetylcysteine, d-methionine, and glutathione ethyl ester. Proposed mechanisms of action for these reactive sulfur-containing agents include chemical modification (Dedon and Borch, 1988; Gamcsik et al., 1997), elevating intracellular glutathione levels (Anderson et al., 1990; Yim et al., 1994), multidrug resistance activation (Ishikawa and Ali-Osman, 1993; Zhang et al., 1998), or free-radical scavenging (Jarvinen et al., 2000;Safirstein et al., 2000; Sha and Schacht, 2000).

Despite the potential benefits of chemoprotection, such agents have relatively little clinical use due to concerns of impaired chemotherapeutic efficacy. Interactions of chemoprotectants with chemotherapy efficacy may be avoided by separating treatments in time or space. The two compartments created by the blood-brain barrier, intra-arterial versus intravenous administration, and separation by time have recently demonstrated the potential of this approach. In preclinical and clinical trials, spatial and temporal separation of platinum chemotherapy and the thiol sodium thiosulfate results in marked chemoprotection against ototoxicity without impairing tumor cytotoxicity (Neuwelt et al., 1996, 1998; Muldoon et al., 2000).

The purpose of these experiments was first to evaluate BSO cytoenhancement of the platinum-based alkylating agents carboplatin and cisplatin in comparison with melphalan, and second to test potentially important thiol agents for chemoprotection of enhanced chemotherapy toxicity. Additionally, we evaluated whether cytoenhancement and chemoprotection involved an apoptotic mechanism.

Materials and Methods

Reagents.

Carboplatin (Paraplatin), cisplatin (Platinol), and etoposide phosphate (Etopophos) were obtained from Bristol-Meyers Squibb (New York, NY), and melphalan (Alkeran) was obtained from Glaxo Wellcome (Research Triangle Park, NC), all via the Oregon Health Sciences University hospital pharmacy. Sodium thiosulfate,d-methionine, and glutathione ethyl ester were obtained from Sigma Chemical Co. (St. Louis, MO). Acetylcysteine sterile solution was obtained from American Reagent Laboratories (Shirley, NY), via the Oregon Health Sciences University hospital pharmacy. BSO was supplied by the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD.

Tissue Culture.

The cells used in these experiments were the B.5 LX-1 human small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC) cell line and the GM294 human fibroblast cell strain. The B.5 LX-1 cell line is a clonal line derived from the LX-1 parental cells (originally obtained from Mason Research Institute, Worcester, MA). These cells were maintained as a free-floating cell suspension in spinner flasks, in medium RPMI-1640 supplemented with 12% heat inactivated fetal bovine serum (Irvine Scientific, Santa Anna, CA) plus gentamicin, penicillin, and streptomycin. The GM294 fibroblasts were obtained from the NIGMS Human Mutant Cell Repository (Bethesda, MD), and were maintained in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum and antibiotics.

Cytotoxicity Assay.

Live cell number was evaluated with the Cell Proliferation Assay kit from Chemicon International (Temecula, CA). This colorometric assay is based on the cleavage of the tetrazolium salt WST-1 to formazan by cellular mitochondrial dehydrogenases. Cells were seeded to 96-well tissue culture plates at 1 × 104 cells/well, four wells per condition. After growth for 20 to 24 h with or without BSO, chemotherapy and/or chemoprotective agents were added for an additional 44 to 48 h. The WST-1 reagent was then added for 2 h and absorbance at 450 nm was determined using a microplate reader. Because the thiol agents can interfere with the colorometric assay (this is particularly a problem with other tetrazolium reagents), blanks included experimental agents and cells dissolved by addition of sodium dodecyl sulfate to a concentration of 0.5%. This assay approximates linearity (absorbance versus cell number) in the range of 103 to 105 cells. Cell viability was also assessed by trypan blue exclusion.

Caspase-2 Enzymatic Assay.

Apoptosis induction was evaluated by measuring caspase-2 protease activity using a kit from R&D Systems (Minneapolis, MN). This assay is based on the cleavage of a caspase-specific peptide that is conjugated to the color reporter molecule p-nitroanilide. Cells were seeded in 6-cm tissue culture plates at 2 × 106 cells/plate, three plates per condition. After growth for 18 to 24 h with or without BSO, chemotherapy and/or chemoprotective agents were added for an additional 8 to 24 h. Protein content in cell lysates was determined with the bicinchoninic reagent kit (Pierce, Rockford, IL) and 100 to 200 μg was used for each assay. Caspase-2 reporter absorbance at 405 nm was determined using a microplate reader.

In Situ Apoptosis Detection.

DNA fragmentation was detected with the terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase-mediated dUTP nick end labeling (TUNEL) method. Studies were performed using the apo-TACS TUNEL assay kit from R&D Systems or the ApopTag Plus Peroxidase kit from Intergen (New York, NY). In both assays labeled nucleotides are incorporated onto DNA fragments using terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase, followed by immunocytochemical detection of the labeled DNA (bromo-deoxyuridine for apo-TACS, digoxigenin for ApopTag). Cultured cells treated with chemotherapy for 12 to 24 h, with or without BSO, were suspended and fixed in formalin, and then 1 × 105 cells were dried onto gelatin-treated slides for use in the TUNEL assays.

Statistical Analysis.

Cytotoxicity assay data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation as a percentage of untreated control values, with n = 4 independent samples per condition, whereas caspase activity assays had n = 3 per group. Every cytotoxicity and caspase experiment was performed at least twice with similar results. For the cytotoxicity and caspase assays, Student's t test was used to determine differences between individual points, using Microsoft Excel software. Half-maximal effective concentrations (EC50) and standard deviation were determined using Prism (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA). TUNEL staining was performed on single samples, and each experiment was performed at least in triplicate. Staining with diaminobenzidine was evaluated visually. The number of stained versus unstained cells was counted in one visual field infour areas of each slide, one in each quadrant, with a minimum of 50 cells/visual field.

Results

BSO Enhancement of Chemotherapy Cytotoxicity.

The dose response for enhanced cytotoxicity was evaluated in B.5 LX-1 human SCLC cells treated with increasing concentrations of BSO for 18 h before addition of chemotherapy. Cells then received approximately half-maximal cytotoxic doses of melphalan (10 μg/ml), carboplatin (100 μg/ml), or cisplatin (7.5 μg/ml) and cytotoxicity was evaluated after 48 h with the WST-1 colorometric assay. Figure1 shows that melphalan was significantly more sensitive to BSO than were cisplatin and carboplatin. For melphalan, the half-maximal dose of BSO for enhancement was less than 10 μM, whereas for carboplatin the half-maximal dose of BSO was 37.7 ± 12.4 μM and for cisplatin it was 21.8 ± 6.2 μM. At 10 μM BSO the enhancement for melphalan cytotoxicity was 73.1 ± 4.9% of maximum, whereas cisplatin and carboplatin were only 38.3 ± 1.2 and 33.3 ± 8.5% of maximal enhancement, respectively (P < 0.001 compared with melphalan). BSO was significantly more enhancing for melphalan than for cisplatin at 10 μM (P < 0.001), 20 μM (P < 0.001), and 50 μM (P < 0.005). All three chemotherapeutics were near maximal enhancement at 100 μM BSO, and this concentration was used in all other experiments. At this dose, BSO alone did not decrease SCLC cell viability (mean 103.4 ± 6.7% of untreated control cell number, n = 20).

Figure 1
Figure 1

Dose response for BSO enhancement of cytotoxicity. Cytotoxicity was assessed in cultured LX-1 SCLC cells, 1 × 104 cells/well in 96-well plates, using the WST colorometric assay. BSO cytoenhancement consisted of preincubation with BSO at the indicated concentration for 18 h. Chemotherapeutic agents were then added at approximately half-maximal concentration (♦, melphalan = 10 μg/ml; ○, carboplatin = 100 μg/ml; ▵, cisplatin = 7.5 μg/ml). Data are expressed as the percentage maximal enhancement, with zero corresponding to no BSO and 100% corresponding to the enhancement in cells treated with 500 μM BSO. Each point represents the mean ± standard deviation of four wells. Significance is indicated by **P < 0.01 and ***P < 0.001 comparing melphalan enhancement with cisplatin enhancement.

Chemoprotection against Cytotoxicity.

The dose response for rescue from chemotherapy cytotoxicity was evaluated for four different small molecular weight sulfur-containing chemoprotectants. Each chemotherapeutic agent was used at a concentration affording approximately 90% lethality in the absence of BSO (20 μg/ml melphalan, 200 μg/ml carboplatin, 15 μg/ml cisplatin). Overall,N-acetylcysteine was the most effective of the thiol agents tested, on a microgram per milliliter basis. The concentration dependence for protection withN-acetylcysteine in comparison tod-methionine is shown in Fig. 2, and Table1 shows the EC50for protection afforded by each protective agent. The cytotoxicity of each alkylator was reduced by 75 to 90% by concurrent administration of N-acetylcysteine (Fig. 2A), butN-acetylcysteine was more active against melphalan (EC50 = 74 ± 18 μg/ml) than the platinum agents (Table 1). In contrast, d-methionine did not protect against melphalan toxicity at the doses tested (50–1000 μg/ml, Fig. 2B), although it was highly protective against cisplatin toxicity, with a half-maximal concentration of 140 ± 41 μg/ml (Table 1). The maximum magnitude of protection was variable between experiments, ranging from 70 to 100% protection, and protection was consistently less for carboplatin than for cisplatin or melphalan. All agents tested required a significantly higher dose to protect against carboplatin than against cisplatin or melphalan. On a microgram per milliliter basis, glutathione ethyl ester was the least effective protective agent.

Figure 2
Figure 2

Protection against chemotherapy cytotoxicity. A, dose response for N-acetylcysteine chemoprotection. B, dose response for d-methionine chemoprotection. Cytotoxicity was assessed in cultured LX-1 SCLC cells, 1 × 104cells/well in 96-well plates, using the WST colorometric assay. Cells were treated with approximately 90% lethal dose of chemotherapy (♦, melphalan = 20 μg/ml; ○, carboplatin = 200 μg/ml; ▵, cisplatin = 20 μg/ml). Chemoprotectant was added at the indicated concentration of N-acetylcysteine (A) ord-methionine (B) either alone (▪) or immediately following chemotherapy. Data are expressed as the percentage of live cells compared with untreated control samples (without chemotherapy) and each point represents the mean ± standard deviation of four wells.

View this table:
Table 1

Protection against chemotherapy cytotoxicity

Cytoenhancement and Chemoprotection in Combination.

The effects of BSO cytoenhancement and thiol chemoprotection on the dose-response relationships for cytotoxicity of the alkylating chemotherapeutics were evaluated in the B.5 LX-1 cells. BSO cytoenhancement consisted of preincubation with 100 μM BSO for 18 to 24 h before addition of chemotherapy, and rescue consisted of 1000 to 2000 μg/ml thiol chemoprotectant added immediately after chemotherapy. In this experimental paradigm, BSO consistently decreased the EC50 for cytotoxicity (Fig.3A; Table 2) and increased the maximum degree of toxicity. The specific case of carboplatin and N-acetylcysteine is shown in Fig.3A. Glutathione depletion with BSO increased carboplatin cytotoxicity, reducing the EC50 by 48% (P < 0.01). As detailed in Table 2, similar BSO cytoenhancement was found with melphalan (53% reduction of EC50,P < 0.001), whereas the EC50 for cisplatin was reduced only 29% (P < 0.05). Chemoprotection with N-acetylcysteine blocked carboplatin toxicity as well as BSO-enhanced cytotoxicity. Similar chemoprotection was found with additional thiol agents, sodium thiosulfate and glutathione-ethyl ester, butd-methionine was only effective against the platinum agents.

Figure 3
Figure 3

Cytoenhancement and chemoprotection. A, effect of BSO and N-acetylcysteine on carboplatin cytotoxicity. B, effect of BSO and N-acetylcysteine on etoposide phosphate cytotoxicity. Cytotoxicity was assessed in cultured LX-1 SCLC cells, 1 × 104 cells/well in 96-well plates, using the WST colorometric assay. BSO cytoenhancement consisted of preincubation at 100 μM BSO for 18 h. Chemoprotective agent was added immediately after chemotherapy. The experimental conditions were dose responses for chemotherapy (carboplatin or etoposide phosphate) alone (○), BSO cytoenhancement (▵), N-acetylcysteine rescue (1000 μg/ml N-acetylcysteine, ▪), or BSO cytoenhancement and N-acetylcysteine rescue (♦). Data are expressed as the percentage of live cells compared with untreated control samples (without chemotherapy) and each point represents the mean ± standard deviation of four wells.

View this table:
Table 2

Effect of BSO on the cytotoxicity of alkylating chemotherapeutics

Cytoenhancement and chemoprotection against nonalkylating chemotherapeutic agents was also evaluated. Glutathione depletion with BSO did not increase the cytotoxicity of etoposide phosphate, nor didN-acetylcysteine decrease the cytotoxicity of etoposide phosphate (Fig. 3B). Similarly, no enhancement or protection was found with methotrexate or doxorubicin in the B.5 LX-1 cells, although carcinoma cells of gastric origin showed some doxorubicin enhancement with BSO (data not shown). Interestingly, although the growth inhibitory dose of Taxol (approximately 10 nM) was not altered by BSO, glutathione depletion did shift the cytotoxic dose of Taxol from 15 to 2 μM, and this enhanced cytotoxicity was completely reversed withN-acetylcysteine (data not shown).

We evaluated whether the cytoenhancement and chemoprotection seen in the B.5 LX-1 SCLC cells was a generalized phenomenon by testing similar experimental conditions in the GM294 human fibroblast cell strain. Cells were treated with or without chemotherapy at the approximately half-maximal dose found in the B.5 LX-1 cells, with or without pretreatment with BSO. Although melphalan, cisplatin, and carboplatin were all somewhat more cytotoxic in the fibroblasts compared with the tumor cells, BSO nevertheless enhanced the toxicity of all three alkylators (Fig. 4). In fibroblasts,N-acetylcysteine was partially to completely chemoprotective against the cytotoxicity induced by melphalan, cisplatin, and carboplatin, independent of BSO treatment. Neither BSO cytoenhancement nor N-acetylcysteine chemoprotection affected the cytotoxicity of etoposide phosphate in fibroblasts (Fig. 4).

Figure 4
Figure 4

Cytoenhancement and chemoprotection in fibroblasts. Cytotoxicity was assessed in GM294 human fibroblasts, 1 × 104 cells/well in 96-well plates, using the WST colorometric assay. Cells were pretreated with or without BSO, 100 μM for 18 h before addition of chemotherapeutics (melphalan = 10 μg/ml, carboplatin = 100 μg/ml, cisplatin = 7.5 μg/ml, etoposide phosphate = 100 μg/ml). The experimental conditions were chemotherapy either alone (■), or withN-acetylcysteine rescue (1000 μg/mlN-acetylcysteine, ▧), BSO cytoenhancement (▪), or BSO cytoenhancement and N-acetylcysteine rescue (▦). Data are expressed as the percentage of live cells compared with control samples (without chemotherapy) and each point represents the mean ± standard deviation of four wells.

Time Dependence for Chemoprotectant Rescue from Chemotherapy Cytotoxicity.

We evaluated how long the addition of chemoprotectant could be delayed after treatment with chemotherapy and remain effective. Cells were treated with doses of chemotherapy providing approximately 90% lethality, for melphalan (20 μg/ml), carboplatin (200 μg/ml), or cisplatin (15 μg/ml). The thiol chemoprotectants were added either concurrently with chemotherapy or up to 8 h after chemotherapy. For melphalan, chemoprotection was reduced if administration of sodium thiosulfate was delayed for 2 h, whereas sodium thiosulfate was still protective for the platinum chemotherapeutics if delayed up to 4 h after treatment (Fig. 5). Similarly, delayed administration of N-acetylcysteine and glutathione ethyl ester reduced their protective activity against melphalan cytotoxicity, whereas both agents maintained protective activity against platinum cytotoxicity (data not shown). In a separate experiment, we found that all three agents were completely protective if added within 1 h of melphalan, rather than 2 h as shown in Fig. 5. Chemoprotection was not effective against etoposide phosphate cytotoxicity at any time point.

Figure 5
Figure 5

Time dependence for rescue of chemotherapy cytotoxicity. Chemotherapy cytotoxicity was assessed in cultured LX-1 SCLC cells (1 × 104 cells/well in 96-well plates) using the WST colorometric assay. Cells were treated with melphalan at 20 μg/ml, carboplatin at 200 μg/ml, cisplatin at 10 μg/ml, or etoposide phosphate at 200 μg/ml. Cells then received either no protectant (■), or sodium thiosulfate, 2000 μg/ml, added immediately (▧), 2 h (▪), or 4 h (▦) after chemotherapy. Data are expressed as the percentage of live cells compared with control samples (without chemotherapy) and each point represents the mean ± standard deviation of four wells.

The time dependence of d-methionine rescue of cisplatin cytotoxicity was also evaluated. Unlike chemoprotection with thiosulfate, N-acetylcysteine, or glutathione ethyl ester, the protection afforded by d-methionine was significantly reduced by delayed administration. If delayed for 2 h after cisplatin, d-methionine protection was reduced by 41.2 ± 10.2% compared with the maximal protection seen with simultaneous addition, whereas delayingd-methionine to 4 h reduced protection by 66.1 ± 4.5% compared with simultaneous addition. Pretreatment with d-methionine for 30 min before addition of cisplatin did not increase the amount of protection compared with simultaneous addition.

Effects of Cytoenhancement and Chemoprotection on Apoptosis.

Apoptosis was evaluated by measuring caspase-2 enzymatic activity and by in situ TUNEL staining. Treatment of B.5 LX-1 cells with melphalan resulted in an increase in caspase-2 activity that was amplified by BSO pretreatment at low melphalan concentrations (Fig.6A). The increase in caspase activity was variable between experiments and ranged from 50 to 100% at 7 to 8 h to 250 to 600% at 20 to 24 h after treatment with melphalan. TUNEL staining also demonstrated melphalan-induced apoptosis. In the experiment shown in Fig. 6B, TUNEL staining after melphalan treatment was positive in 29 of 3643 cells, compared with 7 of 4395 cells in the untreated control, and BSO treatment before melphalan increased the positive staining to 800 of 1699 cells. In both the caspase-2 assay (Fig. 6A) and the TUNEL staining assay (Fig. 6B), the effect of melphalan on apoptosis was reduced by the chemoprotectantN-acetylcysteine. In both assays, activity was maximal with low doses of melphalan, or with a 1-h pulse treatment with the doses used in the cytotoxicity assays. Continuous treatment with the cytotoxic dose of melphalan actually reduced caspase-2 activity and TUNEL staining.

Figure 6
Figure 6

Effect of cytoenhancement and chemoprotection on apoptosis. A, caspase-2 enzymatic activity. B, TUNEL staining for DNA fragmentation. Apoptosis was assessed in cultured LX-1 SCLC cells pretreated for 18 h with or without 100 μM BSO. The experimental conditions were no addition (■), melphalan (10 μg/ml, ▧), or melphalan (10 μg/ml) plus N-acetylcysteine (1000 μg/ml) (▦) for 20 h before harvest. Caspase-2 activity is expressed as percentage activity in untreated control samples (mean ± standard deviation, n = 3). TUNEL staining is expressed as the percentage of cells showing positive staining.

Cisplatin and carboplatin were less effective than melphalan at inducing caspase activity. Over a range of doses (100, 150, or 200 μg/ml carboplatin, and 5, 10, or 15 μg/ml cisplatin) and times (8, 12, 16, 20, 24 h), each platinum agent increased caspase-2 activity by 50 to 100%. No significant amplification of caspase activity was induced by BSO treatment. Additionally, no reduction in caspase enzymatic activity could be detected after addition ofN-acetylcysteine, and in some experiments treatment withN-acetylcysteine actually increased cisplatin- or carboplatin-induced caspase activity. Samples of the cells used in the caspase and TUNEL assays were also evaluated for membrane permeability by trypan blue exclusion. In experiments producing negative results with the caspase-2 or TUNEL assays, trypan blue exclusion showed high numbers of nonviable cells after treatment with carboplatin or cisplatin and this was increased by BSO treatment.

Discussion

Our studies have demonstrated that BSO treatment enhances the cytotoxicity of carboplatin and cisplatin, in addition to melphalan. Thiol agents protect against the cytotoxicity of alkylating chemotherapeutic agents, and chemoprotection against carboplatin or cisplatin can be delayed for at least 4 h without reduced protective activity. These findings may be clinically applicable.

Cytoenhancement.

BSO blocks glutathione synthesis (Griffith, 1982), leading to greater than 80% reduction in glutathione levels in vitro within 8 to 24 h after treatment with 100 μM BSO (Ali-Osman et al., 1996; Pendyala et al., 1997; Vahrmeijer et al., 1999a). Glutathione depletion itself is cytotoxic in some cultured cells, particularly neuroblastoma cells (Anderson et al., 1999b). We found no change in baseline cell viability or apoptosis in response to BSO in SCLC cells.

BSO potentiated the cytotoxicity of alkylating chemotherapeutics in human SCLC cells and fibroblasts. Enhancement of melphalan toxicity in vitro (Hamilton et al., 1985; Anderson et al., 1999b; Vahrmeijer et al., 1999a), and in xenograft models (Ozols et al., 1987; Vahrmeijer et al., 1999b) has led to clinical trials (Bailey et al., 1994; O'Dwyer et al., 1996; Anderson et al., 1999a). Glutathione depletion also enhances the cytotoxicity of platinum chemotherapeutics (Hamilton et al., 1985; Pendyala et al., 1997; Iida et al., 1999; Vukovic and Osmak, 1999), but this has not yet progressed to the clinic. We found that melphalan was more sensitive to BSO than were carboplatin and cisplatin, with near maximal enhancement seen at low concentrations of BSO that have been shown to produce only a 40 to 60% reduction in cellular glutathione (Griffith, 1982; Pendyala et al., 1997; Vahrmeijer et al., 1999a).

Cytotoxicity enhancement after glutathione depletion is not tumor cell specific. In the clinical trials of melphalan potentiation, leukopenia and thrombocytopenia were exacerbated by BSO treatment (Bailey et al., 1994; O'Dwyer et al., 1996). Such enhanced toxicity must be avoided or reduced for cytoenhancement to be clinically useful.

Chemoprotection.

Glutathione ethyl ester, sodium thiosulfate, and N-acetylcysteine all reduced or prevented the cytotoxicity induced by melphalan, cisplatin, and carboplatin, independent of BSO treatment. The cysteine analogN-acetylcysteine was the most effective of the chemoprotectants tested, on a microgram per milliliter basis, in both fibroblasts and tumor cells. This result contrasts with previous reports indicating that N-acetylcysteine was not protective against BSO-enhanced melphalan cytotoxicity (Vahrmeijer et al., 1999a) or cisplatin cytotoxicity (Iida et al., 1999). In vivo,N-acetylcysteine has been shown to be protective against a number of toxic insults (Safirstein et al., 2000), including ifosfamide-induced urotoxicity (Holoye et al., 1983) and contrast-induced nephrotoxicity (Tepel et al., 2000). Thus,N-acetylcysteine may be a safe and effective agent for reducing some of the side effects of alkylating chemotherapy in patients.

The time dependence for chemoprotection revealed that chemoprotection against melphalan required early addition of protectant, within 1 h of chemotherapy, whereas chemoprotection against carboplatin or cisplatin could be delayed for at least 4 h with minimal loss of activity. The amino acid d-methionine behaved differently than the other chemoprotectants tested in that it was ineffective against melphalan toxicity, but showed very good activity against cisplatin. Additionally, the time frame for d-methionine protection against cisplatin cytotoxicity was fleeting, with marked loss of activity within 2 h, similar to the time dependence for sodium thiosulfate rescue of melphalan toxicity.

An important question is whether the high concentrations of the thiol agents that provided chemoprotection can be achieved in vivo. In a phase I toxicity study, sodium thiosulfate was safe in single bolus doses up to 20 g/m2, yielding transient plasma thiol levels of approximately 3300 μg/ml (Neuwelt et al., 1998). Obtaining effective serum concentrations of other chemoprotective agents may require dose escalation. A recent study found nephroprotection with N-acetylcysteine at 6 to 12 mg/kg, which would yield a serum concentration considerably less than our effective in vitro dose (Tepel et al., 2000).

Mechanism of Cytoenhancement and Chemoprotection.

Glutathione is known to have multiple detoxifying activities, so determination of the mechanism(s) involved in enhancing or protecting different chemotherapeutics is difficult. Glutathione ethyl ester activates all glutathione pathways because it is readily taken up and converted to glutathione intracellularly (Anderson et al., 1990). In mice, glutathione diethyl ester is effective at protecting against the toxicity of cisplatin, and reverses the potentiation by BSO (Anderson et al., 1990). N-Acetylcysteine induces de novo synthesis of glutathione over a period of hours to days (Yim et al., 1994). The limited time frame for N-acetylcysteine chemoprotection against melphalan argues against glutathione biosynthesis as the mechanism of protection. Glutathione can conjugate toxins to either directly inactivate them or direct them to glutathione-dependent transporters such as the multidrug resistance-associated proteins (Barrand et al., 1997). Active pumping of conjugated or unconjugated cisplatin from cells has been shown (Ishikawa and Ali-Osman, 1993;Zhang et al., 1998). Sodium thiosulfate chemoprotection may be primarily through conjugation and inactivation. A high molar ratio of thiosulfate to platinum results in drug neutralization (Dedon and Borch, 1988), and conjugation also occurs between thiosulfate and melphalan (Gamcsik et al., 1997).

An important mechanism of chemoprotection is antioxidant activity and free-radical scavenging (Jarvinen et al., 2000). Like glutathione,N-acetylcysteine has strong antioxidant characteristics (Zhang et al., 1998; Safirstein et al., 2000).d-Methionine has also been shown to have antioxidant activity and reduce free radical-induced ototoxicity in animal hearing models (Reser et al., 1999; Sha and Schacht, 2000). Nevertheless, d-methionine was ineffective against melphalan cytotoxicity, whereas N-acetylcysteine provided robust protection, indicating that free-radical scavenging is not the only mechanism.

Glutathione may play a major role in directing cells toward apoptotic cell death. Low cellular glutathione levels reduce the cell's ability to scavenge reactive oxygen species and other free radicals, toxic insults known to promote apoptosis. We confirmed previous studies showing treatment with melphalan increases apoptosis and this can be enhanced with BSO (Anderson et al., 1999b; Vahrmeijer et al., 1999a). In contrast, we were unable to detect equivalent apoptosis activation in response to carboplatin or cisplatin. Because entrance into the apoptosis pathway is dynamic and events are transient, we may have missed the peak of caspase-2 activity in response to the platinum agents. However, a range of chemotherapy doses and time points was evaluated with similar lack of stimulation by carboplatin or cisplatin. It may be that these agents push the cells more toward a necrotic pathway rather than apoptosis. Glutathione has been demonstrated to influence which mode of cell death occurs (Fernandes and Cotter, 1994). We hypothesize that a glutathione-sensitive apoptotic mechanism is more important for melphalan cytotoxicity than for the platinum agents.

Clinical Potential.

The possibility of reduced anticancer effect due to chemoprotective agents is a major concern limiting their use (Links and Lewis, 1999). To minimize interactions between chemoprotectants and chemotherapy, the agents should be separated either in time or in space. Two-route administration of sodium thiosulfate with cisplatin, such as intra-arterial cisplatin with i.v. sodium thiosulfate for head and neck cancer, has been used in to provide local chemoprotection while sparing antitumor activity (Robbins et al., 1994). The two-route paradigm actually increased cisplatin antitumor effects against mouse tumors (Iwamato et al., 1984).

Our studies demonstrate that delaying chemoprotectant administration may also be effective, particularly against the platinum chemotherapeutics. We have previously shown that treatment with sodium thiosulfate reduced platinum-induced auditory damage in a guinea pig model even if chemoprotection was delayed for 8 h after carboplatin (Neuwelt et al., 1996) or 2 h after cisplatin (Muldoon et al., 2000). Additionally, chemoprotection with sodium thiosulfate did not reduce the efficacy of carboplatin against rat SCLC subcutaneous tumors, if administration of the chemoprotectant was delayed for 8 h after the chemotherapy (Muldoon et al., 2000).

We propose that cytoenhancement and chemoprotection may have a role in brain tumor therapy. The blood-brain barrier effectively generates two compartments, because the charged, hydrophilic chemoprotectants achieve poor uptake into the central nervous system (Neuwelt et al., 1998). After glutathione depletion with BSO, carboplatin or melphalan might be delivered to intracerebral tumors with osmotic opening of the blood-brain barrier (Kroll and Neuwelt, 1998), and then chemoprotectant administration could be delayed until after the blood-brain barrier permeability has returned to baseline (30–60 min) for systemic rescue. We previously assessed this paradigm for chemoprotection against carboplatin-induced hearing loss in patients. Delayed administration of sodium thiosulfate decreased the magnitude of hearing loss and percentage of patients with ototoxicity (Neuwelt et al., 1998; Doolittle et al., 2001b). Indeed, chemotherapy for brain tumor therapy can be separated from chemoprotectants not only because of the blood-brain barrier but also because of different routes of administration (intra-arterial versus i.v.) and because of timing (i.e., delayed administration of protectant after alkylator infusion). Thus, clinical testing of both BSO and chemoprotection is warranted, particularly in intracerebral tumors (Doolittle et al., 2001a).

Footnotes

  • Send reprint requests to: Leslie L. Muldoon, Ph.D., Oregon Health Sciences University Blood-Brain Barrier Program, L603, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd., Portland, OR 97201. E-mail:muldoonl{at}ohsu.edu

  • This study was supported by a Veterans Administration merit review grant and by Grants CA31770 from the National Cancer Institute and NS33618 from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (to E.A.N.).

  • Abbreviations:
    BSO
    l-buthionine-[S,R]-sulfoximine
    SCLC
    small cell lung carcinoma
    WST-1
    4-[3-(4-iodophenyl)-2-(4-nitrophenyl)-2H-5-tetrazolio]-1,3-benzene disulfonate
    TUNEL
    terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase-mediated dUTP nick end labeling
    • Received September 2, 2000.
    • Accepted November 6, 2000.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Ali-Osman F,
    2. Antoun G,
    3. Wang H,
    4. Rajagopal S,
    5. Gagucas E
    (1996) Buthionine sulfoximine induction of γ-L-glutamyl-L-cysteine synthetase gene expression, kinetics of glutathione depletion and resynthesis, and modulation of carmustine-induced DNA-DNA cross-linking and cytotoxicity in human glioma cells. Mol Pharmacol 49:1012–1020.
  2. ↵
    1. Anderson ME,
    2. Naganuma A,
    3. Meister A
    (1990) Protection against cisplatin toxicity by administration of glutathione ester. FASEB J 4:3251–3255.
  3. ↵
    1. Anderson CP,
    2. Seeger RC,
    3. Matthay KK,
    4. Neglia JP,
    5. Bailey HH,
    6. Meeks WH,
    7. Reynolds CP
    (1999a) Buthionine sulfoximine (BSO) and melphalan (L-PAM) are active against recurrent neuroblastoma. Med Pediatr Oncol 33:158.
  4. ↵
    1. Anderson CP,
    2. Tsai J,
    3. Meek WE,
    4. Liu RM,
    5. Tang Y,
    6. Forman HJ,
    7. Reynolds CP
    (1999b) Depletion of glutathione by buthionine sulphoximine is cytotoxic for human neuroblastoma cell lines via apoptosis. Exp Cell Res 46:183–192.
  5. ↵
    1. Bailey HH,
    2. Mulcahy RT,
    3. Tutsch KD,
    4. Arzoomanian RZ,
    5. Alberti D,
    6. Tombes MB,
    7. Wilding G,
    8. Pomplun M,
    9. Spriggs DR
    (1994) Phase I clinical trial of intravenous L-buthionine sulfoximine and melphalan: An attempt at modulation of glutathione. J Clin Oncol 12:194–205.
  6. ↵
    1. Barrand MA,
    2. Bagrij T,
    3. Neo SY
    (1997) Multidrug resistance-associated protein: A protein distinct from P-glycoprotein involved in cytotoxic drug expulsion. Gen Pharmacol 28:639–645.
  7. ↵
    1. Chen G,
    2. Zeller WJ
    (1991) Augmentation of cisplatin cytotoxicity in vivo by DL-buthionine sulfoximine in DDP sensitive and resistant rat ovarian tumors and its relation to DNA interstrand cross links. Anticancer Res 11:2231–2237.
  8. ↵
    1. Dedon PC,
    2. Borch RF
    (1988) Characterization of the reactions of platinum antitumor agents with biologic and nonbiologic sulfur-containing nucleophiles. Biochem Pharmacol 36:1955–1964.
  9. ↵
    1. Doolittle ND,
    2. Anderson CP,
    3. Bleyer WA,
    4. Cairncross JG,
    5. Cloughesy T,
    6. Eck SL,
    7. Guastadisegni P,
    8. Hall WA,
    9. Muldoon LL,
    10. Patel SJ,
    11. Peereboom D,
    12. Siegal T,
    13. Neuwelt EA
    (2001a) Importance of dose intensity in neuro-oncology clinical trials. Summary report of the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Blood-Brain Barrier Disruption Consortium. Neurooncology 3:46–54.
  10. ↵
    Doolittle ND, Muldoon LL, Brummett RE, Tyson RM, Lacy C, Bubalo JS, Kraemer DF, Heinrich MC, Henry JA and Neuwelt EA (2001b) Delayed sodium thiosulfate as an otoprotectant against carboplatin-induced hearing loss in patients with malignant brain tumors. Clin Cancer Res, in press..
  11. ↵
    1. Fernandes RS,
    2. Cotter TG
    (1994) Apoptosis or necrosis: Intracellular levels of glutathione influence mode of cell death. Biochem Pharmacol 48:675–681.
  12. ↵
    1. Gamcsik MP,
    2. Millis KK,
    3. Hamill TG
    (1997) Kinetics of the conjugation of aniline mustards with glutathione and thiosulfate. Chem-Biol Interact 105:35–52.
  13. ↵
    1. Griffith OW
    (1982) Mechanism of action, metabolism, and toxicity of buthionine sulfoximine and its higher homologs, potent inhibitors of glutathione synthesis. J Biol Chem 257:13704–13712.
  14. ↵
    1. Hamilton TC,
    2. Winker MA,
    3. Louie KG,
    4. Batist G,
    5. Behrens BC,
    6. Tsuruo T,
    7. Grotzinger KR,
    8. Mckoy WM,
    9. Young RC,
    10. Ozols RF
    (1985) Augmentation of adriamycin, melphalan and cisplatin cytotoxicity in drug-resistant and -sensitive human ovarian carcinoma cell lines by buthionine sulfoximine mediated glutathione depletion. Biochem Pharmacol 34:2583–2586.
  15. ↵
    1. Holoye PY,
    2. Dulege J,
    3. Hansen RM,
    4. Ritch PS,
    5. Anderson T
    (1983) Prophylaxis of ifosfamide toxicity with oral acetylcysteine. Semin Oncol 10 (Suppl 1) 66–77.
  16. ↵
    1. Iida M,
    2. Doi H,
    3. Asamoto S,
    4. Sugiyama H,
    5. Sakagami H,
    6. Kuribayashi N,
    7. Takeda M,
    8. Okamura Y,
    9. Matsumoto K
    (1999) Effect of glutathione-modulating compounds on platinum compounds-induced cytotoxicity in human glioma cell lines. Anticancer Res 19:5383–5384.
  17. ↵
    1. Ishikawa T,
    2. Ali-Osman F
    (1993) Glutathione-associated cis-diamminedichloroplatinum (II) metabolism and ATP-depended efflux from leukemia cells. Molecular characterization of glutathione-platinum complex and its biological significance. J Biol Chem 268:20116–20125.
  18. ↵
    1. Iwamato Y,
    2. Kawano T,
    3. Uozumi J,
    4. Aoki K,
    5. Baba T
    (1984) “Two-route chemotherapy” using high-dose ip cisplatin and iv sodium thiosulfate, its antidote, for peritoneally disseminated cancer in mice. Cancer Treat Rep 68:1367–1373.
  19. ↵
    1. Jarvinen K,
    2. Pietarinen-Runtti P,
    3. Linnainmaa K,
    4. Raivio KO,
    5. Krejsa CM,
    6. Kavanagh T,
    7. Kinnula VL
    (2000) Antioxidant defense mechanisms of human mesothelioma and lung adenocarcinoma cells. Am J Physiol 278:L696–L702.
  20. ↵
    1. Kroll RA,
    2. Neuwelt EA
    (1998) Outwitting the blood-brain barrier for therapeutic purposes: Osmotic opening and other means. Neurosurgery 42:1083–1100.
  21. ↵
    1. Links M,
    2. Lewis C
    (1999) Chemoprotectants. A review of their clinical pharmacology and therapeutic efficacy. Drugs 57:293–308.
  22. ↵
    1. Muldoon LL,
    2. Pagel MA,
    3. Kroll RA,
    4. Brummett RE,
    5. Doolittle ND,
    6. Zuhowski EG,
    7. Egorin MJ,
    8. Neuwelt EA
    (2000) Delayed administration of sodium thiosulfate in animal models reduces platinum ototoxicity without reduction of antitumor activity. Clin Cancer Res 6:309–315.
  23. ↵
    1. Neuwelt EA,
    2. Brummett RE,
    3. Remsen LG,
    4. Kroll RA,
    5. Pagel MA,
    6. McCormick CA,
    7. Goitjens S,
    8. Muldoon LL
    (1996) In vitro and animal studies of sodium thiosulfate as a potential chemoprotectant against carboplatin-induced ototoxicity. Cancer Res 56:706–709.
  24. ↵
    1. Neuwelt EA,
    2. Brummett RE,
    3. Doolittle ND,
    4. Muldoon LL,
    5. Kroll RA,
    6. Pagel MA,
    7. Dojan R,
    8. Church V,
    9. Remsen LG,
    10. Bubalo JS
    (1998) First evidence of otoprotection against carboplatin-induced hearing loss with a two compartment model in patients with CNS malignancy. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 286:77–84.
  25. ↵
    1. O'Dwyer PJ,
    2. Hamilton TC,
    3. LaCreta FP,
    4. Gallo JM,
    5. Kilpatrick D,
    6. Halbherr T,
    7. Brennan J,
    8. Bookman MA,
    9. Hoffman J,
    10. Young RC,
    11. Comis RL,
    12. Ozols RF
    (1996) Phase I trial of buthionine sulfoximine in combination with melphalan in patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol 14:249–256.
  26. ↵
    1. Ozols RF,
    2. Louie KG,
    3. Plowman J,
    4. Behrens BC,
    5. Fine RL,
    6. Dykes D,
    7. Hamilton TC
    (1987) Enhanced melphalan cytotoxicity in human ovarian cancer in vitro and in tumor-bearing nude mice by buthionine sulfoximine depletion of glutathione. Biochem Pharmacol 36:147–153.
  27. ↵
    1. Pendyala L,
    2. Perez R,
    3. Weinstein A,
    4. Zdanowicz J,
    5. Creaven PJ
    (1997) Effect of glutathione depletion on the cytotoxicity of cisplatin and iproplatin in a human melanoma cell line. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 40:38–44.
  28. ↵
    1. Reser D,
    2. Rho M,
    3. Dewan D,
    4. Herbst L,
    5. Li G,
    6. Stupak H,
    7. Zur K,
    8. Romaine J,
    9. Frenz D,
    10. Goldbloom L,
    11. Kopke R,
    12. Arezzo J,
    13. van de Water T
    (1999) L- and D-methionine provide equivalent long term protection against CDDP-induced ototoxicity in vivo, with partial in vitro and in vivo retention of antineoplastic activity. Neurotoxicology 20:731–748.
  29. ↵
    1. Robbins KT,
    2. Stornolio AM,
    3. Kerber C,
    4. Vicario D,
    5. Seagren S,
    6. Shea M,
    7. Hanchett C,
    8. Los G,
    9. Howell SB
    (1994) Phase I study of highly selective supradose cisplatin infusions for advanced head and neck cancer. J Clin Oncol 12:2113–2120.
  30. ↵
    1. Safirstein R,
    2. Andrade L,
    3. Vierira JM
    (2000) Acetylcysteine and nephrotoxic effects of radiographic contrast agents—a new use for an old drug. N Engl J Med 343:210–212.
  31. ↵
    1. Sha SH,
    2. Schacht J
    (2000) Antioxidants attenuate gentamicin-induced free radical formation in vitro and ototoxicity in vivo: d-Methionine is a potential protectant. Hearing Res 142:34–40.
  32. ↵
    1. Tepel M,
    2. van der Giet M,
    3. Schwarzfeld C,
    4. Laufer U,
    5. Liermann D,
    6. Zidek W
    (2000) Prevention of radiographic-contrast-agent-induced reductions in renal function by acetylcysteine. N Engl J Med 343:180–184.
  33. ↵
    1. Vahrmeijer AL,
    2. van Dierendonck JH,
    3. Schutrups J,
    4. van de Velde CJH,
    5. Mulder GJ
    (1999a) Effect of glutathione depletion on inhibition of cell cycle progression and induction of apoptosis by melphalan (L-phenylalanine mustard) in human colorectal cancer cells. Biochem Pharmacol 58:655–664.
  34. ↵
    1. Vahrmeijer AL,
    2. van Dierendonck JH,
    3. Schutrups J,
    4. van de Velde CJ,
    5. Mulder GJ
    (1999b) Potentiation of the cytostatic effect of melphalan on colorectal cancer hepatic metastases by infusion of buthionine sulfoximine (BSO) in the rat: Enhanced tumor glutathione depletion by infusion of BSO in the hepatic artery. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 44:111–116.
  35. ↵
    1. Vukovic L,
    2. Osmak M
    (1999) Reversal of carboplatin resistance in human laryngeal carcinoma cells. Neoplasma 46:335–341.
  36. ↵
    1. Yen L,
    2. Woo A,
    3. Christopoulopoulos G,
    4. Batist G,
    5. Panasci L,
    6. Roy R,
    7. Mitra S,
    8. Alaoui-Jamali MA
    (1995) Enhanced host cell reactivation capacity and expression of DNA repair genes in human breast cancer cells resistant to bi-functional alkylating agents. Mutat Res 337:179–189.
  37. ↵
    1. Yim CY,
    2. Hibbs JB, Jr,
    3. McGregor JR,
    4. Galinsky RE,
    5. Samlowski WE
    (1994) Use of N-acetyl cysteine to increase intracellular glutathione during the induction of antitumor responses by IL-2. J Immunol 152:5796–5805.
  38. ↵
    1. Zhang K,
    2. Mack P,
    3. Wong KP
    (1998) Glutathione-related mechanisms in cellular resistance to anticancer drugs. Int J Oncol 12:871–882.
Back to top

In this issue

Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Research ArticleABSORPTION, DISTRIBUTION, METABOLISM, AND EXCRETION

Rescue from Enhanced Alkylator-Induced Cell Death with Low Molecular Weight Sulfur-Containing Chemoprotectants

Leslie L. Muldoon, Shannan L. Walker-Rosenfeld, Christopher Hale, Shawna E. Purcell, Lisa C. Bennett and Edward A. Neuwelt
Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics March 1, 2001, 296 (3) 797-805;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo

Jump to section