Skip to main content
Frontiers in Pharmacology logoLink to Frontiers in Pharmacology
. 2018 Feb 27;9:143. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2018.00143

Multifactorial Modes of Action of Arsenic Trioxide in Cancer Cells as Analyzed by Classical and Network Pharmacology

Mona Dawood 1, Sami Hamdoun 1, Thomas Efferth 1,*
PMCID: PMC5835320  PMID: 29535630

Abstract

Arsenic trioxide is a traditional remedy in Chinese Medicine since ages. Nowadays, it is clinically used to treat acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) by targeting PML/RARA. However, the drug’s activity is broader and the mechanisms of action in other tumor types remain unclear. In this study, we investigated molecular modes of action by classical and network pharmacological approaches. CEM/ADR5000 resistance leukemic cells were similar sensitive to As2O3 as their wild-type counterpart CCRF-CEM (resistance ratio: 1.88). Drug-resistant U87.MG ΔEGFR glioblastoma cells harboring mutated epidermal growth factor receptor were even more sensitive (collateral sensitive) than wild-type U87.MG cells (resistance ratio: 0.33). HCT-116 colon carcinoma p53-/- knockout cells were 7.16-fold resistant toward As2O3 compared to wild-type cells. Forty genes determining cellular responsiveness to As2O3 were identified by microarray and COMPARE analyses in 58 cell lines of the NCI panel. Hierarchical cluster analysis-based heat mapping revealed significant differences between As2O3 sensitive cell lines and resistant cell lines with p-value: 1.86 × 10-5. The genes were subjected to Galaxy Cistrome gene promoter transcription factor analysis to predict the binding of transcription factors. We have exemplarily chosen NF-kB and AP-1, and indeed As2O3 dose-dependently inhibited the promoter activity of these two transcription factors in reporter cell lines. Furthermore, the genes identified here and those published in the literature were assembled and subjected to Ingenuity Pathway Analysis for comprehensive network pharmacological approaches that included all known factors of resistance of tumor cells to As2O3. In addition to pathways related to the anticancer effects of As2O3, several neurological pathways were identified. As arsenic is well-known to exert neurotoxicity, these pathways might account for neurological side effects. In conclusion, the activity of As2O3 is not restricted to acute promyelocytic leukemia. In addition to PML/RARA, numerous other genes belonging to diverse functional classes may also contribute to its cytotoxicity. Network pharmacology is suited to unravel the multifactorial modes of action of As2O3.

Keywords: arsenic trioxide, drug resistance, pharmacogenomics, AP-1, NF-κB

Introduction

Cancer represents a major cause of mortality. It accounted for about 7 Mio deaths in 2000 (Guilbert, 2001) and 8.2 million deaths in 2012 worldwide (Ferlay et al., 2015). In 2008, 12.7 Mio new cancer cases were estimated (Jemal et al., 2010). Recently, 1,688,780 new cancer cases and about 600,920 cancer deaths were estimated to occur in the United States (Siegel et al., 2017). Although, significant progress has been made in cancer therapy during the past years, treatment outcome is still largely hampered by drug resistance and severe side effects (Wiench et al., 2012). Various mechanisms of anticancer drug resistance have been described, e.g., point mutations in drug targets, drug efflux pumps, xenobiotic detoxification mechanisms, resistance to apoptosis, repair DNA damage, alteration of cell proliferation features and others (Cree and Charlton, 2017). For this reason, novel compounds are urgently required for the improvement of treatment outcomes and survival prognosis of patients (Wiench et al., 2012).

Arsenic is a semimetal naturally existing in earth, water and air. It is found in many chemical forms such as yellow arsenic (As2S3), red arsenic (As2S2), white arsenic (As2O3) etc. (Miller et al., 2002). Since ages, As2O3 is used in traditional Chinese medicine. In the 1970s, Chinese scientists tested the potential of As2O3 to treat acute PML (Rao et al., 2013). Today, As2O3 is clinically used worldwide to treat APL and multiple myeloma (Soignet et al., 1998; Breccia and Lo-Coco, 2012; Iland et al., 2014). A major driver of tumorigenesis of APL is the PML/RARA oncogene. Interestingly, As2O3 targets this oncogene, which explains its strong activity in this tumor entity. In combination with retinoic acid, As2O3 can cure up to 90% of APL patients (Lallemand-Breitenbach et al., 2012). After binding of As2O3 to PML/RARA, sumoylation and ubiquitination takes place. Further events included in As2O3’s modes of action include reactive oxygen species generation, inducing apoptosis and cell cycle arrest, activating caspases 8 and 9, down-regulating VEGF thus suppress the angiogenesis as well as inhibition of tumor invasion and metastasis (Zhao et al., 1997; Huang et al., 1999; Perkins et al., 2000; Roboz et al., 2000; Anderson et al., 2002; Hayashi et al., 2002; Liu et al., 2003).

Independent from the activity of As2O3 in APL, other tumor types may also be affected via other mechanisms, e.g., the hedgehog signaling pathway in medulloblastoma (Beauchamp and Uren, 2012; Klinger et al., 2017), indicating that the full range of mechanisms of As2O3 has not been elucidated yet.

Recently, network pharmacology becomes an important bioinformatics tools for identifying the mechanism of action of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). Several methodologies including proteomics, metabolomics, genomics and serum pharmacokinetics are used to identify molecular target and mechanisms of TCM formulas. Applying this methods will lead to a shift from one drug- one target model to network target-multi-components models (Liang et al., 2014). In addition, applying network analysis (protein–protein interaction) may identify drug-target-related proteins (Li and Zhang, 2013).

In an endeavor to study the cytotoxic activity of As2O3 in cell lines of other tumor types than APL and to identify possible novel modes of action, we undertook the present project. The aims of this study were firstly to investigate whether classical drug resistance mechanisms such as P-glycoprotein, the tumor suppressor p53 and the EGFR may decrease cellular responsiveness to As2O3. The anti-proliferation activity of As2O3 and predominantly its effects against colon carcinoma resistant cell lines HCT116 (p53-/-), U87M. ΔEGFR glioblastoma multiforme cancer cells is reported here for the first time. Furthermore, we performed COMPARE and hierarchical cluster analyses for 58 cell lines of the National Cancer Institute (NCI, United States) from nine different tumor types1. Then, we run bioinformatical gene promoter binding motif analyses for those genes obtained by COMPARE and hierarchical cluster analyses. Since AP-1 and NF-κB binding sites were predominant in the gene promoter sequences subjected to binding motif analyses, we used reporter cell lines for these two transcription factors and indeed observed that As2O3 inhibited promoter binding of these two transcription factors. Finally, we performed interactome network analysis using IPA software to identify cellular pathways that might be affected upon As2O3 treatment.

Materials and Methods

Cell Lines and Reagents

We tested cell lines expressing different modes of drug resistance and their corresponding parental, drug sensitive cell lines. These included the leukemia CCRF-CEM (drug sensitive), and the drug resistant CEM/ADR5000 (multidrug resistant), the human glioblastoma U87.MG (wild type) and U87.MG ΔEGFR (mutated type), and the colon carcinoma HCT-116 (p53+/+) and HCT-116 (p53-/-) cell lines. The details about the cell lines were described previously by our group (Saeed et al., 2014). Glioblastoma were provided from Dr. W. K. Cavenee (Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, San Diego, CA, United States). While, colon cancer cell lines were provided by Dr. B. Vogelstein and H. Hermeking (Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Baltimore, MD, United States).

Tumor cell lines were routinely cultured in proper medium (Sigma–Aldrich, Taufkirchen, Germany) with 10% FBS (Sigma–Aldrich, Taufkirchen, Germany), 1% penicillin/streptomycin Sigma–Aldrich) (Bunz et al., 1998; Efferth et al., 2003). Moreover, doxorubicin (5000 ng/mL) was used to maintain the resistance of CEM/ADR5000 cells (Kimmig et al., 1990). While U87.MG ΔEGFR and HCT-116 (p53-/-) was treated with geneticin to maintain expression of the transcript. Cells were incubated at 37°C under 5% CO2 in a humidified atmosphere. As2O3 and geneticin were purchased from Sigma–Aldrich, Germany. Doxorubicin was kindly provided by the University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University (Mainz, Germany).

Cytotoxicity Assays

The cytotoxicity of As2O3 was assessed using the resazurin reduction assay method as previously described (Kuete et al., 2016, 2017). Cells were treated with different concentrations of As2O3, ranging from 0.003 to 500 μM. The assay principle is that resazurin (Sigma–Aldrich) is reduced by viable cells to the highly fluorescent resorufin (O’Brien et al., 2000). Dead cells have no capability to convert resazurin to resorufin which lack the fluorescence property. Infinite M2000 proplate reader (Tecan, Germany) detected the fluorescent signal that emitted by the viable cells. Experiments were done three times, with six replicates for each concentration. The viability of the cells treated with As2O3 was calculated as percentage in compared with untreated control cells. The obtained cell viability was plotted against As2O3 concentration using Microsoft Excel 2016. Dose response curve was used to calculate the IC50 values of every cell line.

NF-κB Reporter Assay

HEK-Blue-Null1 cells were obtained from Invivogen (San Diego, CA, United States). It is derived from embryonic kidney-293 (HEK-293) cell line. HEK-Blue-Null1 cells culture conditions were previously described (Kadioglu et al., 2016b; Seo et al., 2016; Hamdoun and Efferth, 2017). Briefly, HEK-Blue-Null1 cells constantly transcribe the SEAP protein under control of the NF-κB promoter. Cells were treated with varying concentrations of As2O3. NF-κB pathway was activated using 100 ng/mL of TNF and inducted for 24 h. Then, detection using pre-warmed Quanti-Blue reagent (Invivogen) was performed according to the manufacturer’s protocol. SEAP was measured spectrophotometrically at 630 nm to detect NF-κB activity. The fold change was calculated in compare with untreated control cells. The NF-κB inhibitor triptolide (1 μM, Invivogen) was used as positive control. The experiments were repeated three times.

AP-1 Reporter Assay

HEK293 cells were trypsinized and evenly distributed into 96 well plate polystyrene U96. The cells were then transfected with AP-1 luciferase reporter construct (CCS-011L, Qiagen, Germantown, MD, United States) using Attractene transfection reagent (Promega, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s protocols. After 24 h of the transfection process, cells were incubated with different doses of As2O3. After 18 h of incubation time with As2O3, AP-1 activation was induced by of 50 ng/ml phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate PMA (Sigma–Aldrich) for 24 h. AP-1 promoter activity was measured by Dual-Luciferase Reporter Assay System (Promega, Madison, WI, United States) following the manufacturer’s recommendations. Both firefly and Renilla luciferase luminescences were measured using Infinite M2000 Pro plate reader (Tecan). The firefly luciferase luminescence ratio to Renilla luciferase luminescence for each sample was calculated to obtain the relative luciferase. Normalization of AP-1 activity was done using the following equation: relative luciferase of sample over the relative luciferase of the untreated control cells (Kadioglu et al., 2016a). AP-1 luciferase assay experiments were repeated twice.

Bioinformatical Methods

In the present manuscript, we applied several methods of systems biology. While conventional medicine prefers a reductionist approach with one (or few) targets for an investigational drug, traditional medicine always emphasized the multi-specific nature of natural products (Efferth and Koch, 2011). The advent of genome-wide expression profiling techniques was estimated as specifically promising for natural product research, as complex cascades, pathways, and gross gene alteration patterns can be measured in a single experiment (Kadioglu and Efferth, 2014; Quan et al., 2014; Dos Santos et al., 2016; Fang et al., 2017). Molecular pharmacology with the investigation of single pathways has been enlarged by the new field of network pharmacology (Poornima et al., 2016; Schmidt and Efferth, 2016; Efferth et al., 2017). As myriads of data points are collected with genome-wide methods, the data evaluation requires the application of bioinformatics to uncover relevant biological mechanisms of drugs. The “-omics” technology in conjunction with bioinformatical methods allow the generation of hypothetical predictions that could be tested and verified in experimental and clinical settings.

COMPARE Analysis

A panel of 58 cell lines from National Cancer Institute (NCI), United States were used to perform COMPARE and hierarchical cluster analyses. Logarithmic IC50 values (log10IC50) of As2O3 have been deposited at the NCI database2. The mRNA expression values of NCI cell lines were determined via microarray analyses were deposited at the NCI website2 as well. These data were used to generate rank ordered lists of genes expressed in the NCI cell lines panel using COMPARE analyses (Paull et al., 1989).

To extract the most meaningful results from a non-relevant “background noise” of transcriptome-wide microarray-based mRNA hybridizations, we applied the COMPARE analysis, which has been developed by Paull et al. (1989) from the NCI (United States). During the past decades, NCI has investigated more than 300,000 compounds for their cytotoxic capability against a panel of 60 cell lines from different tumor origin. The still growing NCI drug repository does not contain only synthetic compounds but also natural products. Paull and his team observed that drugs with similar molecular modes of action reveal similar patterns of growth inhibition based on their log10IC50. This correlation was used to develop an automated algorithm based on the Pearson correlation rank test. The details of the COMPARE methodology have been described (Paull et al., 1989, 1995; Zaharevitz et al., 2002). The use of the COMPARE algorithm to analyze data from the NCI human tumor cell line screen emerged more and more as a standard tool in drug discovery.

COMPARE analysis can be applied to identify inhibitors for a given mechanism of interest (e.g., inhibitors of EGFR, tubulins, DNA topoisomerases and others) (Wosikowski et al., 1997; Pfister et al., 2009). Vice versa, COMPARE analyses can also be used to suggest possible modes of action and/or determinants of resistance for compounds of interest (e.g., P-glycoprotein, p53 or Ras) (Lee et al., 1994; Alvarez et al., 1995; Koo et al., 1996; O’Connor et al., 1997).

COMPARE analyses were performed with software implemented into the web site of the NCI3. COMPARE analyses yielded rank-ordered lists of compounds. To obtain COMPARE rankings, a scale index of similarity between log10IC50 values of As2O3 and the transcriptome-based mRNA-based gene for the NCI panel of cell lines has been generated. The mRNA microarray hybridization of the NCI cell lines has been reported and deposited at the NCI Web site4 (Scherf et al., 2000; Amundson et al., 2008).

COMPARE analyses were performed to produce rank-ordered lists of genes expressed in the NCI cell lines. The results are sorted by the correlation coefficient (R-values). The methodology has been described previously in detail as a tool to identify candidate genes for drug resistance and sensitivity (Evans et al., 2008; Fagan et al., 2012; Luzina and Popov, 2012). Greater mRNA expression correlated with enhanced drug resistance in the standard COMPARE approach, whereas greater mRNA expression in cell lines indicated drug sensitivity in reverse COMPARE analyses. Pearson’s correlation test was used to calculate significance values and rank correlation coefficients as a relative measure for the linear dependency of two variables.

Hierarchical Cluster Analyses

Another wide used methodology to extract relevant results from transcriptomic data sets are cluster analyses, which represent distance/proximity-based approaches to unravel structures in large data sets. In systems biology, cluster analyses are valuable to define profiles of genes (“gene signatures”), whose expression is linked to biological phenomena, i.e., histological subtypes of tumors, resistance or sensitivity of tumors toward anticancer treatments, survival chances of cancer patients etc. Among the numerous clustering methods (e.g., topological interaction models, influence maps, physical regulatory maps, self-organizing maps, principal component analysis etc.), supervised, hierarchical and aggregative techniques provide advantages for pharmacological questions in cancer biology and pharmacology, because of their flexibility, possibility to include biological knowledge with different weighting, and detection of higher-order relationships between clusters of profiles (Mocellin et al., 2005). Aggregative hierarchical clustering represents a frequently method to investigate gene expression signatures (Eisen et al., 1998; Perou et al., 2000; Ross et al., 2000).

In the present study, we performed hierarchical cluster Analysis to group heterogeneous objects into clusters of homogeneous objects. All objects are assembled into a cluster tree (dendrogram). Thus, objects with tightly related features appear together, whereas the separation in the cluster tree increases with progressive dissimilarity. The merging of objects with similar features leads to formation of a cluster, the shortest the distance of the branch the closest degree of relatedness (Kadioglu and Efferth, 2015). Hierarchical clustering and heat map analysis were conducted using clustered image map (CIM) miner software. One matrix CIM4 and Ward method were performed. Importantly, COMPARE analyses and cluster models have been validated for gene expression profiling, identification of candidate genes for drug resistance and sensitivity and for understanding molecular biology of cancer (Efferth et al., 1997; Scherf et al., 2000).

Interactome Network Analysis

The biomedical literature has been flooded with genomic and transcriptomic data, which urgently need to be organized in bioregulatory networks comparable to electronic circuit programs. The rationale to generate regulatory network models is that pathophysiological processes may be associated with unexpected traits that are not amenable to standard statistical techniques. Building reliable regulatory networks from large-scale genomic and transcriptomic will considerably improve the identification of novel signaling routes and therapeutic targets, since both may differ in healthy and diseased cells (Lefebvre et al., 2012). Hence network approaches will be indispensable for patient-tailored precision medicine to predict drug response and overcome drug resistance (Ganter and Giroux, 2008).

Therefore, a number of software programs have been developed to address this problem, including programs developed at academia such as network molecular interaction maps (MIMs) (Kohn, 1999, 2001; Kohn et al., 2006a,b; Luna et al., 2011), Cytoscape, (Ideker et al., 2001), CellDesigner (Funahashi et al., 2003), TranscriptomeBrowser (Lopez et al., 2008; Lepoivre et al., 2012), PathVisio-Validator (Chandan et al., 2012), Systems Biology Graphical Notation (Ma et al., 2014) as well as commercial products, e.g., Biocarta, Ingenuity Pathway analysis, Pathway Studio, MetaCore and many others. All these programs reveal advantages and disadvantages (Thomas and Bonchev, 2010; Wang et al., 2013).

In the present investigation, genes described in the literature as factors determining cellular responsiveness to As2O3 (Table 5) plus the genes identified via compare analysis of our present and previous investigations on As2O3 (Efferth and Kaina, 2004) were chosen to perform network analyses using Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA) (Qiagen Bioinformatics, Redwood City, CA, United States), as IPA is one of the most used programs to generate bioregulatory networks. We performed network analysis using two different approaches: manually curated pathways and software-based analyses. Published information from literature was used to generate the network and to cluster the genes. IPA Pathway Designer was used to construct the network and the pathways where our genes contributed to.

Table 5.

Compilation of determinants of cellular responsiveness of cancer cells toward As2O3.

Genes/Proteins Reference
Oxidative stress response:
Present investigation;
GSH Yang et al., 1999; Davison et al., 2003; Hour et al., 2004; Lee et al., 2006; Han et al., 2008; Matulis et al., 2009; Matulis et al., 2012
SOD (Cu/Zn) Hour et al., 2004
NXN, TXNRD1 Efferth and Kaina, 2004
BACH2 Zhou et al., 2005
γ-glutamyltransferase Giommarelli et al., 2009
HO-1 Zhou et al., 2005
HIF-1α Tung et al., 2011; Liu H. et al., 2016
GST-π Zhao et al., 2011
Drug transport:
ABCC1 (MRP1);ABCC2 (MRP2); ABCC4 (MRP4) Seo et al., 2007; Chen et al., 2009; Yuan et al., 2016
ASAN1 Chen et al., 2009
DNA repair:
SMC2L1 Efferth and Kaina, 2004
hMSH2 Hour et al., 2004
Cell cycle/proliferation:
ARHGAPAP19, CDKN2D, PRKACA, Present investigation
TFDP2, ZNF151 Efferth and Kaina, 2004
p21WAF/CIP Hour et al., 2004
BTBD2, IGFBP1 Zhou et al., 2005
CCND1 Roszak et al., 2013
AURKB Yih et al., 2013
Tumor suppressors/oncogenes:
RBBP4, CHMP1A, GPRC5A Present investigation
PML/RARAα Goto et al., 2011; Tomita et al., 2013; Chendamarai et al., 2015; Lou et al., 2015; Liu J. et al., 2016
p53 Yan et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2013; Zheng et al., 2014
EGFR Zhang et al., 2012
MYC Hour et al., 2004
Signal transduction:
CAMK4, PPAP2C, PKB3 Present investigation
AP-1 (Fos/Jun) Present investigation
DDEF2, SDC1, SH2BP3, STMN1, TJP1 Efferth and Kaina, 2004
PI3K, PKC, AKT Tabellini et al., 2005; Roszak et al., 2013; Yih et al., 2013; Amigo-Jimenez et al., 2015
NFKB1 Efferth and Kaina, 2004
Metabolic pathways:
ME1, COAS4, ALDH3A2 Present investigation
ALDH3A2 Efferth and Kaina, 2004
ALDH3A1 Zhang et al., 2015
Cytoskeleton:
PTPRC, ABLIM1, EPB41L1, PLS1 Present investigation
ACAA2, ARHGEF7, KRT8, MYL3 Efferth and Kaina, 2004
Apoptosis:
ID1 Present investigation
GRB7, PIGPC1 Efferth and Kaina, 2004
Bcl2, Noxa Hour et al., 2004; Matulis et al., 2012
Mcl-1 Amigo-Jimenez et al., 2015

Gene Promoter Transcription Factor Motif Analysis

Forty genes from the COMPARE analyses results significantly associated with log10IC50 values of As2O3 for the 58 cell lines. UCSC Genome Browser Gene5 was used to analyze the 40 genes to obtain gene’s promoter sequences up to 50 kilobases upstream of the transcription start site. The results were saved on BED (Browser Extensible Data) files for further use (Seo et al., 2016).

The bed file was uploaded on Galaxy, Cistrome software (Liu et al., 2011) to detect the possible transcription factor binding motifs for the selected genes. The software is available at http://cistrome.dfci.harvard.edu/ap/root. Integrative analysis using SeqPos tool was applied to screen the motif binding site on the uploaded genes promoter sequences. Both, UCSC Genome Browser and Galaxy, Cistrome are free softwares. SeqPos tool scans all the motifs that are available on the following databases Transfac, JASPAR, UniPROBE (pbm), hPDI database. The result of the screening was ordered by -log10 (P-value).

Statistical Analysis

Pearson’s correlation test was applied to calculate significance correlation in COMPARE and hierarchical cluster analyses. The chi-squared test was performed to investigate the linear dependency between the resistance and the sensitivity of the cell lines panel. Student’s t-test (Microsoft Excel 2016) was applied to determine the statistical significance of As2O3 effect on AP-1 and NF-κB transcription factors. A level of P < 0.05 was revealed as statistically significant. All data were shown as mean values ± SD.

Results

Cytotoxicity

The cytotoxic effect of As2O3 was determined using resazurin reduction assay. As2O3 was applied on three different resistance mechanisms (P-glycoprotein overexpression, mutant EGFR, knockout p53). The IC50 values for CCRF-CEM cells and CEM/ADR5000 cells were 0.48 ± 0.22 μM and 0.90 ± 0.38 μM, respectively. For CEM/ADR5000 the degrees of resistance was 1.88. Additionally, As2O3 was tested against HCT116 p53 knockout cells (p53-/-) and their wild-type cells, HCT116 (p53+/+). The HCT116 (p53-/-) cells exhibited resistance toward As2O3 with an IC50 value of 90.83 ± 0.83 μM, which was higher than the IC50 value of wild-type HCT116 (p53+/+) cells (12.68 ± 0.78 μM). Interestingly, glioblastoma cell line (U87.MG) were even more sensitive to As2O3 than U87.MG wild-type cells with IC50 values of 15.60 ± 0.93 and 47.82 ± 1.25 μM, respectively. The degree of resistance was 0.33. The Dose response curves and IC50 values for the above-mentioned cell lines are shown in Figure 1 and Table 1.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Growth inhibition of sensitive and drug-resistance cancer cell lines treated with different concentrations of As2O3. (A). CCRF-CEM and P-glycoprotein-expressing CEM/ADR5000 leukemia cell lines; (B) HCT-116 (p53+/+) wild-type and HCT-116 (p53-/-) knockout colon carcinoma cell lines; (C) U87.MG wild-type and EGFR-transfected U87.MG ΔEGFR glioblastoma cell lines. The dose response curves show mean values ± SD of three independent experiments with each six parallel measurements.

Table 1.

IC50 values of As2O3 toward various tumor cell lines.

Cell lines As2O3
IC50 (μM) Degree of resistance
CCRF-CEM 0.48 ± 0.22 1.88
CEM/ADR5000 0.90 ± 0.38
U87.MG 47.82 ± 1.25 0.33
U87.MG ΔEGFR 15.60 ± 0.93
HCT116 (p53+/+) 12.68 ± 0.74 7.16
HCT116 (p53-/-) 90.83 ± 0.83

The data is shown as mean values ± SD of three independent experiments with each six parallel measurements. Degrees of resistance were calculated by dividing the IC50 value of resistant cell line over the IC50 value of sensitive cell line.

COMPARE and Hierarchical Cluster Analyses

The transcriptome-wide mRNA expression of the 58 NCI cell lines were subjected to COMPARE analyses based on Pearson’s rank correlation tests. In this test, the microarray expression data were correlated with the log10IC50 values of As2O3 for the 58 cell lines. This bioinformatics approach permitted the identification of molecular factors that liked to cellular response to As2O3. The top 20 genes with positive correlation coefficients and top 20 genes with negative correlation coefficients are shown in Table 2. These 40 genes were used to conduct hierarchical cluster analysis (cluster image mapping) to predict, whether these genes may play a role in sensitivity or resistance of the cells to As2O3. The resulting dendrogram with the 58 cell lines applied cluster analyses depicted on the left of the heat-map, while distribution of the 40 genes are shown on the top of the heat-map (Figure 2). The dendrogram can be divided into four major clusters for As2O3. Based on chi-square test we looked whether the clustering of cell was associated with cellular responsiveness of the cell lines to As2O3. Indeed, the branching of sensitive or resistant cell lines was statistically significant (Table 3). The genes identified via this approach belong to diverse groups such as cell cycle progression and proliferation genes including (PRKACA, ARHGAP19, CDKN2D etc.), tumor suppressor related genes (RBBP4, CHMP1A, and GPRC5A), cytoskeleton related genes (PTPRC, ABLIM1, EPB41L1 and PLS1), metabolic pathway genes (ME1, COASY, and ALDH3A2), signal transduction genes (PPAP2C and PKP3) and apoptosis-regulating gene (ID1).

Table 2.

Correlation coefficients of mRNA expression to log10 IC50 values identified by COMPARE analyses for 58 NCI tumor cell lines and functions of the identified genes.

Coefficient Symbol Name Function
0.568 PRKACA Protein kinase, cAMP-dependent, catalytic, α Affects cell cycle progression and proliferation by downregulation of CDKN1B.
0.507 ARHGAP19 Rho GTPase activating protein 19 Involved in cell migration, proliferation, actin remodeling, differentiation, and G1 cell cycle progression.
0.487 CAMK4 Calcium/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase IV Role in spermatogenesis by phosphorylating protamines.
0.485 BTN2A1 Butyrophilin, subfamily 2, member A1 Involved in cell proliferation and development.
0.483 SEPT6 Septin 6 Involved in cytokinesis
0.475 ITGA4 Integrin, α 4 (antigen CD49D, α 4 subunit of VLA-4 receptor) Cell surface adhesion receptor mediating cell-adhesion to extracellular matrix or to other cells.
0.475 CNTRL Centrosomal protein 110 kDa Involved in cell cycle progression and cytokinesis.
0.471 DNAJC8 Platelet-activating factor receptor Unknown
0.47 SPDEF SAM pointed domain containing ets transcription factor Tumor metastasis suppressor.
0.47 RYR3 Ryanodine receptor 3 Calcium release from intracellular storage.
0.469 IKZF1 IKAROS family zinc finger 1 (Ikaros) Implicated in the control of lymphoid development.
0.467 ACTR2 ARP2 actin-related protein 2 homolog (yeast) Role for cell shape and motility.
0.463 PTPRC Protein tyrosine phosphatase, receptor type Structural constituents of cytoskeleton, involved in cell organization/biogenesis.
0.459 PRIM2 Primase, DNA, polypeptide 2 (58 kDa) DNA primase subunit, key enzyme in DNA replication.
0.457 RBBP4 Retinoblastoma binding protein Inhibitor of TGFB1 activity, plays a role in oncogenesis.
0.454 PRR3 Proline rich 3 Nucleic acid binding activity.
0.452 CDKN2D Cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2D (p19) Cell growth regulator controlling G1 cell cycle progression.
0.452 ARHGEF6 Rac/Cdc42 guanine nucleotide exchange factor (GEF) 6 Activator of Ras-like family of Rho proteins by exchanging bound GDP for GTP.
0.45 NDC80 NDC80 homolog, kinetochore complex component (S. cerevisiae) Component of the essential kinetochore-associated NDC80 complex, which is required for chromosome segregation and spindle checkpoint activity.
0.448 VCY Variable charge, Y-linked May mediate spermatogenesis processes or may contribute to sex ratio distortion.
0.435 IRF2 Interferon regulatory factor 2 Repressor of IRF1, transcriptional activator of histone H4, regulates NFκB activity.
-0.71 PPAP2C Phosphatidic acid phosphatase type 2C Converts phosphatidic acid to diacylglycerol, function in de novo synthesis of glycerolipids phospholipase D-mediated signal transduction.
-0.566 ALDH3A2 Aldehyde dehydrogenase 3 family, member A2 Catalyzes the oxidation of long-chain aliphatic aldehydes to fatty acids.
-0.542 ME1 Malic enzyme 1, NADP+-dependent, cytosolic Mitochondrial NAD-dependent malic enzyme, catalyzing the oxidative decarboxylation of malate to pyruvate.
-0.539 COASY CoA synthase Coenzyme A (CoA) is a carrier of acetyl and acyl groups in cells and is crucial for numerous metabolic pathways.
-0.533 PKP3 Plakophilin 3 Mediating protein-protein interactions. Playing a role in junctional plaques.
-0.531 ID1 Inhibitor of DNA binding 1, dominant negative helix-loop-helix protein Implicated in regulating a variety of cellular processes, including cellular growth, senescence, differentiation, apoptosis, angiogenesis, and neoplastic transformation.
-0.517 GPRC5A G protein-coupled receptor, family C, group 5, member A Functions as a tumor suppressor in lung cancer. May play a role in the proliferation of breast cancer cells.
-0.513 TST Thiosulfate sulfurtransferase (rhodanese) May contribute to cyanide detoxification.
-0.496 ABLIM1 Actin binding LIM protein 1 Putatively bridging the actin-based cytoskeleton with LIM protein-binding partners.
-0.493 CPD Carboxypeptidase D Carboxypeptidase, involved in secretory pathways.
-0.487 CHMP1A Chromatin modifying protein 1A Role in nuclear gene silencing, tumor suppressor, regulates tumor growth by the TP53 signaling pathway.
-0.486 GFPT1 Glutamine–fructose-6-phosphate transaminase 1 Involved in regulating the availability of precursors for N and O-linked glycosylation of proteins.
0.483 EPB41L1 Erythrocyte membrane protein band 4.1-like 1 Critical for the membrane-associated cytoskeleton structure of erythrocytes.
-0.48 TACC2 Transforming, acidic coiled-coil containing protein 2 Playing a role in organizing centrosomal microtubules, tumor progression marker.
-0.479 INPP1 Inositol polyphosphate-1-phosphatase Involved in response to lithium prophylaxis and treatment of bipolar disorders.
-0.477 MST1R Macrophage stimulating 1 receptor (c-met-related tyrosine kinase) Involved in development of epithelial tissue as well as cell proliferation, cell survival, and cell motility in both normal and disease states.
-0.476 PLS1 Plastin 1 Actin-bundling protein in the absence of calcium.
-0.475 KRT8 Keratin 8 Role in maintaining cellular structural integrity.
0.475 GULP1 GULP, engulfment adaptor PTB domain containing 1 Adaptor protein required for efficient engulfment of apoptotic cells by phagocytes.

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Heat map obtained by cluster analysis from microarray-based mRNA expression profiles of genes correlating with cellular responsiveness to As2O3. The analysis shows the clustering of 58 NCI tumor cell lines.

Table 3.

Separation of clusters of NCI cell lines obtained by hierarchical cluster analyses for As2O3.

Sensitive Resistant
AS2O3
Partition (log10IC50) <-5.45 M >-5.45 M
Cluster 1 6 17
Cluster 2 0 7
Cluster 3 18 5
Cluster 4 5 0
χ2 Test P = 1.86 × 10-5

The median log10IC50 value (M) for As2O3 was used as a cut-off to separate cancer cell lines as being “sensitive” or “resistant.”

Gene Promoter Analysis for Transcription Factor Binding Motifs

Using the computational method of Galaxy Cistrome analysis, we investigated DNA promoter sequences of deregulated genes found in NCI microarray data. Forty genes were uploaded to Galaxy Cistrome for SeqPos motif scan. These genes are contribute in cell cycle progression and proliferation, cytokinesis, metabolic pathways, cell shape, apoptosis and signal transduction. The top 20 pronounced motifs are illustrated in Table 4. Interestingly, AP-1 and NF-κB were among the top transcription factors that possibly bind to the promoters with z-scores of -5.456 and -5.268, respectively. Both factors play critical role in the cancer therapy.

Table 4.

Top 20 transcription factor promoter binding motifs for genes identified by COMPARE analysis (see Table 3).

Clusters Factor z-score -10log(p-value)
1 YY1 -7.388 302.304
Zfp42 -6.184 218.837
2 PIF3 -6.798 259.645
Tye7 -3.945 101.291
3 JUND -6.447 235.883
AP-1 -5.456 175.291
AP-1 -5.034 152.444
AP-1 -4.834 142.187
AP-1 -4.286 116.074
GCN4 -4.208 112.612
BACH2 -3.219 73.482
4 Hic1 -5.884 200.294
5 EBF1 -5.841 197.699
6 MYB -5.793 194.848
Myb -3.468 82.468
7 REB1 -5.788 194.519
8 STAT1 -5.636 185.601
9 Ets1 -5.585 182.653
10 Ets1 -4.274 115.545
Ets1 -4.047 105.592
ELK4 -3.344 77.908
Etv5 -3.298 76.284
Etv4 -3.135 70.602
TAF-1 -5.508 178.251
11 HBP-1a -4.112 108.405
TAF-1 -3.659 89.741
CPRF-1 -3.21 73.169
LTF -5.483 176.81
12 NEUROD1 -5.445 174.695
13 MYF -3.482 82.983
Myf -3.482 82.983
LMO2 -5.319 167.711
14 Tcfe2a -5.29 166.101
AREB6| ZEB1 -4.582 129.833
ATOH1 -3.199 72.778
NF-κB -5.268 164.89
15 NF-κB -4.056 105.966
P50:P50 -3.365 78.671
MZF1_1-4 -5.19 160.702
16 Churchill -3.25 74.581
UBP1 -5.046 153.04
17 S8| Prrx2 -5.034 152.432
18 Msx-2 -4.391 120.844
Gbx2 -3.887 98.882
Msx2 -3.79 94.95
HOXD1 -3.298 76.274
Barx-2 -3.192 72.547
Prrx2 -3.191 72.514
SP3 -5.015 151.433
19 TIMELESS -5.014 151.355
20 Egr| Egr1 -4.994 150.332

The binding motifs have been identified using Galaxy Cistrome.

AP-1 Reporter Assay

Based on this finding, we assume that As2O3 may affect AP-1. To verify this hypothesis, we generated an AP-1 reporter cell line. The transfected HEK293 was incubated with five different concentrations of As2O3 to find out, whether AP-1 promoter activity was inhibited. Treatment of transfected cells with As2O3 significantly inhibited the PMA-mediated AP-1 activity in a dose-dependent manner as shown in Figure 3.

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Effect of As2O3 on transfected HEK-293 cells with an AP1 luciferase reporter construct. The AP1 reporter cell line was treated with five different concentrations of As2O3. The quantification was done after 24 h incubation in comparison to untreated control cells (CT). Mean value standard deviation of triplicate measurements are shown. Indicates statistical significant in compare to control cells at level of P < 0.05.

NF-κB Reporter Assay

Interestingly, the capability of As2O3 to affect NF-κB is debatable point in the literature. As2O3 can act as activator or inhibitor NF-κB (Woo et al., 2004; Han et al., 2005). From our motif analysis, we obtained NF-κB among the top 20 transcription factors. Therefore, we investigated whether As2O3 is able to inhibit NF-κB signaling. To achieve this, we performed a SEAP-driven NF-κB reporter cell line. Indeed, As2O3 inhibit NF-κB in a comparable manner as the NF-κB inhibitor, triptolide. The fold change was statistically significant for three As2O3 concentrations (10, 15, and 50 μM) as demonstrated in Figure 4.

FIGURE 4.

FIGURE 4

Effect of As2O3 on NF-κB activity. The HEK-BlueTM cell line was treated with four different concentrations of As2O3 or 1 μM triptolide (TP) as positive control. The quantification was done after 1 h incubation in comparison to untreated control cells (CT). Mean value standard deviation of triplicate measurements are shown. Indicates statistical significant in compare to control cells at level of P < 0.05.

Interactome Network Analysis

For network analysis, we subjected the transcriptomic data of our present and previous investigations on As2O3 (Efferth and Kaina, 2004) as well as of factors determining cellular responsiveness to As2O3, which are known from the literature. In addition to the well-known target of As2O3 in APL, the PML-RARAα fusion protein (Goto et al., 2011; Tomita et al., 2013; Chendamarai et al., 2015; Lou et al., 2015; Liu J. et al., 2016), numerous other determinants of resistance have been described in the literature (Table 5). Firstly, we performed a manually curated analysis of the genes by visual inspection of the genes and assigning then to their specific functions. The main functional groups were oxidative stress response, DNA repair, regulation of cell cycle/proliferation, signal transduction, drug transporter, cytoskeletal elements, tumor suppressors/oncogenes, metabolic pathways, and apoptosis. Based on this analysis, a presumable integrative interaction network was constructed (Figure 5).

FIGURE 5.

FIGURE 5

Synopsis of mechanisms involved in the activity of As2O3 against cancer cells.

As a second step, we subjected the assembled genes to Ingenuity Pathway Analysis. The interactome map obtained was rather complex (Figure 6). Therefore, we refined the analysis by analyzing the canonical pathways. The identified pathways belonged to signal transduction (phospholipase C signaling, protein kinase A signaling, signaling by Rho family GTPases, actin cytoskeleton signaling), molecular mechanisms of cancer, neurological pathways (axonal guidance signaling, neuroregulin signaling, agrin interactions with neuromuscular junctions), PXR/RXR activation, IL-7 signaling pathway and androgen signaling (Figure 7). The significance of this pathway are presented as –log (p-value) in Figure 8.

FIGURE 6.

FIGURE 6

Network pharmacology for genes determining cellular responsiveness to As2O3 using Ingenuity Pathway Analysis. Dashed and solid lines indicates indirect and direct interactions, respectively.

FIGURE 7.

FIGURE 7

Canonical pathway analysis for genes determining cellular responsiveness to As2O3 using Ingenuity Pathway Analysis.

FIGURE 8.

FIGURE 8

Pathways identified by IPA. Significance P-values were calculated based on the Fisher’s right tailed exact test. The –log (p-value) are shown on the y-axis of the bar chart. The color of the bars indicates the activity (orange bars) or the inhibition (blue bars) of the predicted pathways. In this analysis only significant results was shown. By default IPA applies a –log (p-value) cutoff of 1.3 (threshold). Pathways with a p-value equal to or greater than (less significant than) 0.05 are not shown. The orange and blue colored bars indicate predicted pathway activation, or predicted inhibition, respectively (z-score). White bars are those with a z-score at or very close to 0. Gray bars indicate pathways, where no prediction can currently be made.

In addition, cell death and survival, cell cycle, cell morphology, cellular movement, cellular development were identified by IPA as biological functions from our selected genes (Figure 9). A network of 36 selected genes that involve in the cell death (apoptosis) as the top biological function is shown in Figure 10.

FIGURE 9.

FIGURE 9

Statistically significant biological function analysis using IPA.

FIGURE 10.

FIGURE 10

Set of 43 genes that involve in cell death function. This gene is duplicated on the inserted dataset.

While the importance of signaling processes was obvious by both visually and IPA-guided analyses, both approaches revealed additional functional groups complementing each other and highlighting the complexity of mechanisms contributing to the cytotoxicity of As2O3.

Discussion

In the current study, we investigated the potential of As2O3 to treat drug-resistant tumor cells. Tumors frequently develop resistance to a broad spectrum of anti-cancer drugs (Efferth et al., 2008). Therefore, drug resistance represents an important obstacle to defeat cancer. In this study, we showed that As2O3 revealed profound cytotoxicity toward various cancer cell lines.

Our results showed that multidrug-resistant CEM/ADR5000 cells which overexpress P-glycoprotein did not reveal cross-resistance to As2O3. Therefore, P-glycoprotein did not play an important role for resistance cellular responsiveness to As2O3. Our results are in accordance with those of (Hu et al., 2003), who also did not find cross-resistance of multidrug-resistant P-glycoprotein-expressing cell lines toward As2O3. This finding is also corroborated by data generated by Sertel et al. (2012). As2O3 counteracted multidrug resistance by interference with drug resistance genes. The expression of DNA topoisomerase 2 was increased and of glutathione S-transferase-π and Bcl-2 decreased upon treatment with As2O3 (Zhao et al., 2011). Other ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporters than P-glycoprotein might be more important for As2O3. Treatment with As2O3 lead to the induction of ABCC1, but not P-glycoprotein (Seo et al., 2007) and As2O3-resistant cell lines overexpressed P-glycoprotein but also ABCC1, ABCC2, and ABCC4 (Chen et al., 2009, 2016; Yuan et al., 2016). ABCC1-overexpressing tumor cells accumulated less As2O3 than wild-type cells (Salerno and Garnier-Suillerot, 2003).

To the best of our knowledge, the anti-proliferative activities of As2O3 and particularly its effect against p53 knockout HCT116 (p53-/-) colon carcinoma and EGRF mutant U87.MG ΔEGFR glioblastoma multiforme cell lines are being tested for the first time.

TP53 maintains cellular integrity by regulating cell cycle arrest, DNA repair and apoptosis. Functional loss by TP53 mutations lead not only to carcinogenesis, but to drug and radio resistance too (Hientz et al., 2017). In our investigation, HCT116 (p53-/-) knockout cells exhibited resistance toward As2O3. Our data are in agreement with other investigations with isogenic cell lines (Yan et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2013), but not with cell lines with different p53 status and different genomic background (Liu et al., 2003; Zhao et al., 2008). This indicates that the p53 mutational status in correlation studies with different cell lines may be overruled by other mechanisms of resistance to As2O3. Therefore, the targeted loss of p53 function by knockout was more suitable to undoubtedly elucidate the role of p53 as resistance factor for As2O3. A role of p53 mutations can also be deduced from cells resistant to As2O3, which acquired p53 mutations and which were re-sensitized to As2O3 by a small molecule inhibitor specifically targeting mutant p53, nutlin-3 (Zheng et al., 2014).

Furthermore, we found that U87.MG cells showed collateral sensitivity to As2O3. EGFR plays a significant role in cancer progression, not only by transducing growth signals into cancer cells, but also by triggering invasion and metastasis (Baselga, 2002; Lui and Grandis, 2002). Inhibition of EGFR leads to the induction of apoptosis. This may explain, how As2O3 suppresses EGFR-expressing tumor cells (Efferth and Kaina, 2004). The phenomenon of collateral sensitivity (hypersensitivity) offers an attractive strategy to overcome drug resistance (Pluchino et al., 2012). Moreover, collateral sensitivity may open the chance for combination therapy of known anticancer drugs with As2O3 to efficiently kill drug- resistant tumors with EGFR over expression. The reason for the collateral sensitivity is not yet known, but a direct interaction of As2O3 with EGFR could be suggested, since it has been reported that As2O3 down-regulated EGFR expression in a dose-dependent manner (Zhang et al., 2012).

We further evaluated the molecular factors of sensitivity and resistance of cancer cell lines toward As2O3. We correlated the log10IC50-values with the microarray- based mRNA expression profiles of 58 tumor cell lines by COMPARE analysis. Genes from diverse functional groups have been identified. Previously, the effect of As2O3 on mRNA expression profile of NCI cell line panel have been reported (Efferth and Kaina, 2004; Sertel et al., 2012). Here, we focused on the Novartis microarray platform. In all studies the chi-square test reveal a significant clustering of the cell lines based on their sensitivity or resistance toward As2O3. Moreover, several biological functions of the genes, e.g., cell cycle progression, and proliferation related genes, signal transduction and apoptosis-regulating gene were common in the previous and the present investigations.

Interestingly, the transcription factors binding motif analysis revealed two transcription factors (NF-κB and AP-1) which are closely connected not only to carcinogenesis but also with drug resistance (Boeckx et al., 2015). Therefore, we evaluated the potential of As2O3 to inhibit the activity of both AP-1 and NF-κB. NF-κB and AP-1 regulate numerous important cellular processes. NF-κB activity is regulated by IκB kinase, which phosphorylates the NF-κB inhibitor IκB. Fos is key constituent of AP-1 and is regulated by serum responsive factors (SRFs) as well as ternary complex factors (TCFs). AP-1 regulates cellular growth, differentiation, program cell death, transformation and invasion (McDonnell et al., 1990; Szabo et al., 1991; Brown et al., 1993). AP-1 complexes, particularly those that contain c-Jun, achieve their growth promoting function via repression of tumor suppressor genes, such as p53, p21cip1/waf1 and p16 (Shaulian and Karin, 2001). Although NF-κB and AP-1 are two distinct regulatory mechanisms, they may modulate each other (Fujioka et al., 2004).

Our results that As2O3 inhibited the DNA-binding activity in a reporter cell model are in accordance with other reports demonstrating that As2O3 inhibited NF-κB activity (Han et al., 2005; Wei et al., 2005; Mathieu and Besancon, 2006; Ghaffari et al., 2016). The ectopic expression of NF-κB p65 protected cells from As2O3 induced apoptosis (Ghaffari et al., 2016), indicating that the NF-κB pathway mediates resistance to As2O3.

Activator protein 1 (AP-1) is a transcription factor belongs to the group of trans-acting elements that consist of several proteins, including JUN, FOS, ATF (activating transcription factor) and MAF (musculoaponeurotic fibrosarcoma). AP-1 forms homodimers or heterodimers via its leucine-zipper domains, different dimerization ultimately allow that AP-1 recognizes different sequences in the promoters and enhancers of target genes (Eferl and Wagner, 2003). The AP-1 activity was causatively linked to cell transformation and it assumed to be a significant factor for tumorigenesis (Kharman-Biz et al., 2013). Therefore, AP-1 might provide opportunities for the development of novel targeted cancer treatment strategies (Angel and Karin, 1991; Milde-Langosch et al., 2004; Kharman-Biz et al., 2013). Interestingly, AP-1 drives not only carcinogenesis, but also increases the expression of multidrug resistance-conferring MDR1 gene (Daschner et al., 1999). Therefore, c-Jun is a potential drug target to combat MDR (Passegue and Wagner, 2000).

Using an AP-1-specific reporter cell line, we found that As2O3 inhibited AP-1 activity. This result fits to data of (Yedjou and Tchounwou, 2009), who observed that the As2O3-induced cell cycle arrest was correlated with repression of c-Fos (as component of the AP-1 heterodimeric complex). In another study, As2O3 treatment also downregulated c-Fos expression (Walker et al., 2016). The second partner of AP-1, c-Jun, was more phosphorylated is As2O3-resistant cells and hypophosphorylated in As2O3-sensitive cells upon As2O3 treatment (Roszak et al., 2013).

Nuclear factor (NF-κB) is another transcription factor responsible for expression regulation of genes involve in apoptosis, drug resistance, innate and adaptive immune responses, proliferation and metastasis (Guttridge et al., 1999). It exists as inactive form in the cytoplasm by interacting with inhibitory proteins (IκB). Phosphorylation of IκB by IκB kinase (IKK) activates NF-κB. Then, NF-κB is translocated to the nucleus, where it binds to specific gene promoters to trans-activate the expression of target genes (Baud and Karin, 2009). NF-κB is constitutively active in hematologic malignancies and various types of solid tumors (Bharti et al., 2003). Besides, cancer cells become resistant to antitumor drugs and irradiations by NF-κB activation (Baud and Karin, 2009). Furthermore, decreased expression of anti-apoptotic genes is correlated with inhibition of NF-κB (Lin et al., 2010). Taken together the inhibition of NF-κB represents a promising target for cancer prevention and therapy (Nakanishi and Toi, 2005; Lin et al., 2010).

Several studies described that As2O3 exerts its anti-tumor activity by inhibiting AP-1 (Um et al., 2002; Brown et al., 2007). However, other studies showed that As2O3 stimulated AP-1 activity in cultured human fibroblasts and APL (Burnichon et al., 2003; Jang et al., 2012). This contradiction points to the fact that many arsenic compounds reveal both anti-cancer and pro-cancer activates. In this study, we used HEK293 cell lines transfected with AP-1 luciferase reporter construct to detect the activity of AP-1 after As2O3 treatment. We showed that As2O3 inhibit AP-1 in dose- dependent manner and this in line with previous study in HeLa, CaSki, and C33A cells (Wang et al., 2014).

On the other hand, many suggestions have been put forth on the mechanisms, by which As2O3 cause apoptosis. One of the proposed explanations is that As2O3 inhibits the NF-κB activity. It induces genes involve in cell survival, tumor growth, blocking apoptosis and metastasis (Berman et al., 2002). NF-κB up-regulates both intracellular adhesion molecules and vascular cell adhesion, and inhibits IL-6 secretion resulting from adhesion of multiple myeloma cells to bone marrow stroma (Miller et al., 2002).

Our results from NF-κB reporter assays are in line with other studies demonstrating that As2O3 significantly inhibits NF-κB activity in a dose- dependent manner. In HL-60 cells, As2O3 suppressed the DNA-binding activity of the NF-κB heterodimer (p65/p50) through inhibiting the degradation of IκB-α and then preventing nuclear translocation of p65 and the binding of NF-κB with their target gene consensus sequences (Han et al., 2005).

Although it is well known that natural products act rather in a multi-specific manner than mono-specifically against one single target (Efferth and Koch, 2011), it turns out more and more that synthetic drugs and even targeted small molecules affect multiple targets and pathways in diseased cells (Geromichalos et al., 2016). Therefore, network pharmacological approaches have been suggested to provide a more comprising picture of what is happening in cell upon drug treatment (Poornima et al., 2016). Hence, network pharmacology represents a valuable tool to investigate the mode of action of both synthetic and natural compounds. A conclusion that can be drawn from our network analysis of As2O3 is that rather entire gene clusters belonging to specific pathways and functional groups than single genes were involved in drug action. Given the individual differences of organisms and the biological flexibility to adapt to xenobiotic exposures, it is reasonable from an evolutionary point of view to assume cellular and molecular reactions of high flexibility and plasticity. The concept of the past (“one drug – one target”) obviously needs to be revisited and enlarged by a “one drug – multiple pathway” hypothesis.

The international sequencing projects (e.g., Cancer Genome Atlas,) unraveled a huge diversity of mutational profiles and gene expression patterns in individual tumors (Chin and Gray, 2008). Hence, it is reasonable that each patient’s tumor might react in a different manner to chemotherapy. In the case of As2O3, we found several major functional groups using manual curated network analysis to be involved in cellular responsiveness to the drug, i.e., oxidative stress response, DNA repair, regulation of cell cycle/proliferation, signal transduction, drug transporter, cytoskeletal elements, tumor suppressors/oncogenes, metabolic pathways, and apoptosis. On the other hand, we found many other important pathways using IPA network analysis, e.g., molecular mechanisms of cancer, axonal guidance signaling, signaling by Rho family GTPases, protein kinase A signaling, phospholipase signaling, actin cytoskeleton signaling etc. The manually curated and the IPA approaches revealed comparable findings for three types of pathways: signal transduction, metabolic pathways and cytoskeletal elements. Moreover, axonal guidance signaling, neuroregulin signaling and agrin interaction at neuromuscular junction pathways may demonstrate the neurotoxicity of As2O3. This is an interesting finding, since neurotoxicity is a known toxicity of arsenic (Vahidnia et al., 2007). Our IPA analysis identified three canonical pathways that might explain neurotoxic effects of As2O3. Furthermore, neurological effects of arsenic may lead to cytoskeletal framework disorganization which is a suggested mechanism of arsenic-induced neurotoxicity (Vahidnia et al., 2007). Interestingly, IPA network analysis also revealed several pathways which are directly connected with the cytoskeleton in addition to glioma signaling. It deserves further investigations, whether these pathways are also involved in the collateral sensitivity of the U87.MG. ΔEGFR glioblastoma cells to As2O3. Not surprisingly, IPA showed cell death and survival as top biological functions of the inserted genes with a p-value of 4.28E-09 and with 43 genes that contribute to this function.

Having the inter- and intra-tumor heterogeneity in mind, it is reasonable to assume that different tumors activate different genes belonging to the same main pathways and functional groups. The complexity of this process can be manage by network modeling, and corresponding bioinformatical tools are becoming more and more indispensable for pharmacology of both synthetic and natural drugs.

In conclusion, As2O3 was active against tumor cell lines. It showed collateral sensitivity toward U87.MG ΔEGFR. In addition to that, it inhibited AP-1 and NF-κB activity in a dose- dependent manner. COMPARE and cluster analyses using gene expression profiling of 58 NCI cell lines predicted the sensitivity or resistance of cancer cells to As2O3. Using a network pharmacological approach, we identified functional clusters of genes involved in the mechanisms of action in cancer cells.

Author Contributions

MD performed the cytotoxicity, COMPARE and hierarchical cluster analyses, promoter binding motif analysis. NF-KB and AP-1 reporter assays, Interactome network analysis, and drafted the paper. SH performed the cytotoxicity and drafted the paper. TE supervised the project and corrected the paper.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

We are thankful to the Ph.D. stipend provided to MD by the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research as well as the Al-Neelain University, Khartoum, Sudan.

Abbreviations

APL

acute promyelocytic leukemia

AP-1

activator protein 1

As2O3

arsenic trioxide

EGFR

epidermal growth factor receptor

NF-κB

nuclear factor-kappa in B cells

PMA

phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate

PML

promyelocytic leukemia

RARA

retinoic acid receptor alpha

SEAP

secreted embryonic alkaline phosphatase

TNF

tumor necrosis factor

Footnotes

References

  1. Alvarez M., Paull K., Monks A., Hose C., Lee J.-S., Weinstein J., et al. (1995). Generation of a drug resistance profile by quantitation of mdr-1/P-glycoprotein in the cell lines of the national cancer institute anticancer drug screen. J. Clin. Invest. 95 2205–2214. 10.1172/JCI117910 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Amigo-Jimenez I., Bailon E., Aguilera-Montilla N., Terol M. J., Garcia-Marco J. A., Garcia-Pardo A. (2015). Bone marrow stroma-induced resistance of chronic lymphocytic leukemia cells to arsenic trioxide involves Mcl-1 upregulation and is overcome by inhibiting the PI3Kdelta or PKCbeta signaling pathways. Oncotarget 6 44832–44848. 10.18632/oncotarget.6265 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Amundson S. A., Do K. T., Vinikoor L. C., Lee R. A., Koch-Paiz C. A., Ahn J., et al. (2008). Integrating global gene expression and radiation survival parameters across the 60 cell lines of the national cancer institute anticancer drug screen. Cancer Res. 68 415–424. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-2120 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Anderson K. C., Boise L. H., Louie R., Waxman S. (2002). Arsenic trioxide in multiple myeloma: rationale and future directions. Cancer J. 8 12–25. 10.1097/00130404-200201000-00003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Angel P., Karin M. (1991). The role of Jun, Fos and the AP-1 complex in cell-proliferation and transformation. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1072 129–157. 10.1016/0304-419X(91)90011-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Baselga J. (2002). Why the epidermal growth factor receptor? The rationale for cancer therapy. Oncologist 7(Suppl. 4) 2–8. 10.1634/theoncologist.7-suppl_4-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Baud V., Karin M. (2009). Is NF-κB a good target for cancer therapy? Hopes and pitfalls. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 8 33–40. 10.1038/nrd2781 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Beauchamp E. M., Uren A. (2012). A new era for an ancient drug: arsenic trioxide and hedgehog signaling. Vitam. Horm. 88 333–354. 10.1016/B978-0-12-394622-5.00015-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Berman K. S., Verma U. N., Harburg G., Minna J. D., Cobb M. H., Gaynor R. B. (2002). Sulindac enhances tumor necrosis factor-alpha-mediated apoptosis of lung cancer cell lines by inhibition of nuclear factor-κB. Clin. Cancer Res. 8 354–360. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bharti A. C., Donato N., Singh S., Aggarwal B. B. (2003). Curcumin (diferuloylmethane) down-regulates the constitutive activation of nuclear factor-κ B and IkappaBalpha kinase in human multiple myeloma cells, leading to suppression of proliferation and induction of apoptosis. Blood 101 1053–1062. 10.1182/blood-2002-05-1320 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Boeckx C., Blockx L., De Beeck K. O., Limame R., Camp G. V., Peeters M., et al. (2015). Establishment and characterization of cetuximab resistant head and neck squamous cell carcinoma cell lines: focus on the contribution of the AP-1 transcription factor. Am. J. Cancer Res. 5 1921–1938. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Breccia M., Lo-Coco F. (2012). Arsenic trioxide for management of acute promyelocytic leukemia: current evidence on its role in front-line therapy and recurrent disease. Expert Opin. Pharmacother. 13 1031–1043. 10.1517/14656566.2012.677436 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Brown M., Bellon M., Nicot C. (2007). Emodin and DHA potently increase arsenic trioxide interferon-alpha-induced cell death of HTLV-I-transformed cells by generation of reactive oxygen species and inhibition of Akt and AP-1. Blood 109 1653–1659. 10.1182/blood-2006-04-015537 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Brown P. H., Alani R., Preis L. H., Szabo E., Birrer M. J. (1993). Suppression of oncogene-induced transformation by a deletion mutant of c-jun. Oncogene 8 877–886. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Bunz F., Dutriaux A., Lengauer C., Waldman T., Zhou S., Brown J. P., et al. (1998). Requirement for p53 and p21 to sustain G2 arrest after DNA damage. Science 282 1497–1501. 10.1126/science.282.5393.1497 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Burnichon V., Jean S., Bellon L., Maraninchi M., Bideau C., Orsiere T., et al. (2003). Patterns of gene expressions induced by arsenic trioxide in cultured human fibroblasts. Toxicol. Lett. 143 155–162. 10.1016/S0378-4274(03)00171-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Chandan K., Van Iersel M. P., Aladjem M. I., Kohn K. W., Luna A. (2012). PathVisio-Validator: a rule-based validation plugin for graphical pathway notations. Bioinformatics 28 889–890. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr694 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Chen J., Cheng J., Yi J., Xie B., Lin L., Liu Z., et al. (2016). Differential expression and response to arsenic stress of MRPs and ASAN1 determine sensitivity of classical multidrug-resistant leukemia cells to arsenic trioxide. Leuk. Res. 50 116–122. 10.1016/j.leukres.2016.10.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Chen X., Zhang M., Liu L. X. (2009). The overexpression of multidrug resistance-associated proteins and gankyrin contribute to arsenic trioxide resistance in liver and gastric cancer cells. Oncol. Rep. 22 73–80. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Chendamarai E., Ganesan S., Alex A. A., Kamath V., Nair S. C., Nellickal A. J., et al. (2015). Comparison of newly diagnosed and relapsed patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia treated with arsenic trioxide: insight into mechanisms of resistance. PLoS One 10:e0121912. 10.1371/journal.pone.0121912 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Chin L., Gray J. W. (2008). Translating insights from the cancer genome into clinical practice. Nature 452 553–563. 10.1038/nature06914 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Cree I. A., Charlton P. (2017). Molecular chess? Hallmarks of anti-cancer drug resistance. BMC Cancer 17:10. 10.1186/s12885-016-2999-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Daschner P. J., Ciolino H. P., Plouzek C. A., Yeh G. C. (1999). Increased AP-1 activity in drug resistant human breast cancer MCF-7 cells. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 53 229–240. 10.1023/A:1006138803392 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Davison K., Cote S., Mader S., Miller W. H. (2003). Glutathione depletion overcomes resistance to arsenic trioxide in arsenic-resistant cell lines. Leukemia 17 931–940. 10.1038/sj.leu.2402876 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Dos Santos B. S., da Silva L. C., da Silva T. D., Rodrigues J. F., Grisotto M. A., Correia M. T., et al. (2016). Application of omics technologies for evaluation of antibacterial mechanisms of action of plant-derived products. Front. Microbiol. 7:1466. 10.3389/fmicb.2016.01466 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Eferl R., Wagner E. F. (2003). AP-1: a double-edged sword in tumorigenesis. Nat. Rev. Cancer 3 859–868. 10.1038/nrc1209 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Efferth T., Fabry U., Osieka R. (1997). Apoptosis and resistance to daunorubicin in human leukemic cells. Leukemia 11 1180–1186. 10.1038/sj.leu.2400669 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Efferth T., Koch E. (2011). Complex interactions between phytochemicals. The multi-target therapeutic concept of phytotherapy. Curr. Drug Targets 12 122–132. 10.2174/138945011793591626 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Efferth T., Konkimalla V. B., Wang Y. F., Sauerbrey A., Meinhardt S., Zintl F., et al. (2008). Prediction of broad spectrum resistance of tumors towards anticancer drugs. Clin. Cancer Res. 14 2405–2412. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-4525 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Efferth T., Saeed M. E. M., Mirghani E., Alim A., Yassin Z., Saeed E., et al. (2017). Integration of phytochemicals and phytotherapy into cancer precision medicine. Oncotarget 8 50284–50304. 10.18632/oncotarget.17466 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Efferth T., Sauerbrey A., Olbrich A., Gebhart E., Rauch P., Weber H. O., et al. (2003). Molecular modes of action of artesunate in tumor cell lines. Mol. Pharmacol. 64 382–394. 10.1124/mol.64.2.382 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Efferth T, Kaina B. (2004). Microarray-based prediction of cytotoxicity of tumor cells to arsenic trioxide. Cancer Genomics Proteomics 1 363–370. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Eisen M. B., Spellman P. T., Brown P. O., Botstein D. (1998). Cluster analysis and display of genome-wide expression patterns. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 95 14863–14868. 10.1073/pnas.95.25.14863 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Evans A., Bates V., Troy H., Hewitt S., Holbeck S., Chung Y.-L., et al. (2008). Glut-1 as a therapeutic target: increased chemoresistance and HIF-1-independent link with cell turnover is revealed through COMPARE analysis and metabolomic studies. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 61 377–393. 10.1007/s00280-007-0480-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Fagan V., Bonham S., Carty M. P., Saenz-Méndez P., Eriksson L. A., Aldabbagh F. (2012). COMPARE analysis of the toxicity of an iminoquinone derivative of the imidazo [5, 4-f] benzimidazoles with NAD (P) H: quinone oxidoreductase 1 (Nqo1) activity and computational docking of quinones as NQO1 substrates. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 20 3223–3232. 10.1016/j.bmc.2012.03.063 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Fang J., Liu C., Wang Q., Lin P., Cheng F. (2017). In silico polypharmacology of natural products. Brief Bioinform. 10.1093/bib/bbx045 [Epub ahead of print]. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Ferlay J., Soerjomataram I., Dikshit R., Eser S., Mathers C., Rebelo M., et al. (2015). Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int. J. Cancer 136 E359–E386. 10.1002/ijc.29210 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Fujioka S., Niu J., Schmidt C., Sclabas G. M., Peng B., Uwagawa T., et al. (2004). NF-κB and AP-1 connection: mechanism of NF-κB-dependent regulation of AP-1 activity. Mol. Cell. Biol. 24 7806–7819. 10.1128/MCB.24.17.7806-7819.2004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Funahashi A., Morohashi M., Kitano H., Tanimura N. (2003). CellDesigner: a process diagram editor for gene-regulatory and biochemical networks. Biosilico 1 159–162. 10.1016/S1478-5382(03)02370-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Ganter B., Giroux C. N. (2008). Emerging applications of network and pathway analysis in drug discovery and development. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Dev. 11 86–94. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Geromichalos G. D., Alifieris C. E., Geromichalou E. G., Trafalis D. T. (2016). Overview on the current status of virtual high-throughput screening and combinatorial chemistry approaches in multi-target anticancer drug discovery; Part I. J. BUON 21 764–779. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Ghaffari S. H., Yousefi M., Dizaji M. Z., Momeny M., Bashash D., Zekri A., et al. (2016). Arsenic trioxide induces apoptosis and incapacitates proliferation and invasive properties of U87MG glioblastoma cells through a possible NF-κB-mediated mechanism. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 17 1553–1564. 10.7314/APJCP.2016.17.3.1553 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Giommarelli C., Corti A., Supino R., Favini E., Paolicchi A., Pompella A., et al. (2009). gamma-Glutamyltransferase-dependent resistance to arsenic trioxide in melanoma cells and cellular sensitization by ascorbic acid. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 46 1516–1526. 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2009.03.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Goto E., Tomita A., Hayakawa F., Atsumi A., Kiyoi H., Naoe T. (2011). Missense mutations in PML-RARA are critical for the lack of responsiveness to arsenic trioxide treatment. Blood 118 1600–1609. 10.1182/blood-2011-01-329433 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Guilbert J. J. (2001). The search for HR continues: WHO’s general programme of work 2002-2005 and the world health report 2001 on mental health. Educ. Health 14 452–453. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Guttridge D. C., Albanese C., Reuther J. Y., Pestell R. G., Baldwin A. S., Jr. (1999). NF-κB controls cell growth and differentiation through transcriptional regulation of cyclin D1. Mol. Cell. Biol. 19 5785–5799. 10.1128/MCB.19.8.5785 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Hamdoun S., Efferth T. (2017). Ginkgolic acids inhibit migration in breast cancer cells by inhibition of Nemo sumoylation and NF-κB activity. Oncotarget 8 35103-35115 10.18632/oncotarget.16626 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Han S. S., Kim K., Hahm E. R., Park C. H., Kimler B. F., Lee S. J., et al. (2005). Arsenic trioxide represses constitutive activation of NF-κB and COX-2 expression in human acute myeloid leukemia, HL-60. J. Cell. Biochem. 94 695–707. 10.1002/jcb.20337 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Han Y. H., Kim S. Z., Kim S. H., Park W. H. (2008). Induction of apoptosis in arsenic trioxide-treated lung cancer A549 cells by buthionine sulfoximine. Mol. Cells 26 158–164. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Hayashi T., Hideshima T., Akiyama M., Richardson P., Schlossman R. L., Chauhan D., et al. (2002). Arsenic trioxide inhibits growth of human multiple myeloma cells in the bone marrow microenvironment. Mol. Cancer Ther. 1 851–860. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Hientz K., Mohr A., Bhakta-Guha D., Efferth T. (2017). The role of p53 in cancer drug resistance and targeted chemotherapy. Oncotarget 8 8921–8946. 10.18632/oncotarget.13475 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Hour T. C., Huang C. Y., Lin C. C., Chen J., Guan J. Y., Lee J. M., et al. (2004). Characterization of molecular events in a series of bladder urothelial carcinoma cell lines with progressive resistance to arsenic trioxide. Anticancer Drugs 15 779–785. 10.1097/00001813-200409000-00007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Hu X. M., Hirano T., Oka K. (2003). Arsenic trioxide induces apoptosis equally in T lymphoblastoid leukemia MOLT-4 cells and P-gp-expressing daunorubicin-resistant MOLT-4 cells. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 51 119–126. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Huang X. J., Wiernik P. H., Klein R. S., Gallagher R. E. (1999). Arsenic trioxide induces apoptosis of myeloid leukemia cells by activation of caspases. Med. Oncol. 16 58–64. 10.1007/BF02787360 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Ideker T., Thorsson V., Ranish J. A., Christmas R., Buhler J., Eng J. K., et al. (2001). Integrated genomic and proteomic analyses of a systematically perturbed metabolic network. Science 292 929–934. 10.1126/science.292.5518.929 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Iland H. J., Wei A., Seymour J. F. (2014). Have all-trans retinoic acid and arsenic trioxide replaced all-trans retinoic acid and anthracyclines in APL as standard of care. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Haematol. 27 39–52. 10.1016/j.beha.2014.04.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Jang M., Kim Y., Won H., Lim S., K R J., Dashdorj A., et al. (2012). Carbonyl reductase 1 offers a novel therapeutic target to enhance leukemia treatment by arsenic trioxide. Cancer Res. 72 4214–4224. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-1110 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Jemal A., Center M. M., Desantis C., Ward E. M. (2010). Global patterns of cancer incidence and mortality rates and trends. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 19 1893–1907. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0437 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Kadioglu O., Efferth T. (2014). Contributions from emerging transcriptomics technologies and computational strategies for drug discovery. Invest. New Drugs 32 1316–1319. 10.1007/s10637-014-0081-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Kadioglu O., Efferth T. (2015). Pharmacogenomic characterization of cytotoxic compounds from Salvia officinalis in cancer cells. J. Nat. Prod. 78 762–775. 10.1021/np501007n [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Kadioglu O., Fu Y., Wiench B., Zu Y., Efferth T. (2016a). Synthetic cajanin stilbene acid derivatives inhibit c-MYC in breast cancer cells. Arch. Toxicol. 90 575–588. 10.1007/s00204-015-1480-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Kadioglu O., Jacob S., Bohnert S., Nass J., Saeed M. E., Khalid H., et al. (2016b). Evaluating ancient Egyptian prescriptions today: ANti-inflammatory activity of Ziziphus spina-christi. Phytomedicine 23 293–306. 10.1016/j.phymed.2016.01.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Kharman-Biz A., Gao H., Ghiasvand R., Zhao C., Zendehdel K., Dahlman-Wright K. (2013). Expression of activator protein-1 (AP-1) family members in breast cancer. BMC Cancer 13:441. 10.1186/1471-2407-13-441 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Kimmig A., Gekeler V., Neumann M., Frese G., Handgretinger R., Kardos G., et al. (1990). Susceptibility of multidrug-resistant human leukemia cell lines to human interleukin 2-activated killer cells. Cancer Res. 50 6793–6799. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Klinger P. H., Andrade A. F., Delsin L. E., Queiroz R. G., Scrideli C. A., Tone L. G., et al. (2017). Inhibition of Shh pathway mechanisms by arsenic trioxide in pediatric medulloblastomas: a comprehensive literature review. Genet. Mol. Res. 16 1–15. 10.4238/gmr16019412 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Kohn K. W. (1999). Molecular interaction map of the mammalian cell cycle control and DNA repair systems. Mol. Biol. Cell 10 2703–2734. 10.1091/mbc.10.8.2703 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Kohn K. W. (2001). Molecular interaction maps as information organizers and simulation guides. Chaos 11 84–97. 10.1063/1.1338126 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Kohn K. W., Aladjem M. I., Kim S., Weinstein J. N., Pommier Y. (2006a). Depicting combinatorial complexity with the molecular interaction map notation. Mol. Syst. Biol. 2:51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Kohn K. W., Aladjem M. I., Weinstein J. N., Pommier Y. (2006b). Molecular interaction maps of bioregulatory networks: a general rubric for systems biology. Mol. Biol. Cell 17 1–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Koo H.-M., Monks A., Mikheev A., Rubinstein L. V., Gray-Goodrich M., Mcwilliams M. J., et al. (1996). Enhanced sensitivity to 1-β-D-arabinofuranosylcytosine and topoisomerase II inhibitors in tumor cell lines harboring activated ras oncogenes. Cancer Res. 56 5211–5216. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Kuete V., Mbaveng A. T., Nono E. C., Simo C. C., Zeino M., Nkengfack A. E., et al. (2016). Cytotoxicity of seven naturally occurring phenolic compounds towards multi-factorial drug-resistant cancer cells. Phytomedicine 23 856–863. 10.1016/j.phymed.2016.04.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Kuete V., Mbaveng A. T., Sandjo L. P., Zeino M., Efferth T. (2017). Cytotoxicity and mode of action of a naturally occurring naphthoquinone, 2-acetyl-7-methoxynaphtho[2,3-b]furan-4,9-quinone towards multi-factorial drug-resistant cancer cells. Phytomedicine 33 62–68. 10.1016/j.phymed.2017.07.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Lallemand-Breitenbach V., Zhu J., Chen Z., De The H. (2012). Curing APL through PML/RARA degradation by As2O3. Trends Mol. Med. 18 36–42. 10.1016/j.molmed.2011.10.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Lee C. C., Lin Y. Y., Huang M. J., Lin C. P., Liu C. R., Chow J., et al. (2006). Increased cellular glutathione and protection by bone marrow stromal cells account for the resistance of non-acute promylocytic leukemia acute myeloid leukemia cells to arsenic trioxide in vivo. Leuk. Lymphoma 47 521–529. 10.1080/10428190500305851 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Lee J.-S., Paull K., Alvarez M., Hose C., Monks A., Grever M., et al. (1994). Rhodamine efflux patterns predict P-glycoprotein substrates in the national cancer institute drug screen. Mol. Pharmacol. 46 627–638. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Lefebvre C., Rieckhof G., Califano A. (2012). Reverse-engineering human regulatory networks. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Syst. Biol. Med. 4 311–325. 10.1002/wsbm.1159 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Lepoivre C., Bergon A., Lopez F., Perumal N. B., Nguyen C., Imbert J., et al. (2012). TranscriptomeBrowser 3.0: introducing a new compendium of molecular interactions and a new visualization tool for the study of gene regulatory networks. BMC Bioinformatics 13:19. 10.1186/1471-2105-13-19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Li S., Zhang B. (2013). Traditional Chinese medicine network pharmacology: theory, methodology and application. Chin. J. Nat. Med. 11 110–120. 10.3724/SP.J.1009.2013.00110 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Liang X., Li H., Li S. (2014). A novel network pharmacology approach to analyse traditional herbal formulae: the Liu-Wei-Di-Huang pill as a case study. Mol. Biosyst. 10 1014–1022. 10.1039/c3mb70507b [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Lin Y., Bai L., Chen W., Xu S. (2010). The NF-κB activation pathways, emerging molecular targets for cancer prevention and therapy. Expert Opin. Ther. Targets 14 45–55. 10.1517/14728220903431069 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Liu H., Zhang Z., Chi X., Zhao Z., Huang D., Jin J., et al. (2016). Arsenite-loaded nanoparticles inhibit PARP-1 to overcome multidrug resistance in hepatocellular carcinoma cells. Sci. Rep. 6:31009. 10.1038/srep31009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Liu J., Zhu H. H., Jiang H., Jiang Q., Huang X. J. (2016). Varying responses of PML-RARA with different genetic mutations to arsenic trioxide. Blood 127 243–250. 10.1182/blood-2015-04-637678 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Liu Q., Hilsenbeck S., Gazitt Y. (2003). Arsenic trioxide-induced apoptosis in myeloma cells: p53-dependent G1 or G2/M cell cycle arrest, activation of caspase-8 or caspase-9, and synergy with APO2/TRAIL. Blood 101 4078–4087. 10.1182/blood-2002-10-3231 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Liu T., Ortiz J. A., Taing L., Meyer C. A., Lee B., Zhang Y., et al. (2011). Cistrome: an integrative platform for transcriptional regulation studies. Genome Biol. 12:R83. 10.1186/gb-2011-12-8-r83 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Lopez F., Textoris J., Bergon A., Didier G., Remy E., Granjeaud S., et al. (2008). TranscriptomeBrowser: a powerful and flexible toolbox to explore productively the transcriptional landscape of the Gene Expression Omnibus database. PLoS One 3:e4001. 10.1371/journal.pone.0004001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Lou Y., Ma Y., Sun J., Ye X., Pan H., Wang Y., et al. (2015). Evaluating frequency of PML-RARA mutations and conferring resistance to arsenic trioxide-based therapy in relapsed acute promyelocytic leukemia patients. Ann. Hematol. 94 1829–1837. 10.1007/s00277-015-2477-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Lui V. W., Grandis J. R. (2002). EGFR-mediated cell cycle regulation. Anticancer Res. 22 1–11. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Luna A., Karac E. I., Sunshine M., Chang L., Nussinov R., Aladjem M. I., et al. (2011). A formal MIM specification and tools for the common exchange of MIM diagrams: an XML-Based format, an API, and a validation method. BMC Bioinformatics 12:167. 10.1186/1471-2105-12-167 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Luzina E. L., Popov A. V. (2012). Synthesis, evaluation of anticancer activity and COMPARE analysis of N-bis (trifluoromethyl) alkyl-N’-substituted ureas with pharmacophoric moieties. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 53 364–373. 10.1016/j.ejmech.2012.03.026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  90. Ma H., Groth R. D., Cohen S. M., Emery J. F., Li B., Hoedt E., et al. (2014). γCaMKII shuttles Ca2+/CaM to the nucleus to trigger CREB phosphorylation and gene expression. Cell 159 281–294. 10.1016/j.cell.2014.09.019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  91. Mathieu J., Besancon F. O. (2006). Clinically tolerable concentrations of arsenic trioxide induce p53-independent cell death and repress NF-κB activation in Ewing sarcoma cells. Int. J. Cancer 119 1723–1727. 10.1002/ijc.21970 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Matulis S. M., Morales A. A., Yehiayan L., Croutch C., Gutman D., Cai Y., et al. (2009). Darinaparsin induces a unique cellular response and is active in an arsenic trioxide-resistant myeloma cell line. Mol. Cancer Ther. 8 1197–1206. 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-08-1072 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Matulis S. M., Morales A. A., Yehiayan L., Lee K. P., Cai Y., Boise L. H. (2012). Alterations in glutathione levels and apoptotic regulators are associated with acquisition of arsenic trioxide resistance in multiple myeloma. PLoS One 7:e52662. 10.1371/journal.pone.0052662 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  94. McDonnell S. E., Kerr L. D., Matrisian L. M. (1990). Epidermal growth factor stimulation of stromelysin mRNA in rat fibroblasts requires induction of proto-oncogenes c-fos and c-jun and activation of protein kinase C. Mol. Cell. Biol. 10 4284–4293. 10.1128/MCB.10.8.4284 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  95. Milde-Langosch K., Roder H., Andritzky B., Aslan B., Hemminger G., Brinkmann A., et al. (2004). The role of the AP-1 transcription factors c-Fos, FosB, Fra-1 and Fra-2 in the invasion process of mammary carcinomas. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 86 139–152. 10.1023/B:BREA.0000032982.49024.71 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  96. Miller W. H., Jr., Schipper H. M., Lee J. S., Singer J., Waxman S. (2002). Mechanisms of action of arsenic trioxide. Cancer Res. 62 3893–3903. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  97. Mocellin S., Provenzano M., Rossi C. R., Pilati P., Nitti D., Lise M. (2005). DNA array-based gene profiling: from surgical specimen to the molecular portrait of cancer. Ann. Surg. 241 16–26. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  98. Nakanishi C., Toi M. (2005). Nuclear factor-κB inhibitors as sensitizers to anticancer drugs. Nat. Rev. Cancer 5 297–309. 10.1038/nrc1588 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  99. O’Brien J., Wilson I., Orton T., Pognan F. (2000). Investigation of the Alamar Blue (resazurin) fluorescent dye for the assessment of mammalian cell cytotoxicity. Eur. J. Biochem. 267 5421–5426. 10.1046/j.1432-1327.2000.01606.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  100. O’Connor P. M., Jackman J., Bae I., Myers T. G., Fan S., Mutoh M., et al. (1997). Characterization of the p53 tumor suppressor pathway in cell lines of the national cancer institute anticancer drug screen and correlations with the growth-inhibitory potency of 123 anticancer agents. Cancer Res. 57 4285–4300. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  101. Passegue E., Wagner E. F. (2000). JunB suppresses cell proliferation by transcriptional activation of p16(INK4a) expression. EMBO J. 19 2969–2979. 10.1093/emboj/19.12.2969 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  102. Paull K., Hamel E., Malspeis L. (1995). Prediction of Biochemical Mechanism of Action from the in Vitro Antitumor Screen of the National Cancer Institute. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. [Google Scholar]
  103. Paull K. D., Shoemaker R. H., Hodes L., Monks A., Scudiero D. A., Rubinstein L., et al. (1989). Display and analysis of patterns of differential activity of drugs against human tumor cell lines: development of mean graph and COMPARE algorithm. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 81 1088–1092. 10.1093/jnci/81.14.1088 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  104. Perkins C., Kim C. N., Fang G., Bhalla K. N. (2000). Arsenic induces apoptosis of multidrug-resistant human myeloid leukemia cells that express Bcr-Abl or overexpress MDR, MRP, Bcl-2 or Bcl-x(L). Blood 95 1014–1022. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  105. Perou C. M., Sørlie T., Eisen M. B., Van De Rijn M., Jeffrey S. S., Rees C. A., et al. (2000). Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 406 747–752. 10.1038/35021093 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  106. Pfister T. D., Reinhold W. C., Agama K., Gupta S., Khin S. A., Kinders R. J., et al. (2009). Topoisomerase I levels in the NCI-60 cancer cell line panel determined by validated ELISA and microarray analysis and correlation with indenoisoquinoline sensitivity. Mol. Cancer Ther. 8 1878–1884. 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-09-0016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  107. Pluchino K. M., Hall M. D., Goldsborough A. S., Callaghan R., Gottesman M. M. (2012). Collateral sensitivity as a strategy against cancer multidrug resistance. Drug Resist. Updat. 15 98–105. 10.1016/j.drup.2012.03.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  108. Poornima P., Kumar J. D., Zhao Q., Blunder M., Efferth T. (2016). Network pharmacology of cancer: From understanding of complex interactomes to the design of multi-target specific therapeutics from nature. Pharmacol. Res. 111 290–302. 10.1016/j.phrs.2016.06.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  109. Quan Y., Wang Z. Y., Xiong M., Xiao Z. T., Zhang H. Y. (2014). Dissecting traditional Chinese medicines by omics and bioinformatics. Nat. Prod. Commun. 9 1391–1396. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  110. Rao Y., Li R., Zhang D. (2013). A drug from poison: how the therapeutic effect of arsenic trioxide on acute promyelocytic leukemia was discovered. Sci. China Life Sci. 56 495-502. 10.1007/s11427-013-4487-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  111. Roboz G. J., Dias S., Lam G., Lane W. J., Soignet S. L., Warrell R. P., et al. (2000). Arsenic trioxide induces dose- and time-dependent apoptosis of endothelium and may exert an antileukemic effect via inhibition of angiogenesis. Blood 96 1525–1530. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  112. Ross D. T., Scherf U., Eisen M. B., Perou C. M., Rees C., Spellman P., et al. (2000). Systematic variation in gene expression patterns in human cancer cell lines. Nat. Genet. 24 227–235. 10.1038/73432 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  113. Roszak J., Smok-Pieniążek A., Nocun M., Stepnik M. (2013). Characterization of arsenic trioxide resistant clones derived from Jurkat leukemia T cell line: focus on PI3K/Akt signaling pathway. Chem. Biol. Interact. 205 198–211. 10.1016/j.cbi.2013.07.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  114. Saeed M., Kuete V., Kadioglu O., Bortzler J., Khalid H., Greten H. J., et al. (2014). Cytotoxicity of the bisphenolic honokiol from Magnolia officinalis against multiple drug-resistant tumor cells as determined by pharmacogenomics and molecular docking. Phytomedicine 21 1525–1533. 10.1016/j.phymed.2014.07.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  115. Salerno M., Garnier-Suillerot A. (2003). Resistance to arsenic- and antimony-based drugs. Bioinorg. Chem. Appl. 1 189–198. 10.1155/S1565363303000153 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  116. Scherf U., Ross D. T., Waltham M., Smith L. H., Lee J. K., Tanabe L., et al. (2000). A gene expression database for the molecular pharmacology of cancer. Nat. Genet. 24 236–244. 10.1038/73439 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  117. Schmidt F., Efferth T. (2016). Tumor heterogeneity, single-cell sequencing, and drug resistance. Pharmaceuticals 9:33. 10.3390/ph9020033 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  118. Seo E. J., Saeed M., Law B. Y., Wu A. G., Kadioglu O., Greten H. J., et al. (2016). Pharmacogenomics of scopoletin in tumor cells. Molecules 21:496. 10.3390/molecules21040496 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  119. Seo T., Urasaki Y., Ueda T. (2007). Establishment of an arsenic trioxide-resistant human leukemia cell line that shows multidrug resistance. Int. J. Hematol. 85 26–31. 10.1532/IJH97.05142 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  120. Sertel S., Tome M., Briehl M. M., Bauer J., Hock K., Plinkert P. K., et al. (2012). Factors determining sensitivity and resistance of tumor cells to arsenic trioxide. PLoS One 7:e35584. 10.1371/journal.pone.0035584 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  121. Shaulian E., Karin M. (2001). AP-1 in cell proliferation and survival. Oncogene 20 2390–2400. 10.1038/sj.onc.1204383 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  122. Siegel R. L., Miller K. D., Jemal A. (2017). Cancer Statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J. Clin. 67 7–30. 10.3322/caac.21387 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  123. Soignet S. L., Maslak P., Wang Z. G., Jhanwar S., Calleja E., Dardashti L. J., et al. (1998). Complete remission after treatment of acute promyelocytic leukemia with arsenic trioxide. N. Engl. J. Med. 339 1341–1348. 10.1056/NEJM199811053391901 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  124. Szabo E., Preis L. H., Brown P. H., Birrer M. J. (1991). The role of jun and fos gene family members in 12-O-tetradecanoylphorbol-13-acetate induced hemopoietic differentiation. Cell Growth Differ. 2 475–482. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  125. Tabellini G., Cappellini A., Tazzari P. L., Fala F., Billi A. M., Manzoli L., et al. (2005). Phosphoinositide 3-kinase/Akt involvement in arsenic trioxide resistance of human leukemia cells. J. Cell. Physiol. 202 623–634. 10.1002/jcp.20153 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  126. Thomas S., Bonchev D. (2010). A survey of current software for network analysis in molecular biology. Hum. Genomics 4 353–360. 10.1186/1479-7364-4-5-353 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  127. Tomita A., Kiyoi H., Naoe T. (2013). Mechanisms of action and resistance to all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide (As2O 3) in acute promyelocytic leukemia. Int. J. Hematol. 97 717–725. 10.1007/s12185-013-1354-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  128. Tung J. N., Cheng Y. W., Hsu C. H., Liu T. Z., Hsieh P. Y., Ting L. L., et al. (2011). Normoxically overexpressed hypoxia inducible factor 1-Alpha is involved in arsenic trioxide resistance acquisition in hepatocellular carcinoma. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 18 1492–1500. 10.1245/s10434-010-1444-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  129. Um S. J., Lee S. Y., Kim E. J., Myoung J., Namkoong S. E., Park J. S. (2002). Down-regulation of human papillomavirus E6/E7 oncogene by arsenic trioxide in cervical carcinoma cells. Cancer Lett. 181 11–22. 10.1016/S0304-3835(02)00039-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  130. Vahidnia A., Van Der Voet G. B., De Wolf F. A. (2007). Arsenic neurotoxicity - A review. Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 26 823–832. 10.1177/0960327107084539 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  131. Walker A. M., Stevens J. J., Ndebele K., Tchounwou P. B. (2016). Evaluation of arsenic trioxide potential for lung cancer treatment: assessment of apoptotic mechanisms and oxidative damage. J. Cancer Sci. Ther. 8 1–9. 10.4172/1948-5956.1000379 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  132. Wang H., Gao P., Zheng J. (2014). Arsenic trioxide inhibits cell proliferation and human papillomavirus oncogene expression in cervical cancer cells. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 451 556–561. 10.1016/j.bbrc.2014.08.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  133. Wang S., Duan C., Zhang F., Ma W., Guo X. (2013). Regulatory gene networks and signaling pathways from primary osteoarthritis and Kashin–Beck disease, an endemic osteoarthritis, identified by three analysis software. Gene 512 89–96. 10.1016/j.gene.2012.10.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  134. Wei L. H., Lai K. P., Chen C. A., Cheng C. H., Huang Y. J., Chou C. H., et al. (2005). Arsenic trioxide prevents radiation-enhanced tumor invasiveness and inhibits matrix metalloproteinase-9 through downregulation of nuclear factor kappa B. Oncogene 24 390–398. 10.1038/sj.onc.1208192 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  135. Wiench B., Eichhorn T., Paulsen M., Efferth T. (2012). Shikonin directly targets mitochondria and causes mitochondrial dysfunction in cancer cells. Evid. Based Complement. Alternat. Med. 2012:726025. 10.1155/2012/726025 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  136. Woo S. H., Park I. C., Park M. J., An S., Lee H. C., Jin H. O., et al. (2004). Arsenic trioxide sensitizes CD95/Fas-induced apoptosis through ROS-mediated upregulation of CD95/Fas by NF-kappa B activation. Int. J. Cancer 112 596–606. 10.1002/ijc.20433 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  137. Wosikowski K., Schuurhuis D., Johnson K., Paull K. D., Myers T. G., Weinstein J. N., et al. (1997). Identification of epidermal growth factor receptor and c-erbB2 pathway inhibitors by correlation with gene expression patterns. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 89 1505–1515. 10.1093/jnci/89.20.1505 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  138. Yan W. S., Zhang Y. H., Zhang J., Liu S., Cho S. J., Chen X. B. (2011). Mutant p53 protein is targeted by arsenic for degradation and plays a role in arsenic-mediated growth suppression. J. Biol. Chem. 286 17478–17486. 10.1074/jbc.M111.231639 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  139. Yang C. H., Kuo M. L., Chen J. C., Chen Y. C. (1999). Arsenic trioxide sensitivity is associated with low level of glutathione in cancer cells. Br. J. Cancer 81 796–799. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6690766 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  140. Yedjou C. G., Tchounwou P. B. (2009). Modulation of p53 c-fos, RARE, cyclin A, and cyclin D1 expression in human leukemia (Hl-60) cells exposed to arsenic trioxide. Mol. Cell. Biochem. 331 207–214. 10.1007/s11010-009-0160-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  141. Yih L. H., Hsu N. C., Wu Y. C., Yen W. Y., Kuo H. H. (2013). Inhibition of AKT enhances mitotic cell apoptosis induced by arsenic trioxide. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 267 228–237. 10.1016/j.taap.2013.01.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  142. Yuan B., Yoshino Y., Fukushima H., Markova S., Takagi N., Toyoda H., et al. (2016). Multidrug resistance-associated protein 4 is a determinant of arsenite resistance. Oncol. Rep. 35 147–154. 10.3892/or.2015.4343 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  143. Zaharevitz D. W., Holbeck S. L., Bowerman C., Svetlik P. A. (2002). Compare: a web accessible tool for investigating mechanisms of cell growth inhibition. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 20 297–303. 10.1016/S1093-3263(01)00126-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  144. Zhang L., Wang K., Zhao F., Hu W., Chen J., Lanza G. M., et al. (2012). Near infrared imaging of EGFR of oral squamous cell carcinoma in mice administered arsenic trioxide. PLoS One 7:e46255. 10.1371/journal.pone.0046255 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  145. Zhang X., Yang X. R., Sun C., Hu B., Sun Y. F., Huang X. W., et al. (2015). Promyelocytic leukemia protein induces arsenic trioxide resistance through regulation of aldehyde dehydrogenase 3 family member A1 in hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Lett. 366 112–122. 10.1016/j.canlet.2015.06.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  146. Zhang X. H., Feng R., Lv M., Jiang Q., Zhu H. H., Qing Y. Z., et al. (2013). Arsenic trioxide induces apoptosis in B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemic cells through down-regulation of survivin via the p53-dependent signaling pathway. Leuk. Res. 37 1719–1725. 10.1016/j.leukres.2013.09.019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  147. Zhao C. Q., Young M. R., Diwan B. A., Coogan T. P., Waalkes M. P. (1997). Association of arsenic-induced malignant transformation with Dna hypomethylation and aberrant gene expression. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 94 10907–10912. 10.1073/pnas.94.20.10907 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  148. Zhao D., Jiang Y., Dong X., Liu Z., Qu B., Zhang Y., et al. (2011). Arsenic trioxide reduces drug resistance to adriamycin in leukemic K562/A02 cells via multiple mechanisms. Biomed. Pharmacother. 65 354–358. 10.1016/j.biopha.2011.04.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  149. Zhao S., Zhang J., Zhang X., Dong X., Sun X. (2008). Arsenic trioxide induces different gene expression profiles of genes related to growth and apoptosis in glioma cells dependent on the p53 status. Mol. Biol. Rep. 35 421–429. 10.1007/s11033-007-9102-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  150. Zheng T., Yin D., Lu Z., Wang J., Li Y., Chen X., et al. (2014). Nutlin-3 overcomes arsenic trioxide resistance and tumor metastasis mediated by mutant p53 in hepatocellular carcinoma. Mol. Cancer 13:133. 10.1186/1476-4598-13-133 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  151. Zhou P., Kalakonda N., Comenzo R. L. (2005). Changes in gene expression profiles of multiple myeloma cells induced by arsenic trioxide (ATO): possible mechanisms to explain ATO resistance in vivo. Br. J. Haematol. 128 636–644. 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2005.05369.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Frontiers in Pharmacology are provided here courtesy of Frontiers Media SA

RESOURCES