Charles S. Morrow

Coordinated Action of Glutathione S-Transferases (GSTs) and Multidrug Resistance Protein 1 (MRP1) in Antineoplastic Drug Detoxification MECHANISM OF GST A1-1- AND MRP1-ASSOCIATED RESISTANCE TO CHLORAMBUCIL IN MCF7 BREAST CARCINOMA CELLS

To examine the role of multidrug resistance protein 1 (MRP1) and glutathione S-transferases (GSTs) in cellular resistance to antineoplastic drugs, derivatives of MCF7 breast carcinoma cells were developed that express MRP1 in combination with one of three human cytosolic isozymes of GST. Expression of MRP1 alone confers resistance to several drugs representing the multidrug resistance phenotype, drugs including doxorubicin, vincristine, etoposide, and mitoxantrone. However, co-expression with MRP1 of any of the human GST isozymes A1-1, M1-1, or P1-1 failed to augment MRP1-associated resistance to these drugs. In contrast, combined expression of MRP1 and GST A1-1 conferred ∼4-fold resistance to the anticancer drug chlorambucil. Expression of MRP1 alone failed to confer resistance to chlorambucil, showing that the observed protection from chlorambucil cytotoxicity was absolutely dependent upon GST A1-1 protein. Moreover, using inhibitors of GST (dicumarol) or MRP1 (sulfinpyrazone), it was shown that in MCF7 cells resistance to chlorambucil requires both intact MRP1-dependent efflux pump activity and, for full protection, GST A1-1 catalytic activity. These results are the first demonstration that GST A1-1 and MRP1 can act in synergy to protect cells from the cytotoxicity of a nitrogen mustard, chlorambucil.

Role of Multidrug Resistance Protein 1 (MRP1) and Glutathione S-Transferase A1-1 in Alkylating Agent Resistance KINETICS OF GLUTATHIONE CONJUGATE FORMATION AND EFFLUX GOVERN DIFFERENTIAL CELLULAR SENSITIVITY TO CHLORAMBUCIL VERSUSMELPHALAN TOXICITY

We investigated the role of phase II (conjugation) and phase III (efflux) detoxification of the anticancer drugs melphalan (MLP) and chlorambucil (CHB). Although both drugs are substrates of Alpha-class glutathioneS-transferases (GST) and the monoglutathionyl conjugates formed in these enzymatic reactions are transported by MRP1, we found that GSTA1-1 and MRP1 acted in synergy to confer resistance to CHB but not to MLP (Morrow, C. S., Smitherman, P. K., Diah, S. K., Schneider, E., and Townsend, A. J. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 20114–20120). To explain this selectivity of MRP1/GST-mediated resistance, we report results of side-by-side experiments comparing the kinetics of MLP- versusCHB-glutathione conjugate: formation, product inhibition of GSTA1-1 catalysis, and transport by MRP1. The monoglutathionyl conjugate of CHB, CHB-SG, is a very strong competitive inhibitor of GSTA1-1 (K i 0.14 μm) that is >30-fold more potent than that of the corresponding conjugate of MLP, MLP-SG (K i 4.7 μm). The efficiency of GSTA1-1-mediated monoglutathionyl conjugate formation is more than 4-fold higher for CHB than MLP. Lastly, both CHB-SG and MLP-SG are efficiently transported by MRP1 with similarV max although the K m for CHB-SG (0.37 μm) is significantly lower than for MLP-SG (1.1 μm). These results indicate that MRP1 is required for GSTA1-1-mediated resistance to CHB in order to relieve potent product inhibition of the enzyme by intracellular CHB-SG formed. The kinetic properties of MRP1 are well suited to eliminate CHB-SG at pharmacologically relevant concentrations. For MLP detoxification, where product inhibition of GSTA1-1 is less important, GSTA1-1 does not confer resistance because of the relatively poorer catalytic efficiency of MLP-SG formation. Similar analyses can be useful for predicting the pharmacological and toxicological consequences of MRP and GST expression on cellular sensitivity to various other electrophilic xenobiotics.

Role of glutathione S-transferase P1-1 in the cellular detoxification of cisplatin

Cells expressing elevated levels of allelic variants of human glutathione S-transferase P1 (GSTP1) and/or efflux transporters, MRP1 or MRP2, were used to evaluate the role of GSTP1-1 in cisplatin resistance. These studies revealed that GSTP1-1 confers low-level resistance (1.4- to 1.7-fold) to cisplatin-induced cytotoxicity in MCF7 cells. However, expression of MRP1 (MCF7 cells) or MRP2 (HepG2 cells) failed to augment or potentiate GSTP1-1-mediated resistance in either cell line. To understand the mechanism by which variants of GSTP1-1 confer resistance to cisplatin, their relative abilities to catalyze conjugation of cisplatin with glutathione were examined. Enzymes encoded by all three alleles tested, GSTP1a (I104A113), GSTP1b (V104A113), and GSTP1c (V104V113), increased the formation rate of the mono-platinum/glutathione derivative of cisplatin with relative catalytic activities of 1.0 (GSTP1a-1a variant) and 1.8 to 1.9 (GSTP1b-1b and GSTP1c-1c variants). Although these data are consistent with the idea that very low level resistance to cisplatin may be conferred by GSTP1-1-mediated cisplatin/glutathione conjugation, two observations indicate that such catalysis plays a minor role in the protection from cisplatin toxicity. First, the rates of GSTP1-1-mediated conjugation are extremely slow (1.7-2.6 h−1 at 25°C). Second, despite an 80% to 90% increase in catalysis of cisplatin conjugation by GSTP1b-1b or GSTP1c-1c over GSTP1a-1a, we observed no discernable differences in relative resistances conferred by these alternative variants when expressed in MCF7 cells. We conclude that high-level cisplatin resistance attributed to GSTP1-1 in other studies is not likely due to catalysis of cisplatin conjugation but rather must be explained by other mechanisms, which may include GSTP1-mediated modulation of signaling pathways. [Mol Cancer Ther 2008;7(10):3247–55]

ROLE OF MULTIDRUG- RESISTANCE PROTEIN 2 IN GLUTATHIONE S-TRANSFERASE P1-1- MEDIATED RESISTANCE TO 4-NITROQUINOLINE 1-OXIDE TOXICITIES IN HEPG2 CELLS

Previous studies in our laboratory have shown that the phase III efflux transporter multidrug‐resistance protein (MRP)1 can act synergistically with the phase II conjugating glutathione S‐transferases (GST) to confer resistance to the toxicities of some electrophilic drugs and carcinogens. To determine whether the distinct efflux transporter MRP2 could also potentiate GST‐mediated protection from electrophilic toxins, we examined the effect of regulatable GSTP1‐1 expression in MRP2‐rich HepG2 cells on 4‐nitroquinoline 1‐oxide (4NQO)–induced cytotoxicity and genotoxicity (nucleic‐acid adduct formation). Expression of GSTP1‐1 was associated with a fourfold to tenfold protection from 4NQO‐induced cytotoxicity. Inhibition of MRP2‐mediated efflux activity by sulfinpyrazone or cyclosporin A completely reversed GSTP1‐1–associated resistance—a result indicating that GSTP1‐1–mediated cytoprotection is absolutely dependent on MRP2 efflux activity. Moreover, MRP2 efflux activity also augmented GSTP1‐1–mediated protection from 4NQO‐induced nucleic‐acid adduct formation. We conclude that MRP2‐mediated efflux of the glutathione conjugate of 4NQO and/or another toxic derivative of 4NQO is required to support GSTP1‐1–associated protection from 4NQO toxicities in HepG2 cells. Mol. Carcinog. 29:170–178, 2000.

Glutathione S-transferases (GSTs) inhibit transcriptional activation by the peroxisomal proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPAR gamma) ligand, 15-deoxy-delta 12,14prostaglandin J2 (15-d-PGJ2).

15-Deoxy-Delta(12,14)prostaglandin J(2) (15-d-PGJ(2)), a terminal metabolite of the J-series cyclopentenone prostaglandins, influences a variety of cellular processes including gene expression, differentiation, growth, and apoptosis. As a ligand of peroxisomal proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPAR gamma), 15-d-PGJ(2) can transactivate PPAR gamma-responsive promoters. Previously, we showed that multidrug resistance proteins MRP1 and MRP3 attenuate cytotoxic and transactivating activities of 15-d-PGJ(2) in MCF7 breast cancer cells. Attenuation was glutathione-dependent and was associated with formation of the glutathione conjugate of 15-d-PGJ(2), 15-d-PGJ(2)-SG, and its active efflux by MRP. Here we have investigated whether the glutathione S-transferases (GST) can influence biological activities of 15-d-PGJ(2). MCF7 cells were stably transduced with human cytosolic GST isozymes M1a, A1, or P1a. These GSTs had no effect on 15-d-PGJ(2) cytotoxicity when expressed either alone or in combination with MRP1. However, expression of any of the three GSTs significantly inhibited 15-d-PGJ(2)-dependent transactivation of a PPAR gamma-responsive reporter gene. The degree of inhibition correlated with the level of GST expressed. Under physiologic conditions, the nonenzymatic rate of 15-d-PGJ(2) conjugation with glutathione was significant. Of the three GST isozymes, only GSTM1a-1a further stimulated the rate of 15-d-PGJ(2)-SG formation. Moreover, GSTM1a-1a rate enhancement was only a transient burst that was complete within 15 s. Hence, catalysis plays little, if any, role in GST inhibition of 15-d-PGJ(2)-dependent transactivation. In contrast, inhibition of transactivation was associated with strong GST/15-d-PGJ(2) interactions. Potent inhibition by 15-d-PGJ(2) and 15-d-PGJ(2)-SG of GST activity was observed with K(i) in the 0.15-2.0 microM range for the three GST isozymes, results suggesting avid associations between GST and 15-d-PGJ(2) or 15-d-PGJ(2)-SG. Electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (ESI/MS) studies revealed no stable adducts of GST and 15-d-PGJ(2) indicating that GST/15-d-PGJ(2) interactions are primarily noncovalent. These results are consistent with a mechanism of GST-mediated inhibition of transactivation in which GST binds 15-d-PGJ(2) and 15-d-PGJ(2)-SG thereby sequestering the ligands in the cytosol away from their nuclear target, PPAR gamma.

Combined expression of multidrug resistance protein (MRP) and glutathione S-transferase P1-1 (GSTP1-1) in MCF7 cells and high level resistance to the cytotoxicities of ethacrynic acid but not oxazaphosphorines or cisplatin

We tested the hypothesis that combined increased expression of human glutathione S-transferase P1-1 (GSTP1-1), an enzyme that catalyzes the conjugation with glutathione of several toxic electrophiles, and the glutathione-conjugate efflux pump, multidrug resistance protein (MRP), confers high level resistance to the cytotoxicities of anticancer and other drugs. To accomplish this, we developed MCF7 breast carcinoma cell derivatives that express high levels of GSTP1-1 and MRP, alone and in combination. Parental MCF7 cells, which express no GSTP1-1 and negligible MRP, served as control cells. We found that either MRP or GSTP1-1 alone conferred significant resistance to ethacrynic acid cytotoxicity. Moreover, combined expression of GSTP1-1 and MRP conferred a high level of resistance to ethacrynic acid that was greater than resistance conferred by either protein alone. Increased MRP was also associated with modest resistance to the oxazaphosphorine compounds mafosfamide, 4-hydroxycyclophosphamide, and 4-hydroperoxycyclophosphamide. However, coordinated expression of GSTP1-1 with MRP failed to augment this modest resistance. Similarly, GSTP1-1 had no effect on the sensitivities to cisplatin of MCF7 cells regardless of MRP expression. These results establish that coordinated expression of MRP and GSTP1-1 can confer high level resistance to the cytotoxicities of some drugs, including ethacrynic acid, but that such resistance is variable and does not apply to all toxic drugs that can potentially form glutathione conjugates in either spontaneous or GSTP1-1-catalyzed reactions.

Nitric Oxide Storage and Transport in Cells Are Mediated by Glutathione S-Transferase P1-1 and Multidrug Resistance Protein 1 via Dinitrosyl Iron Complexes

Background: Nitrogen monoxide (NO) can target intracellular iron pools, leading to dinitrosyl iron complexes (DNICs). Results: NO storage and transport are mediated by glutathione S-transferase P1-1 (GST P1-1) and multidrug resistance protein 1 (MRP1), respectively. Conclusion: GST P1-1 and MRP1 form an integrated detoxification unit regulating storage and transport of DNICs. Significance: These results have broad implications for understanding the transport, storage, and signaling roles of NO. Nitrogen monoxide (NO) plays a role in the cytotoxic mechanisms of activated macrophages against tumor cells by inducing iron release. We showed that NO-mediated iron efflux from cells required glutathione (GSH) (Watts, R. N., and Richardson, D. R. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276, 4724–4732) and that the GSH-conjugate transporter, multidrug resistance-associated protein 1 (MRP1), mediates this release potentially as a dinitrosyl-dithiol iron complex (DNIC; Watts, R. N., Hawkins, C., Ponka, P., and Richardson, D. R. (2006) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 103, 7670–7675). Recently, glutathione S-transferase P1-1 (GST P1-1) was shown to bind DNICs as dinitrosyl-diglutathionyl iron complexes. Considering this and that GSTs and MRP1 form an integrated detoxification unit with chemotherapeutics, we assessed whether these proteins coordinately regulate storage and transport of DNICs as long lived NO intermediates. Cells transfected with GSTP1 (but not GSTA1 or GSTM1) significantly decreased NO-mediated 59Fe release from cells. This NO-mediated 59Fe efflux and the effect of GST P1-1 on preventing this were observed with NO-generating agents and also in cells transfected with inducible nitric oxide synthase. Notably, 59Fe accumulated in cells within GST P1-1-containing fractions, indicating an alteration in intracellular 59Fe distribution. Furthermore, electron paramagnetic resonance studies showed that MCF7-VP cells transfected with GSTP1 contain significantly greater levels of a unique DNIC signal. These investigations indicate that GST P1-1 acts to sequester NO as DNICs, reducing their transport out of the cell by MRP1. Cell proliferation studies demonstrated the importance of the combined effect of GST P1-1 and MRP1 in protecting cells from the cytotoxic effects of NO. Thus, the DNIC storage function of GST P1-1 and ability of MRP1 to efflux DNICs are vital in protection against NO cytotoxicity.

CHEMOPROTECTIVE FUNCTIONS OF GLUTATHIONE S-TRANSFERASES IN CELL LINES INDUCED TO EXPRESS SPECIFIC ISOZYMES BY STABLE TRANSFECTION

The authors have shown that expression of mGSTM1-1 or hGSTP1-1 in MCF-7 cells protects against DNA alkylation by 4-nitroquinoline-1-oxide (NQO) in an isozyme-specific manner and is commensurate with relative specific activity. Expression of GSTs also conferred protection against both DNA strand breaks and sister-chromatid exchange induced by NQO. Interestingly, GST expression did not protect against NQO cytotoxicity in transfected MCF-7 cell lines, although resistance to NQO cytotoxicity was observed in a T47D pi transfectant line, expressing much higher specific activity of the transfected hGSTP1-1. However, high level expression of hGSTP1-1 or mGSTM1-1 in V79 transfectants did not confer resistance to cytotoxicity, indicating that expression of GST alone is not sufficient. The authors have also shown protection against AFB1 in cell lines expressing transfected rat CYP2B1 (V79MZr2B1) and transfected mGST-Yc (mGSTA3-3). Protection was observed against both alkylation of DNA (3-fold) by [3H]AFB1 and against AFB1 cytotoxicity (7-fold). Similarly, V79MZr1A1 cells that express CYP1A1 and either transfected human or murine GSTP1-1 (< 5000 mIU/mg, CDNB) exhibited > 70% decrease in covalent labeling of total nucleic acids by [3H]BPDE. However, no protection against the cytotoxicity of BPDE was conferred by expression of hGSTP1-1. Overall, these results indicate that in some (NQO or BPDE), but not all (AFB1) cases, protection by GST expression against DNA damage is more effective than protection against cytotoxicity. In addition, there is evidence to indicate that additional factor(s) other than high GST isozyme expression level and good substrate efficacy affect the degree of protection against cytotoxicity of reactive electrophiles. This includes the differential protection against NQO cytotoxicity in T47D pi, but not V79 Xh pi-33 cells and also the recent studies which showed that expression of the MRP GS-X conjugate efflux transporter confers synergistic protection against NQO cytotoxicity when co-expressed with transfected human GSTP1-1 in MCF-7 cells. Thus, protective efficacy conferred by GST expression can vary with different cellular targets and/or experimental end-points, as well as with variations in relative specific activity or in different cellular phenotypic contexts.

Expression of MRP1 and GSTP1-1 modulate the acute cellular response to treatment with the chemopreventive isothiocyanate, sulforaphane

A major component of the anticarcinogenic activity of the dietary chemopreventive agent sulforaphane (SFN) is attributed to its ability to induce expression of phase II detoxification genes containing the antioxidant response element (ARE) within their promoters. Because SFN is a reactive electrophile--readily forming conjugates with glutathione (GSH)--we asked whether expression of glutathione S-transferase (GST) P1-1 and the GSH conjugate efflux pump, multidrug resistance or resistance-associated protein (MRP) 1, would significantly modify the cellular response to SFN exposure. This was investigated using GST- and MRP1-poor parental MCF7 cells and transgenic derivatives expressing GSTP1-1 and/or MRP1. Compared with parental cells, expression of GSTP1-1 alone enhanced the rate of intracellular accumulation of SFN and its glutathione conjugate, SFN-SG--an effect that was associated with increased ARE-containing reporter gene induction. Expression of MRP1 greatly reduced SFN/SFN-SG accumulation and resulted in significant attenuation of SFN-mediated induction of ARE-containing reporter and endogenous gene expression. Coexpression of GSTP1-1 with MRP1 further reduced the level of induction. Depletion of GSH prior to SFN treatment or the substitution of tert-butylhydroquinone for SFN abolished the effects of MRP1/GSTP1-1 on ARE-containing gene induction-indicating that these effects are GSH dependent. Lastly, analysis of NF-E2-related factor 2 (Nrf2)--a transcription factor operating via binding to the ARE--showed that the increased levels of Nrf2 following SFN treatment were considerably less sustained in MRP1-expressing, especially those coexpressing GSTP1-1, than in MRP1-poor cells. These results suggest that the regulating effects of MRP1 and GSTP1-1 expression on SFN-dependent induction of phase II genes are ultimately mediated by altering nuclear Nrf2 levels.

Activation of Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptor γ (PPARγ) by Nitroalkene Fatty Acids: Importance of Nitration Position and Degree of Unsaturation

Nitroalkene fatty acids are potent endogenous ligand activators of PPARgamma-dependent transcription. Previous studies with the naturally occurring regioisomers of nitrolinoleic acid revealed that the isomers are not equivalent with respect to PPARgamma activation. To gain further insight into the structure-activity relationships between nitroalkenes and PPARgamma, we examined additional naturally occurring nitroalkenes derived from oleic acid, 9-nitrooleic acid (E-9-NO2-18:1 [1]) and 10-nitrooleic acid (E-10-NO2-18:1 [2]), and several synthetic nitrated enoic fatty acids of variable carbon chain length, double bonds, and nitration site. At submicromolar concentrations, E-12-NO2 derivatives were considerably more potent than isomers nitrated at carbons 5, 6, 9, 10, and 13, and chain length (16 versus 18) or number of double bonds (1 versus 2) was of little consequence for PPARgamma activation. Interestingly, at higher concentrations (>2 microM) the nitrated enoic fatty acids (E-9-NO2-18:1 [1], E-9-NO2-16:1 [3], E-10-NO2-18:1 [2], and E-12-NO2-18:1 [7]) deviated significantly from the saturable pattern of PPARgamma activation observed for nitrated 1,4-dienoic fatty acids (E-9-NO2-18:2, E-10-NO2-18:2, E-12-NO2-18:2, and E-13-NO2-18:2).