William H. McBride

Effects of radiation on normal tissue: consequences and mechanisms

The use of radiation therapy to treat cancer inevitably involves exposure of normal tissues. As a result, patients may experience symptoms associated with damage to normal tissue during the course of therapy for a few weeks after therapy or months or years later. Symptoms may be due to cell death or wound healing initiated within irradiated tissue, and may be precipitated by exposure to further injury or trauma. Many factors contribute to risk and severity of normal tissue reactions; these factors are site specific and vary with time after treatment. Treatments that reduce the risk or severity of damage to normal tissue or that facilitate the healing of radiation injury are being developed. These could greatly improve the quality of life of patients treated for cancer.

Induction of acute phase gene expression by brain irradiation.

PURPOSE To investigate the in vivo acute phase molecular response of the brain to ionizing radiation. METHODS AND MATERIALS C3Hf/Sed/Kam mice were given midbrain or whole-body irradiation. Cerebral expression of interleukins (IL-1 alpha, IL-1 beta, IL-2, IL-3, IL-4, IL-5, IL-6), interferon (IFN-gamma), tumor necrosis factors (TNF-alpha and TNF-beta), intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1), inducible nitric oxide synthetase (iNOS), von Willebrand factor (vWF), alpha 1-antichymotrypsin (EB22/5.3), and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) was measured at various times after various radiation doses by ribonuclease (RNase) protection assay. The effects of dexamethasone or pentoxifylline treatment of mice on radiation-induced gene expression were also examined. RESULTS Levels of TNF-alpha, IL-1 beta, ICAM-1, EB22/5.3 and to a lesser extent IL-1 alpha and GFAP, messenger RNA were increased in the brain after irradiation, whether the dose was delivered to the whole body or only to the midbrain. Responses were radiation dose dependent, but were not found below 7 Gy; the exception being ICAM-1, which was increased by doses as low as 2 Gy. Most responses were rapid, peaking within 4-8 h, but antichymotrypsin and GFAP responses were delayed and still elevated at 24 h, by which time the others had subsided. Pretreatment of mice with dexamethasone or pentoxifylline suppressed radiation-induced gene expression, either partially or completely. Dexamethasone was more inhibitory than pentoxifylline at the doses chosen. CONCLUSIONS The initial response of the brain to irradiation involves expression of inflammatory gene products, which are probably responsible for clinically observed early symptoms of brain radiotherapy. This mechanism explains the beneficial effects of the clinical use of steroids in such circumstances.

Capsaicin, a component of red peppers, inhibits the growth of androgen-independent, p53 mutant prostate cancer cells.

Capsaicin is the major pungent ingredient in red peppers. Here, we report that it has a profound antiproliferative effect on prostate cancer cells, inducing the apoptosis of both androgen receptor (AR)-positive (LNCaP) and -negative (PC-3, DU-145) prostate cancer cell lines associated with an increase of p53, p21, and Bax. Capsaicin down-regulated the expression of not only prostate-specific antigen (PSA) but also AR. Promoter assays showed that capsaicin inhibited the ability of dihydrotestosterone to activate the PSA promoter/enhancer even in the presence of exogenous AR in LNCaP cells, suggesting that capsaicin inhibited the transcription of PSA not only via down-regulation of expression of AR, but also by a direct inhibitory effect on PSA transcription. Capsaicin inhibited NF-kappa activation by preventing its nuclear migration. In further studies, capsaicin inhibited tumor necrosis factor-alpha-stimulated degradation of IkappaBalpha in PC-3 cells, which was associated with the inhibition of proteasome activity. Taken together, capsaicin inhibits proteasome activity which suppressed the degradation of IkappaBalpha, preventing the activation of NF-kappaB. Capsaicin, when given orally, significantly slowed the growth of PC-3 prostate cancer xenografts as measured by size [75 +/- 35 versus 336 +/- 123 mm(3) (+/-SD); P = 0.017] and weight [203 +/- 41 versus 373 +/- 52 mg (+/-SD); P = 0.0006; capsaicin-treated versus vehicle-treated mice, respectively]. In summary, our data suggests that capsaicin, or a related analogue, may have a role in the management of prostate cancer.

A sense of danger from radiation.

Abstract McBride, W. H., Chiang, C-S., Olson, J. L., Wang, C-C., Hong, J-H., Pajonk, F., Dougherty, G. J., Iwamoto, K. S., Pervan, M. and Liao, Y-P. A Sense of Danger from Radiation. Radiat. Res. 162, 1–19 (2004). Tissue damage caused by exposure to pathogens, chemicals and physical agents such as ionizing radiation triggers production of generic “danger” signals that mobilize the innate and acquired immune system to deal with the intrusion and effect tissue repair with the goal of maintaining the integrity of the tissue and the body. Ionizing radiation appears to do the same, but less is known about the role of “danger” signals in tissue responses to this agent. This review deals with the nature of putative “danger” signals that may be generated by exposure to ionizing radiation and their significance. There are a number of potential consequences of “danger” signaling in response to radiation exposure. “Danger” signals could mediate the pathogenesis of, or recovery from, radiation damage. They could alter intrinsic cellular radiosensitivity or initiate radioadaptive responses to subsequent exposure. They may spread outside the locally damaged site and mediate bystander or “out-of-field” radiation effects. Finally, an important aspect of classical “danger” signals is that they link initial nonspecific immune responses in a pathological site to the development of specific adaptive immunity. Interestingly, in the case of radiation, there is little evidence that “danger” signals efficiently translate radiation-induced tumor cell death into the generation of tumor-specific immunity or normal tissue damage into autoimmunity. The suggestion is that radiation-induced “danger” signals may be inadequate in this respect or that radiation interferes with the generation of specific immunity. There are many issues that need to be resolved regarding “danger” signaling after exposure to ionizing radiation. Evidence of their importance is, in some areas, scant, but the issues are worthy of consideration, if for no other reason than that manipulation of these pathways has the potential to improve the therapeutic benefit of radiation therapy. This article focuses on how normal tissues and tumors sense and respond to danger from ionizing radiation, on the nature of the signals that are sent, and on the impact on the eventual consequences of exposure.

Animal Models for Medical Countermeasures to Radiation Exposure

Abstract Since September 11, 2001, there has been the recognition of a plausible threat from acts of terrorism, including radiological or nuclear attacks. A network of Centers for Medical Countermeasures against Radiation (CMCRs) has been established across the U.S.; one of the missions of this network is to identify and develop mitigating agents that can be used to treat the civilian population after a radiological event. The development of such agents requires comparison of data from many sources and accumulation of information consistent with the “Animal Rule” from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Given the necessity for a consensus on appropriate animal model use across the network to allow for comparative studies to be performed across institutions, and to identify pivotal studies and facilitate FDA approval, in early 2008, investigators from each of the CMCRs organized and met for an Animal Models Workshop. Working groups deliberated and discussed the wide range of animal models available for assessing agent efficacy in a number of relevant tissues and organs, including the immune and hematopoietic systems, gastrointestinal tract, lung, kidney and skin. Discussions covered the most appropriate species and strains available as well as other factors that may affect differential findings between groups and institutions. This report provides the workshop findings.

Models for evaluating agents intended for the prophylaxis, mitigation and treatment of radiation injuries. Report of an NCI Workshop, December 3-4, 2003

Abstract Stone, H. B., Moulder, J. E., Coleman, C. N., Ang, K. K., Anscher, M. S., Barcellos-Hoff, M. H., Dynan, W. S., Fike, J. R., Grdina, D. J., Greenberger, J. S., Hauer-Jensen, M., Hill, R. P., Kolesnick, R. N., MacVittie, T. J., Marks, C., McBride, W. H., Metting, N., Pellmar, T., Purucker, M., Robbins, M. E., Schiestl, R. H., Seed, T. M., Tomaszewski, J., Travis, E. L., Wallner, P. E., Wolpert, M. and Zaharevitz, D. Models for Evaluating Agents Intended for the Prophylaxis, Mitigation and Treatment of Radiation Injuries. Report of an NCI Workshop, December 3–4, 2003. Radiat. Res. 162, 711–728 (2004). To develop approaches to prophylaxis/protection, mitigation and treatment of radiation injuries, appropriate models are needed that integrate the complex events that occur in the radiation-exposed organism. While the spectrum of agents in clinical use or preclinical development is limited, new research findings promise improvements in survival after whole-body irradiation and reductions in the risk of adverse effects of radiotherapy. Approaches include agents that act on the initial radiochemical events, agents that prevent or reduce progression of radiation damage, and agents that facilitate recovery from radiation injuries. While the mechanisms of action for most of the agents with known efficacy are yet to be fully determined, many seem to be operating at the tissue, organ or whole animal level as well as the cellular level. Thus research on prophylaxis/protection, mitigation and treatment of radiation injuries will require studies in whole animal models. Discovery, development and delivery of effective radiation modulators will also require collaboration among researchers in diverse fields such as radiation biology, inflammation, physiology, toxicology, immunology, tissue injury, drug development and radiation oncology. Additional investment in training more scientists in radiation biology and in the research portfolio addressing radiological and nuclear terrorism would benefit the general population in case of a radiological terrorism event or a large-scale accidental event as well as benefit patients treated with radiation.

Radiation Resistance of Cancer Stem Cells: The 4 R’s of Radiobiology Revisited

There is compelling evidence that many solid cancers are organized hierarchically and contain a small population of cancer stem cells (CSCs). It seems reasonable to suggest that a cancer cure can be achieved only if this population is eliminated. Unfortunately, there is growing evidence that CSCs are inherently resistant to radiation, and perhaps other cancer therapies. In general, success or failure of standard clinical radiation treatment is determined by the 4 Rs of radiobiology: repair of DNA damage, redistribution of cells in the cell cycle, repopulation, and reoxygenation of hypoxic tumor areas. We relate recent findings on CSCs to these four phenomena and discuss possible consequences. STEM CELLS 2010;28:639–648

In Vivo Imaging, Tracking, and Targeting of Cancer Stem Cells

BACKGROUND There is increasing evidence that solid cancers contain cancer-initiating cells (CICs) that are capable of regenerating a tumor that has been surgically removed and/or treated with chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy. Currently, cell surface markers, like CD133 or CD44, are used to identify CICs in vitro; however, these markers cannot be used to identify and track CICs in vivo. The 26S proteasome is the main regulator of many processes within a proliferating cell, and its activity may be altered depending on the phenotype of a cell. METHODS Human glioma and breast cancer cells were engineered to stably express ZsGreen fused to the carboxyl-terminal degron of ornithine decarboxylase, resulting in a fluorescent fusion protein that accumulates in cells in the absence of 26S proteasome activity; activities of individual proteases were monitored in a plate reader by detecting the cleavage of fluorogenic peptide substrates. Proteasome subunit expression in cells expressing the fusion protein was assessed by quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction, and the stem cell phenotype of CICs was assessed by a sphere formation assay, by immunohistochemical staining for known stem cell markers in vitro, and by analyzing their tumorigenicity in vivo. CICs were tracked by in vivo fluorescence imaging after radiation treatment of tumor-bearing mice and targeted specifically via a thymidine kinase-degron fusion construct. All P values were derived from two-sided tests. RESULTS Cancer cells grown as sphere cultures in conditions, which enrich for cancer stem cells (CSCs), had decreased proteasome activity relative to the respective monolayers (percent decrease in chymotryptic-like activity of sphere cultures relative to monolayers--U87MG: 26.64%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 10.19 to 43.10, GL261, 52.91%, 95% CI = 28.38 to 77.43). The cancer cells with low proteasome activity can thus be monitored in vitro and in vivo by the accumulation of a fluorescent protein (ZsGreen) fused to a degron that targets it for 26S proteasome degradation. In vitro, ZsGreen-positive cells had increased sphere-forming capacity, expressed CSC markers, and lacked differentiation markers compared with ZsGreen-negative cells. In vivo, ZsGreen-positive cells were approximately 100-fold more tumorigenic than ZsGreen-negative cells when injected into nude mice (ZsGreen positive, 30 mice per group; ZsGreen negative, 31 mice per group), and the number of CICs in tumors increased after 72 hours post radiation treatment. CICs were selectively targeted via a proteasome-dependent suicide gene, and their elimination in vivo led to tumor regression. CONCLUSION Our results demonstrate that reduced 26S proteasome activity is a general feature of CICs that can easily be exploited to identify, track, and target them in vitro and in vivo.

Maximizing Tumor Immunity With Fractionated Radiation

PURPOSE Technologic advances have led to increased clinical use of higher-sized fractions of radiation dose and higher total doses. How these modify the pathways involved in tumor cell death, normal tissue response, and signaling to the immune system has been inadequately explored. Here we ask how radiation dose and fraction size affect antitumor immunity, the suppression thereof, and how this might relate to tumor control. METHODS AND MATERIALS Mice bearing B16-OVA murine melanoma were treated with up to 15 Gy radiation given in various-size fractions, and tumor growth followed. The tumor-specific immune response in the spleen was assessed by interferon-γ enzyme-linked immunospot (ELISPOT) assay with ovalbumin (OVA) as the surrogate tumor antigen and the contribution of regulatory T cells (Tregs) determined by the proportion of CD4(+)CD25(hi)Foxp3(+) T cells. RESULTS After single doses, tumor control increased with the size of radiation dose, as did the number of tumor-reactive T cells. This was offset at the highest dose by an increase in Treg representation. Fractionated treatment with medium-size radiation doses of 7.5 Gy/fraction gave the best tumor control and tumor immunity while maintaining low Treg numbers. CONCLUSIONS Radiation can be an immune adjuvant, but the response varies with the size of dose per fraction. The ultimate challenge is to optimally integrate cancer immunotherapy into radiation therapy.

CSF1R Signaling Blockade Stanches Tumor-Infiltrating Myeloid Cells and Improves the Efficacy of Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer

Radiotherapy is a major frontline treatment for prostate cancer patients, yet, a large portion of these patients suffer from local tumor recurrence. Tumor-infiltrating myeloid cells (TIMs), including CD11b+F4/80+ tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) and CD11b+Gr-1+ myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), play critical roles in promoting tumor angiogenesis, tissue remodeling and immunosuppression. Here, we show enhanced recruitment of TAMs and MDSCs after local irradiation. Although treatment is directed to the tumor sites, the impact of irradiation is systemic as dramatic increases of MDSCs were observed in the spleen, lung, lymph nodes and peripheral blood. Of the cytokines examined, we found that macrophage colony-stimulating factor 1 (CSF1) increased by 2 fold in irradiated tumors. Enhanced macrophage migration induced by conditioned media from irradiated tumor cells was completely blocked by the selective CSF1R inhibitor, GW2580. Importantly, increased CSF1 levels were also observed in the serum of prostate cancer patients after radiotherapy. ABL1 (c-Abl), a non-receptor tyrosine kinase, known to mediate apoptosis and signal transduction under stress, is activated by irradiation. Activated ABL1 translocates to the nucleus, binds to the CSF1 promoter region and enhances CSF1 transcription. Combination therapy using a CSF1R inhibitor currently in clinical trials, PLX3397, with radiation suppressed tumor growth more effectively than radiation alone. This study highlights the importance of CSF1/CSF1R signaling in the recruitment of TIMs in response to radiotherapy and suggests their significant role in promoting tumor recurrence. Furthermore, our data supports co-targeting TIMs in conjunction with radiotherapy to achieve a more effective and durable treatment strategy for prostate cancer patients.Radiotherapy is used to treat many types of cancer, but many treated patients relapse with local tumor recurrence. Tumor-infiltrating myeloid cells (TIM), including CD11b (ITGAM)(+)F4/80 (EMR1)+ tumor-associated macrophages (TAM), and CD11b(+)Gr-1 (LY6G)+ myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSC), respond to cancer-related stresses and play critical roles in promoting tumor angiogenesis, tissue remodeling, and immunosuppression. In this report, we used a prostate cancer model to investigate the effects of irradiation on TAMs and MDSCs in tumor-bearing animals. Unexpectedly, when primary tumor sites were irradiated, we observed a systemic increase of MDSCs in spleen, lung, lymph nodes, and peripheral blood. Cytokine analysis showed that the macrophage colony-stimulating factor CSF1 increased by two-fold in irradiated tumors. Enhanced macrophage migration induced by conditioned media from irradiated tumor cells was completely blocked by a selective inhibitor of CSF1R. These findings were confirmed in patients with prostate cancer, where serum levels of CSF1 increased after radiotherapy. Mechanistic investigations revealed the recruitment of the DNA damage-induced kinase ABL1 into cell nuclei where it bound the CSF1 gene promoter and enhanced CSF1 gene transcription. When added to radiotherapy, a selective inhibitor of CSF1R suppressed tumor growth more effectively than irradiation alone. Our results highlight the importance of CSF1/CSF1R signaling in the recruitment of TIMs that can limit the efficacy of radiotherapy. Furthermore, they suggest that CSF1 inhibitors should be evaluated in clinical trials in combination with radiotherapy as a strategy to improve outcomes.