جمعه 15 آبان 1405
[Archive]
پذیرفته شده و در حال انتشار
برگشت به فهرست مقالات |
برگشت به فهرست نسخه ها
چکیده: (653 مشاهده)
Introduction: Dihydropyridine (DHP) calcium channel blockers have shown anticancer-related effects in preclinical studies, but the cytotoxic activity of the novel 1,4-DHP derivatives mebudipine and dibudipine in melanoma remains unclear. This study compared the in vitro cytotoxicities of mebudipine, dibudipine, and dacarbazine in B16-F10 melanoma cells and in HEK293 comparative nonmelanoma cells.
Materials and Methods: B16-F10 and HEK293 cells were treated with mebudipine, dibudipine, or dacarbazine for 24 and 48 hours. Cell viability was measured via the MTT assay. Concentration‒response curves were fitted by nonlinear regression, and the IC₅₀ values were reported with 95% confidence intervals.
Results: After 24h, B16-F10 cells presented the lowest IC₅₀ for mebudipine [13.51 µg/mL; 95% CI, 8.86–20.45], followed by dacarbazine [33.47 µg/mL; 95% CI, 22.24–49.57] and dibudipine [59.13 µg/mL; 95% CI, 25.62–128.90; P=0.0006]. In HEK293 cells, the preferred shared IC₅₀ at 24h was 159.9 µg/mL (95% CI, 120.6–217.9; P=0.3618). After 48h, B16-F10 cells remained highly sensitive to mebudipine [9.738 µg/mL; 95% CI, 6.673–14.29] and dacarbazine [9.749 µg/mL; 95% CI, 6.627–14.42], whereas dibudipine was less potent [30.96 µg/mL; 95% CI, 15.19–57.85; P=0.0025]. In HEK293 cells at 48h, the IC₅₀ values were 90.40, 206.5, and 74.66 µg/mL for mebudipine, dibudipine, and dacarbazine, respectively (P=0.0063).
Conclusion: Mebudipine showed stronger cytotoxic activity against B16-F10 cells than dibudipine at both time points, with higher IC₅₀ values in HEK293 cells. Since HEK293 cells are transformed, these data indicate comparative cytotoxicity rather than confirmed safety in normal cells. Further mechanistic melanoma studies are warranted.
Materials and Methods: B16-F10 and HEK293 cells were treated with mebudipine, dibudipine, or dacarbazine for 24 and 48 hours. Cell viability was measured via the MTT assay. Concentration‒response curves were fitted by nonlinear regression, and the IC₅₀ values were reported with 95% confidence intervals.
Results: After 24h, B16-F10 cells presented the lowest IC₅₀ for mebudipine [13.51 µg/mL; 95% CI, 8.86–20.45], followed by dacarbazine [33.47 µg/mL; 95% CI, 22.24–49.57] and dibudipine [59.13 µg/mL; 95% CI, 25.62–128.90; P=0.0006]. In HEK293 cells, the preferred shared IC₅₀ at 24h was 159.9 µg/mL (95% CI, 120.6–217.9; P=0.3618). After 48h, B16-F10 cells remained highly sensitive to mebudipine [9.738 µg/mL; 95% CI, 6.673–14.29] and dacarbazine [9.749 µg/mL; 95% CI, 6.627–14.42], whereas dibudipine was less potent [30.96 µg/mL; 95% CI, 15.19–57.85; P=0.0025]. In HEK293 cells at 48h, the IC₅₀ values were 90.40, 206.5, and 74.66 µg/mL for mebudipine, dibudipine, and dacarbazine, respectively (P=0.0063).
Conclusion: Mebudipine showed stronger cytotoxic activity against B16-F10 cells than dibudipine at both time points, with higher IC₅₀ values in HEK293 cells. Since HEK293 cells are transformed, these data indicate comparative cytotoxicity rather than confirmed safety in normal cells. Further mechanistic melanoma studies are warranted.
فهرست منابع
1. Sonkin D, Thomas A, Teicher BA. Cancer treatments: Past, present, and future. Cancer Genet. 2024;286-7 [DOI:10.1016/j.cancergen.2024.06.002] [PMID] [PMCID]
2. Arafeh R, Shibue T, Dempster JM, Hahn WC, Vazquez F. The present and future of the Cancer Dependency Map. Nature Rev Cancer. 2025;25(1):59-73. [DOI:10.1038/s41568-024-00763-x] [PMID]
3. Roky AH, Islam MM, Ahasan AMF, Mostaq MS, Mahmud MZ, Amin MN, et al. Overview of skin cancer types and prevalence rates across continents. Cancer Pathogen Ther. 2025;3(02):89-100. [DOI:10.1016/j.cpt.2024.08.002] [PMID] [PMCID]
4. Garbe C, Forsea AM, Amaral T, Arenberger P, Autier P, Berwick M, et al. Skin cancers are the most frequent cancers in fair-skinned populations, but we can prevent them. Europ J Cancer. 2024;204:114074. [DOI:10.1016/j.ejca.2024.114074] [PMID] [PMCID]
5. Yin L, Xu L, Shi K, Chen W, Zhang Y, Wang J, et al. Physiology, microcystin production, and transcriptomic responses of Microcystis aeruginosa exposed to calcium and magnesium. Sci Total Environ. 2024;913:169786. [DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.169786] [PMID]
6. Trentini M, Zanolla I, Tiengo E, Zanotti F, Sommella E, Merciai F, et al. Link between organic nanovescicles from vegetable kingdom and human cell physiology: intracellular calcium signalling. J Nanobiotechnol. 2024;22(1):68. [DOI:10.1186/s12951-024-02340-8] [PMID] [PMCID]
7. Yamawaki S, Kagaya A. Intracellular calcium signaling systems in the pathophysiology of affective disorders. Calcium Ion Modulators. 2024:135-45. [DOI:10.1201/9781003580768-11]
8. Kazemabad M, Dadkhah P, Amani H, Toni S, Alamshiry M, Shahrokhi M, et al. Investigating the probable potential of dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers: drug repositioning in cancer. Curr Cancer Ther Rev. 2025;21(7):950-63 [DOI:10.2174/0115733947307639240822120814]
9. Goldfine CE, Troger A, Erickson TB, Chai PR. Beta-blocker and calcium-channel blocker toxicity: current evidence on evaluation and management. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2024;13(2):247-53. [DOI:10.1093/ehjacc/zuad138] [PMID]
10. Zohny YM, Awad SM, Rabie MA, Al-Saidan OA. Synthesis of dihydropyrimidines: Isosteres of nifedipine and evaluation of their calcium channel blocking efficiency. Molecules. 2023;28(2):784. [DOI:10.3390/molecules28020784] [PMID] [PMCID]
11. Keyhanfar F, Khani S, Bohlooli S. Evaluation of lipid-based drug delivery system (Phytosolve) on oral bioavailability of dibudipine. Iran J Pharmaceut Res. 2014;13(4):1149.
12. Petrudi NR, Seyfi S, Hassanshahi J. Mebudipine as an overlooked cardioprotective drug: A review study. Ann Milit Health Sci Res. 2023;21(3): e142158 [DOI:10.5812/amh-142158]
13. Abolhasani H, Zarghi A, Movahhed TK, Abolhasani A, Daraei B, Dastmalchi S. Design, synthesis and biological evaluation of novel indanone containing spiroisoxazoline derivatives with selective COX-2 inhibition as anticancer agents. Bioorgan Med Chem. 2021;32:115960. [DOI:10.1016/j.bmc.2020.115960] [PMID]
14. Bohlooli S, Mahmoudian M, Skellern G, Grant M, Tettey J. Metabolism of the dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers mebudipine and dibudipine by isolated rat hepatocytes. J Pharm Pharmacol. 2004;56(11):1469-74. [DOI:10.1211/0022357044760] [PMID]
15. Pathak S, Jain S, Pratap A. A review on synthesis and biological potential of Dihydropyridines. Lett Drug Des Discover. 2024;21(1):15-33. [DOI:10.2174/1570180820666230508100955]
16. Xia J, Wang H, Huang H, Sun L, Dong S, Huang N, et al. Elevated orai1 and STIM1 expressions upregulate MACC1 expression to promote tumor cell proliferation, metabolism, migration, and invasion in human gastric cancer. Cancer Lett. 2016;381(1):31-40. [DOI:10.1016/j.canlet.2016.07.014] [PMID]
17. Mirkhani H, Omrani G, Ghiaee S, Mahmoudian M. Effects of mebudipine and dibudipine, two new calcium‐channel blockers, on rat left atrium, rat blood pressure and human Internal mammary artery. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1999;51(5):617-22. [DOI:10.1211/0022357991772727] [PMID]
18. Bohlooli S, Keyhanfar F, Ghiaee S, Mahmoudian M. Application of a new high performance liquid chromatography method to the pharmacokinetics of dibudipine in rats. J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2003;6(3):346-51.
19. Silvestri R, Nicolì V, Gangadharannambiar P, Crea F, Bootman MD. Calcium signalling pathways in prostate cancer initiation and progression. Nature Rev Urol. 2023;20(9):524-43. [DOI:10.1038/s41585-023-00738-x] [PMID]
20. Luo G, Li X, Lin J, Gao G, Fang J, Song W, et al. Multifunctional calcium-manganese nanomodulator provides antitumor treatment and improved immunotherapy via reprogramming of the tumor microenvironment. ACS Nano. 2023;17(16):15449-65. [DOI:10.1021/acsnano.3c01215] [PMID] [PMCID]
21. Buchholz M, Ellenrieder V. An emerging role for Ca2+/Calcineurin/NFAT signaling in cancerogenesis. Cell Cycle. 2007;6(1):16-9. [DOI:10.4161/cc.6.1.3650] [PMID]
22. Wu L, Lin W, Liao Q, Wang H, Lin C, Tang L, et al. Calcium channel blocker nifedipine suppresses colorectal cancer progression and immune escape by preventing NFAT2 nuclear translocation. Cell Rep. 2020;33(13):108582-. [DOI:10.1016/j.celrep.2020.108582] [PMID]
23. Robertson BM, Fane ME, Weeraratna AT, Rebecca VW. Determinants of resistance and response to melanoma therapy. Nature Cancer. 2024;5(7):964-82. [DOI:10.1038/s43018-024-00794-1] [PMID] [PMCID]
24. Torka P, Przespolewski E, Evens AM. Treatment strategies for advanced classical Hodgkin lymphoma in the times of dacarbazine shortage. JCO Oncol Pract. 2022;18(7):491-7. [DOI:10.1200/OP.21.00890] [PMID]
25. Ugurel S, Paschen A, Becker JC. Dacarbazine in melanoma: from a chemotherapeutic drug to an immunomodulating agent. J Investig Dermatol. 2013;133(2):289-92. [DOI:10.1038/jid.2012.341] [PMID]
26. Baharara J, Amini E, Nikdel N, Salek-Abdollahi F. The cytotoxicity of dacarbazine potentiated by sea cucumber saponin in resistant B16F10 melanoma cells through apoptosis induction. Avicenna J Med Biotechnol. 2016;8(3):112.
27. Pourahmad J, Amirmostofian M, Kobarfard F, Shahraki J. Biological reactive intermediates that mediate dacarbazine cytotoxicity. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2009;65:89-96. [DOI:10.1007/s00280-009-1007-8] [PMID]
28. Shaldam MA, El‐Hamamsy MH, Esmat EA, El‐Moselhy TF. 1,4-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers: Homology modeling of the receptor and assessment of structure activity relationship. ISRN Med Chem. 2014;2014:1-14. [DOI:10.1155/2014/203518]
29. Safarpour MA, Hemmateenejad B, Miri R, Jamali MA. Quantum chemical‐QSAR study of some newly synthesized 1,4‐dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers. QSAR Comb Sci. 2003;22(9-10):997-1005. [DOI:10.1002/qsar.200330852]
30. Dietz JD, Du S, Bolten CW, Payne MA, Xia C, Blinn JR, et al. A number of marketed dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers have mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist activity. hypertension. 2008;51(3):742-8. [DOI:10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.107.103580] [PMID]
31. Wu IT, Kuo CY, Su CH, Lan YH, Hung CC. Pinostrobin and tectochrysin conquer multidrug-resistant cancer cells via inhibiting P-glycoprotein ATPase. Pharmaceut. 2023;16(2):205-. [DOI:10.3390/ph16020205] [PMID] [PMCID]
32. Moesgaard L, Pedersen ML, Uhd Nielsen C, Kongsted J. Structure-based discovery of novel P-glycoprotein inhibitors targeting the nucleotide binding domains. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):21217. [DOI:10.1038/s41598-023-48281-4] [PMID] [PMCID]
33. Chu X, Tian W, Ning J, Xiao G, Zhou Y, Wang Z, et al. Cancer stem cells: advances in knowledge and implications for cancer therapy. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2024;9(1):170. [DOI:10.1038/s41392-024-01851-y] [PMID] [PMCID]
34. Del Vecchio V, La Noce M, Tirino V. ALDH activity assay: a method for cancer stem cell (CSC) identification and isolation. Cancer Stem Cells: Methods and Protocols: Springer; 2024. p. 83-9. [DOI:10.1007/978-1-0716-3730-2_6] [PMID]
35. Yehya A, Bahmad H, Abou-Kheir W. In vitro tumorigenic assay: a tumor sphere assay for cancer stem cells. Cancer Stem Cells: Methods and Protocols: Springer; 2024. p. 91-8. [DOI:10.1007/978-1-0716-3730-2_7] [PMID]
| بازنشر اطلاعات | |
 |
این مقاله تحت شرایط Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License قابل بازنشر است. |
