4.8 Article

p53 Small-Molecule Inhibitor Enhances Temozolomide Cytotoxic Activity against Intracranial Glioblastoma Xenografts

Journal

CANCER RESEARCH
Volume 68, Issue 24, Pages 10034-10039

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-08-1687

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NIH [NS049720, CA097257, CA108961, CA127716, CA100011]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, we investigated the precursor and active forms 01 a p53 small-molecule inhibitor for their effects on temozolomide (TMZ) antitumor activity against glioblastoma (GBM), using both in vitro and in vivo experimental approaches. Results from in vitro cell viability analysis showed that the cytotoxic activity of TMZ was substantially increased when p53 wild-type (p53(wk)) GBMs were cotreated with the active form of p53 inhibitor, and this heightened cytotoxic response was accompanied by increased poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase cleavage as well as elevated cellular phospho-H2AX. Analysis of the same series of GBMs, as intracranial xenografts in athymic mice, and administering corresponding p53 inhibitor precursor, which is converted to the active compound in vivo, yielded results consistent with the in vitro analyses: TMZ + p53 inhibitor precursor cotreatment of three distinct p53(wt), GBM xenografts resulted in significant enhancement of TMZ antitumor effect relative to treatment with TMZ alone, as indicated by serial bioluminescence monitoring as well as survival analysis (P < 0.001 for cotreatment survival benefit in each case). Mice receiving intracranial injection with p53(null) GBM showed similar survival benefit from TMZ treatment regardless of the presence or absence of p53 inhibitor precursor. In total, our results indicate that the p53 active and precursor inhibitor pair enhances TMZ cytotoxicity in vitro and in vivo, respectively, and do so in a p53-dependent manner. [Cancer Res 2008;68(24):10034-9]

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available