4.6 Article

Implementing Patient-Derived Xenografts to Assess the Effectiveness of Cyclin-Dependent Kinase Inhibitors in Glioblastoma

期刊

CANCERS
卷 11, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cancers11122005

关键词

glioblastoma; CDK inhibitors; seliciclib; CYC065; TRAIL; drozitumab; neurospheres; patient-derived xenograft

类别

资金

  1. Irish Health Research Board [HRA_POR/2012/88]
  2. EC [766069]
  3. Marie Curie Actions (MSCA) [766069] Funding Source: Marie Curie Actions (MSCA)
  4. Health Research Board (HRB) [HRA-POR-2012-88] Funding Source: Health Research Board (HRB)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common primary brain tumor with no available cure. As previously described, seliciclib, a first-generation cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) inhibitor, down-regulates the anti-apoptotic protein, Mcl-1, in GBM, thereby sensitizing GBM cells to the apoptosis-inducing effects of the death receptor ligand, tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL). Here, we have assessed the efficacy of seliciclib when delivered in combination with the antibody against human death receptor 5, drozitumab, in clinically relevant patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models of GBM. A reduction in viability and significant levels of apoptosis were observed in vitro in human GBM neurospheres following treatment with seliciclib plus drozitumab. While the co-treatment strategy induced a similar effect in PDX models, the dosing regimen required to observe seliciclib-targeted responses in the brain, resulted in lethal toxicity in 45% of animals. Additional studies showed that the second-generation CDK inhibitor, CYC065, with improved potency in comparison to seliciclib, induced a significant decrease in the size of human GBM neurospheres in vitro and was well tolerated in vivo, upon administration at clinically relevant doses. This study highlights the continued need for robust pre-clinical assessment of promising treatment approaches using clinically relevant models.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据