4.7 Article

Anticancer Effects of Amlodipine Alone or in Combination With Gefitinib in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PHARMACOLOGY
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.902305

关键词

amlodipine; gefitinib; lung cancer; synergistic anticancer effect; cell cycle arrest

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81672809, 82061148017, 82073890, 81673464]
  2. Tianjin Science and Technology Commission [20JCYBJC00670]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Amlodipine can suppress lung cancer cell proliferation by modulating multiple signaling pathways and protein expression, and it shows a good therapeutic effect when used alone or in combination with gefitinib.
Amlodipine is a Ca2+ channel blocker commonly used to cardiovascular diseases such as hypertension and angina; however, its anticancer effects in lung cancer A549 cells remain unknown. In the present study, we explored the antitumor effects and molecular mechanisms underlying the action of amlodipine in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) A549 cells in vitro and in vivo. We observed that amlodipine suppressed the proliferation of A549 lung cancer cells by arresting the tumor cell cycle. Mechanistically, our results revealed that amlodipine could attenuate the phosphoinositide 3 kinase (PI3K)/Akt and Raf/MEK/extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) pathways through epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and modulated cell cycle-related proteins such as cyclin D1, p-Rb, p27, and p21. Subsequently, amlodipine combined with gefitinib could synergistically inhibit cell proliferation by arresting the cell cycle. Moreover, amlodipine combined with gefitinib effectively attenuated the growth of A549 lung cancer xenografts when compared with monotherapy, affording an excellent therapeutic effect. Collectively, our results indicate that amlodipine alone or combined with the novel anticancer drug gefitinib might be a potential therapeutic strategy for NSCLC patients with wild-type EGFR.

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

4.7
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