4.6 Article

Curcumin and metformin-mediated chemoprevention of oral cancer is associated with inhibition of cancer stem cells

期刊

MOLECULAR CARCINOGENESIS
卷 56, 期 11, 页码 2446-2460

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mc.22692

关键词

cancer stem cells; chemoprevention; curcumin; metformin; oral cancer; 4NQO model

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Effective chemoprevention is critical for improving outcomes of oral cancer. As single agents, curcumin and metformin are reported to exhibit chemopreventive properties, in vitro as well as in patients with oral cancer. In this study, the chemopreventive efficacy of this drug combination was tested in a 4-nitro quinoline-1-oxide (4NQO) induced mice oral carcinogenesis model. Molecular analysis revealed a cancer stem cell (CSC)-driven oral carcinogenic progression in this model, wherein a progressive increase in the expression of CSC-specific markers (CD44 and CD133) was observed from 8th to 25th week, at transcript (40-100-fold) and protein levels (P0.0001). Chemopreventive treatment of the animals at 17th week with curcumin and metformin indicated that the combination regimen decreased tumor volume when compared to the control arm (0.69+0.03 vs 6.66+2.4mm(3); P=0.04) and improved overall survival of the animals (P=0.03). Assessment of the molecular status showed an overall downregulation of CSC markers in the treatment arms as compared to the untreated control. Further, in vitro assessment of the treatment on the primary cells generated from progressive stages of 4NQO-induced mice tissue showed a concordant and consistent downregulation of the CSC markers following combination treatment (P<0.05). The treatment also inhibited the migratory and self-renewal properties of these cells; the effect of which was prominent in the cultures of early dysplastic tissue (P<0.002). Collectively, our observations suggest that the combination of curcumin and metformin may improve chemopreventive efficacy against oral squamous cell carcinoma through a CSC-associated mechanism.

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