4.6 Article

The antitumor effects of oncolytic adenovirus H101 against lung cancer

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY
卷 47, 期 2, 页码 555-562

出版社

SPANDIDOS PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.3892/ijo.2015.3045

关键词

lung cancer; oncolytic virus; H101; coxsackievirus adenovirus receptor; gene therapy

类别

资金

  1. Fundamental Research Funds [2010ZC186]
  2. Reserve Talent Funds of Yunnan Province [2008Y003]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality in both men and women, with dismal survival rates due to late-stage diagnoses and a lack of efficacious therapies. The new treatment options with completely novel mechanism of therapeutic activity are needed for lung cancer to improve patient outcome. The present study was aimed at testing the efficacy of recombinant adenovirus H101 as an oncolytic agent for killing human lung cancer cell lines in vitro and in vivo. We assessed the coxsackievirus adenovirus receptor (CAR) expression on human lung cancer cell lines by RT-PCR and immunocytochemistry staining. Viral infectivity and viral replication in lung cancer cells was assayed by flow cytometry and real-time fluorescent quantitative PCR. After H101 treatment, cytotoxic effect, cell cycle progression and apoptosis were further examined by lactate dehydrogenase release assay and flow cytometry in vitro, respectively. In vivo, antitumor effects of H101 were assessed on SCID Beige mice xenografted with human lung cancer cells. Receptor characterization confirmed that human lung cancer cell lines expressed CAR receptor for adenovirus type 5. Lung cancer cells were sensitive to infection by the H101 virus. H101 infection and replication resulted in very potent cytotoxicity, G2/M phase arrest and cell lysis. In vivo, we also showed that H101 significantly inhibited tumor growth following intratumoral injection, with virus replication, cell degeneration and necrosis in the tumor tissue. These results have important implications for the treatment of human lung cancer.

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