Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
    • CME
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CCR Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Breast Cancer
      • Clinical Trials
      • Immunotherapy: Facts and Hopes
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Clinical Cancer Research
Clinical Cancer Research
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
    • CME
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CCR Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Breast Cancer
      • Clinical Trials
      • Immunotherapy: Facts and Hopes
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Cancer Therapy: Preclinical

Vorinostat Inhibits Brain Metastatic Colonization in a Model of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer and Induces DNA Double-Strand Breaks

Diane Palmieri, Paul R. Lockman, Fancy C. Thomas, Emily Hua, Jeanne Herring, Elizabeth Hargrave, Matthew Johnson, Natasha Flores, Yongzhen Qian, Eleazar Vega-Valle, Kunal S. Taskar, Vinay Rudraraju, Rajendar K. Mittapalli, Julie A. Gaasch, Kaci A. Bohn, Helen R. Thorsheim, David J. Liewehr, Sean Davis, John F. Reilly, Robert Walker, Julie L. Bronder, Lionel Feigenbaum, Seth M. Steinberg, Kevin Camphausen, Paul S. Meltzer, Victoria M. Richon, Quentin R. Smith and Patricia S. Steeg
Diane Palmieri
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paul R. Lockman
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Fancy C. Thomas
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Emily Hua
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jeanne Herring
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Elizabeth Hargrave
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Matthew Johnson
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Natasha Flores
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yongzhen Qian
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eleazar Vega-Valle
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kunal S. Taskar
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Vinay Rudraraju
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rajendar K. Mittapalli
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Julie A. Gaasch
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kaci A. Bohn
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Helen R. Thorsheim
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David J. Liewehr
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sean Davis
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John F. Reilly
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert Walker
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Julie L. Bronder
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lionel Feigenbaum
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Seth M. Steinberg
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kevin Camphausen
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paul S. Meltzer
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Victoria M. Richon
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Quentin R. Smith
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Patricia S. Steeg
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-1039 Published October 2009
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Additional Files
  • Fig. 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 1.

    Pharmacokinetics of vorinostat uptake in normal brain and in experimental brain metastases of breast cancer. A, time course of [3H]vorinostat uptake into normal brain as measured using the in situ brain perfusion technique. Mean ± SE for n = 3 perfusions. The line is the best-fit linear regression to the data. Brain space (mL/g) was calculated as the vascularly corrected brain 3H concentration divided by the [3H]vorinostat concentration of perfusion fluid. B, log BBB PS versus log octanol/water distribution coefficient (logD), a measure of hydrophobicity. The line and black squares are for solutes that cross the BBB by passive diffusion (16). The PS of vorinostat is ∼2 logs below that of normal diffusion. C, a coronal tissue section from a mouse injected intravenously with 150 mg/kg [14C]vorinostat 30 min before death and 1.5 mg 3 kDa Texas Red dextran 10 min before death. Mice received EGFP-transfected 231-BR cells via intracardiac injection 4 wk before the experiment. Green fluorescent metastatic lesions that formed are circled (left). Uptake of the nonspecific 3 kDa Texas Red dextran (red fluorescence; middle) and [14C]vorinostat (autoradiogram; right) for those circled lesions in the same coronal section is shown. Representative images shown for n = 5 mice analyzed.

  • Fig. 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 2.

    Representative dorsal whole-brain images from mice treated with vorinostat. 231-BR-EGFP cells were injected into the left cardiac ventricle of Balb\c mice and vehicle or vorinostat treatment started at days indicated. Brains were dissected at necropsy and imaged using a Maestro 420 Special Imaging System to detect the presence of EGFP-expressing metastases.

  • Fig. 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 3.

    In vitro effects of vorinostat on histone acetylation and apoptosis. A, Western blot analysis of acetylated histone proteins in 231-BR cells treated with increasing concentrations of vorinostat for 24 h. B, apoptosis as measured by the Cell Death Detection ELISAPLUS (Roche). Apoptotic index determined with respect to vehicle control-treated cells given an index of 1 to account for the amount of cell death occurring naturally in a cell population. P < 0.0001, ANOVA, post-hoc Dunnett's multiple comparison; P = 0.014 for vehicle versus 0.5 μmol/L vorinostat; P = 0.013 for vehicle versus 1 μmol/L vorinostat; P = 0.0001 for vehicle versus 5 μmol/L vorinostat; P < 0.0001 for vehicle versus 10 μmol/L vorinostat. C, clonogenic growth in response to 0.5 μmol/L (P = 0.024) and 1.0 μmol/L (P < 0.0001) vorinostat compared with vehicle control. P values were determined by two-way ANOVA with post-hoc Dunnett's multiple comparison. D, vorinostat inhibition of cell migration as assessed by Boyden chamber motility experiments. Vorinostat inhibited both unstimulated (bovine serum albumin; P = 0.0007) and fetal bovine serum–stimulated (P < 0.0001) cell migration. P values were determined by three-way ANOVA. Black columns, vehicle control; white columns, 5 μmol/L vorinostat. Representative experiments of at least three conducted (A-D).

  • Fig. 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 4.

    Vorinostat induces DNA damage in vitro and in vivo. A, top, representative immunofluorescent images of γ-H2AX foci (green) in the nucleus of vorinostat-treated 231-BR cells. Cells were treated with 1 μmol/L vorinostat or vehicle for 2 h. γ-H2AX immunofluorescence was done immediately following treatment or 24 h post-treatment. Nuclei were counterstained with 4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole. Magnification, ×400. Bottom, quantification of cells from γ-H2AX immunofluorescence. Cells were scored as having no foci, <20 foci per nucleus, or >20 foci per nucleus. Black columns, vehicle; white columns, 1 μmol/L vorinostat for 2 h; gray columns, 24 h after removal of 1 μmol/L vorinostat for 2 h. B, in vitro analysis of DNA DSB using the comet assay. 231-BR cells were treated with vehicle or 1 or 5 μmol/L vorinostat for 24 h. Mean olive tail moment pooled over three experiments. P < 0.0001 (vorinostat effect by ANOVA), post-hoc Dunnett's multiple comparison; P = 0.34 and P < 0.0001 for vehicle versus 1 and 5 μmol/L, respectively. C, representative images of immunofluorescent γ-H2AX staining in metastatic lesions. Frozen-fixed sections of mouse brains from vehicle- or vorinostat-treated mice were stained for γ-H2AX. Positive foci are visible in pink, and all nuclei were stained with 4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole. Magnification, ×400. D, left, quantification of γ-H2AX staining in large metastases. The percentage of positively stained cells per large metastasis was calculated for all large metastases present in one section per mouse. Four or five mice were analyzed per group containing two to four large metastases per section. P = 0.047, weighted ANOVA. Right, quantification of γ-H2AX staining in micrometastases. The percentage of positively stained cells per micrometastasis was calculated. One section per mouse from five mice was analyzed per group with four to six micrometastasis per mouse. P = 0.004, weighted ANOVA.

  • Fig. 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 5.

    Analysis of gene expression changes induced by vorinostat treatment. A, a simple hierarchical clustering of the top 75 genes differentially expressed in the tumor cells of vorinostat-treated mice compared with vehicle controls. Tumor cells were laser capture microdissected from frozen tissue sections. RNA was extracted, amplified, labeled, and applied to Affymetrix Human U133A 2.0 GeneChips. Vorinostat-treated samples are labeled in red and vehicle samples are labeled in blue. B, Western blot validation of decreased Hes1 protein in response to vorinostat treatment. 231-BR cells were treated with 5 μmol/L vorinostat or vehicle for the times indicated. C, immunohistochemical validation of decreased Rad52 protein in vivo. Representative clusters of metastases from vorinostat- and vehicle-treated mice. Magnification, ×200. One section from each of five mice per group was analyzed.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Additional Files
  • Table 1.

    Effect of treatment start day on the efficacy of vorinostat

    Treatment startnMicrometastasesLarge metastases*
    Mean† (95% confidence interval)P‡Mean (95% confidence interval)P
    Vehicle20170 (146-193)7.65 (6.20-9.10)
    Day 3 post-injection18122 (98-146)0.0172.89 (1.94-3.84)<0.0001
    Day 7 post-injection19151 (127-176)NS4.94 (3.90-5.98)0.008
    Day 14 post-injection18177 (153-201)NS5.96 (4.69-7.22)NS

    NOTE: 175,000 231-BR cells were injected into the left ventricle of the heart of BALB/c nude mice. Results of two experiments are combined.

    • Abbreviation: Not significant.

    • ↵*Size of metastases was determined by a 16 mm2 ocular grid. Large metastases are >300 μm on the longest axis.

    • ↵†Mean number of metastases per section counted in 10-step sections from one hemisphere of the brain.

    • ↵‡A two-factor factorial ANOVA was used to determine significance. All P values are two-tailed and adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's method.

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Supplementary Data

    Files in this Data Supplement:

    • Supplementary Data
PreviousNext
Back to top
Clinical Cancer Research: 15 (19)
October 2009
Volume 15, Issue 19
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Clinical Cancer Research article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Vorinostat Inhibits Brain Metastatic Colonization in a Model of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer and Induces DNA Double-Strand Breaks
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Clinical Cancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Clinical Cancer Research.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Vorinostat Inhibits Brain Metastatic Colonization in a Model of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer and Induces DNA Double-Strand Breaks
Diane Palmieri, Paul R. Lockman, Fancy C. Thomas, Emily Hua, Jeanne Herring, Elizabeth Hargrave, Matthew Johnson, Natasha Flores, Yongzhen Qian, Eleazar Vega-Valle, Kunal S. Taskar, Vinay Rudraraju, Rajendar K. Mittapalli, Julie A. Gaasch, Kaci A. Bohn, Helen R. Thorsheim, David J. Liewehr, Sean Davis, John F. Reilly, Robert Walker, Julie L. Bronder, Lionel Feigenbaum, Seth M. Steinberg, Kevin Camphausen, Paul S. Meltzer, Victoria M. Richon, Quentin R. Smith and Patricia S. Steeg
Clin Cancer Res October 1 2009 (15) (19) 6148-6157; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-1039

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Vorinostat Inhibits Brain Metastatic Colonization in a Model of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer and Induces DNA Double-Strand Breaks
Diane Palmieri, Paul R. Lockman, Fancy C. Thomas, Emily Hua, Jeanne Herring, Elizabeth Hargrave, Matthew Johnson, Natasha Flores, Yongzhen Qian, Eleazar Vega-Valle, Kunal S. Taskar, Vinay Rudraraju, Rajendar K. Mittapalli, Julie A. Gaasch, Kaci A. Bohn, Helen R. Thorsheim, David J. Liewehr, Sean Davis, John F. Reilly, Robert Walker, Julie L. Bronder, Lionel Feigenbaum, Seth M. Steinberg, Kevin Camphausen, Paul S. Meltzer, Victoria M. Richon, Quentin R. Smith and Patricia S. Steeg
Clin Cancer Res October 1 2009 (15) (19) 6148-6157; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-1039
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Radiotherapy with IDO1/PD-1 Blockade Treats Advanced GBM
  • Enhanced Delivery of SN38-TOA NPs in NBs
  • Toxicity and Efficacy of a GADD34-encoding Oncolytic HSV
Show more Cancer Therapy: Preclinical
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook  Twitter  LinkedIn  YouTube  RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • CCR Focus Archive
  • Meeting Abstracts

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Clinical Cancer Research

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Clinical Cancer Research
eISSN: 1557-3265
ISSN: 1078-0432

Advertisement