The ability of the transcription factor NF-kappaB to upregulate anti-apoptotic proteins has been linked to the chemoresistance of solid tumors to standard chemotherapy. In contrast, recent studies have proposed that, in response to doxorubicin, NF-kappaB can be pro-apoptotic through repression of anti-apoptotic target genes. However, there is little evidence analyzing the outcome of NF-kappaB inhibition on the cytotoxicity of doxorubicin in studies describing pro-apoptotic NF-kappaB activity. In this study, we further characterize the activation of NF-kappaB in response to doxorubicin and evaluate its role in chemotherapy-induced cell death in sarcoma cells where NF-kappaB is reported to be pro-apoptotic. Doxorubicin treatment in U2OS cells induced canonical NF-kappaB activity as evidenced by increased nuclear accumulation of phosphorylated p65 at serine 536 and increased DNA-binding activity. Co-treatment with a small molecule IKKbeta inhibitor, Compound A, abrogated this response. RT-PCR evaluation of anti-apoptotic gene expression revealed that doxorubicin-induced transcription of cIAP2 was inhibited by Compound A, while doxorubicin-induced repression of other anti-apoptotic genes was unaffected by Compound A or siRNA to p65. Furthermore, the combination of doxorubicin and canonical NF-kappaB inhibition with Compound A or siRNA to p65 resulted in decreased cell viability measured by trypan blue staining and MTS assay and increased apoptosis measured by cleaved poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase and cleaved caspase 3 when compared to doxorubicin alone. Our results demonstrate that doxorubicin-induced canonical NF-kappaB activity associated with phosphorylated p65 is anti-apoptotic in its function and that doxorubicin-induced repression of anti-apoptotic genes occurs independent of p65. Therefore, combination therapies incorporating NF-kappaB inhibitors together with standard chemotherapies remains a viable method to improve the clinical outcomes in patients with advanced stage malignancies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bednarski et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: