In vitro study demonstrates nitric oxide-releasing gemcitabine derivatives induce apoptosis in cancer cells, highlighting their potential for treating poorly perfused tumors.
Background/Aim: Poor tumor perfusion can limit drug delivery to solid tumors and reduce the therapeutic efficacy of anticancer agents. Nitric oxide (NO) is a bioactive molecule that can modulate tumor vasculature. In this study, we synthesized two NO-releasing gemcitabine derivatives, GEM-NPB and GEM-NO, to explore whether NO-releasing modification preserves the anticancer activity of gemcitabine while providing NO-donor properties. Materials and Methods: The NO-donor properties of GEM-NPB and GEM-NO were evaluated by measuring NOx formation and compared with those of the previously developed NO donor NPB. The antiproliferative effects of gemcitabine, GEM-NPB, GEM-NO, and NPB were examined in C26 cancer cells using an MTS assay. Cell death was assessed by an Annexin V assay. Apoptotic signaling was evaluated by western blotting for poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) cleavage. The effects of these compounds were also examined using C26 spheroids. Results: GEM-NPB and GEM-NO showed time-dependent NOx formation, indicating that both compounds retained NO-donor properties. In C26 cells, both derivatives inhibited cell proliferation in a concentration-dependent manner, although their effects were weaker than those of gemcitabine. The Annexin V assay showed that GEM-NPB and GEM-NO induced cell death; however, at 50 μM, GEM-NPB induced significantly less cell death than gemcitabine. Gemcitabine, GEM-NPB and GEM-NO induced PARP cleavage, whereas NPB alone did not. In spheroids, gemcitabine, GEM-NPB, and GEM-NO caused surface disruption suggestive of cell damage or cell death, whereas NPB alone did not induce apparent surface disruption. Conclusion: GEM-NPB and GEM-NO retain gemcitabine-like apoptosis-inducing activity while acquiring NO-donor properties. These findings provide a basis for the further development of NO-releasing gemcitabine derivatives as candidate anticancer agents for poorly perfused solid tumors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
KUBO et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: