Antiangiogenic Properties of Axitinib versus Sorafenib Following Sunitinib Resistance in Human Endothelial Cells—A View towards Second Line Renal Cell Carcinoma Treatment

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors predominate as first-line therapy options for renal cell carcinoma. When first-line TKI therapy fails due to resistance development, an optimal second-line therapy has not yet been established. The present investigation is directed towards comparing the anti-angiogenic properties of the TKIs, sorafenib and axitinib on human endothelial cells (HUVECs) with acquired resistance towards the TKI sunitinib. HUVECs were driven to resistance by continuously exposing them to sunitinib for six weeks. They were then switched to a 24 h or further six weeks treatment with sorafenib or axitinib. HUVEC growth, as well as angiogenesis (tube formation and scratch wound assay), were evaluated. Cell cycle proteins of the CDK-cyclin axis (CDK1 and 2, total and phosphorylated, cyclin A and B) and the mTOR pathway (AKT, total and phosphorylated) were also assessed. Axitinib (but not sorafenib) significantly suppressed growth of sunitinib-resistant HUVECs when they were exposed for six weeks. This axinitib-associated growth reduction was accompanied by a cell cycle block at the G0/G1-phase. Both axitinib and sorafenib reduced HUVEC tube length and prevented wound closure (sorafenib > axitinib) when applied to sunitinib-resistant HUVECs for six weeks. Protein analysis revealed diminished phosphorylation of CDK1, CDK2 and pAKT, accompanied by a suppression of cyclin A and B. Both drugs modulated CDK-cyclin and AKT-dependent signaling, associated either with both HUVEC growth and angiogenesis (axitinib) or angiogenesis alone (sorafenib). Axitinib and sorafenib may be equally applicable as second line treatment options, following sunitinib resistance.

Intrinsic S phase checkpoint enforced by an antiproliferative oncosuppressor cytokine

The cell cycle is strictly programmed with control mechanisms that dictate order in cell cycle progression to ensure faithful DNA replication, whose deviance may lead to cancer. Checkpoint control at the G1/S, S/G2 and G2/M portals have been defined but no statutory time-programmed control for securing orderly transition through S phase has so far been identified. Here we report that in normal cells DNA synthesis is controlled by a checkpoint sited within the early part of S phase, enforced by the βGBP cytokine an antiproliferative molecule otherwise known for its oncosuppressor properties that normal cells constitutively produce for self-regulation. Suppression of active Ras and active MAPK, block of cyclin A gene expression and suppression of CDK2-cyclin A activity are events which while specific to the control of a cell cycle phase in normal cells are part of the apoptotic network in cancer cells.

Cortical Cyclin A controls spindle orientation during asymmetric cell division

Cell proliferation and cell polarity need to be precisely coordinated to orient the asymmetric cell divisions crucial for generating cell diversity in epithelia. In many instances, the Frizzled/Dishevelled planar cell polarity pathway is involved in mitotic spindle orientation, but how this is spatially and temporally coordinated with cell cycle progression has remained elusive. Using Drosophila sensory organ precursor cells as a model system, we show that Cyclin A, the main Cyclin driving the transition to M-phase of the cell cycle, is recruited to the apical-posterior cortex in prophase by the Frizzled/Dishevelled complex. This cortically localized Cyclin A then regulates the orientation of the division by recruiting Mud, a homologue of NuMA, the well-known spindle-associated protein. The observed non-canonical subcellular localization of Cyclin A reveals this mitotic factor as a direct link between cell proliferation, cell polarity and spindle orientation.