RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The rising incidence of prostate cancer in the U.S. necessitates innovative therapeutic approaches to this disease. Though extensive research has studied Selenium as an anticarcinogen against prostate cancer, results have varied due to overlooked experimental confounds. Recent studies have identified differential effects of various selenium compounds on prostate cancer cells. This study leverages Mixture Design Response Surface Methodology to characterize the ideal combination of select Se forms against the PC-3 prostate cancer cell line. METHODS: The PC-3 cell line was chosen as a model for its representation of advanced-stage malignancy. Three Se compounds-sodium selenite, methylseleninic acid, and nano-selenium-were selected for their promising antineoplastic potential. Nano-Se particles were synthesized and subsequently characterized by transmission electron microscopy. Cells were cultured, treated with Se compounds, and assessed for viability using an Alamar Blue Assay. IC50 values of individual Se compounds were determined, and treatment combinations evaluated. In collaboration with statical modeling experts, MDRSM was utilized to optimize Se compound combinations. RESULTS: Absolute IC50 values were identified for methylseleninic acid (5.01 µmol/L), sodium selenite (13.8 µmol/L), and nano-selenium (14.6 µmol/L). Combining methylseleninic acid and sodium selenite resulted in only 5% PC-3 cell viability, whereas individual treatments reduced viability by approximately 45%. Among the tested mixtures, the 50:50 combination of MSA and sodium selenite most effectively decreased PC-3 cell viability. Regression analysis indicated the special cubic model had a strong fit (multiple r² = 0.9853), predicting maximum cell viability reduction from the methylseleninic acid and selenite mixture. CONCLUSION: The specific form of Selenium plays a pivotal role in determining its physiological effects and therapeutic potential against prostate cancer. All three selenium compounds showed variable antineoplastic effects, with a 50:50 mixture of methylseleninic acid and selenite exhibiting optimal results. Nano-selenium, when combined with selenite, showed no additive effect, implying a shared mechanism of action. Our research underscores the critical need to consider Se compound forms as distinct entities in prostate cancer treatment and encourages further exploration of Se compounds against prostate cancer.