Identification of unique molecular subdomains in the perichondrium and periosteum and their role in regulating gene expression in the underlying chondrocytes.

Developing cartilaginous and ossified skeletal anlagen is encapsulated within a membranous sheath of flattened, elongated cells called, respectively, the perichondrium and the periosteum. These periskeletal tissues are organized in distinct morphological layers that have been proposed to support distinct functions. Classical experiments, particularly those using an in vitro organ culture system, demonstrated that these tissues play important roles in regulating the differentiation of the subjacent skeletal elements. However, there has been a lack of molecular markers that would allow analysis of these interactions. To understand the molecular bases for the roles played by the periskeletal tissues, we generated microarrays from perichondrium and periosteum cDNA libraries and used them to compare the gene expression profiles of these two tissues. In situ hybridization analysis of genes identified on the microarrays revealed many unique markers for these tissues and demonstrated that the histologically distinct layers of the perichondrium and periosteum are associated with distinct molecular expression domains. Moreover our marker analysis identified new domains that had not been previously recognized as distinct within these tissues as well as a previously uncharacterized molecular domain along the lateral edges of the adjacent developing cartilage that experimental analysis showed to be dependent upon the perichondrium.

Perichondrial-mediated TGF-beta regulation of cartilage growth in avian long bone development.

We previously observed using cultured tibiotarsal long-bone rudiments from which the perichondrium (PC) and periosteum (PO) was removed that the PC regulates cartilage growth by the secretion of soluble negative regulatory factors. This regulation is "precise" in that it compensates exactly for removal of the endogenous PC and is mediated through at least three independent mechanisms, one of which involves a response to TGF-beta. PC cell cultures treated with 2 ng/ml TGF-beta1 produced a conditioned medium which when added to PC/PO-free organ cultures effected precise regulation of cartilage growth. In the present study, we have investigated the possibility that TGF-beta itself might be the negative regulator which is produced by the PC cells in response to their treatment with TGF-beta1. Using a TGF-beta responsive reporter assay, we determined that PC cell cultures, when treated with 2 ng/ml or greater exogenous TGF-beta1, produce 300 pg/ml of active TGF-beta. Then we observed that this concentration (300 pg/ml) of active TGF-beta1, when added to PC/PO-free tibiotarsal organ cultures, effected precise regulation of cartilage growth, whereas concentrations of TGF-beta1 either greater or less than 300 pg/ml produced abnormally small cartilages. These results suggest that one mechanism by which the PC effects normal cartilage growth is through the production of a precisely regulated amount of TGF-beta which the PC produces in response to treatment with exogenous TGF-beta itself.

Selinexor reduces the expression of DNA damage repair proteins and sensitizes cancer cells to DNA damaging agents.

INTRODUCTION: The goal of this study was to examine the effects of selinexor, an inhibitor of exportin-1 mediated nuclear export, on DNA damage repair and to evaluate the cytotoxic effects of selinexor in combination with DNA damaging agents (DDAs) in cancer cells. RESULTS: Selinexor reduced the expression of DNA damage repair (DDR) proteins. This did not induce significant DNA damage in tested cell lines. Inhibition of DDR protein expression resulted in enhanced cancer cell death when cells were pretreated with DDAs. In contrast, enhanced cell death was not detected in cells that were pretreated with selinexor then with DDAs. In vivo, single-agent selinexor, docetaxel, or cisplatin treatment resulted in 66.7%, 51.5%, and 26.6% tumor growth inhibition (TGI), respectively, in an MDA-MB-231 xenograft model. Consequently, combination treatment with docetaxel or cisplatin followed by selinexor in vivo resulted in 93.9% and 103.4% TGI, respectively. Immunohistochemical staining and immunoblot analysis of tumor sections confirmed reduced expression of DDR proteins. CONCLUSION: Selinexor treatment inhibited DDR mechanisms in cancer cell lines and therefore potentiated DNA damage-based therapy. The sequential combination of DDAs followed by selinexor increased cancer cell death. This combination is superior to each individual therapy and has a mechanistic rationale as a novel anticancer strategy. METHODS: Cancer cells treated with selinexor ± DDAs were analyzed using reverse phase protein arrays, immunoblots, quantitative PCR and immunofluorescence. Mice bearing MDA-MB-231 tumors were treated with subtherapeutic doses of selinexor, cisplatin, docetaxel and selinexor in combination with either cisplatin or docetaxel. Tumor growth was evaluated for 25 days.

XPO1 target occupancy measurements confirm the selinexor recommended phase 2 dose.

XPO1 (exportin 1) is the main nuclear export protein with over 200 different protein cargos. XPO1 is overexpressed in tumor cells and high levels are correlated with poor prognosis. Selective Inhibitor of Nuclear Export (SINE) compounds block nuclear export by inhibiting XPO1. The first SINE compound, selinexor, shows promising anti-cancer activity across hematological and solid tumors in Phase 2 and 3 clinical trials. The 2nd generation SINE compound KPT-8602 is being evaluated as an anti-cancer agent in a Phase 1 clinical trial. To predict patient response to treatment and confirm the selinexor recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), an assay based on fluorescence cross correlation spectroscopy that measures XPO1 occupancy in cancer cells was developed. Studies comparing cytotoxicity and XPO1 occupancy in cell lines treated with selinexor or KPT-8602 indicated that XPO1 occupancy by both compounds could reach saturation regardless of drug sensitivity. However, higher levels of XPO1 protein correlated with lower sensitivity to SINE compound cytotoxicity. In vivo mouse studies showed XPO1 occupancy could be measured in tumors and was dose-dependent, with >90% target saturation at 10 mg/kg (∼50 mg flat dose in humans). Drug-target occupancy was measured in a dose-response time course and full occupancy occurred by 6 hours at all doses. The duration of occupancy was dose-dependent, where 10-15 mg/kg in mice (∼ 50-75 mg human flat dose) was necessary to maintain XPO1 occupancy up to 48 hours post-dose. These findings confirm the selinexor RP2D of 60 mg for achieving target occupancy and inhibition up to 48 hours.

A method for quantification of exportin-1 (XPO1) occupancy by Selective Inhibitor of Nuclear Export (SINE) compounds.

Selective Inhibitor of Nuclear Export (SINE) compounds are a family of small-molecules that inhibit nuclear export through covalent binding to cysteine 528 (Cys528) in the cargo-binding pocket of Exportin 1 (XPO1/CRM1) and promote cancer cell death. Selinexor is the lead SINE compound currently in phase I and II clinical trials for advanced solid and hematological malignancies. In an effort to understand selinexor-XPO1 interaction and to establish whether cancer cell response is a function of drug-target engagement, we developed a quantitative XPO1 occupancy assay. Biotinylated leptomycin B (b-LMB) was utilized as a tool compound to measure SINE-free XPO1. Binding to XPO1 was quantitated from SINE compound treated adherent and suspension cells in vitro, dosed ex vivo human peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs), and PBMCs from mice dosed orally with drug in vivo. Evaluation of a panel of selinexor sensitive and resistant cell lines revealed that resistance was not attributed to XPO1 occupancy by selinexor. Administration of a single dose of selinexor bound XPO1 for minimally 72 hours both in vitro and in vivo. While XPO1 inhibition directly correlates with selinexor pharmacokinetics, the biological outcome of this inhibition depends on modulation of pathways downstream of XPO1, which ultimately determines cancer cell responsiveness.

Identification and characterization of a previously undetected region between the perichondrium and periosteum of the developing avian limb.

In developing long bones, the growing cartilage and bone are surrounded by the fibrous perichondrium (PC) and periosteum (PO), respectively, which provide cells for the appositional growth (i.e., growth in diameter) of these tissues. Also during the longitudinal growth of a bone, the cartilage is continuously replaced by bony tissue, giving rise to the widely held assumption that the PC concomitantly gives rise to the PO. Except for this morphological correlate, however, no evidence exists for a direct conversion of PC cells to PO cells, and our observations presented here question this assumption. Instead, we have obtained evidence suggesting that a previously undescribed region exists between the PC and PO. This region, termed the border region (BR), has several unique characteristics which distinguish it from either the PC or PO, including (1) its lack of being determined to differentiate as either cartilage or bone, (2) its ability to preferentially elicit the invasion of blood vessels, and (3) its ability to undergo preferential growth.

Multiple mechanisms of perichondrial regulation of cartilage growth.

We previously observed that the perichondrium (PC) and the periosteum (PO) negatively regulate endochondral cartilage growth through secreted factors. Conditioned medium from cultures of PC and PO cells when mixed (PC/PO-conditioned medium) and tested on organ cultures of embryonic chicken tibiotarsi from which the PC and PO have been removed (PC/PO-free cultures) effect negative regulation of growth. Of potential importance, this regulation compensates precisely for removal of the PC and PO, thus mimicking the regulation effected by these tissues in vivo. We have now examined whether two known negative regulators of cartilage growth (retinoic acid [RA] and transforming growth factor-beta1 [TGF-beta1]) act in a manner consistent with this PC/PO-mediated regulation. The results suggest that RA and TGF-beta1, per se, are not the regulators in the PC/PO-conditioned medium. Instead, they show that these two factors each act in regulating cartilage growth through an additional, previously undescribed, negative regulatory mechanism(s) involving the perichondrium. When cultures of perichondrial cells (but not periosteal cells) are treated with either agent, they secrete secondary regulatory factors into their conditioned medium, the action of which is to effect precise negative regulation of cartilage growth when tested on the PC/PO-free organ cultures. This negative regulation through the perichondrium is the only activity detected with TGF-beta1. Whereas, RA shows additional regulation on the cartilage itself. However, this regulation by RA is not "precise" in that it produces abnormally shortened cartilages. Overall, the precise regulation of cartilage growth effected by the action of the perichondrial-derived factor(s) elicited from the perichondrial cells by treatment with either RA or TGF-beta1, when combined with our previous results showing similar--yet clearly different--"precise" regulation by the PC/PO-conditioned medium suggests the existence of multiple mechanisms involving the perichondrium, possibly interrelated or redundant, to ensure the proper growth of endochondral skeletal elements.