Investigation of Metabolomic Changes in Sunitinib-Resistant Human Renal Carcinoma 786-O Cells by Capillary Electrophoresis-Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry.

Acquired resistance to sunitinib is a challenge in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The dysregulation of cellular metabolism is prevalent during resistance acquisition. It is known that in sunitinib-resistant RCC 786-O (786-O Res) cells sunitinib is mainly sequestered in the intracellular lysosomes. However, the relevance between sunitinib resistance and cellular metabolism has not been examined. In this study, we examined the metabolic changes in 786-O Res by using capillary electrophoresis-time of flight mass spectrometry. The cell line 786-O Res was established via persistent treatment with sunitinib, where increase in intracellular sunitinib, and sizes of lysosomes and nuclei were enhanced as compared with those in the parental 786-O (786-O Par) cells. Metabolic analyses revealed that out of the 110 metabolites examined, 13 were up-regulated and 4 were down-regulated in the 786-O Res cells. The glycolysis, tricarboxylic acid cycle and pentose phosphate pathway (PPP) were identified as being altered in the sunitinib-resistant cells, which resulted in the enhanced metabolisms of energy, nucleic acids, and glutathione redox cycle. As sunitinib was sequestered in the enlarged lysosomes in 786-O Res, the enriched energy metabolism might contribute to the maintenance of luminal pH in lysosomes via the H+ ATPase. The changes in the PPP could contribute to nuclei enlargement through up-regulation of nucleic acid biosynthesis and protect 786-O Res from cytotoxicity induced by sunitinib through up-regulation of reduced glutathione. Though the direct link between sunitinib resistance and metabolic alternation remains to be elucidated, this metabolomics study provides fundamental insights into acquisition of sunitinib resistance.

Tumor-associated neutrophils and macrophages exacerbate antidrug IgG-mediated anaphylactic reaction against an immune checkpoint inhibitor.

BACKGROUND: With the increased use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), side effects and toxicity are a great concern. Anaphylaxis has been identified as a potential adverse event induced by ICIs. Anaphylaxis is a life-threatening medical emergency. However, the mechanisms and factors that can potentially influence the incidence and severity of anaphylaxis in patients with cancer remain unclear. METHODS: Healthy, murine colon 26, CT26, breast 4T1, EMT6, and renal RENCA tumor-bearing mice were treated with an anti-PD-L1 antibody (clone 10F.9G2). Symptoms of anaphylaxis were evaluated along with body temperature and mortality. The amounts of antidrug antibody and platelet-activating factor (PAF) in the blood were quantified via ELISA and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Immune cells were analyzed and isolated using a flow cytometer and magnetic-activated cell sorting, respectively. RESULTS: Repeated administration of the anti-PD-L1 antibody 10F.9G2 to tumor-bearing mice caused fatal anaphylaxis, depending on the type of tumor model. After administration, antidrug immunoglobulin G (IgG), but not IgE antibodies, were produced, and PAF was released as a chemical mediator during anaphylaxis, indicating that anaphylaxis was caused by an IgG-dependent pathway. Anaphylaxis induced by 10F.9G2 was treated with a PAF receptor antagonist. We identified that neutrophils and macrophages were PAF-producing effector cells during anaphylaxis, and the tumor-bearing models with increased numbers of neutrophils and macrophages showed lethal anaphylaxis after treatment with 10F.9G2. Depletion of both neutrophils and macrophages using clodronate liposomes prevented anaphylaxis in tumor-bearing mice. CONCLUSIONS: Thus, increased numbers of neutrophils and macrophages associated with cancer progression may be risk factors for anaphylaxis. These findings may provide useful insights into the mechanism of anaphylaxis following the administration of immune checkpoint inhibitors in human subjects.

Poor outcome with anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody due to poor pharmacokinetic properties in PD-1/PD-L1 blockade-sensitive mouse models.

BACKGROUND: Recently, antiprogrammed cell death protein 1 (aPD-1) and antiprogrammed death-ligand 1 (aPD-L1) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have been approved. Even though aPD-1 and aPD-L1 mAbs target the same PD-1/PD-L1 axis, it is still unclear whether both mAbs exert equivalent pharmacological activity in patients who are sensitive to PD-1/PD-L1 blockade therapy, as there is no direct comparison of their pharmacokinetics (PK) and antitumor effects. Therefore, we evaluated the differences between both mAbs in PK and therapeutic effects in PD-1/PD-L1 blockade-sensitive mouse models. METHODS: Herein, murine breast MM48 and colon MC38 xenografts were used to analyze the pharmacological activity of aPD-1 and aPD-L1 mAbs. The PK of the mAbs in the tumor-bearing mice was investigated at low and high doses using two radioisotopes (Indium-111 and Iodine-125) to evaluate the accumulation and degradation of the mAbs. RESULTS: aPD-1 mAb showed antitumor effect in a dose-dependent manner, indicating that the tumor model was sensitive to PD-1/PD-L1 blockade therapy, whereas aPD-L1 mAb failed to suppress tumor growth. The PK study showed that aPD-L1 mAb was accumulated largely in normal organs such as the spleen, liver, and kidney, resulting in low blood concentration and low distributions to tumors at a low dose, even though the tumors expressed PD-L1. Sufficient accumulation of aPD-L1 mAb in tumors was achieved by administration at a high dose owing to the saturation of target-mediated binding in healthy organs. However, degradation of aPD-L1 mAb in tumors was greater than that of aPD-1 mAb, which resulted in poor outcome presumably due to less inhibition of PD-L1 by aPD-L1 mAb than that of PD-1 by aPD-1 mAb. CONCLUSION: According to the PK studies, aPD-1 mAb showed linear PK, whereas aPD-L1 mAb showed non-linear PK between low and high doses. Collectively, the poor PK characteristics of aPD-L1 mAb caused lower antitumor activity than of aPD-1 mAb. These results clearly indicated that aPD-L1 mAb required higher doses than aPD-1 mAb in clinical setting. Thus, targeting of PD-1 would be more advantageous than PD-L1 in terms of PK.