RESUMEN
Parabens have been used for decades as preservatives in food, drugs and cosmetics. The majority however, were banned in 2009 and 2014 leaving only methyl-, ethyl-, propyl-, and butyl-derivates available for subsequent use. Methyl- and propylparaben have been extensively tested in vivo, with no resulting evidence for developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART). In contrast, ethylparaben has not yet been tested for DART in animal experiments, and it is currently debated if additional animal studies are warranted. In order to perform a comparison of the four currently approved parabens, we used a previously established in vitro test based on human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) that are exposed to test substances during their differentiation to neuroectodermal cells. EC50 values for cytotoxicity were 906 µM, 698 µM, 216 µM and 63 µM for methyl-, ethyl-, propyl- and butylparaben, respectively, demonstrating that cytotoxicity increases with increasing alkyl chain length. Genome-wide analysis demonstrated that FDR-adjusted significant gene expression changes occurred only at cytotoxic or close to cytotoxic concentrations, for example 1720 differentially expressed genes (DEG) at 1000 µM ethylparaben, 1 DEG at 316 µM, and no DEG at 100 µM or lower concentrations. The highest concentration of ethylparaben that did not induce any cytotoxicity nor DEG was 1670-fold above the highest concentration reported in biomonitoring studies (60 nM ethylparaben in cord blood). In conclusion, cytotoxicity and gene expression alterations of ethylparaben occurred at concentrations of approximately three orders of magnitude above human blood concentrations; moreover, the substance fitted well into a scenario where toxicity increases with the alkyl chain length, and gene expression changes only occur at cytotoxic or close to cytotoxic concentrations. Therefore, no evidence was obtained suggesting that in vivo DART with ethylparaben would lead to different results as the methyl- or propyl derivates.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Intrinsic or acquired resistance to HER2-targeted therapy is often a problem when small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors or antibodies are used to treat patients with HER2 positive breast cancer. Therefore, the identification of new targets and therapies for this patient group is warranted. Activated choline metabolism, characterized by elevated levels of choline-containing compounds, has been previously reported in breast cancer. The glycerophosphodiesterase EDI3 (GPCPD1), which hydrolyses glycerophosphocholine to choline and glycerol-3-phosphate, directly influences choline and phospholipid metabolism, and has been linked to cancer-relevant phenotypes in vitro. While the importance of choline metabolism has been addressed in breast cancer, the role of EDI3 in this cancer type has not been explored. METHODS: EDI3 mRNA and protein expression in human breast cancer tissue were investigated using publicly-available Affymetrix gene expression microarray datasets (n = 540) and with immunohistochemistry on a tissue microarray (n = 265), respectively. A panel of breast cancer cell lines of different molecular subtypes were used to investigate expression and activity of EDI3 in vitro. To determine whether EDI3 expression is regulated by HER2 signalling, the effect of pharmacological inhibition and siRNA silencing of HER2, as well as the influence of inhibiting key components of signalling cascades downstream of HER2 were studied. Finally, the influence of silencing and pharmacologically inhibiting EDI3 on viability was investigated in vitro and on tumour growth in vivo. RESULTS: In the present study, we show that EDI3 expression is highest in ER-HER2 + human breast tumours, and both expression and activity were also highest in ER-HER2 + breast cancer cell lines. Silencing HER2 using siRNA, as well as inhibiting HER2 signalling with lapatinib decreased EDI3 expression. Pathways downstream of PI3K/Akt/mTOR and GSK3ß, and transcription factors, including HIF1α, CREB and STAT3 were identified as relevant in regulating EDI3 expression. Silencing EDI3 preferentially decreased cell viability in the ER-HER2 + cells. Furthermore, silencing or pharmacologically inhibiting EDI3 using dipyridamole in ER-HER2 + cells resistant to HER2-targeted therapy decreased cell viability in vitro and tumour growth in vivo. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that EDI3 may be a potential novel therapeutic target in patients with HER2-targeted therapy-resistant ER-HER2 + breast cancer that should be further explored.
