Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jun 28;13(13):3216.
doi: 10.3390/cancers13133216.

The Impact of Extracellular Ca2+ and Nanosecond Electric Pulses on Sensitive and Drug-Resistant Human Breast and Colon Cancer Cells

Affiliations

The Impact of Extracellular Ca2+ and Nanosecond Electric Pulses on Sensitive and Drug-Resistant Human Breast and Colon Cancer Cells

Julita Kulbacka et al. Cancers (Basel). .

Abstract

(1) Background: Calcium electroporation (CaEP) is based on the application of electrical pulses to permeabilize cells (electroporation) and allow cytotoxic doses of calcium to enter the cell. (2) Methods: In this work, we have used doxorubicin-resistant (DX) and non-resistant models of human breast cancer (MCF-7/DX, MCF-7/WT) and colon cancer cells (LoVo, LoVo/DX), and investigated the susceptibility of the cells to extracellular Ca2+ and electric fields in the 20 ns-900 ns pulse duration range. (3) Results: We have observed that colon cancer cells were less susceptible to PEF than breast cancer cells. An extracellular Ca2+ (2 mM) with PEF was more disruptive for DX-resistant cells. The expression of glycoprotein P (MDR1, P-gp) as a drug resistance marker was detected by the immunofluorescent (CLSM) method and rhodamine-123 efflux as an MDR1 activity. MDR1 expression was not significantly modified by nanosecond electroporation in multidrug-resistant cells, but a combination with calcium ions significantly inhibited MDR1 activity and cell viability. (4) Conclusions: We believe that PEF with calcium ions can reduce drug resistance by inhibiting drug efflux activity. This phenomenon of MDR mechanism disruption seems promising in anticancer protocols.

Keywords: calcium ions; electroporation drug resistance; human adenocarcinoma; membrane permeabilization.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Waveforms of the pulses applied in the study; red color represents signal of 100 ns pulse (15 kV/cm) and navy blue corresponds to 20 ns pulse (40 kV/cm).
Figure 2
Figure 2
The fraction of YO-PRO-1 permeable cells 10 min post electric field treatment evaluated using flow cytometry, where (A) doxorubicin-sensitive (MCF-7/WT) and (B) doxorubicin-resistant (MCF-7/DX) human breast adenocarcinoma cells; (C) doxorubicin-sensitive (LoVo) and (D) doxorubicin-resistant (LoVo/DX) human colon cancer cells. Asterisk (*) corresponds to statistically significant (p < 0.05) difference versus untreated control. The percentage of permeabilized cells shows the fraction of permeabilized cells compared to all the cells in each sample.
Figure 3
Figure 3
The fraction of YO-PRO-1 permeable cells 10 min post nanosecond-electric field treatment evaluated using flow cytometry in MCF-7/WT, MCF-7/DX, LoVo, and LoVo/DX cells. Asterisk (*) corresponds to statistically significant (p < 0.05) difference between two types of cells (MCF and LoVo). The percentage of permeabilized cells shows the fraction of permeabilized cells compared to the whole cells’ portion in each sample.
Figure 4
Figure 4
The viability of cells (A) MCF-7/WT and MCF-7/DX; (B) LoVo and LoVo/DX exposed to electroporation and calcium ions measured my MTT assay depending on the treatment protocol, where EP1–10 kV/cm × 300 ns × 200; EP2–40 kV/cm × 20 ns × 400; EP360 kV/cm × 20 ns × 400; EP4–1.2 kV/cm × 100 µs ns × 8 (ESOPE); CTRL–untreated control. All the data is normalized to untreated control. Asterisk (*) corresponds to statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between protocols (EP1–EP4) with and without calcium; (x) corresponds to statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between non-resistant cells and DX-resistant cells.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Immunofluorescent analysis of MDR1 protein double-stained with CellMask membrane marker in human breast adenocarcinoma cells, (a) MCF-7/WT; (b) MCF-7/DX and human colon carcinoma cells; (c) LoVo; (d) LoVo/DX. The following parameters were applied without/with 2 mM Ca2+: EP1–10 kV/cm × 300 ns × 200; EP2–40 kV/cm × 20 ns × 400; EP3–60 kV/cm × 20 ns × 400; EP4–1.2 kV/cm × 100 µs ns × 8 (ESOPE). Red fluorescence corresponds to the DeepRed®CellMask cell membrane marker, green fluorescence corresponds to MDR1 protein.White scale bar corresponds to 10 µm.
Figure 6
Figure 6
The analysis of fluorescent P-gp (MDR1) signal from breast cancer cells (A) MCF-7/WT; (B) MCF-7/DX, and colon cancer cells (C) LoVo and (D) LoVo/DX. The following parameters were applied without/with 2 mM Ca2+: EP1–10 kV/cm × 300 ns × 200; EP2–40 kV/cm × 20 ns × 400; EP3–60 kV/cm × 20 ns × 400; EP4–1.2 kV/cm × 100 µs ns × 8 (ESOPE). Dotted line represents the control level. Signal was examined by ImageJ software. Grey fields indicate samples with calcium ions. Asterisk (* and #) corresponds to statistically significant (p < 0.05) difference. (*) in relation to the untreated control cells; (#) in relation to calcium-treated control.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Rhodamine 123 accumulation assay and viability in breast adenocarcinoma (a,b) sensitive and (c,d) resistant cells after 24 h post electroporation with/without CaCl2. Results were normalized to control untreated cells (E/E0 where E0 = Ctrl, E–(MFI) mean fluorescence intensity of the appropriate sample). Exemplary dot plots and histograms are shown in (e), where X axis corresponds to FSC (forward scatter-diameter of the cells), and Y axis to SSC (side scatter-internal complexity of the cells. The following parameters were applied: EP1–10 kV/cm × 300 ns × 200; EP2–40 kV/cm × 20 ns × 400; EP3–60 kV/cm × 20 ns × 400; EP4–1.2 kV/cm × 100 µs ns × 8 (ESOPE), * p ≤ 0.05. E/E0 (Rod-123 uptake) and MFI results are taken from Gate 2 (blue); Gate 1 indicates dead or damaged cells; Gate 3 (purple) separates the analyzed cells from the debris.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Rhodamine 123 accumulation assay and viability in colon carcinoma (a,b) sensitive and (c,d) resistant cells after 24 h post electroporation with/without CaCl2. Results were normalized to control untreated cells (E/E0 where E0 = Ctrl, E–(MFI) mean fluorescence intensity of the appropriate sample). Exemplary dot plots and histograms are shown in (e), where X axis corresponds to FSC (forward scatter-diameter of the cells), and Y axis to SSC (side scatter-internal complexity of the cells. The following parameters were applied: EP1–10 kV/cm × 300 ns × 200; EP2–40 kV/cm × 20 ns × 400; EP3–60 kV/cm × 20 ns × 400; EP4–1.2 kV/cm × 100 µs ns × 8 (ESOPE), * p ≤ 0.05. E/E0 (Rod-123 uptake) and MFI results are taken from Gate 2 (blue); Gate 1 indicates dead or damaged cells; Gate 3 (purple) separates the analyzed cells from the debris.

References

    1. Omran Z., Scaife P., Stewart S., Rauch C. Physical and biological characteristics of multi drug resistance (MDR): An integral approach considering pH and drug resistance in cancer. Semin. Cancer Biol. 2017;43:42–48. doi: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2017.01.002. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ye S., MacEachran D.P., Hamilton J.W., O’Toole G.A., Stanton B.A. Chemotoxicity of doxorubicin and surface expression of P-glycoprotein (MDR1) is regulated by the Pseudomonas aeruginosa toxin Cif. Am. J. Physiol. Physiol. 2008;295:C807–C818. doi: 10.1152/ajpcell.00234.2008. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Shen F., Chu S., Bence A.K., Bailey B., Xue X., Erickson P.A., Montrose M.H., Beck W.T., Erickson L.C. Quantitation of Doxorubicin Uptake, Efflux, and Modulation of Multidrug Resistance (MDR) in MDR Human Cancer Cells. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 2008;324:95 LP–102 LP. doi: 10.1124/jpet.107.127704. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ji X., Lu Y., Tian H., Meng X., Wei M., Cho W.C. Chemoresistance mechanisms of breast cancer and their countermeasures. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2019;114:108800. doi: 10.1016/j.biopha.2019.108800. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Housman G., Byler S., Heerboth S., Lapinska K., Longacre M., Snyder N., Sarkar S. Drug resistance in cancer: An overview. Cancers. 2014;6:1769–1792. doi: 10.3390/cancers6031769. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources