Published in:
Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research
Ingenol mebutate induces a tumor cell-directed inflammatory response and antimicrobial peptides thereby promoting rapid tumor destruction and wound healing
Published in: European Journal of Medical Research | Issue 1/2018
Login to get accessAbstract
Background
Ingenol mebutat (IM)-gel is effective for the topical treatment of epithelial tumors, including actinic keratoses (AKs) or anogenital warts (AGW). AK patients treated with IM develop intensified inflammatory reactions on sights of prior clinical visible or palpable AKs as compared to the surrounding actinically damaged skin, suggesting the induction of a tumor cell-directed inflammation. AGW patients treated with IM develop even stronger inflammatory reactions with large erosions, suggesting a directed inflammatory response against HPV-infected keratinocytes. Of note, even widespread erosions heal very fast without any superinfections. Here, we set out to elucidate underlying molecular and cellular mechanisms of these clinical observations.
Methods
The effects of IM (10−9–10−5 M) on the expression and translation of a comprehensive set of chemokines (CXCL1, CXCL8, CXCL9, CXCL10, CXCL11, CXCL14, CCL2, CCL5, CCL20, CCL27) and antimicrobial peptides (AMP) (HBD1, HBD2, HBD3, LL37, RNase7) were analyzed in primary human epithelial keratinocytes (HEK) and a set of epithelial cancer cell lines by RT-qPCR and ELISA in vitro. To study the possible effects of different concentrations of IM on migratory, respectively wound healing responses, an in vitro scratch assay was conducted on HEK.
Results
Ingenol mebutat significantly and dose-dependently induced the expression of proinflammatory chemokines (CXCL8, CCL2) and AMP (RNase7, HBD3) in HEK and epithelial cancer cell lines. A significantly stronger induction of CXCL8 and CCL2 was observed in our tested tumor cells as compared to HEK. We did not observe any significant effect of IM on HEK migration, respectively wound healing responses in vitro for any tested concentration (10−9, 10−8, 10−6 M) except 10−7 M, which induced a significant inhibition.
Conclusions
Our data suggest that tumor cells are more susceptible to IM as compared to differentiated HEK. This is evident by a stronger IM-mediated induction of proinflammatory chemokines in tumor cells, which may result in a tumor cell-directed inflammatory response and rapid tumor destruction. In addition, IM induces AMP in keratinocytes and seems not to severely interfere with keratinocyte migration, which contributes to a fast and uncomplicated wound healing. Surprising is a selective inhibition of keratinocyte migration by IM at the concentration of 10−7 M pointing to very dose depending biological effects, induced by IM.