|
1.IntroductionDespite increasingly promising molecular targeted and immune therapies, small molecule chemotherapeutics remain the primary treatment option for most cancers. In this context, doxorubicin (Adriamycin) is commonly employed to combat many liquid and solid tumors, including carcinomas of the breast, and sarcomas such as malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (PNSTs).1–5 Although our understanding of its mechanisms of action remains incomplete, doxorubicin is an anthracycline antibiotic that is thought to kill cancer cells through a number of mechanisms that include intercalating between DNA base pairs, inhibiting the progression of topoisomerase II, oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, DNA torsion, and disruption of chromatin dynamics.6–8 Notably, doxorubicin also possesses strong fluorescent properties,9–11 which can be utilized to monitor its delivery and distribution in normal tissues and tumors, including human patient samples.12 Due to its intrinsic fluorescent properties and small molecular size (), representative of many chemotherapies, doxorubicin has emerged as an ideal reagent for modeling drug delivery in vivo. Early work took advantage of doxorubicin’s properties to study its distribution in healthy golden Syrian hamsters in vivo, demonstrating distribution into healthy organs (e.g., heart, lung, liver, and kidney) and nuclear uptake as early as 0.5 min following intravenous administration.13 Since then, many studies have utilized doxorubicin, as well as other fluorescent anthracyclines, as a predictor of chemotherapy delivery in cancer using spheroid and grafted tumor models14–18 and autochthonous models of disease.19–22 Furthermore, many solid tumors present physical barriers to adequate drug delivery resulting in regions of the tumor that are drug-free or experiencing sublethal dosing.23–25 This is often noted by a distinct lack of doxorubicin uptake that illustrates significant barriers to molecular transport by diffusion and/or convection.20,23 To overcome these barriers to effective drug delivery, recent studies have demonstrated the impact of targeting the tumor stroma to enhance delivery of chemotherapeutics.19–21,26,27 As such, methods to image doxorubicin localization in the tumor mass, particularly within cells, and quantify its levels in distinct compartments, are of great value to the studies evaluating approaches to improve drug distribution in tumors. Fluorescence lifetime imaging microscopy (FLIM) has emerged as a robust method for displaying the spatial distribution of excited state lifetimes.28,29 Further, multiphoton FLIM has been utilized to evaluate fundamental aspects of tumor behavior in both live and archival samples.30–36 Fluorescence lifetime imaging is particularly useful as it can provide unique identification of a fluorophore and can provide information about molecular structure and a molecule’s chemical environment or binding state.37 For doxorubicin, lifetime measures have been reported in both the cytoplasm and nucleus of live cells with linear imaging modalities. For instance, examination of HeLa cells demonstrated distinctly shorter doxorubicin lifetimes in the nucleus than in the cytoplasm (both of which are different from doxorubicin in solution), where the shift in lifetime in the nuclei results from binding to DNA.38 Although other studies have supported this finding,9,39 it has also been reported that doxorubicin lifetime is shorter in the cytoplasm compared with the nucleus.40 Furthermore, multiphoton FLIM of live cells has also successfully separated doxorubicin signal from other fluorophores (eGFP and dsRed2), yet to date multiphoton FLIM analysis of doxorubicin in archival formalin-fixed tissues remains incomplete. Here, we describe two-photon processes and lifetime for doxorubicin and fluorescence intensity and lifetime imaging of doxorubicin in archival (formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded, FFPE) normal and tumor tissues. We report a significant shift in doxorubicin florescence lifetime in the nucleus versus the cytoplasm and capture localization behavior of doxorubicin that is often elusive in intensity imaging. 2.Methods2.1.Murine Models of Human CancerThis study was approved by the University of Minnesota Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). To generate high-grade PNSTs, we generated genetically engineered Dhh-; Cnp-EGFR mice41,42 through a focused breeding scheme. This model is faithful to the fundamental features of human PNSTs41 and results in development of plexiform neurofibroma-like lesions and high-grade PNSTs with 100% penetrance by weeks of age. To generate models of pancreatic adenocarcinomas, primary carcinoma cells were grafted into nude (Nu/Nu) mice. Primary carcinoma cells were established from autochthonous pancreatic tumors from the ; ; Pdx1-Cre (KPC) genetically engineered murine model, which is a faithful model for human pancreas cancer20,43 and harbors the relevant oncogene and tumor suppressor gene mutations associated with human pancreatic cancer, as we have previously described.44 Primary carcinoma-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) were isolated by differential trypsinization and magnetic bead depletion of carcinoma cells and immune cell populations. Cells were grown in high glucose Dulbecco-modified eagle’s essential medium (Corning) supplemented with 10% FBS and confirmed to be free of Mycoplasma contamination. To generate tumors, 100,000 carcinoma cells and 100,000 CAFs were mixed into a collagen matrix that was injected subcutaneously in the mouse flank. Tumors developed within 10 days and were harvested 28 days after engraftment. For each model, doxorubicin (; Sigma) was administered via intraperitoneal (i.p.) injection for PNST models or intravenous (i.v.) injection for pancreatic cancer models 15 min prior to euthanasia. While under sedation with isoflurane, formalin was injected into the left ventricle 5 min prior to euthanasia. Liver, intestine, and tumor tissues where then harvested and submerged in formalin for at least 24 h before being processed to generate FFPE histology sections. For doxorubicin imaging, slides were deparaffinized and mounted with Prolong Gold (Life Technologies). 2.2.Multiphoton Microscopy and Multiphoton Fluorescence Lifetime ImagingDoxorubicin solutions or FFPE sections from ; Cnp-EGFR mice or grafted pancreatic tumor models were imaged on a custom-built multiphoton laser scanning microscope (Prairie Technologies/Bruker), where multiphoton imaging relies on a nonlinear dependence on the excitation power and is inherently optically sectioning. A Mai Tai HP Ti:Sapphire laser (Spectra-Physics) that produces 100-fs pulse widths at an 80-MHz repetition rate to simultaneously generate multiphoton excitation and second harmonic generation (SHG) (Fig. 1) was used. This system was controlled using PrairieView software. Here samples were excited at wavelengths ranging from 730 to 920 nm, and the light focused on the sample using a universal M plan fluorite infinity corrected near-infrared objective (). Emission was detected in the blue, green, red, and far-red channels (though bandpass filters at either 440/20, 460/50, 525/50, 525/70, 595/50, 605/70, or 690/50) with either multialkali (Hamamatsu) or GaAsP (Hamamatsu model 7422PA-40) PMTs. Mulitphoton FLIM was performed on this system using the GaAsP PMT connected to a time-correlated single photon counting (TCSPC) system (Becker & Hickl). The instrument response function (IRF) was measured using urea crystal to generate the second harmonic signal. Each image of or was acquired using an integration time of 60 to 180 s, with stable photon count rates during image acquisition confirming that photobleaching did not occur. The photon counts from each pixel are used to determine fluorescence lifetime after application of a deconvolution algorithm of the data and a known or estimated instrument response function.37,45 Analysis was performed with SPCImage (Becker & Hickl) with fluorescence decay modeled as a single- or multiexponential by where is the fractional contribution, is the time, and is the fluorescence lifetime.32,37,45,46 Here the data were well described by a single exponential function as determined by the minimized value.3.Results and Discussion3.1.Two-Photon Excitation of DoxorubicinDoxorubicin is commonly employed to combat many cancers and is frequently utilized to evaluate chemotherapy distribution in tumors and normal tissue due to its fluorescent properties. The one-photon absorption and emission spectra of doxorubicin has been characterized with peak excitation in the to 500 nm range and a broad emission in the range of to 720 nm ( peak in the 580 to 600 nm range).39,47,48 The behavior of doxorubicin in response to multiphoton excitation is less well described. Examining multiphoton excitation across distinct wavelengths ranging from 730 to 920 nm (Fig. 1), we observed that at equal input power the highest emission intensities result following excitation at 760 to 800 nm [peak ; Fig. 2(a)]. As expected, emission was detected in the red and far-red channels though bandpass filters at 595/50, 605/70, and 690/50, and the two-photon nature of doxorubicin excitation was confirmed by examining the nonlinear dependence of fluorescent intensity scaling with the square of the excitation power [Fig. 2(b)]. Thus, doxorubicin has an effective two-photon absorption cross section and, as expected, emits fluorescence into the red/far-red spectrum following two-photon excitation. 3.2.Fluorescence Lifetime Behavior of DoxorubicinThe performance of our FLIM setup was initially determined by measuring the IRF and subsequently the fluorescence lifetime of known standards. The IRF was first measured using urea crystals that exhibit strong SHG after interaction with 800-nm pulsed light. SHG is a nonlinear wave mixing process that can occur when light interacts with a material possessing second-order susceptibility. The result is a second-order polarization to generate light at double the excitation frequency (i.e., emission at half of the excitation wavelength) that, in contrast to fluorescent signals, is instantaneous and thus has a zero lifetime. Utilizing the urea crystal-generated IRF, we were able to accurately measure the lifetime YG beads, a well-established standard, to be (; ), consistent with other reports.49–52 Evaluation of the fluorescence lifetime of doxorubicin in PBS solution following multiphoton excitation at 800 nm revealed a lifetime of (; ), which is consistent with previous reports using linear excitation modalities,9,11,38,47 and was well described with a single exponential model. Thus, multiphoton FLIM provides the capability to robustly generate fluorescence following two-photon excitation and accurately measure its fluorescence lifetime. 3.3.Doxorubicin Intensity in Archival Nerve Sheath Tumor SectionsPNSTs are poor-prognosis soft tissue sarcomas that can arise spontaneously or develop in patients with mutations in the NF1 gene that causes neurofibromatosis type 1.53,54 Although they are notoriously difficult to treat with both chemical and/or radiation therapies, these tumors are frequently treated with doxorubicin.1,2,54 To generate PNSTs, we employed a genetically engineered murine model of human cancer. PNSTs were generated in ; Cnp-EGFR mice that develop plexiform neurofibroma lesions and high-grade peripheral nerve tumors with 100% penetrance by weeks of age that show strong similarity to their human counterparts.41 As such this is an ideal model for studying therapy dynamics. Mice were administered doxorubicin by i.p. injection 15 min prior to euthanasia. Under anesthesia, mice were rapidly perfused with formalin via intracardiac (i.c.) injection. Tissues were harvested and further fixed in formalin for at least 24 h and then processed to generate FFPE sections. Two-photon excitation of doxorubicin in FFPE samples at revealed robust doxorubicin fluorescence following fixation and processing. Consistent with analysis of free doxorubicin in solution, maximum emission intensities result following two-photon excitation at 760 to 800 nm with emission detected in the red and far-red channels though bandpass filters at 595/50, 605/70, and 690/50. In normal FFPE tissues, the doxorubicin signal is strongest from the nucleus, consistent with the intercalation/binding of doxorubicin to DNA,6–8,38 with additional signal from the cytoplasm and the extracellular space that vastly exceeds background fluorescence levels observed in regions of poor doxorubicin perfusion or from untreated mice (Fig. 3). Likewise, in PNSTs, examination of the outer boundaries of tumor that are well perfused with doxorubicin revealed that doxorubicin fluorescence is commonly strongest from the nuclei with additional signal from the cytoplasm and the extracellular space [Figs. 3(b), 4(a), and 4(b)]. However, we note that the inner regions of the PNSTs are either not perfused or not well perfused with doxorubicin, consistent with our understanding of poor molecular transport phenomena in solid tumors.20,23,25,27 Furthermore, most well perfused regions reflect a spectrum of doxorubicin compartmentalization behavior, including areas in which fluorescent signal from the nuclei is stronger, similar to, and less than that in the cytoplasm [Figs. 3(b1)–3(b2) and 4(c)]. Yet, because the antitumor mechanisms of action of doxorubicin have been described as occurring in both the nucleus and the cytoplasm55–58 and extracellular or cytoplasmic doxorubicin may enter the nucleus at later time points, measurement of the total fluorescence intensity in a region is very meaningful, particularly when also considering analysis of molecular transport into a tumor region.20,23 However, if detecting doxorubicin in a particular cell compartment or extracellular region is needed, dissecting out the signal localization from fluorescence intensity images can at times be very challenging for instances where the signal intensity is not strongly localized to a distinct cell or extracellular compartment. 3.4.Doxorubicin Fluorescence Lifetime Imaging in Solid TumorsTo test the capability of multiphoton FLIM to capture doxorubicin intensity and lifetime and quantitatively evaluate drug localization, we imaged FFPE archival samples from two distinct tumor models (autochthonous PNSTs and grafted pancreatic adenocarcinomas). Similar to PNST sarcomas, carcinomas of the pancreas have a poor prognosis and respond poorly to chemotherapy.19,20 To generate pancreatic tumors, we grafted purified primary carcinoma cells derived from KPC mice into host mice. After 28 days, all tumors reached predefined critical dimensions and doxorubicin was administered systemically 15 min prior to euthanasia, similar to the endpoint protocol used in Dhh-; Cnp-EGFR mice. Tissues were again fixed in formalin and processed to generate FFPE sections. Using multiphoton FLIM with TCSPC, we simultaneously collected both fluorescence intensity and fluorescence lifetime (Figs. 4 and 5). Consistent with standard two-photon excitation imaging of doxorubicin intensity in FFPE tissues from young mice harboring PNSTs (Fig. 3), FLIM data from intestine and liver (tissues that are commonly perfused and impacted by chemotherapy and that are frequently employed to confirm chemotherapy delivery in experimental models), and tumor (PNST) sections imaged at 800 nm demonstrate that doxorubicin fluorescence is commonly strongest from the nuclei, with additional signal from the cytoplasm and the extracellular space [Figs. 4(a)–4(c)]. Further, heterogeneity in doxorubicin fluorescence within the tumor section remains readily apparent with some cells possessing strong signal from the nuclei while others display more robust intensity from the cytoplasm [Fig. 4(c)]. Extending intensity imaging to the detection of fluorescence lifetimes using multiphoton FLIM reveals strong separation of doxorubicin fluorescence lifetimes in different regions in normal tissue and tumor sections [Figs. 4(d)–4(f)]. The lifetimes for doxorubicin were well described by a single exponential fit, similar to free doxorubicin in solution, but are longer than the lifetime in solution ( to 1.5 ns versus ). In particular, a significant separation of doxorubicin lifetimes is observed for doxorubicin in the nucleus versus the cytoplasm in all cases and the distribution of lifetimes in each compartment is quite homogeneous relative to intensity data [consistent with the concentration-independent nature of lifetime imaging; Figs. 4(g)–4(i)]. Interestingly, these characteristics allow for quantification of the relative amount of doxorubicin in each compartment by isolating the number of photons within the range of lifetimes for each compartment (Fig. 5), similar to information obtained by isolating the areas as regions of interest but in a much more efficient way on a larger scale. Furthermore, multicomparison statistical analysis also reveals a significant difference between doxorubicin fluorescence lifetimes in the nuclei of cancer cells versus the nuclei in normal tissues ( for both tumor versus intestine and tumor versus liver), while lifetimes in the nuclei of the normal tissues are not significantly different (), raising interesting questions about a potential diagnostic role for doxorubicin lifetime imaging to distinguish normal versus transformed cells. Multiphoton FLIM of FFPE sections from grafted pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas in adult mice revealed similar behavior to normal tissue and PNSTs in young mice (Figs. 4 and 6). Examination of fluorescence lifetimes from FFPE sections derived from adult intestine, liver, and tumor imaged at 800 nm shows strong doxorubicin fluorescence in nuclei, with additional signal from the cytoplasm and the extracellular space, with greater heterogeneity in the localization of fluorescence intensity again found in the tumors [Figs. 6(a)–6(c)]. Indeed heterogeneity in doxorubicin fluorescence within the tumor section remains readily apparent, with some cells possessing strong signal from the nuclei while others display more uniform fluorescence or more robust intensity from the cytoplasm [Fig. 6(c)]. Analysis of fluorescence lifetime with multiphoton FLIM reveals strong separation of doxorubicin fluorescence lifetimes in different regions in both normal tissue sections and tumor sections, particularly between nuclei and the cell cytoplasm [Figs. 6(d)–6(i)]. Again, multicomparison statistical analysis reveals a significant difference between doxorubicin fluorescence lifetimes in the nuclei of cancer cells versus the nuclei in normal tissues ( for both tumor versus intestine and tumor versus liver while liver and intestine are not significantly different, ), further supporting the conclusion that there is a distinct behavior for doxorubicin in the nuclei of cancerous cells versus their nontransformed normal counterparts. The observations here that fluorescence lifetimes in FFPE sections are consistently significantly longer in the nuclei regions than for doxorubicin in the cytoplasm are distinct from findings in some studies using live cancerous cells,9,38,39 but they are consistent with other findings in live cancerous cells.40 Interestingly, in the cases showing an opposite trend,9,38,39 the lifetimes in nuclei are not substantially different between our data in fixed tissues and the published live cells data ( to 1.7 ns in FFPE sections versus to 1.8 ns in live cells). The difference in lifetime in the cytoplasm however is quite different ( to 1.4 ns in FFPE sections versus to 3 ns in live cells). This may result from a number of factors that include the time that the cells are exposed to doxorubicin, which has been shown to influence lifetimes,38,39 and the environmental conditions, such as changes associated with the in vivo versus in vitro condition and fixing and processing the tissues, which are known to impact fluorescence lifetime behavior.37 However, here we set out to specifically evaluate doxorubicin in archival sample sections and make comparisons across formalin-fixed archival samples. Notably, the lifetime values here for doxorubicin in the cytoplasm and nuclei are reasonably consistent across each normal tissue from both young and mature mice. The same is true for the values and shifts in distinct tumor types. As such, it is clear that multiphoton FLIM can be effectively implemented on FFPE sections to obtain reliable fluorescence lifetime data for doxorubicin and quantify DNA-bound doxorubicin localized in the cell nucleus. 4.ConclusionHere we demonstrate, for the first time, imaging of doxorubicin intensity and lifetimes with multiphoton excitation and multiphoton FLIM in archival normal tissues and tumors arising in young and mature mice. In each case, FLIM clearly distinguishes between signals arising from cell nuclei versus cytoplasm, which can be used to quantify the relative amount of doxorubicin in each compartment. Furthermore, data from two separate tumor models indicate a shift in lifetime behavior in the nuclei of transformed cells versus their normal counterparts, suggesting a possible role for understanding aberrations in cancerous cells as well as suggesting a possible role for doxorubicin lifetimes to distinguish normal from transformed cells in a diagnostic setting. Moreover, as multiphoton FLIM is demonstrably a highly sensitive platform for imaging doxorubicin distribution, it raises the possibility that FLIM imaging, particularly with nonlinear modalities, may facilitate imaging of additional chemotherapeutics known to possess fluorescent properties such as daunorubicin, paclitaxel, and bleomycin.13,48 Thus, multiphoton FLIM is an impactful platform for evaluating chemotherapy signals in normal and diseased tissue and understanding the transport, cellular localization, and kinetics of small molecular chemotherapy. DisclosuresThe authors have no relevant financial interests in the article and no other potential conflicts of interest to disclose. AcknowledgmentsThis work was supported by the CDMRP-NFRP (W81XWH-15-1-0114 to DL and PPP), the Children’s Tumor Foundation (2014A-05-020 to DL and PPP), and grants from the NIH (R01CA181385 to PPP; U54CA210190 University of Minnesota Physical Sciences in Oncology Center Project 2 to PPP; P50CA101955 SPORE career development award to PPP), the American Cancer Society (Research Scholar Grant, RSG-14-171-01-CSM to PPP, Research Professor Award #123939 to DL), the Randy Shaver Research and Community Fund (PPP), and the UMN Institute for Engineering in Medicine. ALW was supported by the Children’s Tumor Foundation Young Investigator’s Award Grant 2011-01-018. We thank Kianna Elahi Gedwillo and Rachel Edwards for assistance with sample preparation and helpful comments. The content of this work is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funding agencies. ReferencesO. Zehou et al.,
“Chemotherapy for the treatment of malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors in neurofibromatosis 1: a 10-year institutional review,”
Orphanet J. Rare Dis., 8 127
(2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1750-1172-8-127 Google Scholar
J. R. Kroep et al.,
“First-line chemotherapy for malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor (MPNST) versus other histological soft tissue sarcoma subtypes and as a prognostic factor for MPNST: an EORTC soft tissue and bone sarcoma group study,”
Ann. Oncol., 22 207
–214
(2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdq338 ANONE2 0923-7534 Google Scholar
J. Lao et al.,
“Liposomal doxorubicin in the treatment of breast cancer patients: a review,”
J. Drug Delivery, 2013 1
–12
(2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/456409 Google Scholar
“Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials,”
Lancet, 365 1687
–1717
(2005). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66544-0 LANCAO 0140-6736 Google Scholar
M. Xing et al.,
“Efficacy and cardiotoxicity of liposomal doxorubicin-based chemotherapy in advanced breast cancer: a meta-analysis of ten randomized controlled trials,”
PloS ONE, 10 e0133569
(2015). http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133569 POLNCL 1932-6203 Google Scholar
A. Bodley et al.,
“DNA topoisomerase II-mediated interaction of doxorubicin and daunorubicin congeners with DNA,”
Cancer Res., 49 5969
–5978
(1989). Google Scholar
F. Yang et al.,
“Doxorubicin, DNA torsion, and chromatin dynamics,”
Biochim. Biophys. Acta, 1845 84
–89
(2014). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbcan.2013.12.002 BBACAQ 0006-3002 Google Scholar
D. A. Gewirtz,
“A critical evaluation of the mechanisms of action proposed for the antitumor effects of the anthracycline antibiotics adriamycin and daunorubicin,”
Biochem. Pharmacol., 57 727
–741
(1999). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0006-2952(98)00307-4 Google Scholar
O. Hovorka et al.,
“Spectral analysis of doxorubicin accumulation and the indirect quantification of its DNA intercalation,”
Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm., 76 514
–524
(2010). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpb.2010.07.008 EJPBEL 0939-6411 Google Scholar
K. K. Karukstis et al.,
“Deciphering the fluorescence signature of daunomycin and doxorubicin,”
Biophys. Chem., 73 249
–263
(1998). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4622(98)00150-1 BICIAZ 0301-4622 Google Scholar
S. Shah et al.,
“Fluorescence properties of doxorubicin in PBS buffer and PVA films,”
J. Photochem. Photobiol. B, 170 65
–69
(2017). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2017.03.024 JPPBEG 1011-1344 Google Scholar
J. Lankelma et al.,
“Doxorubicin gradients in human breast cancer,”
Clin. Cancer Res., 5 1703
–1707
(1999). Google Scholar
M. J. Egorin et al.,
“Cytofluorescence localization of adriamycin and daunorubicin,”
Cancer Res., 34 2243
–2245
(1974). Google Scholar
R. H. Grantab and I. F. Tannock,
“Penetration of anticancer drugs through tumour tissue as a function of cellular packing density and interstitial fluid pressure and its modification by bortezomib,”
BMC Cancer, 12 214
(2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-12-214 BCMACL 1471-2407 Google Scholar
A. J. Primeau et al.,
“The distribution of the anticancer drug doxorubicin in relation to blood vessels in solid tumors,”
Clin. Cancer Res., 11 8782
–8788
(2005). http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-1664 Google Scholar
R. E. Durand,
“Slow penetration of anthracyclines into spheroids and tumors: a therapeutic advantage?,”
Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol., 26 198
–204
(1990). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02897199 CCPHDZ 0344-5704 Google Scholar
D. J. Kerr et al.,
“Cytotoxic drug penetration studies in multicellular tumour spheroids,”
Xenobiotica, 18 641
–648
(1988). http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/00498258809041702 XENOBH 1366-5928 Google Scholar
D. J. Kerr and S. B. Kaye,
“Aspects of cytotoxic drug penetration, with particular reference to anthracyclines,”
Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol., 19 1
–5
(1987). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00296245 CCPHDZ 0344-5704 Google Scholar
K. P. Olive et al.,
“Inhibition of hedgehog signaling enhances delivery of chemotherapy in a mouse model of pancreatic cancer,”
Science, 324 1457
–1461
(2009). http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1171362 SCIEAS 0036-8075 Google Scholar
P. P. Provenzano et al.,
“Enzymatic targeting of the stroma ablates physical barriers to treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma,”
Cancer Cell, 21 418
–429
(2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ccr.2012.01.007 Google Scholar
M. A. Jacobetz et al.,
“Hyaluronan impairs vascular function and drug delivery in a mouse model of pancreatic cancer,”
Gut, 62
(1), 112
–120
(2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2012-302529 GUTTAK 0017-5749 Google Scholar
E. S. Nakasone et al.,
“Imaging tumor-stroma interactions during chemotherapy reveals contributions of the microenvironment to resistance,”
Cancer Cell, 21 488
–503
(2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ccr.2012.02.017 Google Scholar
P. P. Provenzano and S. R. Hingorani,
“Hyaluronan, fluid pressure, and stromal resistance in pancreas cancer,”
Br. J. Cancer, 108 1
–8
(2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2012.569 BJCAAI 0007-0920 Google Scholar
R. K. Jain and T. Stylianopoulos,
“Delivering nanomedicine to solid tumors,”
Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol., 7 653
–664
(2010). http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2010.139 Google Scholar
V. P. Chauhan et al.,
“Delivery of molecular and nanoscale medicine to tumors: transport barriers and strategies,”
Ann. Rev. Chem. Biomol. Eng., 2 281
–298
(2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-chembioeng-061010-114300 ARCBCY 1947-5438 Google Scholar
B. Diop-Frimpong et al.,
“Losartan inhibits collagen I synthesis and improves the distribution and efficacy of nanotherapeutics in tumors,”
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 108 2909
–2914
(2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018892108 PNASA6 0027-8424 Google Scholar
V. P. Chauhan et al.,
“Angiotensin inhibition enhances drug delivery and potentiates chemotherapy by decompressing tumour blood vessels,”
Nat. Commun., 4 2516
(2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms3516 NCAOBW 2041-1723 Google Scholar
J. R. Lakowicz et al.,
“Fluorescence lifetime imaging,”
Anal. Biochem., 202 316
–330
(1992). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0003-2697(92)90112-K ANBCA2 0003-2697 Google Scholar
E. B. van Munster and T. W. Gadella,
“Fluorescence lifetime imaging microscopy (FLIM),”
Adv. Biochem. Eng./Biotechnol., 95 143
–175
(2005). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/b102213 ABEBDZ 0724-6145 Google Scholar
P. P. Provenzano et al.,
“Collagen density promotes mammary tumor initiation and progression,”
BMC Med., 6 11
(2008). http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-6-11 Google Scholar
P. P. Provenzano et al.,
“Nonlinear optical imaging and spectral-lifetime computational analysis of endogenous and exogenous fluorophores in breast cancer,”
J. Biomed. Opt., 13 031220
(2008). http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/1.2940365 JBOPFO 1083-3668 Google Scholar
P. P. Provenzano, K. W. Eliceiri and P. J. Keely,
“Shining new light on 3D cell motility and the metastatic process,”
Trends Cell Biol., 19 638
–648
(2009). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tcb.2009.08.009 Google Scholar
A. Janssen et al.,
“Intravital FRET imaging of tumor cell viability and mitosis during chemotherapy,”
PLoS ONE, 8 e64029
(2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064029 POLNCL 1932-6203 Google Scholar
M. Nobis et al.,
“Intravital FLIM-FRET imaging reveals dasatinib-induced spatial control of SRC in pancreatic cancer,”
Cancer Res., 73 4674
–4686
(2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-4545 Google Scholar
V. Novitskaya et al.,
“Integrin –CD151 complex regulates dimerization of ErbB2 via RhoA,”
Oncogene, 33 2779
–2789
(2014). http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/onc.2013.231 ONCNES 0950-9232 Google Scholar
G. J. Bakker et al.,
“Fluorescence lifetime microscopy of tumor cell invasion, drug delivery, and cytotoxicity,”
Methods Enzymol., 504 109
–125
(2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-391857-4.00005-7 Google Scholar
J. R. Lakowicz, Principles of Fluorescence Spectroscopy, Springer, New York
(2006). Google Scholar
N. T. Chen et al.,
“Probing the dynamics of doxorubicin-DNA intercalation during the initial activation of apoptosis by fluorescence lifetime imaging microscopy (FLIM),”
PLoS ONE, 7 e44947
(2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044947 POLNCL 1932-6203 Google Scholar
P. Weber, M. Wagner and H. Schneckenburger,
“Cholesterol dependent uptake and interaction of doxorubicin in MCF-7 breast cancer cells,”
Int. J. Mol. Sci., 14 8358
–8366
(2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms14048358 1422-0067 Google Scholar
X. Dai et al.,
“Fluorescence intensity and lifetime imaging of free and micellar-encapsulated doxorubicin in living cells,”
Nanomed. Nanotechnol. Biol. Med., 4 49
–56
(2008). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nano.2007.12.002 Google Scholar
V. W. Keng et al.,
“Conditional inactivation of Pten with EGFR overexpression in Schwann cells models sporadic MPNST,”
Sarcoma, 2012 1
–12
(2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/620834 Google Scholar
V. W. Keng et al.,
“PTEN and NF1 inactivation in Schwann cells produces a severe phenotype in the peripheral nervous system that promotes the development and malignant progression of peripheral nerve sheath tumors,”
Cancer Res., 72 3405
–3413
(2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-11-4092 Google Scholar
S. R. Hingorani et al.,
“ and cooperate to promote chromosomal instability and widely metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in mice,”
Cancer Cell, 7 469
–483
(2005). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ccr.2005.04.023 Google Scholar
A. Ray et al.,
“Anisotropic forces from spatially constrained focal adhesions mediate contact guidance directed cell migration,”
Nat. Commun., 8 14923
(2017). http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14923 NCAOBW 2041-1723 Google Scholar
Y. S. Sun, R. N. Day and A. Periasamy,
“Investigating protein-protein interactions in living cells using fluorescence lifetime imaging microscopy,”
Nat. Protoc., 6 1324
–1340
(2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2011.364 1754-2189 Google Scholar
P. P. Provenzano, K. W. Eliceiri and P. J. Keely,
“Multiphoton microscopy and fluorescence lifetime imaging microscopy (FLIM) to monitor metastasis and the tumor microenvironment,”
Clin. Exp. Metastasis, 26 357
–370
(2009). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10585-008-9204-0 CEXMD2 0262-0898 Google Scholar
P. Changenet-Barret et al.,
“Unravelling molecular mechanisms in the fluorescence spectra of doxorubicin in aqueous solution by femtosecond fluorescence spectroscopy,”
Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 15 2937
–2944
(2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/c2cp44056c PPCPFQ 1463-9076 Google Scholar
N. S. H. Motlagh et al.,
“Fluorescence properties of several chemotherapy drugs: doxorubicin, paclitaxel and bleomycin,”
Biomed. Opt. Express, 7 2400
–2406
(2016). http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/BOE.7.002400 BOEICL 2156-7085 Google Scholar
E. B. van Munster et al.,
“Combination of a spinning disc confocal unit with frequency-domain fluorescence lifetime imaging microscopy,”
Cytometry A, 71 207
–214
(2007). http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1552-4930 Google Scholar
K. Drozdowicz-Tomsia et al.,
“Multiphoton fluorescence lifetime imaging microscopy reveals free-to-bound NADH ratio changes associated with metabolic inhibition,”
J. Biomed. Opt., 19 086016
(2014). http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/1.JBO.19.8.086016 JBOPFO 1083-3668 Google Scholar
M. C. Skala et al.,
“In vivo multiphoton fluorescence lifetime imaging of protein-bound and free nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide in normal and precancerous epithelia,”
J. Biomed. Opt., 12 024014
(2007). http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/1.2717503 JBOPFO 1083-3668 Google Scholar
D. K. Bird et al.,
“Metabolic mapping of MCF10A human breast cells via multiphoton fluorescence lifetime imaging of the coenzyme NADH,”
Cancer Res., 65 8766
–8773
(2005). http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-3922 Google Scholar
K. Staser, F. C. Yang and D. W. Clapp,
“Pathogenesis of plexiform neurofibroma: tumor-stromal/hematopoietic interactions in tumor progression,”
Annu. Rev. Pathol., 7 469
–495
(2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-pathol-011811-132441 Google Scholar
V. C. Williams et al.,
“Neurofibromatosis type 1 revisited,”
Pediatrics, 123 124
–133
(2009). http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2007-3204 PEDIAU 0031-4005 Google Scholar
A. G. Patel and S. H. Kaufmann,
“Cancer how does doxorubicin work?,”
Elife, 1 e00387
(2012). Google Scholar
S. W. Rabkin and P. Sunga,
“The effect of doxorubicin (adriamycin) on cytoplasmic microtubule system in cardiac-cells,”
J. Mol. Cell Cardiol., 19 1073
–1083
(1987). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-2828(87)80352-8 Google Scholar
B. Denard, C. Lee and J. Ye,
“Doxorubicin blocks proliferation of cancer cells through proteolytic activation of CREB3L1,”
Elife, 1 e00090
(2012). Google Scholar
C. F. Thorn et al.,
“Doxorubicin pathways: pharmacodynamics and adverse effects,”
Pharmacogenet. Genom., 21 440
–446
(2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/FPC.0b013e32833ffb56 Google Scholar
|