Cancer
Therapy Vol 5, 331-346, 2007
Novel peptides
from the RAS-p21 and p53 proteins for the treatment of cancer
Wilbur B. Bowne1,2,*, Josef Michl4,5,
Martin H. Bluth2, Michael E. Zenilman2,
Matthew R. Pincus3,4
1Department of Surgery, New York
Harbor VA Medical Center, 800 Poly Place, Brooklyn, NY 11209
2Department of Surgery, State
University of New York (SUNY), Downstate Medical Center, 450 Clarkson Avenue,
Brooklyn, NY 11203
3Department of Pathology and
Laboratory Medicine, New York Harbor VA Medical Center, 800 Poly Place,
Brooklyn, NY 11209
4Department of Pathology, SUNY
Downstate Medical Center, 450 Clarkson Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11203
5Departments of Microbiology and
Anatomy and Cell Biology, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, 450 Clarkson Avenue,
Brooklyn, NY 11203
__________________________________________________________________________________
*Correspondence: Wilbur B. Bowne, M.D., SUNY Health Science Center of
Brooklyn, Department of Surgery, 450 Clarkson Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, 11203,
USA; Tel: (718)-270-1421; Fax: (718)- 630-3707; E-mail wbbowne@earthlink.net
Key words: Anti-oncogenic ras peptides, mitogenic
signaling, RAS-p21 protein, Oncogenic amino acid,
molecular modeling, xenopus
oocyte system, distinct signal transduction pathways, block
human cancer cell growth, PNC-2, PNC-7, p53, lysis of the cancer
Abbreviations: b subunit of casein kinase II,
(CKIIb); colony stimulating factor, (CSF); diacylglycerol, (DAG); electrostatically-Driven Monte Carlo method,
(EDMC); epidermal growth factor, (EGF); guanine
nucleotide exchange factor, (GNEF); inositol triphosphate, (IP3); lactate
dehydrogenase, (LDH); mitogen-activated protein kinase, (MAPK); nuclear matrix proteins, (NMP's);
phosphoinositol-3-hydroxy
kinase, (PI3K); protein kinase A, (PKA); phospholipase
C, (PLC); ras-binding
domain, (RBD); self-consistent electric field, (SCEF); tyrosine kinase, (TK)
Summary
We have employed a novel computer-based molecular modeling method to
design peptides from the ras-p21 and p53 proteins that block proliferation of
cancer cells. The rationale of our approach is to identify peptide domains from
each protein that alter conformation in response to oncogenic amino acid
substitutions in their polypeptide chain. We accomplish this by first
generating and comparing low energy average structures for oncogenic and
wild-type proteins using conformational energy calculations. Peptides are then
synthesized corresponding to these domains. These domains are then linked to a
trans-membrane-penetrating sequence (called penetratin) and tested against
cancer and untransformed cell lines. Remarkably, we have found that two ras-p21
peptides, 35-47 and 96-110, called PNC-7 and PNC-2, respectively, can induce
phenotypic reversion of ras-transformed TUC-3 pancreatic cancer cells and
ras-transformed HT1080 human fibrosarcoma cells to their untransformed phenotypes.
Moreover, both peptides were found to be cytotoxic to ras-transformed human
MIA-PaCa-2 pancreatic carcinoma cells and human U-251 astrocytoma cells.
Importantly, these peptides have no effect on the growth of their normal
cellular counterparts. We have also synthesized peptides from the p53 protein
corresponding to its hdm-2-binding domain sequences (residues 12-26), also
linked to the penetratin sequence. Surprisingly, we have found that these
peptides induce 100 percent tumor cell necrosis, not apoptosis, in 13 different
human cancer cell lines but have no effect on normal pancreatic acinar cells,
breast epithelial cells, and human stem cells. Moreover, these peptides are
cytotoxic to TUC-3 pancreatic tumor cells in nude mice plus eradicate these tumor
cells when administered at sites near these tumors. These novel peptides appear
to hold much promise as new, non-toxic anti-cancer agents.
I.
Introduction
Over the past
several years, our group has modeled three-dimensional structures of proteins that
are involved in regulation of the cell cycle. Two proteins that have received
widespread attention are ras-p21 and p53. We summarize our experience designing
peptides from these proteins that appear highly effective in the selective
blocking of the proliferation of cancer cells.
The ras gene encodes
the ras-p21 protein; the first oncogene shown to cause human cancer (Barbacid,
1987). Remarkably, only single base changes in this gene at just one of several
positions results in this protein becoming transforming. These single base
changes result in the encoding of ras-p21 proteins that contain single amino
acid substitutions at critical positions in the polypeptide chain (Stacey and
Kung, 1984; Barbacid, 1987). One of the most important of these substitutions
occurs when Val-12 replaces the wild-type Gly-12. Importantly, proof of
principle was demonstrated when both wild-type and Val 12-substituted ras-p21 were bacterially
over-expressed and micro-injected into NIH 3T3 cells. Val 12-p21, but not its
wild-type counterpart protein induced cell transformation, further suggesting
mutated ras-p21 protein as the
actual transforming agent (Stacey and Kung, 1984).
To further study
ras-p21, we utilize a Xenopus laevis
oocyte model. This oocyte expresses insulin receptors; importantly, insulin
induced oocyte maturation requires activation of endogenous normal cellular ras-p21 (Deshpande et al, 1987). In
this system, oncogenic, but not wild-type, ras-p21 induces maturation (completion of meiosis) of Xenopus laevis stage VI,
metaphase-arrested oocytes in the second meiotic division (Birchmeier et al,
1985). Consequently, these oocytes present a unique surrogate to study
mechanism as well as discriminate between agents that affect oncogenic vs.
wild-type ras-p21 (Chung et al,
1992).
There are now two
identifiable positions in the polypeptide chain of ras-p21, Gly 12 and Gln 61,
both when substituted result in generating potent transforming proteins
(Barbacid, 1987). Approximately one of every three human cancers has been found
to contain a ras gene that encodes for one or another ras-p21 protein that has
substitutions at either one of these two critical positions (Bos, 1989; Pincus
and Brandt-Rauf, 2006). Of particular interest in this regard, over 90 percent
of pancreatic cancers contain the k-ras-p21 protein containing Val in place of
Gly 12 (Almoguerra et al, 1988); similarly over 50 percent of colon cancers
contain this substituted k-ras p21 protein (Forester et al, 1987). Clearly, it
would be of enormous value to design agents that could potentially block the
actions of these oncogenic forms of ras-p21 while allowing its wild-type
counterpart protein to function normally. As we will discuss in this
communication, based on our molecular modeling studies of ras-p21, we have been
able to design a set of peptides that achieve this objective, i.e., block
oncogenic ras-induced cell proliferation but do not affect normal cellular
growth (Pincus, 2004).
In contrast, p53 is
an anti-oncogene protein, i.e.,
it blocks mitogenic signals in the nucleus. This protein contains three major
domains: a transactivating domain involving residues 1-92, the DNA-binding
region incorporating residues 93-312, and a tetramerization domain utilized in
forming p53 tetramers that are the most active in blocking unrestricted cell
proliferation (Laptenko and Prives, 2006). As with ras-p21, amino acid
substitutions at critical positions in the polypeptide chain of p53 result in
an "oncogenic" protein. However, unlike ras-p21, these substitutions inactivate p53 so that it can no
longer counter uninterrupted cell proliferation signals. When p53 becomes
activated in cancer cells, it activates apoptosis or programmed cell death by
inducing expression of pro-apoptotic proteins and/or by inducing their activation
(Laptenko and Prives, 2006). These proteins include annexin V, Bax, wafp21
and caspases. The end result is programmed cancer cell death. It is likewise
desirable, therefore, to devise ways of activating wild-type p53 protein in
cancer cells to induce them to undergo apoptosis. This, of course, is dependent
on the presence of wild-type p53 in cancer cells. However, in a wide variety of
cancer cells, the p53 gene has either been homozygously deleted or mutated so
that no wild-type p53 exists within these cancer cells. As will be discussed in
this paper, we have also been able to design peptides derived from p53 that
induce cancer cell death irrespective of the status of p53 in cancer cells.
II.
Anti-oncogenic ras peptides from RAS-p21 protein
A. Mechanism of ras-p21 mitogenic
signaling
In humans, the
ras-p21 protein contains 189 amino acid residues and is known to be a
G-protein, i.e., it becomes activated when it releases GDP and binds GTP in a
nucleotide exchange process. Much is understood about the sequence of events
that are then initiated by ras-p21 in cells. First, as summarized in Figure 1, ras-p21 protein must be bound to the inner cell membrane via its
Cys 186 residue which becomes linked as a thioether to a farnesyl moiety
promoted by the enzyme, farnesyl transferase (Almoguerra et al, 1988). To
induce mitosis, therefore, it must activate other proteins in a chain of events
that ends in the nucleus, through a mitogenic signal transduction pathway (Bos,
1989).
Once bound to the
inner cell membrane, ras-p21 can become activated via GDP/GTP exchange. This
process is induced by the binding of a growth factor, such as epidermal growth
factor (EGF), insulin, etc, to its respective transmembrane growth factor
receptor, resulting usually in receptor dimerization. This results in
activation of an intracytoplasmic tyrosine kinase that is part of the growth
factor receptor. This receptor then binds to an adapter protein called grb-2
that concurrently binds to a critical protein, called SOS, a guanine nucleotide
exchange promoter protein. Activated SOS binds directly to ras-p21, promoting
the exchange of GDP for GTP and activation of ras-p21.
These events are
modulated by the protein, GTPase activating protein or GAP. This protein binds
to ras-p21 such that it enhances
endogenous ras-p21 GTPase
activity, resulting in hydrolysis of GTP to GDP (Figure 1). Thus SOS and GAP are thought to control the
intracellular levels of activated ras-p21
at any time (Barbacid, 1987). It is also important to note, though, that, in addition
to their regulatory

Figure. 1.
Summary of known actions of activated ras-p21 in cells, beginning (top, left)
when a growth factor binds to its cell receptor. This results in activation of
intracytoplasmic tyrosine kinase (TK) activity on the receptor that binds to
the adapter grb-2 protein that concurrently binds to and activates the guanine
nucleotide exchange factor (GNEF), SOS. This, in turn, induces ras-p21 to exchange GDP for GTP,
resulting in its activation. ras-p21
is bound to the inner cell membrane by a covalent farnesyl moiety attachment in
thioether linkage to Cys 186. In its GTP-bound form ras- p21 binds to a number of other target proteins. One of
these is GAP (GTPase activating protein) that induces GTPase activity in ras-p21 resulting in hydrolysis of
GTP to GDP cycling ras-p21 into
the inactive state. Both GAP and SOS may also be involved as a target in ras signaling, hence the question
mark below the GAP box. Activated ras-p21
also binds to and activates raf
(top middle of the figure), a 74 kDa Ser/Thr kinase protein that, in turn,
activates the kinase cascade in which it activates MEK that finally activates
ERK (MAP-2K in the figure) that is involved in cytoskeletal rearrangements in
the cytosol and which shuttles into the nucleus where it activates the nuclear
transcription factor, fos, that
forms a heterodimeric complex with the nuclear transcription factor, jun. The latter protein is activated
by another kinase, jun-N-terminal
kinase (JNK), that occurs on a separate pathway called the stress-activated
protein (SAP) pathway. As explained in the text, oncogenic ras-p21 directly activates JNK/jun that circumvents the normal,
regulated wild-type ras-
p21-activated pathways (right side of the figure). ras-p21 also interacts directly with phosphoinositol-3-hydroxy
kinase (PI3K, left side of the figure) and induces activation of phospholipase
C (PLC); both of these proteins cause increases in the second messenger
molecule, inositol triphosphate (IP3) and diacylglycerol (DAG); the
former induces calcium mobilization while the latter induces activation of
protein kinase C (PKC) that is especially critical to the oncogenic ras-p21 pathway. In the nucleus, the fos-jun complex, also called AP1, induces transcription of many
pro-mitogenic proteins including cyclins and possible the nuclear skeletal
proteins called nuclear matrix proteins (NMP's); other nuclear proteins, like myc, also transcriptionally active,
are also often activated in this process. Anti-oncogene proteins, such as p53,
also become activated. This protein blocks transcription of pro-mitotic
proteins and induces apoptosis in transformed cells.
roles, both GAP and SOS proteins
are very likely targets of ras-p21 in mitogenic signaling (Nimnual and Yatsula,
1988; Yang and Widmann, 2001).
Once activated,
ras-p21 activates a number of critical proteins, perhaps the most important of
which is raf. This protein becomes activated when it binds to ras-p21 in the cell membrane and, in
turn, activates a set of phosphorylation cascade reactions. In this cascade,
activated raf-p74 directly
activates mitogen (extracellular) kinase or MEK that, in turn, activates
mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) or extracellular mitogen response
kinase (ERK). This critical protein promotes cytoskeletal rearrangements for
mitosis and shuttles between the cytosol and nucleus. In the nucleus, it
activates the all-important protein, fos,
which forms a hetero-dimeric complex with another critical nuclear protein, jun, to form the AP1 complex that
strongly promotes transcription of mitosis-promoting proteins (Barbacid, 1987).
Activated ras-p21
also induces activation of a number of other critical intracellular proteins,
in particular, phospholipase C-γ (Smith et al, 1990) and
phosphoinositol-3-hydroxy kinase (PI3K), the latter of which binds directly to
ras-p21 (Chung et al, 1992) both activating a number of vital second messenger
molecules such as diacylglycerol that activates protein kinase C (PKC),
critically important for oncogenic ras-p21 action, and inositol triphosphate
(IP3) that has multiple activation targets including mobilization of
calcium ions for various mitotic processes such as spindle formation.
B. Three-dimensional structures of
ras-p21
In the x-ray
crystallographic structure of wild-type ras-p21 bound to GTP analogues (Krengel
et al, 1990), the guanine ring has multiple contacts with ras-p21 residues in
the 119-125 region. The backbone NH of Gly 12, appears to interact with the
bridging oxygen of the g-phosphate residue and is thought to aid in the
departure of the terminal phosphate leaving group (Krengel et al, 1990). Ser 17
and Ala 59 both interact with a magnesium ion that interacts with the terminal
phosphate residue of GTP (Krengel et al, 1990). In some substituted ras-p21
proteins this alignment is disrupted, reducing the GTPase activity of ras-p21,
suggesting a mechanism for prolonged ras-p21 activation (Krengel et al, 1990).
Many of these interactions are not present in the x-ray structure for ras-p21
bound to GDP.
Another important
consequence of binding GTP in place of GDP is the motion of an important
effector domain, called the switch 1 domain, consisting of an exposed b-sheet
involving residues 32-47 that makes contacts with all of the known targets of
ras-p21, including raf, GAP,
SOS and PI3K. Surprisingly, there are no consensus sequences in these four
proteins for binding to this ras-p21
domain, and, in the x-ray structures for ras-p21
bound to these proteins, there are substantially different interactions between
the switch 1 domain and the binding determinants for each complex (Nassar et
al, 1995; Scheffzek et al, 1997; Margarit et al, 2003).
A second important
ras-p21 binding domain, called the switch 2 domain, involves residues 55-71,
and makes multiple direct contacts with GAP and SOS proteins (Moodie et al,
1993; Nassar et al, 1995; Scheffzek, K., Ahmadian et al, 1997; Margarit et al,
2003). This domain contains the critical Gln 61 residue, discussed above. A
third domain, involving residues 102 and 103, of an exposed loop that also
makes important contacts with SOS and, as discussed below, with JNK and jun
proteins (Scheffzek et al, 1997; Margarit et al, 2003).
III. Design of anti-oncogenic RAS peptides
A. Oncogenic amino acid
substitutions in ras-p21 induce changes in structure of effector domains
An important point
of departure in designing anti-oncogenic ras peptides is the finding that
substitution of any naturally occurring non-cyclic L-amino acid for Gly 12 or
almost any amino acid residue for Gln 61 results in an oncogenic ras-p21
protein. This suggests that these amino acid substitutions cause changes in the
three-dimensional structure of ras-p21 that result in permanent activation.
An alternate
explanation for how amino acid substitutions in ras-p21 cause the protein to
become oncogenic relates to rates of hydrolysis of GTP that activates ras-p21
when bound to it. Substitutions of amino acids for Gly 12 and for Gln 61 cause
large rate reductions in GAP-induced hydrolysis of GTP (Krengel et al, 1990).
This can result in prolonged activation of ras-p21. In the structure of wild-type ras-p21 bound to GTP analogues, the backbone NH of Gly 12 and
the carboxamido NH of the Gln 61 side chain appears to interact with the b-g
bridging oxygen of the γ-phosphate moiety of GTP and is thought to aid in
the departure of the terminal phosphate leaving group (Krengel et al, 1990). In
complexes of substituted ras-p21
proteins and GTP analogues, this alignment is disrupted, suggesting a mechanism
for prolonged ras-p21
activation (Krengel et al, 1990; Scheffzek et al, 1997).
However, this
observation cannot explain the effects of a number of substitutions on ras-p21
activity. For example, substitution of Pro for Gly 12 is the only non-oncogenic
substitution that occurs at this position (Barbacid, 1987). Interestingly, Pro
12 has no NH backbone atom that can contribute to GTP hydrolysis. On the other
hand, substitution of Gly for Gln 61 is oncogenic but the rate of GTP
hydrolysis of this substituted protein is not decreased (Krengel et al, 1990).
Other mutated ras-p21 proteins, such as D38E (a Glu-for-Asp substitution),
binds strongly to GTP and to GAP, does not undergo hydrolysis, and does not
transform cells (Krengel et al, 1990).
Perhaps most
convincingly, a triply-substituted ras-p21 protein with Val for Gly 10, Arg for
Gly 12, and Thr for Ala 59 has been found to cause cell transformation, but
this protein does not bind either GDP or GTP (Clanton et al, 1987). On the
other hand, a similar protein with Gly 10, Arg 12, Val 15 and Thr 59 neither
transforms cells nor binds nucleotide (Clanton et al, 1987). Since these
proteins do not interact with nucleotides, differences in the rates of
hydrolysis of GTP cannot explain the differences in the transforming activities
of these two proteins. Thus it is plausible that the different activities of
these two proteins are caused by structural differences between them.
In the original
studies that demonstrated that activated ras-p21
binds directly to raf, it was
found that wild-type ras-p21
bound to GDP did not bind to raf.
In contrast, Val 12-ras-p21
bound to GDP was found to bind
to a significant extent to this critical protein (Moodie et al, 1993). This
finding further suggests that the G12V substitution in ras-p21 induces a
significant change in the structure of ras-p21
enabling it to interact with intracellular targets even without binding to GTP.
Since it appeared
that oncogenic amino acid substitutions in ras-p21 induce critical changes in
this protein, we set out to identify the domains of ras-p21 that undergo these
conformational changes and then synthesize peptides corresponding to these
domains to determine if they are capable of blocking the oncogenic forms of
ras-ras-p21.
B. Modeling methods
All of our
computational methods are based on the assumption that the energy-minimized
x-ray crystal structure of a protein is the lowest energy (global) minimum
conformation for the given amino acid sequence (Scheraga et al, 2004). As
discussed in the preceding section, the x-ray crystal structures for ras-p21
bound to GDP and GTP and with amino acid substitutions have been determined.
The x-ray structure is subjected to energy minimization to remove any bad
contacts between atoms and to optimize favorable contacts between atoms such as
hydrogen bonding.
The energy-minimized
x-ray structure occurs in a potential energy well in which other low energy
conformations of the protein exist which
have the same basic chain fold but which differ in conformation from the
energy-minimized x-ray structure in local domains (Pincus, 2004). Our
methods sample these conformations and then employ them to compute the average
structures, which should be the observed structure in solution, for oncogenic
and wild-type ras-p21 complexed with specific target proteins. These structures
are then superimposed to determine which domains differ in conformation between
the two complexes (Pincus, 2004).
We employ two
sampling methods to generate the low energy structures that occcur around the
energy-minimized x-ray crystal structure: molecular dynamics (McCammon al,
1988; Pincus, 2004) and the electrostatically-Driven Monte Carlo method (EDMC)
(Piela et al, 1987; Ripol al, 1988). The molecular dynamics method samples
these alternate conformations by integrating, with respect to time, Newton's
equations of motion. The dynamics trajectory for the system is followed at 300oK
for 2 nsec. On the resulting trajectory, the low energy structures around the
starting structure are computed (Pincus, 2004). Use of this method for low
energy structure generation is described more completely (McCammon al, 1988;
Pincus, 2004). For each protein structure or complex, we found that the
trajectories that are computed over this time interval are such that the total
energy converges to a low, constant value. The structures whose energies have
converged are then used to compute the average structure.
The EDMC method
samples conformations of the protein in the global minimum potential energy
well by determining the electric field of the local energy minimum (Pielaet al,
1987; Ripol et al, 1988). The dipole moments of the backbone CO-NH groups are
then examined to determine which dipole or group of dipoles is (are) the least
optimally oriented with the field. The dihedral angles of these peptide groups
are then changed to orient these dipoles to become aligned with the field,
thereby perturbing the structure, and the energy of the resulting structure is
minimized again (Pielaet al, 1987; Ripol et al, 1988). This procedure is
repeated iteratively until the energy of the protein is lowered no further.
This method is referred as the self-consistent electric field (SCEF) (Pielaet
al, 1987; Ripol et al, 1988) method and has been extended so that at the end of
a set of self-consistent calculations, the structure is randomly perturbed
using the Monte Carlo method (Ripol et al, 1988), and the process described
above is repeated. In this manner, sets of low energy structures are generated
for the given starting structure. The average structure of each protein is then
computed as the Boltzmann average of all of the low energy structures computed
on the energy minimization "trajectory"(Liwo et al, 1994).
Once the low energy
structures have been sampled, we compute the average structures and then
superimpose them to detect domains that differ in conformation.
C. Results of molecular modeling
studies with oncogenic and wild-type ras-p21
We performed these
calculations on wild-type ras-p21 bound to GDP and then on ras-p21 bound to GTP
(Monaco 1995a,b). We similarly performed these computations on the two
triply-substituted, non-nucleotide-binding ras-p21 proteins and on several
GTP-binding oncogenic (e.g., Val 12- and Leu 61-substituted) ras-p21 proteins
(Liwoet al, 1994). Remarkably, irrespective of the oncogenic amino acid
substitution or the site where it occurred, the same domains of ras-p21 were
found to undergo the same changes in structure (Pincus, 2004). These results
are summarized in Figure 2 (Pincus,
2004) where we show the superposition of the computed average structures of
three activated forms of ras-p21 (blue, G12V-p21; green, Q61L-p21; yellow,
wild-type ras-p21 bound to non-hydrolysable GTP) superimposed on the GDP-bound
wild-type ras-p21 (purple). As can be seen in this Figure, the overall fold of all four proteins is the same; but the
three activated ras-p21 proteins undergo local structural changes in specific
domains, viz: 10-16, 35-47, 55-71, 81-93, 96-110 and 115-126. As shown for four
of these domains in Figure 2, the
average structures in oncogenic and activated wild-type proteins cluster
together away from the structure of the inactive form of the wild-type protein.
This may best be seen in the view presented in Figure 2 for the 35-47 domain that has been implicated in the
binding of ras-p21 to at least four different target proteins.
One intriguing
result of these calculations is the structure of the 10-16 loop domain. In the
wild-type GDP-bound form of ras-p21, this loop contains a reverse turn at Ala
11-Gly 12 while in Val 12-p21, the turn shifts to Val 12-Gly 13 (Pincus et al,
1983, 1985). In prior studies, we showed that this results from the ability of
Gly 12 to adopt a turn structure that is unavailable energetically to any
non-cyclic L-amino acid (Pincus et al, 1983). All substitutions of arbitrary
L-amino acids for Gly 12 result in this shift in the reverse turn (Pincus et
al, 1985). This seemingly small shift in the local structure results in a
number of ineffective contacts that are made with the switch 2 domain, that
lies across the phosphate binding cleft, that cause it to move to another
position, causing the 32-47 effector domain also to move in position (Chen et
al, 1989). Exactly the same shift is induced by substitutions at Gln 61. As
shown in Figure 2 for the Leu 61
oncogenic amino acid substitution, the 10-16 loop adopts the turn structure at
Gly 12-Gly 13 rather than at Ala 11-Gly 12 (green structure) resulting from
close interactions between these two domains of ras-p21 (Pincus, 2004).
D. Testing of ras-p21 domain
peptides in the xenopus oocyte
system
We have synthesized
peptides corresponding to each of these domains in ras-p21 and have tested them
in the Xenopus laevis oocyte
system. In these experiments, we co-inject these peptides together with Val
12-p21 and inject them into oocytes that are then subsequently incubated with
insulin. We find that three of the ras-p21 peptides, 35-47 (PNC-7), 96-110
(PNC-2) and 115-126 (PNC-1) all completely block Val 12-p21-induced oocyte
maturation but have only partial inhibitory effects on insulin (Pincus, 2004).
An example of this
pattern is summarized in Figure 3,
that shows that PNC-2 completely blocks Val 12-p21-induced oocyte maturation
but has no effect on insulin-induced maturation. We obtained identical results
with PNC-1. In contrast, an unrelated, negative control peptide from cytochrome
P450, called X-13, had no effect on maturation induced by either agent (Pincus,
2004).

Figure 2. Upper. Superposition of the computed
average structures for inactive ras-p21 bound to GDP (purple
structure in each panel); for Val 12-ras-p21
(right panel, blue); wild-type ras-p21
bound to GTP (middle panel, yellow); and Leu 61-ras-p21 (left panel, green). Lower. Conformations for
four ras-p21 domains, residues
10-16, 32-47, 96-110 and 115-126, from the superpositions in Figure 2, Upper,
that undergo significant changes in structure in oncogenic and activated ras-p21. The color scheme is the same
as for Figure 2, Upper.

Figure 3.
Effects of PNC-2 on oncogenic ras-p21- and insulin-induced oocyte maturation.
The inset explains the individual time curves.
PNC-7 produced
partial inhibition of insulin-induced oocyte maturation that reached a plateau
at 70 percent inhibition (Chung et al, 1992). This percentage inhibition was
achieved independently of the insulin concentration and the extent of
maturation, suggesting that insulin-activated wild-type ras-p21 can utilize
maturation (meiosis)-inducing pathways that are not blocked by this peptide
(Chung et al, 1992).
E. Oncogenic ras-p21 and activated
wild-type ras-p21 induce overlapping but distinct signal transduction pathways
Since these three
peptides selectively block oncogenic ras-p21 but do not affect
insulin-activated wild-type ras- p21, we hypothesized that these two proteins
may utilize signal transduction pathways that diverge. In work designed to
discover critical intracellular proteins with which oncogenic ras-p21 may
interact, we found that oncogenic ras-p21, unlike its wild-type counterpart
protein, interacts strongly both with JNK and its target, jun and induces
phosphorylation of JNK at least five-fold greater than does its wild-type
counterpart protein (Adler et al, 1995, 1996). Since we have been able to
prepare cloned, purified ras-p21, JNK and jun proteins, we have established an in vitro binding assay system in
which bead-bound JNK is incubated with Val 12-p21 alone and in the presence of
each of the synthetic ras-p21 peptides (Adler et al, 1995, 1996).
1.
Interaction with JNK is critical for oncogenic, but not wild-type, ras-p21
signal transduction
As shown in Figure 4, bead-bound JNK binds to Val
12-p21 (Adler et al, 1995, 1996). This binding is strongly reduced by the
presence of free JNK added to Val 12-p21 and by addition of JNK substrate, jun
or its JNK binding 5-89 domain. Of all of the peptides tested in this assay,
only two, PNC-2 (ras-p21 96-110 peptide) and PNC-1 (ras-p21 115-126 peptide)
reduce this binding to the control levels (Figure
4). These results suggest that both of these peptides block Val 12-p21-JNK
interactions, otherwise resulting in blocking a critical step in Val 12-p21
signal transduction. In support of this conclusion, we have found that the
dose-response curve for inhibition by PNC-2 of Val 12-p21-induced oocyte
maturation superimposes on that for inhibition of PNC-2 of the binding of Val
12-p21 to JNK (Pincus et al, 2000). Similar results pertain to the inhibition
of the binding of Val 12-p21 to jun beads by PNC-2 although not by PNC-1 (Adler
et al, 1995, 1996).
In addition, we have
found that the protein GST-pi strongly and specifically binds to the JNK-jun
complex and blocks JNK-induced jun phosphorylation (Adler et al, 1999).
Injection of this selective inhibitor with Val 12-p21 into oocytes blocks
maturation while injection of this inhibitory protein into oocytes subsequently
incubated with insulin has no effect on insulin-induced maturation (Amar et al,
1997; Villafania et al, 1999).
We have further
determined the level of JNK phosphorylation in oocytes induced to mature with
Val 12-p21 and with insulin by blotting whole cell lysates both for total JNK
and for phosphorylated JNK (Ranginwale et al, 2001). We found that the level of
total JNK was the same in both cases but that the level of phosphorylated JNK
was markedly elevated in the Val 12-p21-matured oocytes whose level increases
with increasing levels of maturation. In contrast, it was much lower in the
insulin-matured oocytes that plateaus at an early stage and does not correlate
with extent of maturation. These and other results suggest that Val 12-p21
utilizes a JNK-jun-dependent signal transduction pathway that is not utilized
by the activated wild-type protein.
2.
Site of action of PNC-7: oncogenic and wild-type ras-p21 interact with raf
differently
We have likewise
investigated the site of action of the 35-47 inhibitory peptide, PNC-7. This
peptide does not interfere in the interaction of Val 12-p21 with JNK (Adler et
al, 1995, 1996). Since it corresponds to the effector domain implicated in
binding to the raf p74 protein, as discussed in Sections 1 and 2 above, we have
assayed its effects on raf. We have found that c-raf and an oncogenic form of
raf that lacks the amino terminal regulatory domain that contains residues
55-131, its ras-binding domain (RBD), called raf-BXB, both induce oocyte
maturation (Chie et al, 2000, 2002). We have found that PNC-7 strongly inhibits
c-raf induction of oocyte maturation but has no effect on raf-BXB (Chie et al,
2002). These results imply that PNC-7 blocks raf by interacting with its amino
terminal regulatory domain. Surprisingly, we find that dominant negative raf
blocks both Val 12-p21- and insulin-induced oocyte maturation (Chie et al,
2000). These findings suggest that PNC-7 must block a specific binding mode of
oncogenic ras-p21 while allowing wild-type ras-p21 to interact with it (Pincus,
2004).
Overall, our
findings suggest that oncogenic and wild-type ras-p21 utilize differing
pathways allowing us to inhibit the oncogenic pathway selectively. This
suggests that these peptides may block cancer but not normal cell growth.
F. PNC-2 and PNC-7 blocks cancer
cell growth
We have tested our
two oncogenic ras-selective peptides on ras-transformed tumor cell lines. In
addition, we have developed a normal rat pancreatic acinar cell line (called
BMRPA1) and a Val 12-ras-p21-induced
counterpart pancreatic cancer cell line, called TUC-3, produced by stable
transfection of the K-ras
oncogene (encoding Val-for-Gly 12-p21) into the BMRPA1 cell line (Bao et al,
1994; Kanovsky et al, 2001).
We introduced these
peptides into cells employing two methods: (1) Each peptide was synthesized
attached on its carboxyl terminal end to a highly positively charged penetratin
or leader sequence from the Drosophila
antennapedia protein that
enables peptides and proteins to cross cell membranes (Kanovsky et al, 2001,
2003). PNC-2 and 7 attached to the leader sequence are termed PNC-2 (7)-leader,
respectively. (2) We also transfected lac-inducible plasmids that encode each
of the peptide sequences into TUC-3 cells (Kanovsky et al, 2003). For controls,
we employed the X-13 peptide attached on its carboxyl terminal end to the
leader sequence, called PNC-29, and synthesized a plasmid that encoded the X-13
sequence.
The results are
shown in Figure 5 for PNC-2-leader
(Kanovsky et al, 2003; Pincus, 2004). Panel C shows untreated, untransformed
BMRPA1 cells while Panel D shows that treatment of these cells with the ras-p21 96-110 peptide has no effect
on cell viability or growth. In contrast, Panel A shows untreated TUC-3
pancreatic cancer cells that following treatment for two weeks with ras-p21-Leader peptide, at doses as
low as 1 μg/ml, undergo complete reversion to the untransformed phenotype
as shown in Panel B (Kanovsky et al, 2003; Pincus, 2004).

Figure 4.
Effects of ras-p21 effector peptides, identified from conformational energy
calculations, on the binding of Val 12-ras-p21
protein to GST bead-bound p-GEX-JNK. The upper part of the figure explains the
experimental protocol. On the left upper scheme, Val 12-p21 is incubated with
JNK beads, non specifically-bound protein is washed from the beads, and the
beads are then subjected to SDS PAGE and blotted with the monoclonal antibody
to ras-p21, Y13-259. If ras-p21 binds specifically to JNK, the blot for ras-p21
should be positive. On the right side of the upper figure, the same scheme is
shown except now the JNK beads are now incubated with ras-p21 plus another
agent. If the agent competes with ras-p21 for binding to the JNK beads, then
the blots with Y13-259 should show absent or diminished amounts of ras-p21. The
bottom section of the figure summarizes the results for controls and ras-p21
peptides. When Val 12-ras-p21 is incubated with the JNK beads, a large band is
present on the western blot (lane 1), indicating that ras-p21 binds to JNK.
This binding is markedly diminished when Val 12-ras-p21 is present with the
regulatory domain of jun (residues 5-89) (lane 2) and full-length jun (lane 3).
The JNK fusion pGEX-2T protein does not inhibit this binding (lane 4), while
JNK itself does (lane 5). Lanes 6-11 show the results from incubation of JNK
beads with different ras-p21 peptides (sequence numbers are given in the
figure); only ras-p21 115-126 (PNC-1), 96-110 (PNC-2), and 35-47 (PNC-7)
peptides are seen to diminish the ras-p21 band to control levels indicating
that these peptides interfere with the binding of ras-p21 to JNK.

Figure 5.
PNC-2 and PNC-7 induce reversion of ras-transformed TUC-3 cells. Panel A shows
TUC-3 forming colonies of non-contacted-inhibited cells, in contrast to their
untransformed parent BMRPA1 cells shown in Panel C. These cells form
contact-inhibited monolayers and show distinct cell boundaries in contrast to
the transformed TUC-3 cells in Panel A. As shown in Panel B, after two weeks of
treatment (in this figure, with PNC-2), the TUC-3 cells in Panel A are seen to
revert to a morphologically untransformed phenotype where the cells now form
contact-inhibited monolayers and exhibit distinct cell boundaries. As can be
seen in Panel D, two weeks of treatment of untransformed BMRPA1 cells with
PNC-2 has no effect on the viability of these cells. Identical results were
obtained using PNC-7.
These reverted cells
form contact-inhibited monolayers and do not grow when explanted into nude mice
for 56 days (Kanovsky et al, 2003). In striking contrast, PNC-29 negative
control peptide-treated TUC-3 cells grow rapidly when explanted into nude mice
and metastasize after 3 weeks. Identical results were obtained with
PNC-7-leader except that full phenotypic reversion required minimal
concentrations of 125 ug/ml (Kanovsky et al, 2003).
Moreover, full
phenotypic reversion was obtained when TUC-3 cells were transfected with
plasmids encoding the ras-p21
35-47 and 96-110 sequences and selected on G418 media. In contrast, TUC-3 cells
transfected with the Lac-inducible plasmid encoding the X13 sequence remained
transformed (Kanovsky et al, 2003).
Our findings that
the ras-p21 35-47-Leader and
96-110-Leader peptides, but not the X-13-Leader control, induce TUC-3 cell
phenotypic reversion and that none of these three peptides have any effect on
the growth of BMRPA1 cells suggests that these two ras-p21 peptides are specific for transformed cells.
Furthermore, since TUC-3 cells underwent identical phenotypic reversion when
transfected with the lac-inducible plasmids encoding either ras-p21 sequence but not with the X13
sequence, we conclude that the ras
peptide itself induces phenotypic reversion independently of the presence of
the leader (penetratin) sequence (Pincus, 2004; Kanovsky et al, 2003).
A.
PNC-2 and PNC-7 block human cancer cell growth
Recently, we have
tested both PNC-2-leader and PNC-7-leader on four different human cancer cell
lines, three of them ras-transformed, i.e., HT1080 fibrosarcoma, SW620 colon
cancer and MIA-PaCa-2 pancreatic cancer cell lines and one non ras-transformed
U-251 astrocytoma cell line. The latter expresses high levels of JNK, raf, MEK
and MAPK (Adler et al, 2005). In work to be published, we find that both
peptides induce dramatic blockade of cancer cell growth in the first two cell
lines, ultimately inducing phenotypic reversion as in TUC-3 cells. Most
interestingly, incubation of these two peptides with MIA-PaCa-2 cells results
in 100 percent cell death. Identical results hold for U-251 cells. Control
peptides have no effect on cancer cell growth in any of these cell lines.
These results
suggest that both peptides, whose mechanism of action against oncogenic ras-p21
is known, may be useful agents in treating human cancers. Their anti-cancer
activity in a non-ras-transformed cell line awaits further investigation.
IV. Anti-cancer peptides from p53
A. Peptides from molecular modeling of p53
As noted in the
introduction section, single amino acid substitutions at critical positions in
p53 cause its inactivation leading to reduced or absent anti-proliferation
signaling by this protein. The x-ray crystal structure of the DNA-binding
domain (residues 93-312) of p53 has been determined (Che, et al, 1994). Using
the same methodology described in the previous section on ras-p21, we have
computed the changes in conformation of p53 induced by these amino acid
substitutions. These included H179L, R249W and I255F (Chen et al, 1999). These
substitutions are induced by the chemical carcinogen, vinyl chloride that is an
important causative factor for angiosarcoma (Chen et al, 1999).
The most striking
result of these calculations was the finding that each of these substituted,
oncogenic proteins all showed the same structural changes in two domains:
residues 94-110 and 204-217, both of which are spatially distant from each of
the substituted residues (Chen et al, 1999). Our computed results for the
204-217 segment implied that this region is induced to undergo major changes in
structure by oncogenic substitutions in p53. This corresponds exactly to the
experimental results on p53 with an anti-p53 monoclonal antibody, PAb240, that
recognizes this determinant only in
the oncogenic p53 mutant forms.
Our computed results
further suggest that the 94-110 domain, on the amino terminus of the
DNA-binding domain, is flexible. As wild-type p53, it is exposed to the aqueous
solvent while in each of the oncogenic p53 substituted forms, it moves to an
unexposed position within the interior of the protein (Chen et al, 1999).
Indeed, the anti-p53 monoclonal antibody, PAb1620, recognizes wild-type p53 only and does not
recognize any of the substituted forms. These findings corroborate our
computational results.
1.The 97-155 domain of p53 is critical in
regulation of phosphorylation and activation of this protein
In an independent
study, we found that a number of kinases, such as JNK, protein kinase A (PKA),
and the b subunit of casein kinase II
(CKIIb), all phosphorylate p53 in the
97-155 amino terminal domain (Adleret al, 1997). Phosphorylations induced by
CKIIb appeared to activate wild-type
p53 (Adleret al, 1997). On the other hand, in mutant p53, such as R249W-p53,
the level of phosphorylation in this domain decreases and is much more
sensitive to temperature, decreasing as temperature decreases (Adleret al,
1997).
We synthesized three
peptides from the 97-155 domain, 97-117, 115-135 and 133-153 and assayed them
for their abilities to affect p53 phosphorylation. Only the 97-117 p53 peptide,
called P7, was able to block kinase-induced p53 phosphorylation by JNK and PKA
and to enhance CKIIb-induced phosphorylation
(Adleret al, 1997). We have attached a leader (penetratin) sequence to P7, as
described above for the ras peptides, and introduced this fused peptide into
fibroblasts and found a large increase in p53 phosphorylation intracellularly
(Adleret al, 1997). Because of its enhancement of activating phosphorylations
on p53, we are currently testing this peptide in cancer cell lines. Preliminary
results suggest that this peptide causes cancer cell death. These anti-cancer
effects appear to be dependent on the presence of wild-type p53 in cancer
cells. As we now describe, we have developed a set of p53 peptides whose
anti-cancer effects are not dependent on the presence of wild-type p53.
B. Amino terminal domain peptides
from p53 are highly effective and selective anti-cancer agents
As noted in the
introduction section above, p53 contains an amino terminal domain consisting of
residues 1-92 in the human form for which no x-ray structure is available.
Embedded within this domain is a proline-rich sub-domain that we have found,
using conformational analysis, is quite flexible. Part of this subdomain,
residues 12-26, has been found to be involved in the binding of p53 to an important
target molecule, called human (or mouse) double minute-binding protein, or
HDM-2 or MDM-2, respectively (Laptenko and Prives, 2006). HDM-2 promotes
mitosis and can itself become oncogenic. When it binds to p53, it targets this
protein for ubiquitination and subsequent proteolysis in the proteosome of
cells (Laptenko and Prives, 2006).
We reasoned that, if
we synthesized the p53 12-26 peptide and introduced this into cancer cells
containing native p53, the peptide might block the HDM-2-p53 interaction
prolonging the half-life of the wild-type protein. This would enable it to
block proliferation and to induce apoptosis. As with the ras peptides, to
introduce the p53 12-26 sequence into cancer cells, we attached a penetratin
sequence to it. The question arose as to whether to place the penetratin or
leader sequence on the amino or carboxyl terminus of the peptide.
To resolve this
question, we utilized the x-ray structure for the p53 12-27 peptide bound to
the p53-binding region of MDM-2 (Kussie and Gorina, 1996). In this structure,
the p53 peptide adopts largely an a-helix in the complex. Since it
is known from conformational analysis that positive charges on the carboxyl
terminal ends of a-helices stabilize these structures and since
penetratin sequences are all highly positively charged, we placed the
penetratin sequence on the carboxyl terminus of this peptide (Kanovskyet al,
2001).
p53's HDM-2-binding
domain can be subdivided into a conserved domain (residues 12-18) and the
HDM-2-contact domain (residues 17-26) (Do et al, 2003 ). We have therefore
further synthesized these latter two subdomains attached to our penetratin
sequence. The actual sequences are summarized below:
Leader or penetratin sequence: KKWKMRRNQFWVKVQRG, called
leader.
p53 12-26-leader:
PPLSQETFSDLWKLL-leader, called PNC-27
p53 12-20-leader:
PPLSQETF-leader, called PNC-21
p53 17-26-leader:
ETFSDLWKLL-leader, called PNC-28.
1. Tests on the BMRPA1-TUC3 cell system
We first tested
PNC-28 on TUC-3 cells and on their normal BMRPA1 counterpart cell line. After 3
days of treatment, all of the 1X106 TUC-3 cells were completely
killed (Kanovsky et al, 2001). However, PNC-28 treatment of contact-inhibited
monolayers of BMRPA1 cells and of these cells in growth phase had no effect on
either cell viability or of their ability to grow into contact-inhibited
monolayers (Kanovsky et al, 2001). To our surprise, TUC-3 cells treated with
this peptide did not express elevated levels of any of the markers for
apoptosis including Bax and wafp21 proteins, nor did they show other
indications of apoptosis, such as “laddering” of DNA (Kanovsky et al, 2001).
2. PNC-28 kills many different human cancer cell lines
We proceeded to test
PNC-28 on a number of human cancer cells lines, i.e., HeLa (cervical cancer), E49
(angiosarcoma) and SW1417 (colon cancer) cell lines and found that within 48
hours of treatment, PNC-28 killed all of the cancer cells (Kanovsky et al,
2001). Surprisingly, PNC-28 was effective in destroying all of the SW1417
cells, despite the fact that this is a cell line known to be p53 homozygously
deleted (Kanovsky et al, 2001). Combining this result with the absence of any
markers for p53-induced apoptosis in PNC-28-treated TUC-3 cells suggested that
this peptide was inducing cancer cell cytotoxicity by a p53-independent
mechanism.
3. PNC-28 does not affect normal stem cell growth and differentiation
One of the drawbacks
to chemotherapeutic agents is their suppression of bone marrow that results in
anemia and leukopenia. The latter condition often results in immunosuppression,
leading to serious life-threatening infections in patients treated with these
agents. We tested whether PNC-28 affected the ability of human stem cells, from
the cord bloods of five human donors, to differentiate, in the presence of
hematopoietic growth factors. These included colony stimulating factor (CSF)
and GM-CSF (granulocyte-monocyte-stimulating factor), IL6 for lymphocytes, and
erythropoietin for erythrocytes. We found that neither PNC-28 nor the negative
control PNC-29 peptide had any effect on the ability of the stem cells to
differentiate into and form colonies of these cell lines (Kanovsky et al,
2001). Thus it seems clear that PNC-28 would likely not suppress bone marrow
functioning in humans.
4. PNC 27, PNC-28 and 21 are cytotoxic to many other cancer cell lines
Table 1 summarizes the human cancer cell lines against which we
have tested our p53-derived peptides. As can be seen from this table, these
peptides are lethal to every one of the cell lines listed. These include cell
lines, such as SW1417 cells, that have the p53 gene homozygously deleted. It
can also be seen from this table that PNC-27 and 28 both induce complete
cytotoxicity to three different breast cancer cell lines in less than one hour
(Do et al, 2003) when present in the incubation medium at 30 uM!
5. PNC-27, 28 and 21 are lethal to breast cancer cell lines but not to
an untransformed breast epithelial cell line (Do et al, 2003).
Figure 6 summarizes the effects of our p53-derived peptides on
the three breast cancer cell lines and on an untransformed human breast
epithelial cell line (Do et al, 2003). PNC-27 induced total cell cytotoxicity
in MDA-MB-468 and MDA-MB-157 cell lines in 30 minutes and induced extensive
cell death in the MCF-7 line, which it completely killed in 2 hours. PNC-28
appears to be almost as effective as PNC-27 although it required longer times
to induce total cell death. PNC-21 was less effective than the other two
p53-leader peptides, although it eventually induced extensive cytotoxicity. In
contrast, a “scrambled” PNC-27 sequence in which the sequence of the p53
portion was scrambled while the sequence for the leader peptide portion was
maintained had no effect on the growth of any of these cell lines, suggesting
that the cytotoxic effect of the three peptides was specific.
As also demonstrated
in Figure 6, other additional
controls indicate that the anti-cancer effect of the three peptides is
specific; the penetratin peptide by itself, the "naked" p53 17-26,
and 12-26 peptides without the leader sequence (that do not traverse the cell
membrane), all do not induce cytotoxicity in these human breast cancer cell
lines. On the other hand, PNC-27, 28 and 21 do not affect the viability of the
untransformed MCF-10-2A cell line (Do et al, 2003), again confirming that these peptides do not affect normal or
untransformed cells.
Table 1. Times for induction of total cytotoxicity by PNC27/28
in some cancer cell lines
|
Cell Line |
Cell Type |
Time for
Total Cytotoxicity (1X106 Cells) |
|
TUC-3 (100 ug/ml)PNC-28 |
Pancreatic Acinar Carcinoma |
72 hr. |
|
HeLa (100 ug/ml) PNC-28 |
Cervical Squamous Carcinoma |
72 hr. |
|
E-49 (100 ug/ml) PNC-28 |
Angiosarcoma |
72 hr. |
|
SW1417 (100 ug/ml) PNC-28* |
Colon Cancer |
48 hr. |
|
MDA-MB-468 (30uM) PNC-27 |
Breast Cancer |
30 min. |
|
MDA-MB-157 (30uM) PNC-27 |
Breast Cancer |
30 min. |
|
MDA-MB-453 (30uM) PNC-27* |
Breast Cancer |
30 min. |
|
HT29 (30uM) PNC-27* |
Colon Cancer |
1 hr. |
|
SAOS2 (30uM) PNC-27* |
Osteogenic Sarcoma |
1 hr. |
|
MIA-PaCa-2 (150 ug/ml) PNC-28 |
Pancreatic Carcinoma |
72 hr. |
*Cell
line is homozygously p53-deleted

Figure 6. Effects
of incubating three different human breast cancer cell lines, MDA-MB-468, MCF-7
and MDA-MB-157, with the three p53 peptides attached on their carboxyl terminal
ends with a penetratin sequence, i.e., PNC-21, 28 and 27 (conditions 5-7,
respectively). The effects of controls are also shown in conditions 1-4. Also
shown in this figure is the effect of the controls and the three peptides on
the untransformed MCF-10-2A breast epithelial cell line.
6. PNC-27 and 28 induce necrosis and not apoptosis of cancer cells (Do et al, 2003)
We further
investigated how these peptides induce cell death in these cell lines. A major
target of the initial cascades in apoptosis is the expression of intracellular
proteases or caspases. As can be seen in Figure
7, entries 4 and 5, PNC-27 did not induce expression of caspase activity
when tested against the MDA-MB-468 breast cancer cell line above background
caspase in control-treated cells (entries 1-3)(Do et al, 2003). When treated
with low dose paclitaxel, that is known to induce apoptosis of cancer cells,
however, these treated cells do express high levels of caspase activity (entry
6). The cells do not express elevated caspase activity levels when treated with
high dose paclitaxel (entry 7) that is known to cause tumor cell necrosis, not
apoptosis.

Figure. 7.
Caspase activity as a marker for apoptosis in the MDA-MB-468 breast cancer cell
line when treated with PNC-27. As shown in the inset, treatment of the cells
with PNC-27 for 5 or 10 minutes (conditions 4 and 5) did not result in enhanced
caspase activity when compared with the activity of controls (conditions 1-3).
(PNC-27 at 30 uM induces total cell death within 1 hour in this cell line.) In
contrast, low dose paclitaxel, which is known to induce apoptosis, does induce
high caspase activity when incubated with these cells for 10 min (condition 6).
On the other hand, high dose paclitaxel, that does not induce apoptosis but
necrosis, does not induce elevated caspase activity in these cells.
In contrast to these
results, as shown in Figure 8,
PNC-27, but not controls, induces release of high levels of lactate
dehydrogenase (LDH), a cytosolic enzyme, indicative of tumor cell necrosis in
the three human breast cancer cell lines (Do et al, 2003). Significantly,
treatment of MCF-10-2A untransformed cells with PNC-27 (far right in Figure 8) results in no increase of LDH
above background compatible with its not affecting normal cell viability. Thus
the three p53 peptides induce necrosis and not apoptosis of cancer cells by a
mechanism that apparently does not involve p53!
7. PNC-27 and 28 induce lysis of the cancer cell membrane
This finding
prompted us to investigate the events that transpire when the peptide enters
cancer cells and normal cells. For this purpose, we prepared a
fluorescent-labeled PNC-27 peptide that we incubated with MDA-MB-468 breast
cancer cells and untransformed MCF-10-2A breast epithelial cells for 15 minutes
that were analyzed by confocal microscopy (Do et al, 2003). We found that the
fluorescence concentrated in the cell membrane, the nuclear membrane, and to a
lesser extent, the nucleoli. Much less fluorescence appeared in the
untransformed cell line (Do et al, 2003).
We then performed an
identical experiment with PNC-27 and evaluated the cells using scanning
electron microscopy (Do et al, 2003). Here we found that the peptide induced
pore formation in both the cell and nuclear membranes but had no effect on the
membranes of the MCF-10-2A cell line. In fact, much less peptide entered the
untransformed cell line as was subsequently confirmed by Western blotting of
the cells that were lysed after treatment with peptide (Do et al, 2003).
Evidently, PNC-27, 28 and 21 induce membrane damage to cancer cells
selectively.
8. The structure of PNC-27 provides insight into its mechanism of
action
We have been able to
determine the structure of PNC-27 using two-dimensional NMR both in aqueous and
membrane-like solvents. The structure in both solvents is two a-helices,
at right angles to one another; one in the p53 segment and one in the leader
sequence domain separated by a loop at the junction of the p53 and leader
peptide sequences (Rosal et al, 2004).
The structure is
highly amphipathic: the hydrophobic amino acid residues occur on one face of
the structure while the hydrophilic residues occur on the opposite face. These
hydrophilic residues are themselves further split into a negatively charged
domain in the p53 segment and a positively charged domain in the leader peptide
portion of the molecule.
Thus the effect of
placing the leader peptide on the carboxyl terminal end of the p53 sequence was
to induce formation of a double a-helix that is highly
amphipathic. This is a well-known motif for membrane active peptides such as
melittin that is a major component of bee venom that intercalates in the cell
membrane of red blood cells and induces hemolysis (Pincus, 2001) and magainin,
the anti-bacterial peptide that induces lysis of bacterial cell membranes but
has no effect on the red cell membrane (Dathe and Wieprecht, 1999).
PNC-27 therefore
appears to be a membrane-active peptide that selectively induces lysis of
cancer cell membranes. The elements of the cancer cell membrane with which this
peptide interacts are unknown. We are currently actively investigating this
question.

Figure. 8.
LDH release as a marker for cell necrosis when the three breast cancer cell
lines and one untransformed cell line shown in Figure 6 are treated with PNC-27
or with controls. PNC-27 is seen to induce high levels of LDH release in the
three cancer cell lines (graph sets 1-3) but not in the untransformed MCF-10-2A
cell line (graph set 4). The controls as listed in the inset to this figure are
seen not to induce enhanced release of LDH, suggesting that the effect of
PNC-27 is specific.
9. PNC-28 is effective in treating cancers in nude mice (Michl et al, 2006)
Since PNC-27, 28 and 21 are effective in selectively inducing
cytotoxicity in cancer cells, we elected to study their effects in vivo. For this purpose, we
utilized nude mice which do not possess cell-mediated or humoral immunity
facilitating xenotransplantion of these tumors. We elected to transplant TUC-3
cells into these mice since this cell line has the highest metastatic potential
and forms aggressively invasive tumors.
We treated the tumors in mice by implanting pumps that deliver a
constant amount of peptide (PNC-28 or control X13-leader or PNC-29 peptide)
over a two week period. We simultaneously implanted tumors and pumps in the
peritoneal cavities of nude mice. Over a two week period, we observed no tumor
growth for the PNC-28-treated mice but rapid tumor growth in the control
peptide-treated group. After this period, we performed a peritoneal lavage of
mice treated with PNC-28 and PNC-29 control and analyzed them using light
microscopy. We found that in PNC-29-treated mice, colonies of spindle-shaped
malignant cells were present. While in PNC-28-treated mice, no malignant cells,
but only reactive mesothelial cells, were present (Michl et al, 2006). Thus
PNC-28 eradicates pancreatic cancer cells in this animal model.
Surprisingly, we obtained identical results when we implanted the pumps
outside of the peritoneal
cavity in the flank region. In this case, the pumps delivering PNC-28 were far-removed
from the site of tumor implantation (Michl et al, 2006). We then repeated these
experiments except that we implanted the tumors and pumps on opposite sides of
the nude mice, i.e., tumors in the left shoulder region, pumps in the right
flank region. Figure 9 shows that
PNC-28 effectively blocks tumor cell growth under these stringent conditions
both during administration and two weeks post-administration. As can be seen in
Figure 9, during the two week period
of PNC-28 administration, no tumor growth occurred in the PNC-28-treated mice
while rapid growth occurred in the control peptide-treated mice. After PNC-28
administration was discontinued, there was some small growth, but the size
reached a plateau and did not increase (Michl et al, 2006). In contrast, tumors
treated with control PNC-29 peptide grew rapidly and metastasized. Importantly,
the mice treated with PNC-28 thrived and exhibited no toxic side effects. Their
weights and nutritional-intake remained at the same level as untreated mice
(Michl et al, 2006). This finding corroborates with our in vitro findings that PNC-28 (and 27 and 21) have no effects on
the viabilities of untransformed cells.
Overall, these results are highly encouraging and suggest that PNC-28,
and 27, may constitute an effective therapeutic anti-cancer drugs. We are
currently expanding our studies to include testing against a variety of other
cancers and in syngeneic animal models. Similar results with PNC-28 are now
being demonstrated testing this potent novel peptide against a lethal human
pancreatic cancer cell line (Bowne et al, 2007).

Figure. 9. Effects of PNC-28 on tumors implanted into nude mice.
A minimum of 1X106 TUC-3 pancreatic cancer cells was
xenotransplanted into the right hind leg region and minipumps delivering a
total of 2 mg of PNC-28 over a 14-day period were implanted in the left front
leg region. Tumor size was observed over the treatment period and then another
20 days after the pumps ceased delivering PNC-28 peptide. As shown in the
inset, the open squares show tumor size over time when the negative control
peptide, PNC-29, the X13 cytochrome P450 sequence linked on its carboxyl
terminus to a penetratin sequence, is administered; the filled circles show the
effects of PNC-28 on tumor size. The “p” values shown, over each open square,
show statistical significance between tumor size obtained with PNC-28 and with
PNC-29, as computed with a 3-way repeated measures
ANCOVA test (54). All p values<0.05 show statistically significant
differences.
V. Conclusions
Adler V, Pincus MR,
Brandt-Rauf PW Ronai Z (1995) Complexes of
ras-p21 with jun-N-Kinase and
c-jun Proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 92, 10585-10589.
Adler V, Pincus MR,
Minamoto T, Fuchs SY, Bluth MJ, Brandt-Rauf PW, Friedman FK, Robinson RC, Chen
JM, Wang XW, Harris CC, Ronai Z (1997)
Conformation-Dependent Phosphorylation of p Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
94, 1686-1691.
Adler V, Pincus MR,
Polatskaya A, Montano X, Friedman FK Ronai Z (1996)
Activation of c-jun NH2
Kinase by uv Irradiation Is Dependent on p21ras. J Biol Chem 271, 23304-23309.
Adler V, Smith SJ,
Friedman FK, Chie L, Chung DL Pincus MR (2005)
Functional Interactions of raf and MEK with jun-N-Terminal Kinase (JNK) Result
in a Positive Feedback Loop on the Oncogenic ras Signaling Pathway. Biochemistry
44, 10784-10795.
Adler V, Yin Z, Fuchs S,
Benezra M, Rosario L, Tew K, Pincus MR, Sardana M, Henderson C, Wolf CR, Davis
R, Ronai Z (1999) GSTpi-A Regulator of JNK
Signaling. EMBO J 18, 1321-1334.
Almoguerra C, Shibata D,
Forrester K, Martin J, Arnheim N Perucho M (1988)
Most Human Carcinomas of the Endocrine Pancreas Contain Mutant c-K-ras Genes. Cell 53, 549-554.
Amar S, Glozman A, Chung
DL, Alder V, Ronai Z, Friedman FK, Robinson R, Brandt-Rauf PW, Yamaizumi Z,
Pincus MR (1997) Selective Inhibition of Oncogenic
ras-p21 in vivo by Agents that Block Its Interaction with jun-N-Kinase (JNK) and jun Proteins. Implications for the
Design of Selective Chemotherapeutic Agents. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol
41, 79-85.
Bao LY, Thelmo WL, Somnay
S, Madahar C Michl J (1994) Characterization of an Acinar
Cell Line, BMRPA.430, Derived from Adult Rat Pancreas. FASEB J 8, 64A.
Barbacid M (1987) ras
Genes. Ann Rev Biochem 56, 779-827.
Birchmeier C, Broek D,
Wigler M (1985) ras Proteins Can induce Meiosis in Xenopus Oocytes. Cell 43, 615-621.
Bos JL (1989) ras
Oncogenes in Human Cancer, A Review Cancer Res. 49, 4682-4689.
Bowne W, Adler V, Ikram K,
Shteyler V, Vishnevetsky M, Bluth M, Gizycki H, Zenilman M, Michl J, Pincus MR
(2007) Novel p53 Peptide Rapidly Kills Human Pancreatic Cancer Cells by
Necrosis Not Apoptosis [Abst 2258] Proceedings of the American Association of
Cancer Research Annual Meeting p 5
Che Y, Gorina S, Pavletich
NP (1994) Crystal Structure of a tumor Suppressor-DNA
Complex, Understanding Tumorigenic Mutations. Science 265, 346-355.
Chen J, Lee G, Murphy RB,
Carty RP, Brandt-Rauf PW, Friedman E Pincus MR Comparison of the Computed
Structures for the Phosphate-Binding Loop of the p21 Protein Containing Oncogenic
Site Gly 12 with the X-ray Crystallographic Structures for this Region in the
p21 Protein and EF-tu A Model for the Structure of p21 Protein in its Oncogenic
Form (1989) J Biomol Structure and Dynamics 6 859-8
Chen JM, Smith SJ, Marion
M-J, Pincus MR Brandt-Rauf PW (1999) Common
Conformational Effects in the p53 Protein of Vinyl chloride-Induced Mutations. J.
Protein Chem. 18, 467-472.
Chie L, Amar S, Kung H-F,
Lin MCM, Chen H, Chung D, Adler V, Ronai Z, Friedman FK, Robinson RC, Kovac C,
Brandt-Rauf PW, Yamaizumi Z, Michl J, Pincus MR (2000)
Induction of Oocyte Maturation by jun-N-Terminal
Kinase (JNK) on the Oncogenic ras-p21
Pathway Is Dependent on the raf-MEK
Signal Transduction Pathway. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 45, 441-449.
Chie L, Chen JM, Friedman
FK, Chung DL, Amar S Michl J, Yamaizumi Z, Brandt-Rauf PW Pincus MR (2000) Identification of the Site of Inhibition of Oncogenic ras-p21-Induced Signal Transduction
by a Peptide from a ras
Effector Domain. J Protein Chem 18, 881-884.
Chie L, Friedman FK, Kung
H-F, Lim MCM, Chung DL, Pincus MR (2002)
Identification of the Site of Inhibition of Mitogenic Signaling by Oncogenic ras-p21 by a ras Effector Peptide. J Protein Chem 21, 367-369.
Chung DL, Joran A,
Friedman F K, Robinson RR, Brandt-Rauf PW, Weinstein IB, Ronai Z A, Baskin L,
Dykes DC, Murphy RB, Nishimura S Yamaizumi Z, Pincus MR (1992)
Evidence that Oocyte Maturation Induced by an Oncogenic ras p21 Protein and
Insulin Is Mediated by Overlapping Yet Distinct Mechanisms. Exp Cell Res
203, 329-335.
Clanton DJ, Lu Y, Blair
DG, Shih TY (1987) Structural Significance of the
GTP-Binding Domain of ras p21
Studied by Site-Directed Mutagenesis. Mol Cell Biol 7, 3092-3097.
Dathe M, Wieprecht T (1999) Structural Features of Helical Anti-Micorbial Peptides,
Their Potential To Modulate Activity on Model Membranes and Biological Cells. Biochem
Biophys Acta 1462, 71-87.
Deshpande AK, Kung H-F (1987) Insulin Induction of Xenopus laevis Oocyte Maturation Is Inhibited by Monoclonal
Antibody against p21 ras
Proteins. Mol Cell Biol 7, 1285-1288.
Do TN, Rosal RV, Drew L,
Raffo AJ, Michl J, Pincus MR, Friedman FK, Petrylak DP, Cassai N, Szmulewicz J,
Sidhu G, Fine RL, Brandt-Rauf PW (2003) Preferential
Induction of Necrosis in Human Breast Cancer Cells by a p53 Peptide Derived
from the mdm-2 Binding Site. Oncogene 22, 1431-1444.
Forester K, Almoguerra C,
Han K Grizzle WE Perucho M (1987) Detection of
High Incidence of K-ras
Oncogenes during Human Colon Tumorigenesis. Nature 327, 298-303.
Kanovsky M, Michl J,
Botzolaki G, Morin J, Kovac C, Chunh D, Friedman FK Pincus MR (2003) Peptides, Designed from Molecular Modeling Studies of the
ras-p21 Protein, Induce
Phenotypic Reversion of a Pancreatic Carcinoma Cell Line But Have No Effect on
Normal Pancreatic Acinar Cell Growth. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 52,
202-208.
Kanovsky M, Raffo A, Drew
L, Rosal R, Do T, Friedman FK, Rubinstein P, Visser I, Robinson R, Brandt-Rauf
PW, Michl J, Fine RL Pincus MR (2001) Peptides
from the Amino Terminal mdm-2 Binding Domain of p53, Designed from
Conformational Analysis, Are Selectively Cytotoxic to Transformed Cells. Proc
Natl Acad Sci USA 98, 12438-12443.
Krengel U, Schlichting L,
Scherer A, Schumann R, Frech M, John J, Kabsch W, Pai EF, Wittinghofer A (1990) Three-dimensional structures of H-ras p21 mutants, Molecular basis for their ability to function
as signal switch molecules. Cell, 62, 539-548.
Kussie PH, Gorina S,
Marechal V, Elenbass B, Moreau J, Levine A Pavletich NP (1996)
Structure of the MDM2 Oncoprotein Bound to the p53 Tumor Suppressor
Transactivation Domain. Science 174, 948-953.
Laptenko O, Prives C (2006) Transcriptional Regulation by p53, One Protein, Many
Possibilities. Cell Death Differ. 13, 951-961.
Liwo A, Gibson KD,
Scheraga HA, Brandt-Rauf PW, Monaco R, Pincus MR (1994)
Comparison of the Low Energy Conformations of an Oncogenic and a Non-Oncogenic
p21 Protein, Neither of which Binds GDP or GTP. J Protein Chem 13, 237-251.
Margarit SM, Sondermann H,
Hall BE, Nagar B, Hoelz A, Pirruccello M, Bar-Sagi D Kuriyan J, (2003) Structural Evidence for Feedback
Activation by Ras-GTP of the Ras-Specific Nucleotide Exchange Factor SOS. Cell 112, 685-695.
McCammon JA, Harvey SC (1988) Dynamics of Proteins and Nucleic Acids, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge and New York, pp 173-174.
Michl J, Scharf B, Huynh
C, Hannan R, von Gizycki H, Friedman FK, Brandt-Rauf PW, Fine RL, Pincus MR (2006) PNC-28, a p53-Derived Peptide that Is Cytotoxic to Cancer
Cells, Blocks Pancreatic Cancer Cell Growth in vivo. Int. J. Cancer 119, 1577-1585.
Monaco R, Chen JM, Chung
DL, Brandt-Rauf PW, Pincus MR (1995a) Comparison
of the Computed Three-Dimensional Structures of Oncogenic Forms of the
ras-Gene-Encoded p21 Protein with the Structure of the Normal
(Non-Transforming) Wild-Type Protein. J Protein Chem 14, 457-466.
Monaco R, Chen JM,
Friedman FK, Brandt-Rauf PW, Pincus MR (1995b) Structural
Effects of the Binding of GTP to the Wild-Type and Oncogenic Forms of the ras-Gene-Encoded p21 Proteins. J
Protein Chem 14, 721-730.
Moodie SA, Willumsen BM,
Weber MJ, Wolfman A (1993) Complexes
of ras-GTP with raf-1 and Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase. Science 260, 1658-1661.
Nassar N, Horn G, Herrmann
C, Scherer A, McCormick F, Wittinghofer A (1995)
The 2 Å crystal structure of the ras-binding domain of the serine/threonine
kinase c-raf-1 in complex with rap-1a and a GTP analogue. Nature
(London), 375, 554-560.
Nimnual AS, Yatsula BA,
Bar-Sagi D (1998) Coupling of Ras and Rac Guanine
Triphosphatases through the Ras Exchanger SOS. Science 279, 560-563.
Piela L, Scheraga HA (1987) On the Multiple-Minimum Problem in the Conformational
Analysis of Polypeptides. I. Backbone Degrees of Freedom for a Perturbed a-Helix. Biopolymers 26, S33-S.
Pincus MR (2001) "The Physiological Structure and Function of
Proteins" in Principles of Cell Physiology (Chapter 2), Third
Edition, Ed., N. Sperelakis, Academic Press, New York, pp. 19-42.
Pincus MR (2004) Development of New Anti-Cancer Peptides from
Conformational Energy Analysis of the Oncogenic ras-p21 Protein and Its Complexes with Target Proteins.
Frontiers in Bioscience 9, 3486-3509.
Pincus MR, Brandt-Rauf PW (1985) Structural Effects of Substitutions on the P21 Proteins. Proc
Natl Acad Sci USA, 82, 3596-3600.
Pincus MR, Brandt-Rauf PW,
Bluth M (2006) Oncoproteins and Early Tumor Detection
(Chapter 75) in McPherson, R.A., Pincus, M.R., Eds., Henry's Clinical
Diagnosis and Management by Laboratory Methods, Twenty First Edition, W.B.
Saunders, Philadelphia, 1366-1380.
Pincus MR, Brandt-Rauf PW,
Michl J, Friedman FK (2000) ras-p21-Induced Cell Transformation, Unique Signal Transduction
Pathways And Implications for the Design of New Chemotherapeutic Agents. Cancer
Invest 18, 39-50.
Pincus MR, van Renswoude
J, Harford JB, Chang EH, Carty RP, Klausner RD (1983)
Prediction of the Three-Dimensional Structure of the Transforming Region of
the EJ/T24 Human Bladder Oncogene Product and Its Normal Cellular Homologue. Proc
Natl Acad Sci USA 80, 5253-5357.
Ranginwale M, Smith S,
Flom J, Chie L, Kanovsky M, Chung D, Friedman FK, Robinson RC, Brandt-Rauf PW,
Yamaizumi Z, Michl J Pincus MR (2001) Differences
in patterns of activation of map kinases induced by oncogenic ras-p21 and
insulin in oocytes. Exp Cell Res 269, 162-169.
Ripol D, Scheraga HA (1988) On the Multiple-Minima Problem in the Conformational
Analysis of Polypeptides. II. An Electrostatically-Driven Monte Carlo Method.
Tests on Poly-(L-Alanine). Biopolymers 27, 1283-1303.
Rodriguez-Viciana P, Warne
PH, Dhand R, Vanhaesebroeck B, Gout I, Fry MJ, Waterfield MD, Downward J (1994) Phosphatidylinositol-3-OH kinase as a direct target of
Ras. Nature (London), 370, 527-532.
Rosal R Pincus MR,
Brandt-Rauf PW, fine RL, Michl J, Wang H (2004)
NMR Solution Structure of a Peptide from the mdm-2 Binding Domain of the p53
Protein that is Selectively Cytotoxic to Cancer Cells. Biochemistry, 43,
1754-1861.
Scheffzek K, Ahmadian MR,
Kabsch W, Weismuller L, Lautwein-Schmitz F, and Wittinghofer A (1997) The ras-ras GAP complex:
structural basis for GTPase activation and its loss in oncogenic ras mutants. Science 227, 333-338.
Scheraga HA Liwo A Oldziej
S Czaplewski C Pillardy J Ripoll DR Vila JA Kazmierkiewicz R Saunders JA
Arnautova YA Jagielska A Chinchio M Nanias M (2004)
The Protein Folding Problem, Global Optimization of the Force Fields. Frontiers
in Bioscience 9, 3296-3323.
Smith MR, Liu Y-L, Kim H,
Rhee SG, Kung H-F (1990) Inhibition of serum- and ras-stimulated DNA synthesis by
antibodies to phospholipase C. Science 247, 1074-1077.
Stacey DW, Kung H-F (1984) Transformation of NIH 3T3 Cells by Microinjection of
Ha-ras p21 Protein. Nature (London) 310, 508-511.
Villafania A, Anwar K,
Amar S, Chung D, Adler V, Ronai Z, Brandt-Rauf PW, Yamaizumi Z, Kung H-F Pincus
MR (1999) Glutathione-S-Transferase As a
Selective Inhibitor of Oncogenic ras-p21-Induced
Mitogenic Signaling through Blockade of Activation of jun by jun-N-Terminal
Kinase. Ann Clin Lab Sci 30, 61-68.
Yang J-Y, Widmann C (2001) Anti-apoptotic Signaling Generated by Caspase-Induced
Cleavage of RasGAP. Mol Cell Biol 21, 5346-5358.