Sulbactam-enhanced cytotoxicity of doxorubicin in breast cancer cells

Doxorubicin hydrochloride was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA). Sulbactum sodium was obtained from TTY Biopharm (Taiwan). Verapamil was obtained from Orion Pharma (Espoo, Finland).

The breast carcinoma cell lines MDA-MB-231, MDA-MB-435, MDA-MB-453, and MDA-MB-468 were maintained in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium (DMEM) (Hyclone, Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. Waltham, MA, USA) containing 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS; Gibco-BRL, Rockville, MD, USA) and 100 units/mL penicillin–streptomycin (Gibco-BRL). The breast carcinoma cell lines MCF-7, BT474, and T-47D were maintained in Roswell Park Memorial Institute (RPMI)-1640 medium (Hyclone) containing 10% FBS and 100 units/mL penicillin–streptomycin. The human breast epithelial cell line MCF-10A was maintained in DMEM/F12 medium containing 5% horse serum (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA), 20 ng/mL epithelial growth factor (Peprotech, Rocky Hill, NJ, USA), 0.5 μg/mL hydrocortisone (Sigma-Aldrich), 10 μg/mL insulin (Sigma-Aldrich), and 100 units/mL penicillin–streptomycin. All cell lines were incubated at 37 °C and 5% CO₂.

The MTT (3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide) assay was used to access cytotoxicity. The cells were grown in 96-well plates at a density of 1.5 × 10⁴ cells/well. To determine the toxicities of sulbactam and doxorubicin, sulbactam and doxorubicin were added at various concentrations into the wells. At 48 h after treatment, the medium in the wells was replaced with 100 µL/well of medium containing 0.5 µg/µL MTT and incubated for 4 h. Subsequently, the medium was removed and 100 µL DMSO was added in each well to dissolve the formazan crystals. The absorbance of the samples was measured at 550 and 655 nm as the test and reference wavelengths, respectively, by using an iMark microplate reader (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA). To determine the effects of the combination of sulbactam and doxorubicin, various concentrations of doxorubicin were added to the medium containing 2 mM sulbactam in 96-well plates seeded with the breast cancer cells. The MTT assay was performed as described above. The cytotoxicity was expressed as relative viability (percentage of control). The percentage of cell survival in the negative control (without sulbactam and doxorubicin treatment) was considered 100. Relative viability = [(experimental absorbance − background absorbance)/(absorbance of untreated control − background absorbance)] × 100%. The half maximal inhibitory concentration (IC₅₀) values of sulbactam, doxorubicin, and the combinations of sulbactam and doxorubicin were calculated using the survival curves by using the Bliss method. The degree of resistance was calculated by determining the ratio of the IC₅₀ of the cells treated with sulbactam–doxorubicin combinations to that of the cells treated with doxorubicin alone.

Total RNA was extracted using TriZol (Invitrogen) and reverse transcribed (SuperScript III reverse transcriptase, Invitrogen and ExcelRT Reverse Transcriptase RP1000, SMOBIO, Taiwan). Real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (Real-time RT-PCR) was performed on ABI StepOnePlus™ Real-Time system using the SYBR Green PCR Master Mix (Applied Biosystems). The sequences of the PCR primers were listed in Table 1. The condition for PCR was 95 °C for 10 min, followed by 40 rounds of 95 °C for 15 s and 60 °C for 1 min. The data were analyzed by StepOne Software v2.2.2.

The MDA-MB-453 and MDA-MB-468 cells were seeded on coverslips in 12-well plates at a concentration of 1 × 10⁵ cells/well and grown for 16 h. On the following day, the cells were washed with phosphate buffered saline (PBS) and incubated with 2 mM sulbactam or 5 µM verapamil for 30 min before treating them with 2 µM doxorubicin for 2 h. The cells were subsequently incubated in a doxorubicin-free medium for 0, 8, 12, and 16 h. Images were obtained using a LSM 780 confocal microscope (Zeiss) and analyzed using ZEN 2012.

The equivalence of the human cell lines was analyzed through 12.5% sodium dodecyl sulfate–polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE). The gels were then stained using the VisPRO protein stain kit (Visual Protein Biotech, Taiwan) for 5 min. After staining, the gels were washed with Milli-Q water and stored at 4 °C until in-gel digestion.

The gel lanes corresponding to the samples were cut into five slices, and each slice was subjected to in-gel digestion according to the method of Shevchenko [41]. Briefly, the slices were washed thrice with 50 mM ammonium bicarbonate (pH 7.9) and dehydrated using 50 mM AMBC + 50% acetonitrile (ACN). Subsequently, the cysteine bonds were reduced after treatment with 10 mM dithiothreitol for 1 h at 56 °C and alkylated using 50 mM 4-vinylpyridine for 45 min at room temperature in the dark. After two subsequent wash–dehydration cycles, the slices were dried for 10 min in a vacuum centrifuge (ThermoFisher, Breda, Netherlands) and incubated overnight with 6.25 ng/μL trypsin in 50 mM AMBC at 25 °C. The resulting peptides were extracted once in 100 μL of 1% formic acid and then two times in 100 μL of 50% ACN in 5% formic acid. The volume was reduced to 50 μL in a vacuum centrifuge before liquid chromatography (LC)–tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) analysis.

The peptides were separated using an Ultimate 3000 nano LC system (Dionex LC-Packings, Amsterdam, Netherlands) equipped with a 20 cm × 75 μm internal diameter (i.d.) fused-silica column custom packed with 3-μm 120-Å ReproSil Pur C18 aqua (Dr. Maisch, GMBH, Ammerbuch-Entringen, Germany). After injection, the peptides were delivered into the column at a flowrate of 30 μL/min and trapped on a 5 mm × 300 μm i.d. Pepmap C18 cartridge (Dionex LC-Packings), which were then eluted by 2% buffer B (80% ACN and 0.05% formic acid in Milli-Q water) and separated at 300 nL/min in a 10%–40% buffer B gradient within 60 min. The eluting peptides were ionized at 1.7 kV in a Nanomate Triversa Chip-based nanospray source by using a Triversa LC coupler (Advion, Ithaca, NJ, USA). Intact peptide mass spectra and fragmentation spectra were acquired on a LT QFT hybrid mass spectrometer (Thermo Fisher, Bremen, Germany). The intact masses were measured at a resolution of 50,000 in the ion cyclotron resonance (ICR) cell by using a target value of 1 × 10⁶ charges. Simultaneously, following an FT prescan, the five highest peptide signals (charge states 2+ and higher) were submitted for MS/MS in the linear ion trap (3-AMU isolation width, 30 ms activation, 35% normalized activation energy, 0.25 Q-value, and 5000-count threshold. Dynamic exclusion was applied with a repeat count of 1 and an exclusion time of 30 s.

To determine whether sulbactam enhances the cytotoxicity of doxorubicin, MCF-10A (normal), BT474 (ER/PR+, Her2+), MCF-7 (ER/PR+, Her2−), MDA-MB-231 (triple negative), MDA-MB-361 (ER/PR+, Her2+), MDA-MB-435 (ER/PR−, Her2+), MDA-MB-453 (triple negative), MDA-MB-468 (triple negative), and T47D (ER/PR+, Her2−) cell lines were treated for 48 h with 0, 0.1, 0.5, 1, 5, and 10 μM doxorubicin in the presence or absence of 2 mM sulbactam for 48 h. Cell viabilities were measured through the MTT assay. Doxorubicin exerted cytotoxic effects in a dose-dependent manner against all the cell lines (Fig. 1). When the cells were treated with doxorubicin alone, the viability of the MDA-MB-468 cells was < 50% at 0.5 µM doxorubicin, the viabilities of the MCF-7, MDA-MB-361, and MDA-MB-453 cells were < 50% at 1 μM doxorubicin, the viabilities of the BT474, MDA-MB-231, and MDA-MB-435 cells were < 50% at 5 μM doxorubicin, and the viability of T47D cells was < 50% until the concentration of doxorubicin reached 10 μM. Among these breast cancer cell lines, the T47D cell line exhibited low sensitivity to doxorubicin, with a IC50 value of 8.53 µM (Fig. 1i). By contrast, the MDA-MB-453 and MDA-MB-468 cells were more sensitive to doxorubicin than the T47D cells; they had lower IC₅₀ values (0.69 and 0.27 μM, respectively) than the T47D cells and had the lowest viabilities at 5 and 10 μM doxorubicin (Fig. 1g, h). Next, we analyzed whether sulbactam enhanced the cytotoxicity of doxorubicin in the breast cancer cells. When the cells were treated with a combination of sulbactam and doxorubicin, the viabilities of the eight breast cancer cell lines significantly decreased (Fig. 1b–i). The IC₅₀ values of doxorubicin in all the cell lines in the presence and absence of sulbactam are summarized in Table 2. The IC₅₀ values of doxorubicin decreased from 1.14 to 0.54 μM in the BT474 cells, from 0.69 to 0.37 μM in the MCF-7 cells, from 3.16 to 1.25 μM in the MDA-MB-231 cells, from 0.89 to 0.46 μM in the MDA-MB-361 cells, from 1.22 to 0.51 μM in the MDA-MB-435 cells, from 0.69 to 0.27 μM in the MDA-MB-453 cells, from 0.27 to 0.05 μM in the MDA-MB-468 cells, and from 8.53 to 3.83 μM in the T47D cells in the presence of sulbactam. The IC₅₀ of doxorubicin in breast cancer cells treated with a combination of sulbactam and doxorubicin was less than half of the IC₅₀ of doxorubicin in the breast cancer cells treated with doxorubicin alone excluding the resistance of the MCF-7 and MDA-MB-361 cells, showed 1.85- and 1.96-fold decreases, respectively. By contrast, the MCF-10A cells (breast epithelial cells), did not exhibit evident differences in cell viability in the absence and presence of sulbactam; the IC₅₀ values were 2.51 and 2.50, respectively (Fig. 1a). Among all the breast cancer cell lines, sulbactam considerably increased doxorubicin sensitivity in the MDA-MB-453 and MDA-MB-468 cells, by reducing the IC₅₀ of doxorubicin by 2.6- and 5.0-fold, respectively, Subsequently, the cytotoxicity of sulbactam alone was analyzed in the MCF-10A, MDA-MB-453, and MDA-MB-468 cells. The cells were treated with 0, 1, 2, 4, and 8 mM sulbactam. Sulbactam did not exhibit an evident cytotoxic effect on any of the three cell lines at concentrations of up to 8 mM (Fig. 2). However, when combined with 0.5 μM doxorubicin, sulbactam potentiated the cytotoxicity of doxorubicin without evident dose dependence in the MDA-MB-453 and MDA-MB-468 cells. Thus, sulbactam has low cytotoxicity and can enhance the sensitivity of breast cancer cells toward doxorubicin.

The MDA-MB-468 cells were treated with or without 2 mM sulbactam in the presence of 0.1 μM doxorubicin for 24 h. The total cell lysates were harvested for LC–MS/MS analysis. In total, 2937 proteins were identified using Sequest, which were validated using Scaffold. The expression of 66 and 70 proteins were significantly upregulated and downregulated, respectively, in the MDA-MB-468 cells treated with a combination of sulbactam and doxorubicin (based on p value < 0.05 and fold change > 2; Tables 3 and 4). The UniProt database was used to classify the identified proteins according to their biological processes. The upregulated proteins were classified as RNA processing, response to DNA damage, response to stress, cytoskeleton organization, protein folding, ubiquitin-dependent protein catabolic process, vesicle-mediated transport, carbohydrate metabolism, amino acid metabolism, and positive regulation of apoptosis proteins (Table 3). The downregulated proteins were classified as translation, regulation of transcription, RNA processing, ABC transporter, cytoskeleton organization, protein folding, protein catabolic process, carbohydrate metabolism, mitochondrial metabolic process, negative regulation of apoptosis, and signal transduction proteins (Table 4). The connections among the proteins and GO biological processes of the proteins were tested through STRING network analysis. The proteins are represented as nodes. The thickness of the edges indicates the strength of correlations between the proteins according to neighborhood, gene fusion, co-occurrence, co-expression, previous experiments, databases, and text-mining information at confidence scores higher than 0.5. As shown in Fig. 3a, 38 of the 60 proteins which were upregulated in the MDA-MB-468 cells treated with a combination of sulbactam and doxorubicin were associated with response to stimuli. Functional clusters included proteins involved in carbohydrate metabolism, tubulin-associated cytoskeleton organization, and ubiquitin-dependent protein catabolic process. As shown in Fig. 3b, 31 of 68 proteins which were downregulated in the MDA-MB-468 cells treated with a combination of sulbactam and doxorubicin were associated with gene expression. The functional clusters of these downregulated proteins were associated with actin remodeling, mitochondrial metabolic process, protein catabolic process, transcription and RNA process, and translation.

Sulbactam significantly reduced ABC transporter protein expression in A. baumannii ATCC 19606. Breast cancer cells can actively remove doxorubicin from inside the cells by using ABC transporters to protect the cells from being killed by doxorubicin. LC–MS/MS results showed a reduction in the protein levels of ABCA8, ABCB1, and ABCG2; hence, we examined whether sulbactam can inhibit the mRNA expression of ABC transporters in the human breast cancer cells in the presence of doxorubicin. Two breast cancer cell lines, MDA-MB-453 and MDA-MB-468, were treated with 0.1 μM doxorubicin and 2 mM sulbactam for 24 h. The mRNA expression of the ABC transporters in these two cell lines were measured using real-time RT-PCR. In the presence of doxorubicin, sulbactam significantly reduced the mRNA expression of ABCB1, ABCB5, and ABCG2 by approximately 50% in the MDA-MB-453 and MDA-MB-468 cells (Fig. 4). Sulbactam also moderately reduced the mRNA expression of ABCB8, ABCB10, ABCC1, ABCC2, ABCC3, ABCC4, and ABCC5 in the MDA-MB-453 cells and those of ABCB8, ABCB10, ABCC2, ABCC5, and ABCC10 in the MDA-MB-468 cells by 20–30%. These results indicate that sulbactam downregulated the mRNA expression of several ABC transporters, particularly ABCB1, ABCB5, and ABCG2. These results also demonstrate that the combination of sulbactam and doxorubicin enhanced the sensitivity of the cells to doxorubicin by downregulating the expressions of ABC transporters related to the efflux of doxorubicin.

To investigate whether the sulbactam-induced reduction in the expression of ABC transporters inhibits the efflux of doxorubicin, the distribution of doxorubicin in breast cancer cells was observed using a confocal microscope. A time-course study was performed in the presence and absence of sulbactam. For comparison, the cells were also pretreated with verapamil, a well-known inhibitor of ABCB1 and ABCG2. The fluorescent signal corresponding to doxorubicin was primarily observed in nuclei of the cells, and the concentration of doxorubicin decreased time-dependently (Fig. 5). Pretreatment with sulbactam increased the doxorubicin concentration in the cell nuclei by 15, 45, and 74% in the MDA-MB-453 cells and 17, 26, and 44% in the MDA-MB-468 cells at 8, 12, and 16 h, respectively, compared with that in cells without sulbactam treatment. The intensities of doxorubicin were comparable between the sulbactam- and verapamil-treated MDA-MB-453 cells. Doxorubicin concentration was higher in the sulbactam-treated MDA-MB-468 cells than in the verapamil-treated cells. These results indicate that sulbactam inhibited the efflux of doxorubicin, thus prolonging doxorubicin retention in the breast cancer cells. The increase in intracellular doxorubicin levels resulted in an increase in its cytotoxicity in the breast cancer cells.