Background
Gallbladder cancer (GBC) stands out as the most common and lethal form of biliary tract carcinoma [
1]. Its 5-year survival rate varies widely, ranging from 4 to 60%. This significant range is primarily contingent on the stage at which the disease is detected, and unfortunately, in advanced stages, when patients typically receive a diagnosis, the 5-year life expectancy drops to less than 5% [
1‐
3]. Incidence rates of GBC vary widely, with the highest cases reported annually in certain Eastern European countries, Asia, and Latin America [
3]. The development of GBC is influenced by several risk factors, including gender, genetic-related geographic factors, chronic inflammation (cholecystitis), and gallstones (cholelithiasis) [
4]. The elevated incidence rates in certain regions may be attributed to the high prevalence of cholelithiasis, especially in women, and the presence of genetic variants associated with the Mapuche ethnic group in South America, but the association between these risk factors has not been fully described and is still a subject of investigation [
5]. However, it is thought that the common factor is related to chronic inflammation, though the exact origin and development of the pathology are not entirely clear.
The prognosis for GBC patients is grim, with an average survival time of 4 to 14 months, and the most effective treatment option being surgical resection [
6]. However, less than 10% of patients have resectable tumors at the time of diagnosis, and nearly 50% already exhibit metastasis, frequently to the liver [
7]. Even with surgical intervention, most patients progress to a metastatic stage [
8], where the cancer cells exhibit significant resistance to conventional chemotherapy, with gemcitabine being the gold standard [
9,
10]. Additionally, poorly differentiated GBC tissues, indicative of an invasive phenotype, are strongly associated with an increased risk of metastasis and poor patient outcomes [
11,
12]. In GBC, the lack of effective treatment options and the challenges associated with late-stage diagnosis highlight the urgent need for novel therapeutic approaches. GBC's grim prognosis underscores the critical requirement for innovative treatments to improve patient outcomes.
The malignant progression of GBC, characterized by dedifferentiation traits, is regulated by several signaling pathways that promote epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT), cell migration, invasiveness, and metastasis [
13,
14]. These pathways include β-catenin, Hedgehog, TGF-β, PI3K/AKT, mTOR, among others plausible molecular targets [
15‐
19]. Within the microenvironment of solid tumors, such as GBC, various autocrine and paracrine signaling molecules enhance tumor malignancy, among them Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha (TNFα), Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF), and Endothelin-1 (ET-1) [
20‐
22]. While ET-1 is a well-known peptide involved in vasoconstriction and gallbladder physiology [
23,
24], it has also been linked to cell survival, proliferation, angiogenesis, invasion, and metastasis in several cancers [
22‐
28].
ET-1 signaling is mediated by two G protein-coupled receptors, ET
AR and ET
BR, which activate downstream pathways such as PLCβ, leading to calcium mobilization, PKC activation, and nuclear import of β-catenin and NF-κB [
29‐
32]. ET-1 signaling target genes related to cancer progression include CCND1 (Cyclin-D1), AXIN2, PTGS2 (COX2), VEGF, ZEB1, and EDN1 (ET-1) itself [
31,
33]. Elevated levels of ET-1 have been observed in certain cancers with invasive phenotypes, correlating with reduced survival and indicating its potential as a prognostic marker [
34‐
36]. Genomic and transcriptome studies have revealed the expression of ET-1 and ETRs in biliary tract carcinomas, including GBC, with their levels correlating with advanced tumor stages [
37,
38]. Macitentan, a non-selective dual ET
AR/ET
BR antagonist, FDA-approved for pulmonary hypertension, has shown promise in preclinical studies for various cancers [
39‐
43]. While ET-1's role in various cancers has been extensively studied, its potential significance in GBC is a subject of growing interest. ET-1 has been demonstrated to play a crucial role in cancer progression in several malignancies, including prostate [
44], colon [
45], ovarian [
31], lung [
31], pancreatic [
46], and others. Studies have shown that ET-1 can promote invasion and metastasis in these cancer types, suggesting that it may exert similar effects in GBC.
Considering the limited treatment options and poor prognosis associated with GBC [
47], the role of ET-1 signaling emerges as a promising avenue for further investigation. Its significance as a prognostic marker and therapeutic target in other cancer types adds to its potential importance [
48]. Thus, the main objective of this study is to explore the presence and functional role of the ET-1 signaling pathway in GBC in vitro. Through our investigation, we aim to provide valuable insights that may contribute to the development of improved treatment strategies for this challenging malignancy.
Materials and methods
Tumor samples and immunohistochemistry
A retrospective analysis was conducted on cholecystectomy specimens diagnosed with GBC, along with corresponding clinical data from patients at the Pathological Anatomy Subdepartment of Hospital Base Valdivia, Chile, spanning 2001 to 2018. The study, encompassing 180 cases, exclusively focused on primary invasive gallbladder adenocarcinoma, excluding in situ adenocarcinoma, squamous carcinoma, neuroendocrine carcinoma, and metastases. Ethical approval was obtained from the Valdivia Bioethical Committee for Human Research. Tissue Microarrays (TMAs), previously constructed by our laboratory [
12], were utilized. These TMAs, containing positive tissue controls, were subjected to immunohistochemical analysis using an automatic BenchMark GX Ventana system (Roche, AZ, USA). Primary antibodies were purchased from Abcam, ET
AR (ab219358, 1:200) and ET
BR (ab230618 1:2000). The ultraView Universal DAB Detection kit (Roche, Arizona, USA) was employed as per the manufacturer's instructions. Two independent pathologists evaluated immunohistochemistry slides blindly under light microscopy, categorizing antigen expression based on positive and tissue controls within each slide. Antigen expression intensity was graded subjectively, considering positive tissue controls, and categorized as negative expression. Kaplan–Meier curves were constructed based on the presence or absence of positive staining.
Cell culture and treatments
Three GBC cell lines (NOZ, TGBC-1TKB, TGBC-2TKB) and one primary culture (CAVE1) were used in this study. NOZ line is derived from ascites metastasis [
49]. 1TKB line was derived from a lymph node of a gallbladder adenocarcinoma, and 2TKB was derived from a primary lesion of the same patient as 1TKB [
50]. CAVE1 was obtained from a primary GBC tumor from a Chilean patient [
51]. Once arrived at laboratory, all cells were immediately expanded in DMEM-HG medium supplemented with 10% FBS, 100 U/ml penicillin and 100 μg/ml streptomycin (Gibco) at 37 °C and 5% CO
2, followed by storage in liquid nitrogen at − 190 °C. Once a year, one nitrogen aliquot was thawed, expanded, and stored again at − 80 °C. For experiments, one − 80 °C aliquot was thawed and grown in standard conditions. All experiments were performed within 1 year and cells were eliminated after 15 passages, as requested by each local biosecurity committee. Mycoplasma contamination was tested monthly with the EZ-PCR Mycoplasma Test kit (Biological Industries, Beit Haemek, Israel), being the last test performed 6 months ago and yielding no contamination. Macitentan (MedChemExpress) was used at 1 µM and ET-1 (Sigma Aldrich) at 100 nM.
Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)
ET-1 secreted to culture medium was quantified using Endothelin-1 (ET-1) Human ELISA Kit (Thermofisher, EIAET1). A cell density of 104 cells/well were incubated for 48 h in serum free DMEM-HG. ET-1 levels (pg) were measured according to the manufacturer’s instructions and normalized to total protein content and cell number.
3D-migration and invasion
Cells (5 × 104 cells/chamber) were plated on the upper side of a polycarbonate Transwell chamber (6.5 mm, 8.0 μm, Corning, Lowell, MA, USA) for migration assay or in a 300 µg/ml matrigel-coated Transwell chamber for invasion assay with 2 µg/ml fibronectin in the bottom side to promote cell attachment. In both cases, cells were seeded in serum-free DMEM-HG. As chemoattractant, the bottom chamber contained DMEM-HG supplemented with 10% FBS. Cells were incubated at 37 °C for 4 h (migration) or 16 h (invasion). Cells in the top chamber were carefully removed with cotton swabs and cells that crossed through the chamber were fixed with 0.5% crystal violet solution in 10% Methanol for 10 min at room temperature. Cells were counted using the 10× objective in 5 different fields of the underside of the insert. The mean number of cells was normalized to 1 using the control condition and then plotted.
RT-qPCR
Total RNA was extracted with TRIzol (Gibco) and quantified by NanoDrop. Reverse transcription was performed with 1 µg RNA plus M-MLV RT (Promega) following manufacturer instructions. qPCR was performed in a Stratagene MX30005P (Agilent Technologies Inc), using the ΔΔCt method and ACTB (β-actin) as a normalizer gene. For the reaction, buffer 2 × Master mix qPCR Brilliant II Sybr® Green (ThermoFisher, Waltham, MA, USA) was used, following the manufacturer’s instructions. Primers sequences are listed in Additional file
1: Table S1.
Western blot
Proteins (30–40 μg) were separated by SDS-PAGE (BioRad, Hercules, CA, USA), transferred to a 0.22 μm nitrocellulose membrane and then blocked with 5% non-fat milk in PBS-Tween 0.05%. Membranes were incubated at 4 °C overnight with primary antibodies followed by incubation for 1 h with a secondary HRP-conjugated anti-IgG antibody (Jackson Laboratories, 1:50,000 in 1X PBS-Tween 0.05%). Primary antibodies were Snail (CST #3879, 1:1000), E-cadherin (CST #3195, 1:1000), β-actin (Santa Cruz Biotechnology #47778, 1:5000), MMP9 (CST #13667, 1:1000), ZEB1 (CST #3396, 1:1000), Lamin B1 (CST #12586, 1:1000), β-catenin (BD Biosciences #610153, 1:1000), NF-kB (CST #6956, 1:1000), ETAR (Thermo Scientific™ #PA3-065, 1:1000), ETBR (Thermo Scientific™ #PA3-066, 1:1000). Bands were revealed using the West Dura chemiluminescence system (Thermo-Fisher) and imaging was performed on a Syngene G:Box instrument (Synoptics, Cambridge, UK).
Reporter assay
NOZ cells were transfected with 10 µg of total DNA of pTOP-FLASH or pFOP-FLASH. Cells were lysed 24 h post-transfection with pasive lysis buffer. Luciferase activity was measured with luciferin substrate (Promega), following instructions provided by the manufacturer. The values reported for luciferase activity for each condition were used for calculating the TOP-FLASH/FOP-FLASH activity ratios. Values shown were averaged from at least three independent experiments.
Protein stability
NOZ cells (106) were cultured in standard conditions and incubated with 20 µg/ml cycloheximide (CHX) in the absence or presence of 1 µM MAC and/or 100 nM ET-1. Cells were harvested after 0, 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 h of treatment. Cell extracts were analyzed by Western blot, using an anti-β-catenin antibody.
Indirect immunofluorescence (IFI)
Cells (2.5 × 104) were grown on glass coverslips and treated with 1 µM MAC and/or 100 nM ET1 for 24 h. Samples were and fixed with PBS/4% paraformaldehyde and incubated with anti-β-catenin specific antibody (BD #610153) and DAPI for nuclear staining. Alexa fluor 594 anti-mouse (Thermofisher) was used as a secondary antibody. Coverslips were mounted onto slides with DAKO and fluorescence was visualized with a Zeiss AxioObserver microscope.
Cell viability
CellTiter 96AQueous One Solution Cell Proliferation Assay (MTS) from Promega (Madison, WI, USA) was performed following manufacturer instructions. Briefly, 2.5 × 104 cells were seeded in 96-well plates for 24 h and treated with Gemcitabine (0–100 μM) alone or in combination with 1 μM Macitentan (MAC) for 72 h. Cells were incubated with MTS reagent for 2 h and absorbance was measured at 490 nm using a microplate reader (Synergy HT, BioTek Instruments, Inc.). Alternatively, for crystal violet viability assays, 5 × 103 cells (NOZ and 2TKB) were seeded and treated with MAC/GEM for 72 h in the presence or absence of 1 mM pyruvate. Viability was indirectly measured by violet crystal stain and quantified by absorbance at 570 nm and plotted as percentage.
Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis and graphical representations were conducted using GraphPad Prism 8.1 software. Values were presented as mean ± SD from a minimum of three independent experiments. Statistical analysis was performed on normalized data using the unpaired t-Student test for unpaired data and one-way ANOVA for data groups. Kaplan–Meier and log-rank tests (Mantel-Cox) were employed to construct and assess survival data. P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant."
Discussion
Our analysis revealed a significant and intriguing relationship between the expression of Endothelin-1 Receptor A (ET
AR) and the median overall survival of GBC patients. Specifically, GBC patients with samples that displayed positive ET
AR expression exhibited shorter survival durations. This finding strongly suggests that ET
AR expression may serve as a valuable prognostic marker, indicating a poorer prognosis for those individuals with GBC. This observation aligns with previous research that has implicated ET-1 and its receptors in the progression and prognosis of various cancers [
45,
52]. Conversely, in our study, we did not observe a statistically significant relationship between the expression of Endothelin-1 Receptor B (ET
BR) and overall survival among GBC patients. This highlights, as in other types of cancer, that it is receptor A that would be more involved in the aggressiveness of cancers, without completely ruling out a possible role of receptor B [
41]. This reaffirms the use of MAC to counteract the effect of both receptors or a compensatory effect when one of the two predominates.
Epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) is a process which is characterized by loss of apical-basal polarity [
53,
54] and cell–cell junctions [
55,
56], synthesis and release of ECM-degrading metalloproteinases [
57‐
59], increased migration and acquisition of invasive capacity [
60‐
62], colonization of local and distant sites [
63,
64], and enhanced chemoresistance [
65‐
68]. Therefore, hindering and/or reverting EMT has been established as an approach to impair GBC invasion and metastasis, which would reduce the number of inoperable neoplasms. EMT is triggered in response to signals that cells receive from microenvironment, including Endothelin-1 (ET-1) [
22,
34,
36]. In fact, it has been demonstrated that ET-1 promotes tumor migration [
69], invasion [
70], metastasis [
71], stemness [
72,
73], and chemoresistance [
74].
Here, for the first time, it has been demonstrated the role of ET-1 in both downregulation of EMT-regulators, as well as migration and invasion of GBC cells. In fact, ET-1 extracellular levels were higher in metastatic cells (NOZ) in comparison to primary tumor cells (CAVE-1). Similar extracellular ET-1 levels have been observed in human tumor cell lines with epithelial-like morphology [
75,
76]. High Endothelin-Converting Enzyme-1 (ECE-1) levels and low Neprilisin (NEP) levels might explain the aberrant ET-1 levels in NOZ cells. Thus, pharmacological modulation of ET-1 axis might impair GBC progression. However, we did not observe a positive correlation between ETRs protein and transcript levels. This disparity in mRNA and protein levels may be attributed to post-translational modifications, including phosphorylation, ubiquitination, glycosylation, and palmitoylation. These modifications hold the capacity to regulate the spatiotemporal dynamics of ETRs, consequently impacting their signaling and the resulting gene regulatory network during tumorigenic processes. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that various post-translational modifications can interact with each other, yielding both positive and negative effects.
ET-1 signals through its two G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs): ET
AR [
77] and ET
BR [
78]. Many GPCR conformations lead to a variety of highly specialized downstream signaling cascades [
79‐
83]. As a transducer downstream to ET
AR, β-arrestin-1 translocates to the nucleus and interacts with β-catenin to promote target genes transcription (e.g.,
EDN1, AXIN2, MMP9 and
CCND1) [
84,
85]. Transcriptional activation of
EDN1 by β-catenin has been also observed in colon [
86], prostate [
87], and ovarian cancer [
31] and creates a self-amplifying positive-feedback loop that forms an ET-1 autocrine circuit [
22].
Here we have hypothesized that dual ETRs blockade with macitentan (MAC) may modulate ET-1 signaling downstream pathways in GBC cells. Blocking ETRs would induce changes in transcript levels of ET-1 signaling target genes, which would vary depending on the GBC cell line. In fact, in 1TKB cells
, VEGF and
BIRC5 transcripts were reduced in presence of MAC. Likewise,
VEGF and
CCND1 were downregulated in 2TKB cells with the same treatment. Consequently, we evaluated whether MAC treatment in NOZ, 1TKB and 2 KB cell lines modulated also β-catenin and NF-κB signaling. Total β-catenin and NF-κB protein levels were increased with ET-1 in NOZ cells and this was blocked upon MAC treatment, proving that MAC impairs ET-1-induced β-catenin and NF-κB signaling in a GBC in vitro model. In 1TKB cells, dual ETRs blockade reduced β-catenin nuclear levels. On the contrary, β-catenin cytosolic levels were not altered. In 2TKB cells treated with MAC, β-catenin was accumulated in the cytoplasm, where it might be bound with E-cadherin, thus involved in maintaining an epithelial phenotype. Additionally, activation of NF-κB is induced by ET-1 in various cancer cell lines [
88‐
92], which has been involved with cell migration [
93]. Here we demonstrated that NF-κB protein levels did not change after treatment with MAC in 1TKB and 2TKB cells, suggesting that ETRs dual blockade may be related to impairing β-catenin co-transcriptional activity and promoting binding with E-cadherin in 1TKB and 2TKB cells, respectively. Future studies should aim to elucidate if blocking ET-1 signaling hinders NF-κB or β-arrestins recruitment in GBC, which initiates signaling cascades in colorectal [
67] and ovarian cancer [
31]. The results from the Cycloheximide assay demonstrate that ET-1 plays a pivotal role in enhancing the stability of β-catenin, potentially influencing downstream signaling pathways. This finding indicates that ET-1 may contribute to the accumulation and maintenance of active β-catenin within cells. Significantly, the stabilizing effect of ET-1 on β-catenin is effectively countered when its receptors are blocked with MAC. Furthermore, the ability of ET-1 to increase the reporter activity of β-catenin, reversed by MAC, underscores the potential therapeutic implications of modulating β-catenin's activity in response to ET-1 and MAC, particularly in diseases associated with aberrant β-catenin signaling [
13].
In order to assess whether MAC has a functional effect on cell migration and invasion, we tested the blockade of ETR on 3D-migration in cells of different aggressive origin. We found a correlation between the induction of E-cadherin at the protein level and the downregulation of ZEB1 and Snail, but no correlation was observed between mRNA and protein levels of some EMT-markers, suggesting a regulation at the level of protein stability and regulation of its degradation. No mRNA and protein levels of Twist (data not shown) were detected. As expected, cell invasion was considerably higher in 1TKB cells of metastatic origin compared to 2TKB cells originating from a primary tumor. In this sense, MAC decreases 1TKB invasion but has no effect on 2TKB. This suggests that blockade of ETRs affects the invasion of a cell highly invasive but with no effect on either non-invasive or minimally invasive cells.
Finally, we demonstrate that the widely used drug gemcitabine (GEM) reduces the viability of GBC cancer cells which is potentiated by blocking ETRs with MAC, indicating that MAC would be chemosensitizing these cells. Our results are similar to those found in pancreatic cancer [
74], where it was shown that ET
AR blockade sensitizes cells to GEM, however, in our model we have yet to understand the effect of each receptor separately. As observed in our study, the administration of GEM led to the expected increase in cleaved PARP (cl-PARP) levels, suggesting activation of apoptosis [
74]. Interestingly, this response was further enhanced with the co-administration suggesting that ETRs blockage may potentiate the cytotoxic effects of GEM, possibly by intensifying the apoptotic response, which is in line with our expectations and adds a promising dimension to the use of these agents in combination therapy. Remarkably, the induction of β-catenin and NF-kB with GEM was reversed with MAC. This finding raises intriguing questions about the interaction between GEM and the ET-1 pathway. The reversal of protein induction by MAC suggest that the ET-1 pathway is involved in the observed responses to GEM. It's possible that ET-1 signaling is activated in response to GEM, leading to the induction of β-catenin and NF-kB. Subsequently, blocking ET-1 receptors with MAC could mitigate this activation, suggesting a potential mechanism for the chemosensitization effect we observed earlier.
Our study's findings are in line with existing research on the role of ET-1 in cancer, indicating both similarities and differences. Similarities the aberrant activation of ET-1 signaling in cancer development, such as tumor initiation, metastatic colonization and chemoresistance in several neoplasms [
35]. Other similarity is the correlation between ETRs expression and pathological outcomes, such as patient survival and metastasis in various cancer models [
36,
45]. However, the distinct tumor microenvironment, unique signaling networks, clinical presentation, and genetic variations in GBC may contribute to differences in ET-1's impact within this specific cancer. These differences are probably shaped by the distinct biology of GBC and could offer valuable insights for customized therapeutic strategies. Despite being relatively underexplored, similarities have been noted with gastrointestinal cancers, suggesting the potential for applying similar approaches to these tumor types [
15]. Further research is needed to unveil the specific mechanisms behind these differences and to develop targeted treatments for GBC. The high mortality rate of GBC is largely due to silent and rapid progression as well as its marked aggressiveness and resistance to treatment [
94,
95]. Altogether, we demonstrated that blocking ET-1 signaling hampers migration, invasion and chemoresistance in GBC cells, suggesting ETRs as novel therapeutic targets in GBC possible prognostic marker, which should be further confirmed in patient samples.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.