Advertisement

Mechanisms of Cancer Prevention: Effects of Protease Inhibitors on Proteases and Gene Expression

  • Ann R. Kennedy
Part of the Experimental Biology and Medicine book series (EBAM, volume 27)

Abstract

Our studies utilizing different Types of protease inhibitors as anticarcinogenic agents in in vivo and in vitro systems have recently been reviewed (1). These studies suggest that the protease inhibitors which prevent carcinogenesis are affecting processes in the early stages of carcinogenesis, although they can be effective at long time periods after carcinogen exposure in both in vitro and in vivo systems. While there is strong evidence that these protease inhibitors can affect both the initiation and promotion stages of carcinogenesis, they have no effect on cells which are already transformed. Our results have suggested that the first event in carcinogenesis is a high frequency epigenetic event and that a later event, presumably genetic, leads to the malignant state. Protease inhibitors appear to be capable of reversing the initiating event, presumably by stopping an ongoing cellular process begun by carcinogen exposure. The major lines of investigation on the mechanism of the protease inhibitor suppression of carcinogenesis relate to the ability of anticarcinogenic protease inhibitors to affect: 1) the expression of certain oncogenes, and 2) the levels of certain Types of proteolytic activities. The anticarcinogenic protease inhibitors have no observable effects on normal cells, but have the ability to reverse carcinogen-induced cellular changes for several different endpoints studied.

The most direct method of determining the mechanism of action of the anticarcinogenic protease inhibitors is to identify and characterize the proteases with which they interact. In the cells of the in vivo and in vitro systems in which we’ve observed that protease inhibitors can prevent carcinogenesis, only a few proteases have been observed to interact with the anticarcinogenic protease inhibitors. Proteases have been identified by both substrate hydrolysis and affinity chromatography. Utilizing substrate hydrolysis, we have examined the ability of cell homogenates to cleave specific substrates and have then determined the ability of various protease inhibitors to affect that hydrolyzing activity. Utilizing affinity chromatography, specific proteases directly interacting with the anticarcinogenic protease inhibitors can be identified. The Boc-Val-Pro-Arg-MCA hydrolyzing activity was identified by substrate hydrolysis and a 43 kDa protease has been identified by affinity chromatography. There is evidence that both of these different proteolytic activities are playing a role in the prevention of carcinogenesis by protease inhibitors.

Our studies on anticarcinogenic protease inhibitors have suggested that the Bowman-Birk Inhibitor (BBI), derived from soybeans, is a particularly effective anti-carcinogenic protease inhibitor. BBI has been studied both as a pure protease inhibitor, purified BBI (PBBI), and as an extract of soybeans enriched in BBI, termed BBI concentrate (BBIC). PBBI and/or BBIC have been shown to suppress carcinogenesis: 1) in three different species (mice, rats and hamsters), 2) in several organ systems/tissue Types (colon, liver, lung, esophagus and cheek pouch [oral epithelium]), 3) in cells of both epithelial and connective tissue origin, 4) when given to animals by several different routes of administration (including the diet), 5) leading to different Types of cancer (e.g., squamous cell carcinomas, adenocarcinomas, angiosarcomas, etc.), and 6) induced by a wide variety of chemical and physical carcinogens (1). We originally identified BBI as an anticarcinogenic agent in an in vitro transformation assay system. BBI, as BBIC, has recently risen to the human trial stage. In human trials, elevated levels of proteolytic activities known to be affected by BBI are serving as intermediate marker endpoints

human trials, elevated levels of proteolytic activities known to be affected by BBI are serving as intermediate marker endpoints (IME) in the cells of tissues at higher than normal risks of cancer development. In previous animal studies, we have observed that BBI is capable of bringing such elevated levels of proteolytic activity back to normal levels in normal appearing tissues. We have recently observed that BBI treatment can increase the levels of proteolytic activities in pre-malignant tissues. We hypothesize that the increased levels of proteolytic activities in pre-malignant cells and tissues are associated with a cell killing effect, leading to a degradation of the pre-malignant lesions. Although the mechanism for the anticarcinogenic effect(s) of BBI is unclear, BBI is a highly promising human cancer chemopreventive agent.

Keywords

Protease Inhibitor Proteolytic Activity Trypsin Inhibitory Activity Carcinogen Exposure Oral Carcinogenesis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Refrence

  1. 1.
    Kennedy, A.R.: Overview: Anticarcinogenic activity of protease inhibitors. In: Protease Inhibitors as Cancer Chemopreventive Agents, edited by Walter Troll and Ann R. Kennedy, Plenum Publishing Corporation, pp. 9–64,1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kunitz, M.: Crystalline soybean trypsin inhibitor. J. Gen. Physiol. 30:291–310, 1947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Birk, Y.: Proteinase inhibitors from plant sources. In: Methods in Enzymology, Vol. 45: 695–751, 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hwang, D.L.R., Davis-Lin, K.T., Yang, W.K. and Foard, D.T.: Purification, partial characterization and immunological relationships of multiple low molecular weight proteinase inhibitors of soybean. Biochem. Biophy. Acta. 495:369–382, 1977.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yavelow, J., Collins, M., Birk, Y., Troll, W. and Kennedy, A.R.: Nanomolar concentrations of Bowman-Birk soybean protease inhibitor suppress X-ray induced transformation in vitro Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 82: 5395–5399,1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yavelow, J., Gidlund, M., and Troll, W.: Protease inhibitors from processed legumes effectively inhibit superoxide generation in response to TPA. Carcinogenesis 3: 135–138, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yavelow, J., Finlay, T.H., Kennedy, A.R. and Troll, W.: Bowman-Birk soybean protease inhibitor as an anticarcinogen. Cancer Res. 43: 2454–2459,1983.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Billings, P.C., St. Clair, W.H., Maki, P.A. and Kennedy, A.R.: Distribution of the Bowman Birk protease inhibitor in mice following oral administration. Cancer Letters 62: 191–197, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kennedy, A.R.: in vitro studies of anticarcinogenic protease inhibitors. In: Protease Inhibitors as Cancer Chemopreventive Agents edited by Walter Troll and Ann R. Kennedy, Plenum Publishing Corporation, pp. 65–91,1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kennedy, A.R., Szuhaj, B.F., Newberne, P.M. and Billings, P.C.: Preparation and production of a cancer chemopreventive agent, Bowman-Birk Inhibitor Concentrate. Nutr. Cancer 19: 281–302,1993.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kennedy, A.R.: Prevention of carcinogenesis by protease inhibitors. Cancer Res. (suppl.). 54: 1999s-2005s, 1994.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kennedy, A.R.: Cancer prevention by protease inhibitors. Preventive Medicine 22: 796–811,1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weed, H., McGandy, R.B. and Kennedy, A.R.: Protection against dimethylhydrazine induced adenomatous tumors of the mouse prostate by the dietary addition of an extract of soybeans containing the Bowman-Birk protease inhibitor. Carcinogenesis 6: 1239–1241,1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    St. Clair, W., Billings, P., Carew, J., Keller-McGandy, C., Newberne, P. and Kennedy, A.R.: Suppression of DMHinduced carcinogenesis in mice by dietary addition of the Bowman-Birk protease inhibitor. Cancer Res. 50: 580–586, 1990.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Billings, P.C., Newberne, P. and Kennedy, A.R.: Protease inhibitor suppression of prostate and anal gland carcinogenesis induced by dimethylhydrazine. Carcinogenesis 11: 1083–1086,1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Messadi, P.V., Billings, P., Shklar, G. and Kennedy, A.R.: Inhibition of oral carcinogenesis by a protease inhibitor. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 76: 447–452,1986.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kennedy, A.R., Billings, P.C., Maki, P.A. and Newberne, P.: Effects of various protease inhibitor preparations on oral carcinogenesis in hamsters induced by 7,12dimethylbenz(a)anthracene. Nutr. Cancer 19: 191–200,1993.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Witschi, H. and Kennedy, A.R.: Modulation of lung tumor development in mice with the soybean-derived Bowman-Birk protease inhibitor. Carcinogenesis 10: 2275–2277,1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    von Hofe, E., Newberne, P.M. and Kennedy, A.R.: Inhibition of N-nitrosomethylbenzylamine induced esophageal neoplasms by the Bowman-Birk protease inhibitor. Carcinogenesis 12: 2147–2150, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Evans, S.M., Szuhaj, B.F., Van Winkle, T., Michel, K. and Kennedy, A.R.: Protection against metastasis of radiation induced thymic lymphosarcoma and weight loss in C57B1/6NCr1BR mice by an autoclave resistant factor present in soybeans. Radiation Res. 132: 259–262,1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chang, J.D., Billings, P. and Kennedy, A.R.: C-myc expression is reduced in antipain-treated proliferating C3H10T1002F2 cells. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Comm. 133: 830–835, 1985.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chang, J.D. and Kennedy, A.R.: Cell cycle progression of C3H10T1/2 and 3T3 cells in the absence of a transient increase in c-myc RNA levels. Carcinogenesis 9: 17–20,1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Caggana, M. and Kennedy, A.R.: C-fos mRNA levels are reduced in the presence of antipain and the Bowman-Birk inhibitor. Carcinogenesis 10: 2145–2148,1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chang, J.D., Li, J.-H., Billings, P.C. and Kennedy, A.R.: Effects of protease inhibitors on c-myc expression in normal and transformed C3H10T1/2 cells. Molec. Carc. 3: 226–232, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    St. Clair, W.H., Billings, P.C. and Kennedy, A.R.: The effects of the Bowman-Birk protease inhibitor on c-myc expression and cell proliferation in the unirradiated and irradiated mouse colon. Cancer Letters 52: 145–152,1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Li, J.-H., Billings, P.C. and Kennedy, A.R.: Induction of oncogene expression by sodium arsenite in C3H/ 10T1/2 cells; inhibition of c-myc expression by protease inhibitors. The Cancer Journal 5: 354–358,1992.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chang, J.D. and Kennedy, A.R.: Suppression of c-myc by anticarcinogenic protease inhibitors. In: Protease Inhibitors as Cancer Chemopreventive Agents, edited by Walter Troll and Ann R. Kennedy, Plenum Publishing Corporation, pp. 265–280,1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Long, S., Quigley, J., Troll, W. and Kennedy, A.R.: Protease inhibitor antipain suppresses TPA induction of plasminogen activator in transformable mouse embryo fibroblasts. Carcinogenesis 2: 933–936,1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Billings, P.C., Carew, J.A., Keller-McGandy, C.E., Goldberg, A. and Kennedy, A.R.: A serine protease activity in C3H/10T1/2 cells that is inhibited by anticarcinogenic protease inhibitors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 84: 4801–4805, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Billings, P.C., St. Clair, W. Owen, and Kennedy, A.R.: Potential intracellular target proteins of the anticarcinogenic Bowman-Birk protease inhibitor identified by affinity chromatography. Cancer Res. 48: 1798–1802,1988.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Billings, P.C., Morrow, A.R., Ryan, C.A. and Kennedy, A.R.: Inhibition of radiation-induced transformation of C3H/ 10T1 /2 cells by carboxypeptidase Inhibitor I and Inhibitor II from potatoes. Carcinogenesis 10: 687–691,1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Carew, J.A. and Kennedy, A.R.: Identification of a proteolytic activity which responds to anticarcinogenic protease inhibitors in C3H10T1 /2 cells. Cancer Letters 49: 153–163,1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Billings, P.C., Habres, J.M. and Kennedy, A.R.: Inhibition of radiation-induced transformation of C3H10T1/2 cells by specific protease substrates. Carcinogenesis 11: 329–332, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 33.
    Oreffo, V.I.C., Billings, P.C., Kennedy, A.R. and Witschi, H.: Acute effects of the Bowman-Birk protease inhibitor in mice. Toxicology 69: 165–176,1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 34.
    Billings, P.C., Habres, J.M., Liao, D.C. and Tuttle, S.W.: A protease activity in human fibroblasts which is inhibited by the anticarcinogenic Bowman-Birk protease inhibitor. Cancer Res. 51: 5539–5543,1991.Google Scholar
  36. 35.
    Billings, P.C. and Habres, J.M.: A growth regulated protease activity which is inhibited by the anticarcinogenic Bowman-Birk protease inhibitor. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 89: 3120–3124,1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 36.
    Billings, P.C.: Approaches to studying the target enzymes of anticarcinogenic protease inhibitors. In:Protease Inhibitors as Cancer Chemopreventive Agents, edited by Walter Troll and Ann R. Kennedy, Plenum Publishing Corporation, 1993.Google Scholar
  38. 37.
    Habres, J.M. and Billings, P.C.: Intestinal epithelial cells contain a high molecular weight protease subject to inhibition by anticarcinogenic protease inhibitors. Cancer Letters 43 135–142,1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 38.
    Kennedy, A.R. and Billings, P.C.: Anticarcinogenic actions of protease inhibitors. In: Anticarcinogenesis and Radiation Protection, edited by P. A. Cerutti, O.F. Nygaard, and M.G. Simic, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 285–295,1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 39.
    Kennedy, A.R.: Promotion and other interactions between agents in the induction of transformation in vitro in fibroblasts. In: Mechanisms of Tumor Promotion, Vol. III, “Tumor Promotion and Carcinogenesis in vitro ” edited by T.J. Slaga, CRC Press, Inc., Chapter 2, pp. 13–55, 1984.Google Scholar
  41. 40.
    Kennedy, A.R.: Is there a critical target gene for the first step in carcinogenesis? Environ. Health Perspectives 93: 199–203,1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 41.
    Kennedy, A.R.: Potential mechanisms of antitumorigenesis by protease inhibitors. In: Antimutagenesis and Anticarcinogenesis Mechanisms: III, edited by G. Bronzetti, A. Hayatsu, S. DeFlora, M.D. Waters, D.M. Shankel, pp. 301–308. Plenum Publishing Corporation, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 42.
    Yavelow, J., Caggana, M. and Beck, K.A.: Proteases occurring in the cell membrane: a possible receptor for the Bowman Birk Type of protease inhibitors. Cancer Res. 47:1598–1601, 1987.Google Scholar
  44. 43.
    Yavelow, J., Schepis, L.T., Nichols, J., Jr. and Ritchie, G.: Cell membrane enzymes containing chymotrypsin-like activity. In: Protease Inhibitors as Cancer Chemopreventive Agents, edited by Walter Troll and Ann R. Kennedy, Plenum Publishing Corporation, pp. 217–226,1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 44.
    Garte, S.J., Currie, D.C. and Troll, W.: Inhibition of H-ras oncogene transformation of NIH3T3 cells by protease inhibitors. Cancer Res. 47: 3159–3162,1987.Google Scholar
  46. 45.
    Garte, S.J. and Troll, W.: Protease inhibitor suppression of ras oncogene transformation. In: Protease Inhibitors as Cancer Chemopreventive Agents, edited by Walter Troll and Ann R. Kennedy, Plenum Publishing Corporation, pp. 251–264,1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 46.
    St. Clair, W.H. and St. Clair, D.K.: Effect of the Bowman-Birk protease inhibitor on the expression of oncogenes in the irradiated rat prostate. Cancer Res. 51: 4539–4543,1991.Google Scholar
  48. 47.
    Manzone, H., Billings, P.C., Cummings, W.N., Feldman, R., Odell, C.S., Horan, A., Atiba, J.O., Meyskens, F.L., Jr., and Kennedy, A.R.: Levels of proteolytic activities as intermediate marker endpoints in oral carcinogenesis. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention (in press).Google Scholar
  49. 48.
    Suda, D., Schwartz, J. and Shklar, G.: Inhibition of experimental oral carcinogenesis by topical (3-carotene. Carcinogenesis 7: 711–715,1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 49.
    Garewal, H.S. and Meyskens, F., Jr.: Retinoids and carotenoids in the prevention of oral cancer: a critical appraisal. Cancer Epidem. Biomarkers Prevention 1: 155–159,1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ann R. Kennedy
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Radiation OncologyUniversity of Pennsylvania School of MedicinePhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations