Abstract
The physicochemical properties of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) including size, net charge, amphipathic structure, hydrophobicity, and mode-of-action together determine their broad-spectrum activities against bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and viruses. Recent studies show that some AMPs have both antimicrobial and anticancer activities, suggesting a new strategy for cancer therapy. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the primary liver cancer, is a leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide, and lacks effective treatment. Anticancer peptides (ACPs) derived from AMPs or natural resources could be applied to combat HCC directly or as a synergistic treatment. However, the number of known ACPs is low compared to the number of antibacterial and antifungal peptides, and very few of them can be applied clinically for HCC treatment. In this review, we first summarize recent studies related to ACPs for HCC, followed by a description of potential modes-of-action including direct killing, anti-inflammation, immune modulation, and enhanced wound healing. We then describe the structures of AMPs and methods to design and modify these peptides to improve their anticancer efficacy. Finally, we explore the potential application of ACPs as vaccines or nanoparticles for HCC treatment. Overall, ACPs display several attractive properties as therapeutic agents, including broad-spectrum anticancer activity, ease-of-design and modification, and low production costs. As this is an emerging and novel area of cancer therapy, additional studies are needed to identify existing candidate AMPs with ACP activity, and assess their anticancer activity and specificity, and immunomodulatory effects, using in vitro, in silico, and in vivo approaches.
Introduction
Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), also known as host defense peptides (HDPs), exist in almost all species of vertebrates, invertebrates, and plants (Zasloff, 2002; Yang et al., 2016). Most AMPs consist of less than 100 amino acid residues, and they share several common features including cationicity, hydrophobicity, and amphipathic structure (Brogden, 2005; Zhang and Sunkara, 2014). They are constitutively or inducibly expressed in various tissues and organs that are constantly exposed to microbial pathogens (Huttner and Bevins, 1999), such as epithelial cells of skin and the gastrointestinal and respiratory tracts. AMPs possess broad-spectrum antimicrobial activities against bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and viruses (Ganz, 2003), and their application for treating multiple-drug resistant (MDR) pathogens are well-studied (McKelvey et al., 2014; Zhao et al., 2014; Yang et al., 2015; Maitz et al., 2018).
The antimicrobial functions of cationic AMPs can be categorized into two major mechanisms: (1) disrupting microbial membrane integrity via interactions with negatively charged components, and (2) inhibiting the function and synthesis of intracellular DNA, RNA, and protein (Bahar and Ren, 2013). In addition to their direct antimicrobial activity, AMPs have immunomodulatory properties, such as chemotactic activity to immune cells (Yang et al., 1999) and lipopolysaccharides (LPS)-neutralizing ability (Yang et al., 2016). The dual functions of AMPs reduce the ability of microbes to develop resistance to these peptides. Several recent studies show that AMPs also have anticancer activity (Hoskin and Ramamoorthy, 2008; Baindara et al., 2017; Baindara et al., 2018), and peptides with both antimicrobial and anticancer activities have been reviewed previously (FelÃcio et al., 2017). Based on the molecular characteristics and observed properties of AMPs, selective anticancer peptides (ACPs) could be identified or designed for use as novel therapeutic agents for cancer treatment.
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of malignant cancer death worldwide (Waghray et al., 2015). The major risk factors contributing to HCC are infection with hepatitis B or C viruses, abuse of alcohol, intake of microbial metabolite aflatoxin B1, and non-alcohol fatty liver disease (NAFLD) (Llovet et al., 2016). Despite advances in diagnosis, mortality associated with HCC continually rises due to the lack of effective therapies. Thus, novel HCC treatment strategies are urgently needed (Balogh et al., 2016).
AMPs with dual antimicrobial and anticancer activities (i.e., ACPs) are promising therapeutic agents, which can be used to combat HCC as a stand-alone treatment, or as part of a synergistic treatment regimen. In this review, we will summarize the new candidate peptides for HCC treatment, the potential mechanisms of action of ACPs against HCC, the design and modification of anti-HCC peptides, and the strategies to promote their application.
Peptides With Anti-HCC Activity
In the past few years (i.e., from 2012 to 2019), an increasing number of ACPs has been evaluated or designed for HCC treatment (Gaspar et al., 2013). The sequences, sources, and functions of new candidate peptides have been summarized in Table 1. In summary, anti-HCC peptides can be derived from bacteria, marine and terrestrial animals. They can be identified among superficially binding peptides using phage-displayed selection on HCC cancer cell lines. These ACPs can target ion channels, phospholipids, or molecules in specific signaling pathways to induce cancer cell apoptosis.
TABLE 1
| Peptide | Sequence | Description | Function | References |
| Tv1 | SEQUENCETRICCGCY WNGSKDVCSQSCC | A venom peptide from marine terebrid snail, Terebra variegata | Tv1 inhibits the proliferation of murine HCC cells by down-regulation of the cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) pathway, and induces cell apoptosis in a Ca2+-dependent manner. | Anand et al.,2019 |
| FFW | RRKFA KFQWI | An inhibitor targeting Sal-like 4 (SALL4)-nucleosome remodeling deacetylase (NuRD) complex | FFW shows proapoptotic and antimigration effects in SALL4-expressing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) cells. | Liu et al.,2018 |
| SP94 | SFSIIH TPILPL | A peptide, isolated using phage-displayed selection, specifically targeting human HCC cell lines (e.g., Mahlavu and SK-HEP-1) | SP94-conjugated, doxorubicin-encapsulated liposomes enhance HCC apoptosis and decrease tumor angiogenesis. | Wu et al.,2018 |
| R-Tf-D-LP4 | KWTWKNSNGATWALNVATE LKKEWTWSHRPYIAH | A cell-penetrating peptide (CPP) derived from a mitochondrial multifunctional protein in the voltage-dependent anion channel (VDAC1) | It induces liver cancer-derived cell apoptosis in vitro and inhibits tumor growth in three different liver cancer mouse models: diethylnitrosamine (DEN)-induced HCC, metabolically high-fat diet-induced HCC, and a subcutaneous HepG2 cell xenograft model. | Pittala et al.,2018 |
| GG-8-6 | Cyclo-VLPILLVL | A cyclopeptide derived from the lead compound Grifficyclocin B from plants of Goniothalamus species | GG-8-6 (1) has IC50 values of 6.38 μM and 12.22 μM against SMMC-7721 and HepG2, respectively. GG-8-6 (1) also induces apoptosis and G2/M arrest of HCC cells, probably through the activation of caspase pathways. | Chen et al.,2018 |
| BR2 | RAGLQFP VGRLLRRLLR | A nonspecific cell-penetrating ACP derived from buforin IIb | BR2-modified liposomes loaded with cantharidin, the active compound isolated from Chinese medicine blister beetles, significantly increases anti-HCC efficacy. | Zhang et al.,2017 |
| β3 | DLYYLMDLSYSMKGGDLYYL MDLSYSMKGGDLYYLMDLSYSMK | A trimer peptide of anti-adhesion peptide β (DLYYLMDLSYSMK) | β3 peptide shows anti-adhesion activity of highly metastatic HCC cell line HCCLM6 to fibronectin (FN) and inhibits HCC recurrence in vivo and prolongs the survival time of HCC nude mice LCI-D20 following hepatectomy. | Wang et al.,2016 |
| CecropinXJ | RWKIFKKIEKMGRNI RDGIVKAGPAIEVLGSAKAIGK | A cationic antimicrobial peptide (AMP) originally isolated from the larvae of Bombyx mori | CecropinXJ induces S cell cycle arrest and apoptosis of human HCC cell line Huh-7 cells by activating caspase-3 and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase. | Xia et al.,2016 |
| GW-H1 | GYNYAKKLA NLAKKPANALW | A novel cationic amphipathic AMP GW-H1 | GW-H1 induces caspase-dependent apoptosis of HCC cell lines including J5, Huh7, and Hep3B. GW-H1 also suppresses J5-xenografted HCC development in nude mice in a dose-dependent manner. | Chen et al.,2012 |
| Bovicin HC5 | VGXRYASX PGXSWKYVXF | A bacteriocin from Streptococcus bovis HC5 | It shows direct killing. The IC 50 of Bovicin HC5 is 289.30 μM for HepG2 cells (human HCC cell line). | Paiva et al.,2012 |
Summary of anti-HCC peptides and their characteristics.
Mechanisms of ACPs Against HCC
In addition to the abovementioned functions of ACPs, peptides derived from AMPs or natural sources may have the following capacities to treat HCC: direct killing, anti-inflammation, immune modulation, and wound healing. The following four paragraphs will describe the details of their killing mechanisms and relevant examples.
Direct Killing Activity
The antimicrobial activity of AMPs is elicited by the electrostatic interaction between the cationic peptides and the negatively charged bacterial components, such as LPS and lipoteichoic acid (LTA), and is followed by the insertion into, and interruption of, the microbial membrane (Yang et al., 2018). Notably, the anionic phospholipid components of cancer cell membranes are different from normal cells. The density of negatively charged phosphatidylserine (PS) in the cancer cell membrane is higher than that of normal cells (Utsugi et al., 1991), making them more sensitive to ACPs. For example, an enantiomeric 9-mer peptide derived from beetle defensin exhibited more selective cytotoxicity to mouse myeloma cells (P3-X63-Ag8.653) than normal leukocytes (Iwasaki et al., 2009). The mode-of-action was suggested by the strong correlation to the density of negatively charged phosphatidylserine in the myeloma cell membrane, as well as several other cancer cell lines. After initial binding, peptides then form pores in the cancer cell membrane to cause apoptotic or necrotic cell death. In addition, another group of ACPs are tumor-targeting peptides (TTPs) which can specifically bind cancer cell surface markers (e.g., arginine/glycine/aspartic acid motifs) (Boohaker et al., 2012), and these surface-associated molecules are commonly overexpressed on tumor cells. Furthermore, cancer cell membranes often contain more microvilli per surface area, which further enhances the binding of ACPs to cancer cells to increase their anticancer efficacy (Deslouches and Di, 2017). In Figure 1, we summarize the potential mechanisms of ACP activity against HCC cells.
FIGURE 1
Anti-inflammatory Activity
When gut permeability is compromised, gut microbiota and their products including endotoxins and flagellin may disseminate directly from intestine to liver via the portal vein to induce hepatic inflammatory responses, which may ultimately lead to fibrosis, cirrhosis, and HCC. Toll-like receptor (TLR) signaling pathways have been implicated in the inflammatory reactions during the development of liver cancer. TLR4 is an extracellular pathogen recognition receptor which binds LPS, and plays a vital role during the chronic inflammation in HCC (Sepehri et al., 2017). The expression of inflammatory molecule Hepcidin can be induced by LPS via hepatocyte TLR4-mediated signaling pathways (Lee et al., 2017). TLR5 in hepatocytes protects against high-fat diet-induced liver disease via binding of bacterial flagellin (Etienne-Mesmin et al., 2016). ACPs derived from AMPs could take advantage of their strong electrostatic interactions with the negatively charged LPS of Gram-negative bacteria (Yang et al., 2016), LTA of Gram-positive bacteria (Gustafsson et al., 2010), and flagellin in both groups, when used as anti-inflammatory agents. In addition, TLRs are also widely expressed in a variety of liver immune cells, including macrophages, dendritic cells, T cells, and B cells. Therefore, modulation of TLR activity is able to elicit an anti-HCC activity in liver, and the peptide agonists of TLRs may serve as novel therapeutic agents for HCC treatment (Zou et al., 2016).
Immune Modulation
Tumor-associated antigens (TAA) can be recognized by antigen-presenting cells and induce the activation of tumor-responsive T lymphocytes. It has been shown that TAA-derived long peptides can elicit Th1 T cells and cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL)-mediated anticancer immune responses through cross-presentation (Tomita and Nishimura, 2013). Alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) is a well-known TAA in HCC. HLA-A*0201-restricted peptides derived from human AFP stimulate specific T-cell responses both in cultured peripheral blood lymphocytes of healthy people and T-cells from patients (Butterfield et al., 2003). A large number of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) including CD4+ T cells in the tumor/liver interface and CD8+ T cells inside of the tumor have been demonstrated in HCC (Kasper et al., 2009). Thus, TAA-derived peptides might be particularly useful to enhance anti-HCC treatment. In addition, cell-mediated therapy using the adoptive transfer of TILs is considered as one of the immunotherapeutic strategies in cancer treatment (Geukes Foppen et al., 2015). However, cancer cells may evade the immune surveillance either by alteration of their antigen presentation or by secreting cytokines and chemokines which induce Treg cells to establish an immunosuppressive microenvironment (Nishida and Kudo, 2017). ACPs with immunostimulatory activity could be applied to increase the efficacy of cell-mediated therapy. For instance, Tyroserleutide is an immunostimulatory peptide comprising three amino acids (YSL), which can stimulate the antitumor effects of macrophages against human HCC cell line BEL-7402 (Zhi et al., 2006).
Wound Healing Activity
Liver fibrosis is a wound healing process associated with chronic liver injury, which often leads to cirrhosis and HCC at the end-stage (Ramakrishna et al., 2013). AMPs as endogenous mediators enhance wound healing (Mangoni et al., 2016) through antimicrobial activity, LPS neutralization, angiogenesis, and chemotactic activity. For example, recombinant human AMP LL-37 promoted wound healing by inhibiting the activation of macrophages with LPS and by inducing the proliferation and migration of endothelial cells, vascularization, and re-epithelization (Ramos et al., 2011). In addition, natural AMPs can be modified or combined with other short peptides to improve their potential abilities. The novel Tylotion chimera peptide (Tylotion-sC18*), a covalently coupled peptide with a wound-healing promoting sequence (Tylotion) and a cell-penetrating peptide (CPP), showed promising wound-healing activity and antimicrobial activity (Horn and Neundorf, 2018). ACPs coupled with CCPs may also show similar functions in the treatment of liver injury during the development of HCC (Sanyal et al., 2010).
Design of Anticancer Peptides (ACPs)
Structure of Antimicrobial Peptides
Although variable in length, amino acid composition, and host origin, AMPs can be classified into the following four types based on their secondary structures (Powers and Hancock, 2003): linear or extended, α-helical, circularly looped, and β-sheeted peptides. The α-helical and β-sheeted structures are more frequently seen in natural peptides and their synthetic analogs. Regardless of their structure, common characteristics of these AMPs include their cationic and amphipathic nature, which accounts for their abilities to interact with the negatively charged components of bacterial cell walls, and amphipathic cell membranes (Yang et al., 2017). ACPs derived from AMPs or other natural peptides show similar structures as AMPs and their analogs (Wu et al., 2009).
Modification of Anticancer Peptides
Host AMPs have also been shown to have anticancer ability, however, they may not be directly applicable as anticancer agents due to their low killing activity. The properties of candidate ACPs can be modified according to their mode-of-action. For example, the cytotoxic activity of cyclotides is dependent on targeting phosphatidylethanolamine phospholipids (Troeira Henriques et al., 2014). Therefore, novel analogs could be designed to increase the membrane-binding affinity and selectivity to cancer cells by modulating their amino acid components (Rady et al., 2017), as with AMPs (Yang et al., 2018). For instance, a modified peptide CB1a derived from the well-known AMP Cecropin B demonstrated promising activity against leukemia and carcinoma cells with low cytotoxicity to non-cancer cells (Wu et al., 2009). In addition, a variety of other strategies including cyclization (Chen et al., 2018), hybridization (Lim et al., 2013; Hao et al., 2015), polymerization (Wang et al., 2016), fragmentation (Li et al., 2006; Paiva et al., 2012), and others (Lo et al., 2008) can be applied to increase their efficacy and stability, and to decrease unwanted collateral cytotoxicity. The common modifications of ACPs have been shown in Figure 2. ACPs can also be designed and characterized prior to synthesis in silico to reduce time and labor (Kumar and Li, 2017).
FIGURE 2
The Potential Application of ACPs
ACPs have dual killing mechanisms, either specifically/nonspecifically binding with targets, or modulating immune responses to kill cancer cells, making them attractive candidates for HCC treatment. To achieve peptide-based anticancer therapy, delivery systems including peptide-derived vaccines, nanoparticles, and liposomes need to be explored. Finding appropriate delivery systems will improve the efficacy of peptides for cancer treatment.
Peptide-Based Vaccines
Peptide-based vaccines are commonly water-soluble, easy to store, and can be customized to target specific objectives and generated in a large scale. Glypican-3 (GPC3) of heparin sulfate proteoglycans, specifically overexpressed in HCC (>80%), is a promising cancer immunotherapeutic target. GPC3-derived peptide vaccines have been shown to induce an increase in peptide-specific CTLs (Iwama et al., 2016) and are being evaluated in clinical trials (Nobuoka et al., 2013). However, there are some limitations for peptide vaccines, such as poor immunogenicity, and low efficacy and stability in physiological conditions. Several strategies have been applied to overcome these issues, such as the use of immunostimulatory adjuvants, new delivery systems with nano- or micro-particles, and multi-epitope approaches (Skwarczynski and Toth, 2016). AMPs with anticancer property can also be used directly as adjuvants for vaccines. For instance, immunization of AMP GE33 with inactivated murine bladder carcinoma (MBT-2) cells induced more MBT-2-specific tumor antigens and CTLs and NK cells in mice, accompanied by a decrease of the expression of VEGF (Huang et al., 2014). Clinical trials for peptide-based vaccines in cancer therapy for targeting TAAs have been reviewed recently by Bezu et al. (2018) group. Targeting tumor-specific mutated antigens (e.g., β-catenin and ERBB2IP) can minimize the off-tumor cytoxicity and advance more personalized treatments (Ilyas and Yang, 2015). Several peptide vaccines have demonstrated beneficial immune effects in clinical trials (Boohaker et al., 2012). For example, vaccine MKC-1106-PP co-targeting preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma (PRAME) and prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) could induce antigen-specific T cells in patients with solid tumors in a phase I study (Weber et al., 2011).
Nanoparticles
Nanocarriers such as gold nanoparticles and liposomes have been broadly applied in the delivery system due to a long drug half-life, bioactivity, and cell selectivity (Zhao et al., 2018). Delivering ACPs by nanocarriers is another promising strategy for cancer therapy. Wu et al. (2018) reported that the use of liposomes to deliver HCC-targeting peptide SP94 (SFSIIHTPILPL), selected by phage-display, enhances their therapeutic efficiency in a mouse HCC xenograft model and increases its distribution in tumor tissues. Currently, more studies are needed to identify unique true predicted neoantigens (TPNAs) as potential candidates as immunotherapeutic agents for HCC (Petrizzo et al., 2018).
Summary
HCC remains a major cause of cancer-realted mortality without effective treatment options. Thus, alternative therapeutic agents are urgently needed for HCC therapy. ACPs offer great potential for liver cancer therapy with a variety of advantages, such as broad anticancer spectrum, ease of design and modification, and low production costs. Incorporating ACPs in a drug delivery system can improve their anticancer efficacy, target specificity, and half-life time. Compared to conventional chemotherapy, ACPs exert less systemic effect and cancer cells develop negligible resistance to these peptides. In addition, ACPs could be applied as a synergistic strategy with other therapies including hormonal therapy (e.g., Tamoxifen), biochemical therapy (e.g., IFN-γ), and chemotherapy (e.g., Sorafenib) (Shaaban et al., 2014). The primary challenges in the development of clinically useful are associated with their onsite delivery and off-target binding. Similar to AMPs, ACPs have potential unwanted cytoxicity to non-cancerous cells adjacent to a tumor, and immune cells in the tumor environment. Thus specificity and off-site cytoxicity are two active areas of investigation in the development and application of ACPs. Currently, the number of candidate ACPs is much lower compared to the number of antibacterial peptides and antifungal peptides (Shoombuatong et al., 2018). There are no specific criteria for the design and modification of ACPs (Gaspar et al., 2013), and ideal ACPs might best be designed on the basis of specific tumor microenvironments to optimize the stability and selectivity via manipulation of their sequences, net charges, amphipathic structures, and hydrophobicity. Such structure-activity relationship investigations are required to design new ACPs (and modify existing ACPs), and to test their efficacy and pharmacokinetic properties in vivo animal models. We hope that the peptide examples listed in this review will provide some clues or inspiration for researchers in the development of new ACPs for the treatment of HCC.
Statements
Author contributions
CZ wrote the Introduction and Summary. MY and AE drafted the remaining manuscript and revised the manuscript.
Funding
AE was funded by a K01 award from the National Institutes of Health (K01 OD019924-04).
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Mr. Donald Randy for his great comments to this manuscript.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Abbreviations
- ACP
anticancer peptide
- AMP
antimicrobial peptide
- CPP
cell-penetrating peptide
- GPC3
Glypican-3
- HCC
hepatocellular cancer
- HDP
host defense peptide
- LPS
lipopolysaccharide
- LTA
lipoteichoic acid
- MBT-2
murine bladder carcinoma
- MDR
multiple-drug resistant
- NAFLD
non-alcohol fatty liver disease
- PRAME
preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma
- PSMA
prostate-specific membrane antigen
- TAA
Tumor-associated antigens
- TIL
tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte
- TLR
Toll-like receptor
- TTP
tumor targeting peptide.
References
1
AnandP.FilipenkoP.HuamanJ.LyudmerM.HossainM.SantamariaC.et al (2019). Antitumor effects of Tv1 venom peptide in liver cancer.bioRxiv 518340.
2
BaharA.RenD. (2013). Antimicrobial peptides.Pharmaceuticals61543–1575. 10.3390/ph6121543
3
BaindaraP.GautamA.RaghavaG. P. S.KorpoleS. (2017). Anticancer properties of a defensin like class IId bacteriocin Laterosporulin10.Sci Rep.19:46541. 10.1038/srep46541Epub 2017/04/20.,
4
BaindaraP.KorpoleS.GroverV. (2018). Bacteriocins: perspective for the development of novel anticancer drugs.Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol.10210393–10408. 10.1007/s00253-018-9420-8
5
BaloghJ.VictorD.IIIAshamE. H.BurroughsS. G.BoktourM.SahariaA.et al (2016). Hepatocellular carcinoma: a review.J. Hepatocell. Carcinoma341–53.
6
BezuL.KeppO.CerratoG.PolJ.FucikovaJ.SpisekR.et al (2018). Trial watch: peptide-based vaccines in anticancer therapy.Oncoimmunology7:e1511506. 10.1080/2162402X.2018.1511506
7
BoohakerR. J.LeeM. W.VishnubhotlaP.PerezJ. M.KhaledA. R. (2012). The use of therapeutic peptides to target and to kill cancer cells.Curr. Med. Chem.193794–3804. 10.2174/092986712801661004
8
BrogdenK. A. (2005). Antimicrobial peptides: pore formers or metabolic inhibitors in bacteria?Nat. Rev. Microbiol.3238–250. 10.1038/nrmicro1098
9
ButterfieldL. H.RibasA.MengW. S.DissetteV. B.AmarnaniS.VuH. T.et al (2003). T-cell responses to HLA-A*0201 immunodominant peptides derived from alpha-fetoprotein in patients with hepatocellular cancer.Clin. Cancer Res.9(16 Pt 1), 5902–5908.
10
ChenJ. T.MaR.SunS. C.ZhuX. F.XuX. L.MuQ. (2018). Synthesis and biological evaluation of cyclopeptide GG-8-6 and its analogues as anti-hepatocellular carcinoma agents.Bioorgan. Med. Chem.26609–622. 10.1016/j.bmc.2017.12.028
11
ChenY.-L. S.LiJ.-H.YuC.-Y.LinC.-J.ChiuP.-H.ChenP.-W.et al (2012). Novel cationic antimicrobial peptide GW-H1 induced caspase-dependent apoptosis of hepatocellular carcinoma cell lines.Peptides36257–265. 10.1016/j.peptides.2012.05.011
12
DeslouchesB.DiY. P. (2017). Antimicrobial peptides with selective antitumor mechanisms: prospect for anticancer applications.Oncotarget846635–46651. 10.18632/oncotarget.16743
13
Etienne-MesminL.Vijay-KumarM.GewirtzA. T.ChassaingB. (2016). Hepatocyte Toll-Like receptor 5 promotes bacterial clearance and protects mice against high-fat diet-induced liver disease.Cell. Mol. Gastroenterol. Hepatol.2584–604. 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2016.04.007
14
FelÃcioM. R.SilvaO. N.GonçalvesS.SantosN. C.FrancoO. L. (2017). Peptides with dual antimicrobial and anticancer activities.Front. Chem.5:5. 10.3389/fchem.2017.00005
15
GanzT. (2003). Defensins: antimicrobial peptides of innate immunity.Nat. Rev. Immunol.3710–720. 10.1038/nri1180
16
GasparD.VeigaA. S.CastanhoM. A. R. B. (2013). From antimicrobial to anticancer peptides. A review.Front. Microbiol.4:294. 10.3389/fmicb.2013.00294
17
Geukes FoppenM. H.DoniaM.SvaneI. M.HaanenJ. B. A. G. (2015). Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes for the treatment of metastatic cancer.Mol. Oncol.91918–1935. 10.1016/j.molonc.2015.10.018
18
GustafssonA.SigelS.LjunggrenL. (2010). The antimicrobial peptide LL37 and its truncated derivatives potentiates proinflammatory cytokine induction by lipoteichoic acid in whole blood.Scand J. Clin. Lab. Invest.70512–518. 10.3109/00365513.2010.521255
19
HaoX.YanQ.ZhaoJ.WangW.HuangY.ChenY. (2015). TAT modification of alpha-helical anticancer peptides to improve specificity and efficacy.PLoS One10:e0138911. 10.1371/journal.pone.0138911
20
HornM.NeundorfI. (2018). Design of a novel cell-permeable chimeric peptide to promote wound healing.Sci. Rep.8:16279. 10.1038/s41598-018-34684-1
21
HoskinD. W.RamamoorthyA. (2008). Studies on anticancer activities of antimicrobial peptides.Biochim. Biophys. Acta Biomembr.1778357–375. 10.1016/j.bbamem.2007.11.008
22
HuangH. N.PanC. Y.ChanY. L.ChenJ. Y.WuC. J. (2014). Use of the antimicrobial peptide pardaxin (GE33) to protect against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection in mice with skin injuries.Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.581538–1545. 10.1128/AAC.02427-13
23
HuttnerK. M.BevinsC. L. (1999). Antimicrobial peptides as mediators of epithelial host defense.Pediatr. Res.45785–794. 10.1203/00006450-199906000-00001
24
IlyasS.YangJ. C. (2015). Landscape of tumor antigens in T cell immunotherapy.J. Immunol.1955117–5122. 10.4049/jimmunol.1501657
25
IwamaT.UchidaT.SawadaY.TsuchiyaN.SugaiS.FujinamiN.et al (2016). Vaccination with liposome-coupled glypican-3-derived epitope peptide stimulates cytotoxic T lymphocytes and inhibits GPC3-expressing tumor growth in mice.Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun.469138–143. 10.1016/j.bbrc.2015.11.084
26
IwasakiT.IshibashiJ.TanakaH.SatoM.AsaokaA.TaylorD.et al (2009). Selective cancer cell cytotoxicity of enantiomeric 9-mer peptides derived from beetle defensins depends on negatively charged phosphatidylserine on the cell surface.Peptides30660–668. 10.1016/j.peptides.2008.12.019
27
KasperH.-U.DrebberU.StippelD.-L.DienesH.-P.GillessenA. (2009). Liver tumor infiltrating lymphocytes: comparison of hepatocellular and cholangiolar carcinoma.World J. Gastroenterol.155053–5057.
28
KumarS.LiH. (2017). In silico design of anticancer peptides.Methods Mol. Biol.1647245–254. 10.1007/978-1-4939-7201-2_17
29
LeeY. S.KimY. H.JungY. S.KimK. S.KimD. K.NaS. Y.et al (2017). Hepatocyte toll-like receptor 4 mediates lipopolysaccharide-induced hepcidin expression.Exp. Mol. Med.49:e408. 10.1038/emm.2017.207
30
LiX.LiY.HanH.MillerD. W.WangG. (2006). Solution structures of human LL-37 fragments and NMR-based identification of a minimal membrane-targeting antimicrobial and anticancer region.J. Am. Chem. Soc.1285776–5785. 10.1021/ja0584875
31
LimK. J.SungB. H.ShinJ. R.LeeY. W.KimD. J.YangK. S.et al (2013). A cancer specific cell-penetrating peptide, BR2, for the efficient delivery of an scFv into cancer cells.PLoS One8:e66084. 10.1371/journal.pone.0066084
32
LiuB. H.JobichenC.ChiaC. S. B.ChanT. H. M.TangJ. P.ChungT. X. Y.et al (2018). Targeting cancer addiction for SALL4 by shifting its transcriptome with a pharmacologic peptide.Proc Natl Acad Sci U.S.A.115E7119–E7128. 10.1073/pnas.1801253115
33
LlovetJ. M.Zucman-RossiJ.PikarskyE.SangroB.SchwartzM.ShermanM.et al (2016). Hepatocellular carcinoma.Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers2:16018. 10.1038/nrdp.2016.18
34
LoA.LinC. T.WuH. C. (2008). Hepatocellular carcinoma cell-specific peptide ligand for targeted drug delivery.Mol. Cancer Ther.7579–589. 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-07-2359
35
MaitzC. A.BrockmanJ. D.YangM.ZhangS.StannardJ.VolgasD.et al (2018). Demonstration of the bactericidal effects of the boron neutron capture reaction.Appl. Radiat. Isot.137190–193. 10.1016/j.apradiso.2018.04.011
36
MangoniM. L.McDermottA. M.ZasloffM. (2016). Antimicrobial peptides and wound healing: biological and therapeutic considerations.Exp. Dermatol.25167–173. 10.1111/exd.12929
37
McKelveyJ. A.YangM.JiangY.ZhangS. (2014). Salmonella enterica serovar enteritidis antimicrobial peptide resistance genes aid in defense against chicken innate immunity, fecal shedding, and egg deposition.Infect Immun.825185–5202. 10.1128/IAI.02387-14
38
NishidaN.KudoM. (2017). Immunological microenvironment of hepatocellular carcinoma and its clinical implication.Oncology92(Suppl. 1), 40–49. 10.1159/000451015
39
NobuokaD.YoshikawaT.SawadaY.FujiwaraT.NakatsuraT. (2013). Peptide vaccines for hepatocellular carcinoma.Hum. Vacc. Immunotherapeut.9210–212. 10.4161/hv.22473
40
PaivaA. D.de OliveiraM. D.de PaulaS. O.Baracat-PereiraM. C.BreukinkE.MantovaniH. C. (2012). Toxicity of bovicin HC5 against mammalian cell lines and the role of cholesterol in bacteriocin activity.Microbiology1582851–2858. 10.1099/mic.0.062190-0
41
PetrizzoA.TagliamonteM.MaurielloA.CostaV.AprileM.EspositoR.et al (2018). Unique true predicted neoantigens (TPNAs) correlates with anti-tumor immune control in HCC patients.J. Transl. Med.16:286. 10.1186/s12967-018-1662-9
42
PittalaS.KrelinY.Shoshan-BarmatzV. (2018). Targeting liver cancer and associated pathologies in mice with a mitochondrial VDAC1-based peptide.Neoplasia20594–609. 10.1016/j.neo.2018.02.012
43
PowersJ. P.HancockR. E. (2003). The relationship between peptide structure and antibacterial activity.Peptides241681–1691. 10.1016/j.peptides.2003.08.023
44
RadyI.SiddiquiI. A.RadyM.MukhtarH. (2017). Melittin, a major peptide component of bee venom, and its conjugates in cancer therapy.Cancer Lett.40216–31. 10.1016/j.canlet.2017.05.010
45
RamakrishnaG.RastogiA.TrehanpatiN.SenB.KhoslaR.SarinS. K. (2013). From cirrhosis to hepatocellular carcinoma: new molecular insights on inflammation and cellular senescence.Liver Cancer2367–383. 10.1159/000343852
46
RamosR.SilvaJ. P.RodriguesA. C.CostaR.GuardãoL.SchmittF.et al (2011). Wound healing activity of the human antimicrobial peptide LL37.Peptides321469–1476. 10.1016/j.peptides.2011.06.005
47
SanyalA. J.YoonS. K.LencioniR. (2010). The etiology of hepatocellular carcinoma and consequences for treatment.Oncologist15(Suppl. 4), 14–22. 10.1634/theoncologist.2010-S4-14
48
SepehriZ.KianiZ.KohanF.AlavianS. M.GhavamiS. (2017). Toll like receptor 4 and hepatocellular carcinoma; a systematic review.Life Sci.17980–87. 10.1016/j.lfs.2017.04.025
49
ShaabanS.NegmA.IbrahimE. E.ElrazakA. A. (2014). Chemotherapeutic agents for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: efficacy and mode of action.Oncol. Rev.8246–246. 10.4081/oncol.2014.246
50
ShoombuatongW.SchaduangratN.NantasenamatC. (2018). Unraveling the bioactivity of anticancer peptides as deduced from machine learning.EXCLI J.17734–752. 10.17179/excli2018-1447
51
SkwarczynskiM.TothI. (2016). Peptide-based synthetic vaccines.Chem. Sci.7842–854. 10.1039/c5sc03892h
52
TomitaY.NishimuraY. (2013). Long peptide-based cancer immunotherapy targeting tumor antigen-specific CD4(+) and CD8(+) T cells.Oncoimmunology2:e25801. 10.4161/onci.25801
53
Troeira HenriquesS.HuangY. H.ChaousisS.WangC. K.CraikD. J. (2014). Anticancer and toxic properties of cyclotides are dependent on phosphatidylethanolamine phospholipid targeting.Chembiochem151956–1965. 10.1002/cbic.201402144
54
UtsugiT.SchroitA. J.ConnorJ.BucanaC. D.FidlerI. J. (1991). Elevated expression of phosphatidylserine in the outer membrane leaflet of human tumor cells and recognition by activated human blood monocytes.Cancer Res.513062–3066.
55
WaghrayA.MuraliA. R.MenonK. N. (2015). Hepatocellular carcinoma: from diagnosis to treatment.World J. Hepatol.71020–1029. 10.4254/wjh.v7.i8.1020
56
WangS.ZhuJ.LiuY. (2016). A novel anti-adhesion peptide (β3) inhibits hepatocellular carcinoma activity in vitro and in vivo.Oncol. Lett.124744–4748. 10.3892/ol.2016.5277
57
WeberJ. S.VogelzangN. J.ErnstoffM. S.GoodmanO. B.CranmerL. D.MarshallJ. L.et al (2011). A phase 1 study of a vaccine targeting preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma and prostate-specific membrane antigen in patients with advanced solid tumors.J. Immunother.34556–567. 10.1097/CJI.0b013e3182280db1
58
WuC. H.LanC. H.WuK. L.WuY. M.JaneW. N.HsiaoM.et al (2018). Hepatocellular carcinoma-targeted nanoparticles for cancer therapy.Int. J. Oncol.52389–401. 10.3892/ijo.2017.4205
59
WuJ. M.JanP. S.YuH. C.HaungH. Y.FangH. J.ChangY. I.et al (2009). Structure and function of a custom anticancer peptide, CB1a.Peptides30839–848. 10.1016/j.peptides.2009.02.004
60
XiaL.WuY.MaJ. I.YangJ.ZhangF. (2016). The antibacterial peptide from Bombyx mori cecropinXJ induced growth arrest and apoptosis in human hepatocellular carcinoma cells.Oncol. Lett.1257–62. 10.3892/ol.2016.4601
61
YangD.ChertovO.BykovskaiaS. N.ChenQ.BuffoM. J.ShoganJ.et al (1999). Beta-defensins: linking innate and adaptive immunity through dendritic and T cell CCR6.Science286525–528. 10.1126/science.286.5439.525
62
YangM.YanL.YuanyuanM.GuoyingW.BeierR. C.XiaolinH.et al (2015). Inhibition of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus in vitro by forsythoside A.Int. J. Pharmacol.11394–399. 10.3923/ijp.2015.394.399
63
YangM.ZhangC.ZhangM. Z.ZhangS. (2017). Novel synthetic analogues of avian beta-defensin-12: the role of charge, hydrophobicity, and disulfide bridges in biological functions.BMC Microbiol.17:43. 10.1186/s12866-017-0959-9
64
YangM.ZhangC.ZhangM. Z.ZhangS. (2018). Beta-defensin derived cationic antimicrobial peptides with potent killing activity against gram negative and gram positive bacteria.BMC Microbiol.18:54. 10.1186/s12866-018-1190-z
65
YangM.ZhangC.ZhangX.ZhangM. Z.RottinghausG. E.ZhangS. (2016). Structure-function analysis of Avian β-defensin-6 and β-defensin-12: role of charge and disulfide bridges.BMC Microbiol.16:210. 10.1186/s12866-016-0828-y
66
ZasloffM. (2002). Antimicrobial peptides of multicellular organisms.Nature415389–395. Epub 2002/01/25., 10.1038/415389a
67
ZhangG.SunkaraL. T. (2014). Avian antimicrobial host defense peptides: from biology to therapeutic applications.Pharmaceuticals7220–247. 10.3390/ph7030220
68
ZhangX.LinC.LuA.LinG.ChenH.LiuQ.et al (2017). Liposomes equipped with cell penetrating peptide BR2 enhances chemotherapeutic effects of cantharidin against hepatocellular carcinoma.Drug Deliv.24986–998. 10.1080/10717544.2017.1340361
69
ZhaoL.YangM.ZhangM.ZhangS. (2014). Expression, purification, and in vitro comparative characterization of avian beta-defensin-2, -6, and -12.Avian Dis.58541–549. 10.1637/10848-042014-reg.1
70
ZhaoM. X.CaiZ. C.ZhuB. J.ZhangZ. Q. (2018). The Apoptosis effect on liver cancer cells of gold nanoparticles modified with lithocholic acid.Nanoscale Res. Lett.13:304. 10.1186/s11671-018-2653-8
71
ZhiY. A. O.ShuangQ.LiW.RongL.Chun-LeiZ.Peng-PengZ.et al (2006). Tripeptide tyroserleutide enhances the antitumor effects of macrophages and stimulates macrophage secretion of IL-1β, TNF-α, and NO in vitro.Cancer Immunol. Immunother.5556–60. 10.1007/s00262-005-0024-7
72
ZouH.WangW. K.LiuY. L.BraddockM.ZhengM. H.HuangD. S. (2016). Toll-like receptors in hepatocellular carcinoma: potential novel targets for pharmacological intervention.Expert Opin. Ther. Targets201127–1135. 10.1517/14728222.2016.1168809
Summary
Keywords
antimicrobial peptide, anticancer peptide, hepatocellular cancer, mechanism, design, nanoparticles
Citation
Zhang C, Yang M and Ericsson AC (2019) Antimicrobial Peptides: Potential Application in Liver Cancer. Front. Microbiol. 10:1257. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.01257
Received
27 January 2019
Accepted
21 May 2019
Published
05 June 2019
Volume
10 - 2019
Edited by
Steven L. Cobb, Durham University, United Kingdom
Reviewed by
Luiz R. Travassos, Federal University of São Paulo, Brazil; Piyush Baindara, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, United States
Updates
Copyright
© 2019 Zhang, Yang and Ericsson.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Ming Yang, yangmin@health.missouri.eduAaron C. Ericsson, EricssonA@missouri.edu
This article was submitted to Antimicrobials, Resistance and Chemotherapy, a section of the journal Frontiers in Microbiology
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.