L-selenomethionine does not protect against testosterone plus 17β-estradiol-induced oxidative stress and preneoplastic lesions in the prostate of NBL rats

An efficient methodological approach for synthesis of selenopyridines: generation, reactions, anticancer activity, EGFR inhibitory activity and molecular docking studies

In the present work, we successfully synthesized Se-alkyl selenopyridines 1 and 3, selenopheno[2,3-b]pyridine 2, and bis-selenopyridine 4 derivatives using an eco-friendly method by utilizing NaHSe instead of toxic hydrogen selenide. The effect of the temperature on the reaction was screening at various temperatures. The regiospecific reaction of selenopyridine 1 with bromine afforded an unexpected product 4,6-diamino-5-bromo-2-[(cyanomethyl)selenyl]-pyridine-3-carbonitrile (5), which was cyclized to selenopheno[2,3-b]pyridine (7) by refluxing in the presence of TEA. While its treatment with thiophenol and/or p-chlorothiophenol gave 8a, b. On the other hand, its reaction with aminothiophenol afforded 2-(benzo[d]-thiazol-2-yl)-5-bromoselenopheno[2,3-b]pyridine-3,4,6-triamine (9). Also, N-(2-cyano-4-methyl-5H-1-seleno-3,5,8-triazaacenaphthylen-7-yl)acetamide (11) and a novel series of selenoazo dyes 12a-d were synthesized by treatment of selenopheno[2,3-b]pyridine 2 with acetic anhydride and/or diazonium chlorides of aromatic amines, respectively. Then, we ascertained the potential activity of synthesized compounds against highly metastatic prostate cancer cells (PC-3) and osteosarcoma cells (MG-63) and found that 12a, 12b, 12c, and 12d were more cytotoxic than doxorubicin in both tested cell lines, showing nearly the same anticancer activity with IC50 values ranging from 2.59 ± 0.02 µM to 3.93 ± 0.23 µM. Mechanistically, the most potent compounds 12a and 12b proved to be potent EGFR inhibitors with IC50 values of 0.301 and 0.123 µM, respectively, compared to lapatinib as a positive reference (IC50 = 0.049 µM). Moreover, the docking results are in good agreement with the anticancer activity as well as the EGFR inhibitory activity, suggesting these two compounds as promising EGFR anticancer candidates.

Selenium in Prostate Cancer: Prevention, Progression, and Treatment

Selenium, a trace mineral with various biological functions, has become a focal point in prostate cancer research. This review aims to present a comprehensive overview of selenium's involvement in prostate cancer, covering its impact on prevention, development, treatment, and underlying mechanisms. Observational studies have revealed a link between selenium levels and selenoproteins with prostate cancer progression. However, randomized controlled studies have shown that selenium supplementation does not prevent prostate cancer (HR: 0.95; 95% CI 0.80-1.13). This discrepancy might be attributed to selenoprotein single nucleotide polymorphisms. In the context of combinatorial therapy, selenium has demonstrated promising synergistic potential in the treatment of prostate cancer. Emerging evidence highlights the significant role of selenium and selenoproteins in prostate cancer, encompassing AR signaling, antioxidative properties, cell death, cell cycle regulation, angiogenesis, epigenetic regulation, immunoregulation, epithelial-mesenchymal transformation, and redox signal. In conclusion, selenium's diverse properties make it a promising trace mineral in prostate cancer prevention, development, and treatment and as a platform for exploring novel agents.

Effect of Dietary Methylseleninic Acid and Se-Methylselenocysteine on Carcinogen-Induced, Androgen-Promoted Prostate Carcinogenesis in Rats

Selenomethionine (SeMet) did not prevent prostate cancer in the SELECT trial and in two hormone-driven rat models. However, we have shown that daily oral bolus administration of next-generation selenium forms, methylseleninic acid (MSeA) and Se-methylselenocysteine (MSeC) at 3 mg Se/kg body weight, inhibits prostate carcinogenesis in the TRAMP and pten-deficient mouse models and In Vivo growth of human prostate cancer cells. Here, we determined whether these Se forms prevent prostate cancer in a chemically induced-androgen promoted carcinogenesis rat model in which SeMet was not preventive. WU rats were treated with methylnitrosourea, and one week later, slow-release testosterone implants when they were randomized to groups fed AIN-93M diet supplemented with 3 ppm selenium as MSeA or MSeC or control diet. Mean survival, tumor incidence in all accessory sex glands combined (dorsolateral and anterior prostate plus seminal vesicle) and the incidence of tumors confined to dorsolateral and/or anterior prostate were not statistically significantly different among the groups. Thus, MSeA and MSeC feeding was not preventive in this model. The contrast with the inhibitory effects of MSeA and MSeC in mouse models may be due to differences in carcinogenic mechanisms, selenium dosage, delivery mode, and pharmacokinetics or fundamental rat-mouse differences in selenium metabolism.

Selenoproteins of the Human Prostate: Unusual Properties and Role in Cancer Etiology

The prostate is an important organ for the maintenance of sperm health with prostate cancer being a common disease for which there is a critical need to distinguish indolent from aggressive disease. Several selenium-containing proteins have been implicated in prostate cancer risk or outcome due to either enzyme function, the reduced levels of these proteins being associated with cancer recurrence after prostatectomy or their corresponding genes containing single-nucleotide polymorphisms associated with increased risk. Moreover, experimental data obtained from the manipulation of either cultured cells or animal models have indicated that some of these proteins are contributing mechanistically to prostate cancer incidence or progression. Among these are selenocysteine-containing proteins selenoprotein P (SELENOP), glutathione peroxidase (GPX1), and selenoprotein 15 (SELENOF); and the selenium-associated protein selenium-binding protein 1 (SBP1). Genotyping of some of the genes for these proteins has identified functional single-nucleotide polymorphisms that are associated with prostate cancer risk and the direct quantification of these proteins in human prostate tissues has not only revealed associations to clinical outcomes but have also identified unique properties that are different from what is observed in other tissue types. The location of GPX1 in the nucleus and SELENOF in the plasma membrane of prostate epithelial cells indicates that these proteins may have functions in normal prostate tissue that are distinct from that of the other tissue types.

Selenium and Sex Steroid Hormones in a U.S. Nationally Representative Sample of Men: A Role for the Link between Selenium and Estradiol in Prostate Carcinogenesis?

BACKGROUND

Given the recent findings from pooled studies about a potential inverse association between selenium levels and prostate cancer risk, this cross-sectional study aimed to investigate the association between serum selenium and serum concentrations of sex steroid hormones including estradiol in a nationally representative sample of U.S. men to investigate one mechanism by which selenium may influence prostate cancer risk.

METHODS

The study included 1,420 men ages 20 years or older who participated in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey between 1988 and 1994. We calculated age/race-ethnicity-adjusted and multivariable-adjusted geometric mean serum concentrations of total and estimated free testosterone and estradiol, androstanediol glucuronide, and sex hormone binding globulin, and compared them across quartiles of serum selenium.

RESULTS

Adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, smoking status, serum cotinine, household income, physical activity, alcohol consumption, and percent body fat, mean total estradiol [e.g., Q1, 38.00 pg/mL (95% confidence interval (CI), 36.03-40.08) vs. Q4, 35.29 pg/mL (95% CI, 33.53-37.14); P _trend = 0.050] and free estradiol [e.g., Q1, 0.96 pg/mL (95% CI, 0.92-1.01) vs. Q4, 0.90 (95% CI, 0.85-0.95); P _trend = 0.065] concentrations decreased over quartiles of selenium. Stratification by smoking and alcohol consumption, showed that the latter observation was stronger for never smokers (P _interaction = 0.073) and those with limited alcohol intake (P _interaction = 0.017). No associations were observed for the other sex steroid hormones studied.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggests that a possible mechanism by which selenium may be protective for prostate cancer is related to estrogen.

IMPACT

Further studies of longitudinal measurements of serum and toenail selenium in relation to serum measurements of sex steroid hormones are needed.

Cancer chemoprevention research with selenium in the post-SELECT era: Promises and challenges

The negative efficacy outcomes of double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled Phase III human clinical trials with selenomethionine (SeMet) and SeMet-rich selenized-yeast (Se-yeast) for prostate cancer prevention and Se-yeast for prevention of nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in North America lead to rejection of SeMet/Se-yeast for cancer prevention in Se-adequate populations. We identify 2 major lessons from the outcomes of these trials: 1) the antioxidant hypothesis was tested in wrong subjects or patient populations, and 2) the selection of Se agents was not supported by cell culture and preclinical animal efficacy data as is common in drug development. We propose that next-generation forms of Se (next-gen Se), such as methylselenol precursors, offer biologically appropriate approaches for cancer chemoprevention but these are faced with formidable challenges. Solid mechanism-based preclinical efficacy assessments and comprehensive safety studies with next-gen Se will be essential to revitalize the idea of cancer chemoprevention with Se in the post-SELECT era. We advocate smaller mechanism-driven Phase I/II trials with these next-gen Se to guide and justify future decisions for definitive Phase III chemoprevention efficacy trials.

A Perspective on Prostate Carcinogenesis and Chemoprevention

In this perspective, modifiable carcinogenic factors for the prostate are summarized. This is followed by a discussion of how current knowledge about causation of prostate cancer and chemoprevention of prostate cancer can be used to develop preventive strategies. Prostate cancer is a slowly developing cancer which offers opportunities for preventive interventions. Only a few randomized clinical trials of prostate cancer prevention have been completed. The SELECT study with selenium and vitamin E did not find protective effects, but in two trials with 5α-reductase inhibitors risk was reduced about 25%, showing that chemoprevention is possible and indicating that the androgen receptor is a suitable target. Besides smoking cessation and reduction of obesity, there are no known dietary or life style interventions that will have a major impact on prostate cancer risk. Inflammation of the prostate is an attractive target and aspirin may be a promising candidate agent, but has not been addressed yet in preclinical and clinical studies. Antioxidants other than selenium and vitamin E are unlikely to be very effective and data on several dietary supplements are not encouraging. More candidate agents need to be identified and tested in relevant and adequate preclinical models and Phase II trials that have predictive value for outcome of Phase III randomized studies. Doing this will require a systematic approach comparing preclinical and clinical study outcomes to determine their predictive value of preventive efficacy.