Insights into the mechanism of enhanced mobilization of hematopoietic progenitor cells and release of CXCL12 by a combination of AMD3100 and aminoglycoside-polyarginine conjugates

Benefits of plerixafor for mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells prior to autologous transplantation: a dual-center retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND AIMS

Before autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), hematopoietic stem cells must be stimulated to move from the bone marrow to the peripheral blood for harvesting. Plerixafor, a C-X-C chemokine receptor type 4 antagonist, is used to increase stem cell harvests. However, the effects of plerixafor on post-ASCT outcomes remain unclear.

METHODS

In a dual-center retrospective cohort study of 43 Japanese patients who received ASCT, the authors compared transplantation outcomes in patients who underwent stem cell mobilization with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor with (n = 25) or without (n = 18) plerixafor.

RESULTS

The number of days to neutrophil and platelet engraftment was significantly shorter with plerixafor than without plerixafor, as assessed by univariate (neutrophil, P = 0.004, platelet, P = 0.002), subgroup, propensity score matching and inverse probability weighting analyses. Although the cumulative incidence of fever was comparable with or without plerixafor (P = 0.31), that of sepsis was significantly lower with plerixafor than without (P < 0.01). Thus, the present data indicate that plerixafor leads to earlier neutrophil and platelet engraftment and a reduction of infectious risk.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors conclude that plerixafor may be safe to use and that it reduces the risk of infection in patients with a low CD34+ cell count the day before apheresis.

Comparison of the efficacy of hematopoietic stem cell mobilization regimens: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of preclinical studies

BACKGROUND

Mobilization failure may occur when the conventional hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) mobilization agent granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is used alone, new regimens were developed to improve mobilization efficacy. Multiple studies have been performed to investigate the efficacy of these regimens via animal models, but the results are inconsistent. We aim to compare the efficacy of different HSC mobilization regimens and identify new promising regimens with a network meta-analysis of preclinical studies.

METHODS

We searched Medline and Embase databases for the eligible animal studies that compared the efficacy of different HSC mobilization regimens. Primary outcome is the number of total colony-forming cells (CFCs) in per milliliter of peripheral blood (/ml PB), and the secondary outcome is the number of Lin^- Sca1⁺ Kit⁺ (LSK) cells/ml PB. Bayesian network meta-analyses were performed following the guidelines of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit (NICE DSU) with WinBUGS version 1.4.3. G-CSF-based regimens were classified into the SD (standard dose, 200-250 μg/kg/day) group and the LD (low dose, 100-150 μg/kg/day) group based on doses, and were classified into the short-term (2-3 days) group and the long-term (4-5 days) group based on administration duration. Long-term SD G-CSF was chosen as the reference treatment. Results are presented as the mean differences (MD) with the associated 95% credibility interval (95% CrI) for each regimen.

RESULTS

We included 95 eligible studies and reviewed the efficacy of 94 mobilization agents. Then 21 studies using the poor mobilizer mice model (C57BL/6 mice) to investigate the efficacy of different mobilization regimens were included for network meta-analysis. Network meta-analyses indicated that compared with long-term SD G-CSF alone, 14 regimens including long-term SD G-CSF + Me6, long-term SD G-CSF + AMD3100 + EP80031, long-term SD G-CSF + AMD3100 + FG-4497, long-term SD G-CSF + ML141, long-term SD G-CSF + desipramine, AMD3100 + meloxicam, long-term SD G-CSF + reboxetine, AMD3100 + VPC01091, long-term SD G-CSF + FG-4497, Me6, long-term SD G-CSF + EP80031, POL5551, long-term SD G-CSF + AMD3100, AMD1300 + EP80031 and long-term LD G-CSF + meloxicam significantly increased the collections of total CFCs. G-CSF + Me6 ranked first among these regimens in consideration of the number of harvested CFCs/ml PB (MD 2168.0, 95% CrI 2062.0-2272.0). In addition, 7 regimens including long-term SD G-CSF + AMD3100, AMD3100 + EP80031, long-term SD G-CSF + EP80031, short-term SD G-CSF + AMD3100 + IL-33, long-term SD G-CSF + ML141, short-term LD G-CSF + ARL67156, and long-term LD G-CSF + meloxicam significantly increased the collections of LSK cells compared with G-CSF alone. Long-term SD G-CSF + AMD3100 ranked first among these regimens in consideration of the number of harvested LSK cells/ml PB (MD 2577.0, 95% CrI 2422.0-2733.0).

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the number of CFC and LSK cells in PB as outcomes, G-CSF plus AMD3100, Me6, EP80031, ML141, FG-4497, IL-33, ARL67156, meloxicam, desipramine, and reboxetine are all promising mobilizing regimens for future investigation.

Silibinin, a novel chemokine receptor type 4 antagonist, inhibits chemokine ligand 12-induced migration in breast cancer cells

PURPOSE

C-X-C chemokine receptor type 4 (CXCR4) signaling has been demonstrated to be involved in cancer invasion and migration; therefore, CXCR4 antagonist can serve as an anti-cancer drug by preventing tumor metastasis. This study aimed to identify the CXCR4 antagonists that could reduce and/or inhibit tumor metastasis from natural products.

METHODS AND RESULTS

According to the molecular docking screening, we reported here silibinin as a novel CXCR4 antagonist. Biochemical characterization showed that silibinin blocked chemokine ligand 12 (CXCL12)-induced CXCR4 internalization by competitive binding to CXCR4, therefore inhibiting downstream intracellular signaling. In human breast cancer cells MDA-MB-231, which expresses high levels of CXCR4, inhibition of CXCL12-induced chemomigration can be found under silibinin treatment. Overexpression of CXCL12 sensitized MDA-MB-231 cells to the inhibition of silibinin, which was abolished by CXCR4 knockdown. The inhibition of silibinin was also observed in MCF-7/CXCR4 cells rather than MCF-7 cells that express low level of CXCR4.

CONCLUSIONS

Our work demonstrated that silibinin is a novel CXCR4 antagonist that may have potential therapeutic use for prevention of tumor metastasis.