Possible involvement of bcl-2 suppression in wild-type p53 gene-dependent cell growth repression in rat osteosarcoma cells

Orthopedic gene therapy in 2008

Orthopedic disorders, although rarely fatal, are the leading cause of morbidity and impose a huge socioeconomic burden. Their prevalence will increase dramatically as populations age and gain weight. Many orthopedic conditions are difficult to treat by conventional means; however, they are good candidates for gene therapy. Clinical trials have already been initiated for arthritis and the aseptic loosening of prosthetic joints, and the development of bone-healing applications is at an advanced, preclinical stage. Other potential uses include the treatment of Mendelian diseases and orthopedic tumors, as well as the repair and regeneration of cartilage, ligaments, and tendons. Many of these goals should be achievable with existing technologies. The main barriers to clinical application are funding and regulatory issues, which in turn reflect major safety concerns and the opinion, in some quarters, that gene therapy should not be applied to nonlethal, nongenetic diseases. For some indications, advances in nongenetic treatments have also diminished enthusiasm. Nevertheless, the preclinical and early clinical data are impressive and provide considerable optimism that gene therapy will provide straightforward, effective solutions to the clinical management of several common debilitating disorders that are otherwise difficult and expensive to treat.

Osteosarcoma cell lines display variable individual reactions on wildtype p53 and Rb tumour-suppressor transgenes

BACKGROUND

One of the most widely studied gene therapeutic strategies for cancer is the introduction of tumour-suppressor genes-generally p53-into the target cells. As the genes of p53 and/or retinoblastoma (Rb) are mutated in the major part of osteosarcomas (OS), we aimed to study the effect of p53 and Rb transgenes on a panel of five different osteosarcoma cell lines.

METHODS

OS cell lines were transduced by adenoviral vectors delivering the transcription units of the wildtype p53 and the Rb gene. Effects of the transgenes alone and at additional cytostatic stress were studied by proliferation, alive/dead and cell cycle assays.

RESULTS

The individual cells lines displayed divergent reactions to p53- or Rb-transgene delivery reaching from cell death (SaOs-2, U2OS at p53 transduction) over stopped or lowered cell division (MG-63, K-HOS, SJSA-1 at p53 and Rb transduction) to nearly unhindered cell growth (U2OS at Rb transduction). In those OS cell lines reacting with lowered cell division to p53 or Rb delivery, cytostatics only moderately intensified the transgene effects. Surprisingly, these reactions were apparently not dependent on the functional status of the cellular p53 and/or Rb genes or on differences in the infectability of the cell lines by the adenoviral vectors. Most interestingly, the respective effects of the p53 or Rb transgenes were not multiplied by simultaneous transduction of both tumour-suppressor genes.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of wildtype tumour-suppressor gene therapy on genetically variable osteosarcomas may be efficient only in yet not identified genetic subgroups of this tumour entity. Hyperactive tumour-suppressor transgenes could be an alternative.