Mechanistic insights into the impact of WIN 55, 212-2, a synthetic cannabinoid, on adhesion molecules PECAM-1 and VE-cadherin in HeLa cells: implications on cancer processes

Elizabeth Bejarano-Pérez,Rodolfo Sánchez-Zavaleta,Arnulfo Albores
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15376516.2024.2399132
2024-09-09
Toxicology Mechanisms and Methods
Abstract:The endocannabinoid (eCB) system comprises endogenous ligands, cannabinoid receptors (CBRs), and their regulatory proteins; its alteration leads to many diseases including cancer. Thus, becomes a therapeutic target for synthetic cannabinoids aimed to control cancer cell proliferation, migration, adhesion, and invasion. However, little is known about adhesion molecules regulation through CBRs activation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of a CB1/CB2 agonist, WIN-55, 212-2 (WIN), on the regulation of adhesion molecules platelet endothelial cell adhesion molecule-1 (PECAM-1) and vascular endothelial cadherin (VE-cadherin) in HeLa cells. CBRs expression was evaluated by immunofluorescence staining in HeLa cells and cell viability (thiazolyl blue tetrazolium bromide), cell adhesion (crystal violet), adhesion molecules expression and location (Western blot and immunofluorescence staining assays) were all assessed on cells treated with different WIN concentrations. Receptors CB1, CB2, and G-protein-coupled receptor 55 were expressed in HeLa cells. Additionally, biphasic effects were observed in their metabolic activity and adhesive properties: low WIN concentrations resulted in significant increases whereas, high ones decreased them compared to controls ( p < 0.0001), demonstrating that WIN elicits opposite effects depending on the concentration and exposure time. PECAM-1 was detected in HeLa cell's cytoplasm, membrane, and perinuclear region, whereas VE-cadherin had a nuclear distribution. There were no significant differences in PECAM-1 and VE-cadherin expression and location, suggesting that WIN does not modulate these proteins. These findings support the potential use of WIN due to its anticancer properties without dysregulating adhesion molecules. WIN possible contribution to inhibit cancer progression should be further investigated.
toxicology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?