Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This manuscript proposes a hypothesis to explain the U-shaped dose-response observed for angiostatin and other high-molecular-weight drugs in various anti-cancer bio-assays. The dose-response curves for angiostatin and endostatin (measured as suppression of tumor growth) go through an optimum (i.e., minimum tumor growth) and then becomes less effective at higher doses. The literature suggests that at lower doses the primary action of these high-molecular-weight drugs is to counteract the angiogenic effects of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). To do this, the drugs must pass out of the blood vessel and enter the extra-cellular matrix (ECM) where VEGF induces the growth and fusion of tip cells. Ironically, VEGF actually facilitates access of the drugs to the ECM by making the vascular endothelium leaky. At higher doses, the high-molecular-weight drugs seem to reverse VEGF-induced permeability of the endothelium. Thus, at high dose rates, it is hypothesized that the drugs are not able to enter the ECM and block the angiogenic effects of VEGF there. As a result, high doses of the drugs do not suppress vascularization of the tumor or tumor growth. Moreover, if the permeability of the vessels is suppressed, the VEGF released by the stroma is concentrated in the ECM where it amplifies the angiogenic activity around the tumor.

Keywords

angiostatin endostatin angiogenesis macrophage tip cell biphasic dose response cancer tumor VEGF ECM

Angiogenesis and Cancer

In the early 1980s, it was recognized that a factor secreted by tumor cells caused leakage from blood vessels and the term “vascular permeability factor” (VPF) appeared in the literature (Senger et al. 1986; Clauss et al. 1990). It was also soon realized that VPF was associated with growth of blood vessels (i.e., angiogenesis) around tumors (Dvorak et al. 1991; Senger et al. 1993) and the term was changed first to “vascular permeability factor/vascular endothelial growth factor” (Senger et al. 1993) and finally to merely “vascular endothelial growth factor” (VEGF) by 1993 (Adamis et al. 1993).

Although some tumors attain nutrients by growing along existing blood vessels or otherwise coopting existing blood vessels (Dome et al. 2007; Donnem et al. 2013), by the late 1990s, it was widely accepted that conversion of hyperplasia into neoplasia is accompanied by (and facilitated by) formation of new blood vessels, i.e. an “angiogenic switch” (Hanahan and Folkman 1996; Bergers et al. 1999; Folkman 2002). Rapidly growing tumors tend to display an “aerobic glycolysis” phenotype (i.e., the Warburg effect) in which both aerobic and anerobic respiration provide energy (Sciacovelli et al. 2014) and proliferation is only limited by the availability of the blood supply. Sustained angiogenesis became recognized as one of the hallmarks of cancer (Hanahan and Weinberg 2000). Thus, great interest has developed in finding anti-angiogenic drugs (Folkman 1985; Folkman and Ingber 1992; Bergers et al. 1999).

The Tumor and its Stroma

Once a tumor has begun growing, inflammation and hypoxia cause the release of chemokines that attract immune cells that begin to form the stroma. VEGF/VPF isoforms are also cytokines that attract monocytes (Czepluch et al. 2011), macrophages (Li et al. 2011), pericytes (Grosskreutz et al. 1999; Yamagishi et al. 1999; Ribatti et al. 2011) and fibroblasts (Senger et al. 1993; Wynn 2008; Asumda and Chase 2011) to surround the tumor. The attraction of the pericytes to the tumor apparently pulls them from the endothelial walls of the local blood vessels and makes the blood vessels hyper-permeable (i.e., leaky) (Adams and Alitalo 2007; Zhao et al. 2007; Azzi et al. 2013).

It has been found that the concentration of VEGF/VPF in the microenvironment (i.e., immediately around specific clusters of cells) rather than the bulk concentration of VEGF/VPF is what is important in determining the course of angiogenesis (Dvorak et al. 2011; Fidler 2011). In an interesting series of experiments, Blau and coworkers (Springer et al. 2003; Ozawa et al. 2004; von Degenfeld et al. 2006) created four homogeneous clones of myoblast that secreted VEGF at different levels. They found that when they used mixtures of cell clones to produce average dose rates between 5 and 70 ng VEGF/10⁶ cells/day, angiogenesis was observed with formation of normal blood vessels. At gross dose rates greater than about 100 ng VEGF/10⁶ cells/day, abnormal development of blood vessels occurred leading to hemangiomas. More importantly, when homogeneous clones of myoblast that produced less than 70 ng VEGF/10⁶ cells/day were used, no abnormal foci or abnormal angiogenesis were observed regardless of the number of myoblast injected; and the blood vessels that were formed were not leaky, had normal pericytes and were VEGF-independent. In contrast, when individual cells producing higher dose rates of VEGF were used, the blood vessels that formed were leaky, VEGF-dependent, and malformed. Clearly, new blood vessels tend to form only very near the source of VEGF/VPF (i.e., a very steep concentration gradient) (Springer et al. 2003). This observation may be related to the way that VEGF/VPF interacts with receptors (Kiba et al. 2003a; Kiba et al. 2003b). VEGF levels are normally very tightly controlled because too little or too much VEGF can be lethal to developing embryos (Carmeliet et al. 1996; Miquerol et al. 2000).

In any event, the observations are consistent with the fact that VEGF/VPF acts locally; not systemically. The nutrient demand of rapidly growing tumors requires a blood supply that is initially provided by secretion of VEGF/VPF that dilates local blood vessels and makes them leaky. Leaky blood vessels appear to be caused by the migration of pericytes (Hasumi et al. 2007; Zhao et al. 2007; Cao and Cao 2010; Cao et al. 2010; Ribatti et al. 2011) that fill gaps between endothelial cells into the ECM.

The Modes of Action of VEGF/VPF

The mechanism of angiogenesis induced by VEGF/VPF is still poorly understood, but recent publications have provided some detail (Ferrara et al. 2003; Dvorak et al. 2011; Jeong et al. 2011; Ji 2011; Li et al. 2011; Ribatti et al. 2011; Tammela et al. 2011; Weis 2011; Indraccolo 2013). There seem to be two distinct activities of VEGF/VPF: (i) formation of leaks in existing vessels and (ii) formation of new vessels. In normal vessels the lumen accounts for about 30% of the vessel diameter, but under the influence of high concentrations of VEGF/VPF pericytes that maintain the integrity of normal vessels appear to be drawn away towards the tumor cells (Dvorak et al. 2011; Ribatti et al. 2011). Thus, the weakened vessels balloon outward and leak blood with macromolecules through the thin lining of endothelial cells (Dvorak et al. 1991). This effect of VEGF/VPF acts quickly (within 5 hr) but has a limited range of less than 0.5 mm from the tumor (Dvorak et al. 1991). The angiogenic effects of VEGF/VPF appear to act over greater distances (or at lower concentrations). For example, in the rabbit cornea model (Gimbrone et al. 1973) used to investigate angiogenesis, new vessels are induced to sprout many millimeters from the source of VEGF/PVF (Ryu and Albert 1979). The sprouting of new blood vessels may not begin for 1 to 10 days (Ryu and Albert 1979).

Anti-Angiogenic Agents

The clinical importance of biphasic angiostatic agents has recently been reviewed (Reynolds 2010).

Formation and Composition of Angiostatin and Endostatin

Concurrent with the establishment of angiogenesis and rapid growth of solid tumors, a variety of enzymes are used by the tumor to break down the ECM. The enzymes (e.g., matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) and urokinase-type plasminogen activators (uPA)) cut polymers (e.g., glycosaminoglycans, proteoglycans and collagen) and proteins (e.g., plasminogen) into smaller soluble pieces (plasmin and angiostatin). Angiostatin (a 38 kDa protease fragment of plasminogen) (O’Reilly et al. 1994; Folkman 1995; Dong et al. 1997; Gately et al. 1997) was identified as a natural anti-angiogenesis agent in 1994 and was soon proven to have potent anti-tumor effects. Similarly, endostatin (a C-terminal, 20 kDa, zinc-binding protein cut from collagen XVIII) was discovered in 1997 (O’Reilly et al. 1997; Beecken et al. 2001).

Targets of Angiostatin

Angiostatin binds to cell surface glycoproteins, angiomotin (Troyanovsky et al. 2001), integrins (Tarui et al. 2001; Chavakis et al. 2005; Wahl et al. 2005), ATP synthase (Moser et al. 1999; Wahl et al. 2005; Chi and Pizzo 2006; Yamamoto et al. 2007). It also binds to mitochondrial ATP synthase (Lee et al. 2009).

Effects of Angiostatin

Angiostatin is known to promote apoptosis (O’Reilly et al. 1994; O’Reilly 1997; Lee et al. 2009). It inhibits recruitment of macrophages (Distler et al. 2002; Chavakis et al. 2005; Dineen et al. 2008; Lee et al. 2009; Chen et al. 2011; Li et al. 2011; Lin et al. 2011), which are normally attracted into the stroma by signaling involving VEGFR-1 and VEGFR-2 (Li et al. 2011) and which are involved with completing vascular circuits with VEGFR-3 (Tammela et al. 2011). Angiostatin has recently been shown to inhibit migration and activation of neutrophils (Aulakh et al. 2014).

Hypothesis for Action

One hypothesis for its mechanism of action is that angiostatin blocks the action of hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) (Wajih and Sane 2003), which activates the c-met receptor. The c-met receptor of endothelial and smooth muscle cells initiates migration and facilitates proliferation essential to establishment of new blood vessels (Chang et al. 2013). There is very active research on this pathway in a number of cancer types. The mechanism appears to be dependent on the kringle 5 (K5) domain of angiostatin which is shared with HGF (Ansell et al. 2010). The mechanism of endostatin is less studied but appears to facilitate apoptosis and suppress autophagy by modifying the effect Bcl-2 via its complex with Beclin 1 (Ramakrishnan et al. 2007; Wu et al. 2011; Ibrahim et al. 2014).

Disappointing Clinical Results and the U-shaped Dose-Response Curve

Following the 1996 report from the Folkman group on the pre-clinical effects of angiostatin (O’Reilly et al. 1996) there was much optimism that at last a “unifying concept” had been discovered for cancer treatment (Saphir 1997). Numerous candidate compounds went into clinical trials (Folkman 2003) and the ownership of intellectual property was aggressively contested (Brower 2000). But, as time passed, the dream of a universal chemotherapy for cancers began to wane as clinical trials produced less than overwhelming results (Gupta and Zhang 2005). Reynolds has provided a comprehensive review of the findings and show that a u-shaped dose-response curve may be the problem in many cases (Reynolds 2010; Javaherian et al. 2011). Here, I want to dissect the U-shaped curve into its component parts.

A Hypothesis for U-Shaped Dose Response for Angiostatin

Mathematically, a U-shaped curve can be derived from two S-shaped dose-response curves as indicated in Figure 1. Many biochemical mechanisms could be invoked to account for the two S-shaped curves. The key factor here seems to be that VEGF/VPF released by the tumor is known to have two distinct modes of action: It is angiogenic and it causes permeability of the nearby blood vessels. Based on our understanding of the roll of VEGF/VPF in angiogenesis (discussed above), a conceptual model can be proposed (Figure 1). The first drug target (with a rather low effective dose 50%, ED₅₀) blocks angiogenesis and inhibits tumor growth as expected. At higher doses, a second target (with higher ED₅₀) blocks the access of the drug to the first target. This model has the virtue of requiring a minimum number of assumptions. The second target is merely nullifying the first target. Although it is easy to postulate such a model with some confidence, it is harder to demonstrate the actual biochemical processes that are being impacted by the drug.

Figure 1.

Two S-shaped Curves Produce a U-shaped Curve. Based on inspection of typical S-shaped curves, we estimate that the ED₅₀ for the anti-angiogenic effect is about half-way down the slope and the ED₅₀ for the anti-permeability effect is about at the bottom of the U.

Discussion

As discussed above, VEGF/VPF has very localized effects on angiogenesis (Springer et al. 2003), whereas the angiostatin and endostatin effects are systemic (i.e., they suppress angiogenesis at distant metastases) (Fisher et al. 1989a; Fisher et al. 1989b; Fisher et al. 1990). The U-shaped dose-response of angiostatin on angiogenesis is probably traceable to its different affinity and/or efficacy towards two (or more receptors).

Low Dose Rates of Angiostatin

The effects of angiostatin, especially interference with VEGF signaling, are believed to cause the inhibition of angiogenesis (Lee et al. 2009) consistent with the mechanism of VEGF-induced angiogenesis discussed above (Fantin et al. 2010; Fantin et al. 2011; Fantin et al. 2013; Lanahan et al. 2013; Fantin et al. 2014). This appears to be the primary effect of the angiostatic agents at low doses (dose rates).

High Dose Rates of Angiostatin

On the other hand, access of exogenous angiostatin (a moderate size 38kD protein) introduced from the blood stream (Kenan and Wahl 2005) into the ECM (i.e., where the new blood vessels are being formed) is facilitated by the VEGF/VPF-induced dilation (Koshida et al. 2003) and leakage (Sima et al. 2004; Shyong et al. 2007) of the existing blood vessels. At higher dose rates, angiostatin causes constriction of blood vessels (Koshida et al. 2003) and stops the leakage (Sima et al. 2004; Shyong et al. 2007), thus preventing the exogenous drug from getting into the ECM where tumor-associated macrophages are facilitating the completion of vascular circuits. It is also relevant that reduction in the permeability of the blood vessels ensures that the VEGF/VPF (protein 32-44 kDa) will be concentrated in the stroma rather than dissipated in the blood (Figure 1) and enhances angiogenesis. Hence, high doses (dose rates) actually reduce the effectiveness of angiostatin and produce a U-shaped dose-response curve (Figure 1). Endostatin seems to follow a similar pattern (Celik et al. 2005; Tjin Tham Sjin et al. 2006) for the same reasons (Brankin et al. 2005; Marneros et al. 2007).

While high doses of angiostatin appears to interrupt VEGF signaling by interacting with its receptors (VEGFR), a humanized monoclonal antibody has been designed to directly target VEGF (i.e., bevacizumab, Avastin). This VEGF antibody suppresses perfusion of water and docetaxel (molecular weight 808 g/mole) into tumors (Van der Veldt et al. 2012) presumably by preventing VEGF from reaching its receptors on pericytes (Greenberg et al. 2008). This observation is at odds with the hypothesis that “normalized” (non-leaky) blood vessels are more efficient for drug delivery to tumors (Azzi et al. 2013). It has recently been suggested (Van der Veldt et al. 2012) that introducing cytotoxic anti-cancer agents before administration of agents that suppress VEGF signaling and allows the cytotoxic agent to enter the tumor and then be trapped there (i.e., reduced clearance). Because of their size, access of blood-borne angiostatin and endostatin to the ECM may be particularly sensitive to the porosity of the blood vessels.

Summary

This U-shaped dose-response of angiostatin is consistent with the variety of high-molecular-weight drugs (i.e., that do not readily diffuse through tissues) that are known to have U-shaped dose response against angiogenesis (Slaton et al. 1999; Motegi et al. 2002; Panigrahy et al. 2002), and thus, could provide a universal explanation for this behavior (without specifically addressing molecular interactions, which are still poorly understood). One prediction of this hypothesis is that the angiogenic effects would be more effective at high doses if the drug did not depend on reaching the tumor via the blood vessels. Indeed, strategies using viruses to express the anti-angiogenic agents in the tumor itself have been developed and seem to work well (Shyong et al. 2007; Luo et al. 2011).

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Adamis

Shima

Yeo

Brown

Berse

D’Amore

Folkman

1993. Synthesis and secretion of vascular permeability factor/vascular endothelial growth factor by human retinal pigment epithelial cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 193:631–638

Adams

Alitalo

2007. Molecular regulation of angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 8:464–478

Ansell

Zhang

Davidson

Harlan

Xue

Brodjian

Lesniewski

McKeegan

2010. Recombinant kringle 5 from plasminogen antagonises hepatocyte growth factor-mediated signalling. Eur J Cancer 46:966–973

Asumda

Chase

PB.

2011. Age-related changes in rat bone-marrow mesenchymal stem cell plasticity. BMC Cell Biol 12:44

Aulakh

Balachandran

Liu

Singh

2014. Angiostatin inhibits activation and migration of eutrophils. Cell Tissue Res 355:375–396

Azzi

Hebda

Gavard

2013. Vascular permeability and drug delivery in cancers. Front Oncol 3:211

Beecken

Fernandez

Joussen

Achilles

Flynn

Gillies

Javaherian

Folkman

Shing

2001. Effect of antiangiogenic therapy on slowly growing, poorly vascularized tumors in mice. J Natl Cancer Inst 93:382–387

Bergers

Javaherian

Folkman

Hanahan

1999. Effects of angiogenesis inhibitors on multistage carcinogenesis in mice. Science 284:808–812

Brankin

Campbell

Canning

Gardiner

Stitt

AW.

2005. Endostatin modulates vegf-mediated barrier dysfunction in the retinal microvascular endothelium. Exp Eye Res 81:22–31

10.

Brower

2000. Fight for reputation. Judah folkman counter-sued abbott in the legal battle over kringle 5. EMBO Rep 1:301–302

11.

Cao

2010. Cancer-associated retinopathy: A new mechanistic insight on vascular remodeling. Cell Cycle 9:1882–1885

12.

Cao

Xue

Hedlund

Zhong

Tritsaris

Tondelli

Lucchini

Zhu

Dissing

Cao

2010. Vegfr1-mediated pericyte ablation links vegf and plgf to cancer-associated retinopathy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107:856–861

13.

Carmeliet

Ferreira

Breier

Pollefeyt

Kieckens

Gertsenstein

Fahrig

Vandenhoeck

Harpal

Eberhardt

Declercq

Pawling

Moons

Collen

Risau

Nagy

1996. Abnormal blood vessel development and lethality in embryos lacking a single vegf allele. Nature 380:435–439

14.

Celik

Surucu

Dietz

Heymach

Force

Hoschele

Becker

Folkman

Kisker

2005. Therapeutic efficacy of endostatin exhibits a biphasic dose-response curve. Cancer Res 65:11044–11050

15.

Chang

Andrejecsk

Kluger

Saltzman

Pober

JS.

2013. Pericytes modulate endothelial sprouting. Cardiovasc Res 100:492–500

16.

Chavakis

Athanasopoulos

Rhee

Orlova

Schmidt-Woll

Bierhaus

May

Celik

Nawroth

Preissner

KT.

2005. Angiostatin is a novel anti-inflammatory factor by inhibiting leukocyte recruitment. Blood 105:1036–1043

17.

Chen

Huang

Bong

Ding

Song

Wang

Song

Luo

2011. Tumor-associated macrophages promote angiogenesis and melanoma growth via adrenomedullin in both paracrine and autocrine manners. Clin Cancer Res

18.

Chi

Pizzo

SV.

2006. Angiostatin is directly cytotoxic to tumor cells at low extracellular ph: A mechanism dependent on cell surface-associated atp synthase. Cancer Res 66:875–882

19.

Clauss

Gerlach

Brett

Wang

Familletti

Pan

Olander

Connolly

Stern

1990. Vascular permeability factor: A tumor-derived polypeptide that induces endothelial cell and monocyte procoagulant activity, and promotes monocyte migration. J Exp Med 172:1535–1545

20.

Czepluch

Olieslagers

van Hulten

Voo

Waltenberger

2011. Vegf-a-induced chemotaxis of cd16+ monocytes is decreased secondary to lower vegfr-1 expression. Atherosclerosis 215:331–338

21.

Dineen

Lynn

Holloway

Miller

Sullivan

Shames

Beck

Barnett

Fleming

Brekken

RA.

2008. Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 mediates macrophage infiltration into orthotopic pancreatic tumors in mice. Cancer Res 68:4340–4346

22.

Distler

Neidhart

Gay

2002. The molecular control of angiogenesis. Int Rev Immunol 21:33–49

23.

Dome

Hendrix

Paku

Tovari

Timar

2007. Alternative vascularization mechanisms in cancer: Pathology and therapeutic implications. Am J Pathol 170:1–15

24.

Dong

Kumar

Yang

Fidler

IJ.

1997. Macrophage-derived metalloelastase is responsible for the generation of angiostatin in lewis lung carcinoma. Cell 88:801–810

25.

Donnem

Ferguson

Adighibe

Snell

Harris

Gatter

Pezzella

2013. Vessel co-option in primary human tumors and metastases: An obstacle to effective anti-angiogenic treatment? Cancer Med 2:427–436

26.

Dvorak

Sioussat

Brown

Berse

Nagy

Sotrel

Manseau

Van de Water

Senger

DR.

1991. Distribution of vascular permeability factor (vascular endothelial growth factor) in tumors: Concentration in tumor blood vessels. J Exp Med 174:1275–1278

27.

Dvorak

Weaver

Tlsty

Bergers

2011. Tumor microenvironment and progression. J Surg Oncol 103:468–474

28.

Fantin

Herzog

Mahmoud

Yamaji

Plein

Denti

Ruhrberg

Zachary

2014. Neuropilin 1 (nrp1) hypomorphism combined with defective vegf-a binding reveals novel roles for nrp1 in developmental and pathological angiogenesis. Development 141:556–562

29.

Fantin

Schwarz

Davidson

Normando

Denti

Ruhrberg

2011. The cytoplasmic domain of neuropilin 1 is dispensable for angiogenesis, but promotes the spatial separation of retinal arteries and veins. Development 138:4185–4191

30.

Fantin

Vieira

Gestri

Denti

Schwarz

Prykhozhij

Peri

Wilson

Ruhrberg

2010. Tissue macrophages act as cellular chaperones for vascular anastomosis downstream of vegf-mediated endothelial tip cell induction. Blood 116:829–840

31.

Fantin

Vieira

Plein

Denti

Fruttiger

Pollard

Ruhrberg

2013. Nrp1 acts cell autonomously in endothelium to promote tip cell function during sprouting angiogenesis. Blood 121:2352–2362

32.

Ferrara

Gerber

LeCouter

2003. The biology of vegf and its receptors. Nat Med 9:669–676

33.

Fidler

IJ.

2011. The role of the organ microenvironment in brain metastasis. Semin Cancer Biol 21:107–112

34.

Fisher

Gunduz

Coyle

Rudock

Saffer

1989a. Presence of a growth-stimulating factor in serum following primary tumor removal in mice. Cancer Res 49:1996–2001

35.

Fisher

Saffer

Gunduz

Coyle

Rudock

1990. Serum growth factor following primary tumor removal and the inhibition of its production by preoperative therapy. Prog Clin Biol Res 354A:47–60

36.

Fisher

Saffer

Rudock

Coyle

Gunduz

1989b. Effect of local or systemic treatment prior to primary tumor removal on the production and response to a serum growth-stimulating factor in mice. Cancer Res 49:2002–2004

37.

Folkman

1985. Angiogenesis and its inhibitors. Important Adv Oncol 42–62

38.

Folkman

1995. Angiogenesis inhibitors generated by tumors. Mol Med 1:120–122

39.

Folkman

2002. Role of angiogenesis in tumor growth and metastasis. Semin Oncol 29:15–18

40.

Folkman

2003. Angiogenesis inhibitors: A new class of drugs. Cancer Biol Ther 2: S127–133

41.

Folkman

Ingber

1992. Inhibition of angiogenesis. Semin Cancer Biol 3:89–96

42.

Gately

Twardowski

Stack

Cundiff

Grella

Castellino

Enghild

Kwaan

Lee

Kramer

Volpert

Bouck

Soff

GA.

1997. The mechanism of cancer-mediated conversion of plasminogen to the angiogenesis inhibitor angiostatin. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 94:10868–10872

43.

Gimbrone

Jr Leapman

Cotran

Folkman

1973. Tumor angiogenesis: Iris neovascularization at a distance from experimental intraocular tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 50:219–228

44.

Greenberg

Shields

Barillas

Acevedo

Murphy

Huang

Scheppke

Stockmann

Johnson

Angle

Cheresh

DA.

2008. A role for vegf as a negative regulator of pericyte function and vessel maturation. Nature 456:809–813

45.

Grosskreutz

Anand-Apte

Duplaa

Quinn

Terman

Zetter

D’Amore

PA.

1999. Vascular endothelial growth factor-induced migration of vascular smooth muscle cells in vitro. Microvasc Res 58:128–136

46.

Gupta

Zhang

2005. Angiogenesis: A curse or cure? Postgrad Med J 81:236–242

47.

Hanahan

Folkman

1996. Patterns and emerging mechanisms of the angiogenic switch during tumorigenesis. Cell 86:353–364

48.

Hanahan

Weinberg

RA.

2000. The hallmarks of cancer. Cell 100:57–70

49.

Hasumi

Klosowska-Wardega

Furuhashi

Ostman

Heldin

Hellberg

2007. Identification of a subset of pericytes that respond to combination therapy targeting pdgf and vegf signaling. Int J Cancer 121:2606–2614

50.

Ibrahim

Wong

Pavlickova

Liu

Trasar

Bansal

Suzuki

YJ.

2014. Mechanism of the susceptibility of remodeled pulmonary vessels to drug-induced cell killing. J Am Heart Assoc 3: e000520

51.

Indraccolo

2013. Insights into the regulation of tumor dormancy by angiogenesis in experimental tumors. Adv Exp Med Biol 734:37–52

52.

Javaherian

Lee

Tjin Tham Sjin

Parris

Hlatky

2011. Two endogenous antiangiogenic inhibitors, endostatin and angiostatin, demonstrate biphasic curves in their antitumor profiles. Dose Response 9:369–376

53.

Jeong

Han

Shin

Kwon

Kamm

Lee

Chung

2011. Sprouting angiogenesis under a chemical gradient regulated by interaction with endothelial monolayer in microfluidic platform. Anal Chem

54.

RC.

2011. Macrophages are important mediators of either tumor- or inflammation-induced lymphangiogenesis. Cell Mol Life Sci

55.

Kenan

Wahl

ML.

2005. Ectopic localization of mitochondrial atp synthase: A target for anti-angiogenesis intervention? J Bioenerg Biomembr 37:461–465

56.

Kiba

Sagara

Hara

Shibuya

2003a. Vegfr-2-specific ligand vegf-e induces non-edematous hyper-vascularization in mice. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 301:371–377

57.

Kiba

Yabana

Shibuya

2003b. A set of loop-1 and -3 structures in the novel vascular endothelial growth factor (vegf) family member, vegf-enz-7, is essential for the activation of vegfr-2 signaling. J Biol Chem 278:13453–13461

58.

Koshida

Matsunaga

Chilian

Oldham

Ackerman

Pritchard

2003. Angiostatin: A negative regulator of endothelial-dependent vasodilation. Circulation 107:803–806

59.

Lanahan

Zhang

Fantin

Zhuang

Rivera-Molina

Speichinger

Prahst

Zhang

Wang

Davis

Toomre

Ruhrberg

Simons

2013. The neuropilin 1 cytoplasmic domain is required for vegf-a-dependent arteriogenesis. Dev Cell 25:156–168

60.

Muschal S

Pravda

Folkman

Abdollahi

Javaherian

2009. Angiostatin regulates the expression of antiangiogenic and proapoptotic pathways via targeted inhibition of mitochondrial proteins. Blood 114:1987–1998

61.

Liu

Dai

Tao

2011. Knockdown of vegf receptor-1 (vegfr-1) impairs macrophage infiltration, angiogenesis and growth of clear cell renal cell rarcinoma (crcc). Cancer Biol Ther 12

62.

Lin

Chang

Schrimpf

Chen

Chiang

Kuhnert

Kuo

Chen

Tsai

Duffield

JS.

2011. Targeting endothelium-pericyte cross talk by inhibiting vegf receptor signaling attenuates kidney microvascular rarefaction and fibrosis. Am J Pathol 178:911–923

63.

Luo

Shih

Chen

Wang

Chien

Chiang

Chuang

YC.

2011. Baculovirus vectors for antiangiogenesis-based cancer gene therapy. Cancer Gene Ther 18:637–645

64.

Marneros

She

Zambarakji

Hashizume

Connolly

Kim

Gragoudas

Miller

Olsen

BR.

2007. Endogenous endostatin inhibits choroidal neovascularization. FASEB J 21:3809–3818

65.

Miquerol

Langille

Nagy

2000. Embryonic development is disrupted by modest increases in vascular endothelial growth factor gene expression. Development 127:3941–3946

66.

Moser

Stack

Asplin

Enghild

Hojrup

Everitt

Hubchak

Schnaper

Pizzo

SV.

1999. Angiostatin binds atp synthase on the surface of human endothelial cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 96:2811–2816

67.

Motegi

Harada

Pazouki

Baillie

Schor

AM.

2002. Evidence of a bi-phasic effect of thrombospondin-1 on angiogenesis. Histochem J 34:411–421

68.

O’Reilly

MS.

1997. Angiostatin: An endogenous inhibitor of angiogenesis and of tumor growth. EXS 79:273–294

69.

O’Reilly

Boehm

Shing

Fukai

Vasios

Lane

Flynn

Birkhead

Olsen

Folkman

1997. Endostatin: An endogenous inhibitor of angiogenesis and tumor growth. Cell 88:277–285

70.

O’Reilly

Holmgren

Chen

Folkman

1996. Angiostatin induces and sustains dormancy of human primary tumors in mice. Nat Med 2:689–692

71.

O’Reilly

Holmgren

Shing

Chen

Rosenthal

Cao

Moses

Lane

Sage

Folkman

1994. Angiostatin: A circulating endothelial cell inhibitor that suppresses angiogenesis and tumor growth. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 59:471–482

72.

Ozawa

Banfi

Glazer

Thurston

Springer

Kraft

McDonald

Blau

HM.

2004. Microenvironmental vegf concentration, not total dose, determines a threshold between normal and aberrant angiogenesis. J Clin Invest 113:516–527

73.

Panigrahy

Singer

Shen

Butterfield

Freedman

Chen

Moses

Kilroy

Duensing

Fletcher

Hlatky

Hahnfeldt

Folkman

Kaipainen

2002. Ppargamma ligands inhibit primary tumor growth and metastasis by inhibiting angiogenesis. J Clin Invest 110:923–932

74.

Ramakrishnan

Nguyen

Subramanian

Kelekar

2007. Autophagy and angiogenesis inhibition. Autophagy 3:512–515

75.

Reynolds

AR.

2010. Potential relevance of bell-shaped and u-shaped dose-responses for the therapeutic targeting of angiogenesis in cancer. Dose Response 8:253–284

76.

Ribatti

Nico

Crivellato

2011. The role of pericytes in angiogenesis. Int J Dev Biol 55:261–268

77.

Ryu

Albert

DM.

1979. Evaluation of tumor angiogenesis factor with the rabbit cornea model. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 18:831–841

78.

Saphir

1997. Angiogenesis: The unifying concept in cancer? J Natl Cancer Inst 89:1658–1659

79.

Sciacovelli

Gaude

Hilvo

Frezza

2014. The metabolic alterations of cancer cells. Methods Enzymol 542:1–23

80.

Senger

Perruzzi

Feder

Dvorak

HF.

1986. A highly conserved vascular permeability factor secreted by a variety of human and rodent tumor cell lines. Cancer Res 46:5629–5632

81.

Senger

Van de Water

Brown

Nagy

Yeo

Berse

Jackman

Dvorak

HF.

1993. Vascular permeability factor (vpf, vegf) in tumor biology. Cancer Metastasis Rev 12:303–324

82.

Shyong

Lee

Kuo

Cheng

Chen

Tung

Tsao

YP.

2007. Reduction of experimental diabetic vascular leakage by delivery of angiostatin with a recombinant adeno-associated virus vector. Mol Vis 13:133–141

83.

Sima

Zhang

Shao

Fant

JX.

2004. The effect of angiostatin on vascular leakage and vegf expression in rat retina. FEBS Lett 564:19–23

84.

Slaton

Perrotte

Inoue

Dinney

Fidler

IJ.

1999. Interferon-alpha-mediated down-regulation of angiogenesis-related genes and therapy of bladder cancer are dependent on optimization of biological dose and schedule. Clin Cancer Res 5:2726–2734

85.

Springer

Ozawa

Banfi

Kraft

Brazelton

Blau

HM.

2003. Localized arteriole formation directly adjacent to the site of vegf-induced angiogenesis in muscle. Mol Ther 7:441–449

86.

Tammela

Zarkada

Nurmi

Jakobsson

Heinolainen

Tvorogov

Zheng

Franco

Murtomaki

Aranda

Miura

Yla-Herttuala

Fruttiger

Makinen

Eichmann

Pollard

Gerhardt

Alitalo

2011. Vegfr-3 controls tip to stalk conversion at vessel fusion sites by reinforcing notch signalling. Nat Cell Biol 13:1202–1213

87.

Tarui

Miles

Takada

2001. Specific interaction of angiostatin with integrin alpha(v) beta(3) in endothelial cells. J Biol Chem 276:39562–39568

88.

Tjin Tham Sjin

Naspinski

Birsner

Chan

Gillies

Zurakowski

Folkman

Samulski

Javaherian

2006. Endostatin therapy reveals a u-shaped curve for antitumor activity. Cancer Gene Ther 13:619–627

89.

Troyanovsky

Levchenko

Mansson

Matvijenko

Holmgren

2001. Angiomotin: An angiostatin binding protein that regulates endothelial cell migration and tube formation. J Cell Biol 152:1247–1254

90.

Van der Veldt

Lubberink

Bahce

Walraven

de Boer

Greuter

Hendrikse

Eriksson

Windhorst

Postmus

Verheul

Serne

Lammertsma

Smit

EF.

2012. Rapid decrease in delivery of chemotherapy to tumors after anti-vegf therapy: Implications for scheduling of anti-angiogenic drugs. Cancer Cell 21:82–91

91.

von Degenfeld

Banfi

Springer

Wagner

Jacobi

Ozawa

Merchant

Cooke

Blau

HM.

2006. Microenvironmental vegf distribution is critical for stable and functional vessel growth in ischemia. FASEB J 20:2657–2659

92.

Wahl

Kenan

Gonzalez-Gronow

Pizzo

SV.

2005. Angiostatin’s molecular mechanism: Aspects of specificity and regulation elucidated. J Cell Biochem 96:242–261

93.

Wajih

Sane

DC.

2003. Angiostatin selectively inhibits signaling by hepatocyte growth factor in endothelial and smooth muscle cells. Blood 101:1857–1863

94.

Weis

SM.

2011. Evaluation of vegf-induced vascular permeability in mice. Methods Mol Biol 763:403–415

95.

Lan

Cheng

Chen

Shen

Lee

Zuchini

Liu

HS.

2011. Ras-related tumorigenesis is suppressed by bnip3-mediated autophagy through inhibition of cell proliferation. Neoplasia 13:1171–1182

96.

Wynn

TA.

2008. Cellular and molecular mechanisms of fibrosis. J Pathol 214:199–210

97.

Yamagishi

Yonekura

Yamamoto

Fujimori

Sakurai

Tanaka

Yamamoto

1999. Vascular endothelial growth factor acts as a pericyte mitogen under hypoxic conditions. Lab Invest 79:501–509

98.

Yamamoto

Shimizu

Obi

Kumagaya

Taketani

Kamiya

Ando

2007. Involvement of cell surface atp synthase in flow-induced atp release by vascular endothelial cells. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 293: H1646–1653

99.

Zhao

Jiang

Yang

Liu

ZG.

2007. Pericytes are correlated with the permeability of rat corneal neovascular vessels induced by alkali burn. Chin Med J (Engl) 120:274–279

A Hypothesis Concerning the Biphasic Dose-response of Tumors to Angiostatin and Endostatin

Abstract

Keywords

Angiogenesis and Cancer

The Tumor and its Stroma

The Modes of Action of VEGF/VPF

Anti-Angiogenic Agents

Formation and Composition of Angiostatin and Endostatin

Targets of Angiostatin

Effects of Angiostatin

Hypothesis for Action

Disappointing Clinical Results and the U-shaped Dose-Response Curve

A Hypothesis for U-Shaped Dose Response for Angiostatin

Discussion

Low Dose Rates of Angiostatin

High Dose Rates of Angiostatin

Summary

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

References