Bone Marrow Interaction and Multiple Myeloma - Approximating Reality in Novel High-Throughput Multiple Myeloma Coculture Systems

• Published in: Blood 2014-12, Vol.124 (21), p.2243-2243
• Main Authors: Waldschmidt, Johannes, Wider, Dagmar, Simon, Anna, Thomsen, Andreas R., Aldrian, Christine, Follo, Marie, Schüler, Julia, Kortum, Martin, Wäsch, Ralph, Engelhardt, Monika
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• ISSN: 0006-4971; 1528-0020
• DOI: 10.1182/blood.V124.21.2243.2243

Introduction: In the past decade, substantial progress has been made in the understanding of multiple myeloma (MM) cell biology and its interaction with the bone marrow microenvironment (BMM). Binding of MM cells to BM stroma cells (BMSCs) alters the expression of SDF-1α and its receptor CXCR4, leading to the secretion of anti-apoptotic cytokines, promoting tumor growth, drug resistance and migration. MM cancer stem cells migrate to endosteal BM niches, where they escape therapies in a quiescent state causing relapse in the course of the disease. The development of novel agents that aim to target the MM and BMM interaction includes drugs as promising as 2nd and 3rdgeneration IMIDs or proteasome inhibitors. Despite these profound advances, the failure rate of preclinically proven cytotoxic single substances is sizeable, as preclinical models often lack the biological, genetic, etiological and immunological properties of the disease (Schüler, Expert. Opin. Biol. Ther. 2013; Kortüm. CLML 2014; Rongvaux. Annu Rev Immunol 2013). Methods & Results: We have previously demonstrated that BM interaction and homing to niches, mediated by the adhesion molecules CXCR4, CD49d and CD44, protect MM cell lines (MMCL) and primary plasma cells (PC) from the cytotoxic effect of anti-MM agents, such as bortezomib (Bor), vorinostat (Vor) and pomalidomide (Pom). Our in vitro and in vivo observed cytotoxic effects from Bor, Vor and Pom confirmed their potent cytotoxicity, whereas cocultivation with M2-10B4 substantially reduced apoptosis and induced tumor protective effects. Additional treatment with the CXCR4 inhibitor AMD3100 blocked CXCR4 in coculture, but left CD49d, CD44 and CD11a widely unchanged. Toxic or therapeutic effects from AMD3100 monotherapy were excluded for the doses used. Comparison of the CXCR4 antibody (ab)-clones 12G5, 44717 and 4G10 revealed that AMD3100 treatment of U266 cells reduced CXCR4 expression with use of 12G5 and 44717, whereas binding of both FITC- and PE-coupled 4G10 was not influenced, making the latter the most reliable for CXCR4 analysis. Use of image cytometry (IC) allowed accurate visualization of co-localisation of CXCR4 expression both on the cell surface and within the cytoplasm of MM cells. IC correlated with flow cytometry-determined CXCR4 expression and allowed the detailed assessment of treatment studies with and without anti-MM agents and AMD3100. Of note, AMD3100 resensitized MM cells to Bor, Vor and Pom (Waldschmidt. Blood 2012:245