Comparison of the effects of recombinant human endostatin and docetaxel on human umbilical vein endothelial cells in different growth states

Background Recombinant human endostatin (rh-endostatin, Endostar) has been proved to be an inhibitor of angiogenesis. Docetaxel has been also considered as a common chemotherapeutic agent with inhibition of angiogenesis of malignancies. However, their function has been seldom compared and a best synergism protocol is not determined. This study aimed to compare the effects of two drugs, investigate their combined impact on human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs), a molecular basis and find ideal protocols to inhibit endothelial cell proliferation. Methods HUVECs on confluent growth or activated by vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) were treated by rh-endostatin or/and docetaxel at respective gradient concentration in following operations as cell proliferation determined by MU assay, cell cycle distribution, apoptosis and markers of CD146, CD62E and CD105 detected by flow cytometery, the structure of the channel formed by HUVECs measured by tube formation count. Results Rh-endostatin exhibited time dependent inhibition of proliferation while docetaxel showed both time and dose dependent inhibition. HUVECs accumulated in G(0)-G(1) with decreased numbers of cells in G(2) after a single treatment of rh-endostatin or that followed by docetaxel treatment. Cells accumulated in G(2) after both a single docetaxel and simultaneous administration. Both the number of cells in G(0)-G(1) and apoptotic cells were increased by docetaxel followed by rh-endostatin treatment. The number of non-apoptotic cells at G(0)-G(1) was increased by first administering rh-endostatin then docetaxel. Sequential treatment of docetaxel followed by rh-endostatin resulted in the greatest increase in apoptosis (34.7%) and the second highest apoptosis was seen with simultaneous administration (18.2%). Expression of CD146 and CD105 on confluent HUVECs was reduced at certain doses of rh-endostatin and/or docetaxel. However, rh-endostatin reduced CD105 without any apparent impact on either CD146 or CD62E expression, whereas theses. markers were down-regulated by docetaxel after pre-activation by VEGF. Rh-endostatin treatment maintained tube-like structures for a limited time. In contrast, docetaxel swiftly reduced tube formation. Simultaneous treatment, or docetaxel followed by rh-endostatin, exhibited a stronger inhibition on tube formation than either agent alone. Conclusions Both rh-endostatin and docetaxel can inhibit HUVEC proliferation while the high apoptotic rate after combined administration was probably owing to different sequent administration by docetaxel followed by rh-endostatin or simultaneous treatment. Both proliferation and adhesion molecules on HUVECs of confluent growth are down-regulated by the two drugs. The rh-endostatin decreased proliferation markers, but only slightly modified adhesion molecules, while both markers were down-regulated by docetaxel on HUVECs activated by VEGF. Rh-endostatin could maintain adhesion of HUVECs at first then induce cells apoptosis to damage tube formation. We hypothesize that it could lead to vascular normalization in short time. In contrast, docetaxel can suppress HUVEC proliferation, adhesion, and reduced tube formation swiftly due to its cytotoxicity. Combined treatments can induce a synergistic inhibition of tube formation. Chin Med J 2011;124(18): 2883-2889