HPLC Analysis of Purities of ART and DHA
The chemical structures of ART and DHA are shown in Fig. 1A. An analytical method was developed that determined these ART and DHA simultaneously using a reverse phase column with gradient elution. To date, almost all reports on the HPLC analysis of ART and DHA employed reverse phase column with an isocratic mobile phase of acetonitrile:water (60:40) [25-27]. Using our reverse phase column with the isocratic mobile elution, the retention time for ART was 4.904 min, while for DHA were 4.202 and 4.869 min. Although the two peaks of DHAα and DHAβ can be separated well, in this condition, ART cannot be separated with DHAβ. Thus, the reported method has significant defects in simultaneous determination of ART and DHA.
To increase the resolution of separation, in some reports, buffers or acids are used in these elution systems. However, the buffer cannot be stored in the column for a long time, and a complex, time-consuming process has to be conducted each time the assay is complete. To avoid buffer, acetonitrile and water, two simple, easily prepared eluents that are safe for the column, were used. In this study, a gradient elution program was developed without buffer to separate ART and DHA. As shown in Fig. 1B, using our method, the retention time (Rt) for ART are 10.566 min, while Rt for DHAα and DHAβ are 6.671 and 8.905 min. Those three peaks are baseline separated. The purity of ART and DHA are 98.7% and 98.5%, respectively. The contents of DHAα and DHAβ in DHA are 70.2% and 28.2%, respectively, and the ratio for α and β form of DHA is 2.49:1.
Gut Microbiome Biotransformation of ART
Based on previous reports, DHA is an in vivo metabolite of ART [6,7]. Like many other herbal medicines, Artemisia annua is taken orally. After oral ingestion, the main constituent artemisinin is exposed to gut microflora in the gastrointestinal tract. Whether DHA is converted by the gut microbiome or by enzymes in vivo from ART is still unknown. Since there is no enteric microbial converts report on ART, gut microbiome biotransformation tests were performed on ART.
As shown in Fig. 1C, for the control groups at 0, 12 and 24 h, since there is no peak at the retention times of ART and DHA, the background of gut microbiome did not influence the determination of ART and DHA. When ART incubated with gut microbiome for 12 h, compared to the chromatogram at 0 h, the peak height of ART was reduced, suggesting ART was transformed by gut microbiome to its metabolites, and two new peaks were detected. After 24 h incubation, ART was not detected, suggesting ART was absolutely transformed to its metabolites in 24 h, while three new peaks were detected. UV spectra of those three peaks suggested that the compound at Rt 7.823 min is likely a metabolite of ART. Because UV spectra of other two peaks are much different to ART or DHA, those two peaks should be produced by the gut microbiome, which was supported by the chromatogram from control group, in which a compound at Rt 11.116 min was detected. Our data firstly proved that DHA is not a gut microbial metabolite of ART.
Antiproliferative Effects of ART and DHA
To evaluate anti-proliferative effects of ART and DHA, a two-step-strategy was emplyed. In the first step, one time point was investigated with relatively large intervals in compound concentration. As shown in Fig. 2A, for the cell line HCT-116, DHA showed significant antiproliferative effect in concentrations of >10 μM (p<0.05, p<0.01). Morphological observation was performed after crystal violet staining, showing that ART did not influence HCT-116 cell growth, while DHA obviously inhibited cell growth at 15 and 25 μM (Fig. 2B). Similar effects were observed in HT-29 cell line, but the active concentration of DHA was 30 μM, which is higher than that on HCT-116 cells.
Due to DHA showing strong inhibition activities on HCT-116 cells, this cell line was employed for further studies. In the second step, the time- and dose-dependent effects were investigated. Cell proliferations were observed at 24, 48, and 72 h, and more precise concentration ranges were employed. The treatment concentrations for both compounds were 5-25 µM. As shown in Fig. 2C, after treatment with DHA, by doses over 10 µM, dose- and time-dependent antiproliferative effects were observed. However, ART did not inhibit cancer cell growth (Fig. 2C).
ART and DHA on Cancer Cell Cycle
Based on MTS results, DHA showed significant antiproliferation effects on HCT-116 cells with the doses over 10 μM. Thus, concentrations used in cell cycle tests were of 10-25 μM for 48 h. Fig. 3A shows that 10-25 μM of DHA treatment changed cell cycle profiles. At 10 μM, DHA obviously reduced S-phase proportion and increased G2/M-phase proportion. Treatment with 15-25 μM showed more significant changes. After treatment with 20 μM of DHA for 48 h, in comparison to the control 48.5% of G1, 29.5% of M, and 17.9% of G2/M), cells in G1-phase were 32.7% (p < 0.01), M-phase 25.0% (p < 0.01), and G2/M phase 40.8% (p < 0.01). DHA treatment significantly decreased G1- and S-phase cells and increased G2/M-phase cells. However, cell cycle effects of ART in HCT-116 cells were not found (Fig. 3B).
Effects ART and DHA on Expression of cyclin A
Cell cycle progression is regulated by cyclins, particularly cyclin A for the S-phase and passage through the G2/M-phase. The observation of G2/M phase cancer cell cycle arrest through GBC led to further investigation of cell cycle regulation through evaluating the expression of cyclin A. Using HCT-116 cells, for the control group, the cell proportion for cyclin A positive cells was 14.7%. After 48 h treatment with 10, 15, 20, and 25 μM of DHA, the cyclin A positive proportions increased to 33.3%, 38.3%, 44.1%, and 51.0%, respectively (all p < 0.01) (Fig. 3B). On the other hand, with ART treatment at same concentrations, the expression of cyclin A was not changed. Therefore, DHA treatment induced an obvious increase in cyclin A expression on HCT-116 cells.
Apoptotic Induction of ART and DHA on Colorectal Cancer Cells
To further investigate mechanisms of DHA’s cell growth inhibition, an apoptotic assay was conducted within the staining of PI and annexin V. For PI and annexin V staining, negative for both are viable cells, while positive for both are late apoptotic or necrotic cells. PI-positive and annexin V-negative are cells that underwent necrosis, while annexin V-positive and PI-negative are early apoptotic cells. As shown in Fig. 4A, the early and late apoptotic cells for the control were 5.3% and 3.4%, respectively. Treatments with DHA at 20-30 μM increased apoptotic cells significantly. For example, 30 μg/ml of DHA treatment for 48 h resulted in an increasing of early and late apoptotic cells to 14.5% and 26.3%, respectively (both p < 0.01). However, ART treatment did not induce cancer cell apoptosis (Fig. 4A).
ART and DHA on pro-inflammatory cytokine expression
Previous research has reported that the pro-inflammatory cytokine IL-8 recruited and activated neutrophils, which contribute to the gut mucosal damage. Extract from the plant Artemisia annua showed anti-inflammatory activities in different acute and chronic inflammatory models. To test the anti-proliferative potentials of Artemisia annua's major constituent and its metabolite, in this study, the anti-inflammatory effects of ART and DHA on LPS-induced IL-8 secretion in HT-29 cells were investigated. As shown in Fig. 4B, both ART and DHA significantly inhibited IL-8 secretion at the concentrations of 4-10 uM (both p < 0.01). Our data suggests that both ART and DHA have similar anti-inflammatory potential.
Effects of ART on Treg, Th1 and Th17 Cell Differentiation
In our previous anti-inflammatory cytokine expression investigation, both ART and DHA showed obvious inhibitory effects on IL-8 secretion. To compare the effects with DHA, the effects of ART on T cell differentiation were assayed. As shown in Fig. 5, ART did not influence Treg cell differentiation. However, ART influenced Th1 and Th17 cell differentiation. For the Th1 cells, ART inhibited the cell differentiation at concentrations of 0.5-2 μM. For Th17 cells, inhibitory effects of ART was observed at the concentrations of 1 and 2 μM. Therefore, we observed dose-dependent effects of ART on Th1 and Th17 cell differentiation.
DHA Increased Treg Differentiation and Decreased Th17 Differentiation
To investigate DHA on adaptive immunity, GBC on T cell differentiation was evaluated. Treg cells act as suppressor cells with unique immune regulation. The normality of Treg cells plays crucial role in the maintenance of the body’s immune tolerance. It has been shown that suppression of Th17-cell differentiation from naive CD4+ T cells has beneficial effects on inflammatory disease management. To test DHA on the differentiation of Treg, Th1, and Th17, CD4+ T cells were maintained under Treg, Th1, and Th17-polarizing conditions. At the treatment concentrations of 0.5 μM, DHA did not influence Treg, Th1, and Th17 cell differentiation obviously. For Th1 cells, only 2 μM of DHA showed some effects. For the Treg cells, interestingly, 1 and 2 μM of DHA significantly increased Treg cell differentiation (both p < 0.01). However, for the Th17 cell differentiation, approximately 30.4% of CD4+ T cells were IL-17+ in the control group. 1 μM of DHA treatment inhibited Th17 differentiation to 22.1% (p < 0.01). Further, 2 μM of DHA treatment inhibited Th17 differentiation down to 9.5% (p < 0.01) (Fig. 6). Concentration-dependent positive regulation in Treg and negative regulation in Th17 differentiation by DHA treatment was observed.