Title:Distinct DNA Metabolism and Anti-proliferative Effects of Goat Urine Metabolites: An Explanation for Xeno-tumor Heterogeneity
VOLUME: 14 ISSUE: 1
Author(s):Ajay Kumar, Swati Swami and Nilesh K. Sharma*
Affiliation:Cancer and Translational Research Lab, Dr. D.Y. Patil Biotechnology & Bioinformatics Institute, Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pune, Maharashtra, 411033, Cancer and Translational Research Lab, Dr. D.Y. Patil Biotechnology & Bioinformatics Institute, Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pune, Maharashtra, 411033, Cancer and Translational Research Lab, Dr. D.Y. Patil Biotechnology & Bioinformatics Institute, Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pune, Maharashtra, 411033
Keywords:Microbiome, neoplasms, metabolites, ruminants, therapy, urine.
Abstract:
Background: The tumor microenvironment, including microbiome populations in
the local niche of several types of solid tumors like mammary and colorectal cancer are distinct.
The occurrence of one type of cancer over another varies from animals to human individuals.
Further, clinical data suggest that specific cancer types such as mammary and colorectal
cancer are rare in ruminants like goat.
Methods: Fresh urine samples were collected from healthy ruminants (cow, goat, buffalo,
ox), non-ruminant animals (horse, jenny) and human. Further, these urine samples were subjected
to fractionation by drying, vortexing, centrifugation and sterile filtration in DMSO extraction
solvent. Collected urine DMSO fraction (UDF) samples from all sources were subjected
to DNA metabolizing assay with plasmid DNA pBR322 and genomic DNA of MCF-7
cells. Next, based on the discernible DNA metabolizing effects of goat UDF among other
sources, goat UDF was tested for anti-proliferative effects upon HCT-116 and MCF-7 cells
using Trypan blue dye exclusion assay.
Results: This paper reports that goat UDF possesses very clear DNA metabolizing effects
(up to 95%) upon plasmid and genomic DNA compared to other ruminants, non-ruminants
and human UDF samples. Interestingly, autoclaving of goat UDF and other sample results in
the significant loss of DNA metabolizing effects. In this way, data potentially indicate that
the goat UDF sample contains metabolite or similar organic compounds. Further, in vitro
treatment of the goat, UDF sample shows clear anti-proliferative effects upon HCT-116 (up
to 75%) and MCF-7 (up to 40%).
Conclusion: This study signifies the clear differences in DNA metabolizing effects of goat
UDF over other selected animal sources. Furthermore, the observed DNA metabolizing effects
of goat UDF well correlate with anti-proliferative effects upon HCT-116 and MCF-7
cells. This study is a first report to show the comparison of urine metabolites among various
animals. Interestingly, findings propose an indirect link that may support the possible reasons
behind xeno-tumor heterogeneity in the form of rare occurrences of colorectal and mammary
cancer in goat over other ruminants, non-ruminants and human.
