Post on 16-Jan-2023
www.elsevier.com/locate/ybbrc
Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 322 (2004) 452–457
BBRC
Photosensitization with protoporphyrin IX inhibits attachmentof cancer cells to a substratum
A.B. Uzdenskya,b,*, A. Juzenienea, E. Kolpakovaa,G.-O. Hjortlanda, P. Juzenasa, J. Moana,c
a Institute for Cancer Research, 0310 Montebello, Oslo, Norwayb Rostov State University, 344090 Rostov-on-Don, Russia
c Institute of Physics, University of Oslo, 0316 Blindern, Oslo, Norway
Received 16 July 2004
Available online 10 August 2004
Abstract
Effects of photodynamic therapy (PDT) on adhesion of human adenocarcinoma cells of the line WiDr to a plastic substratum
were investigated. Protoporphyrin IX induced by 5-aminolevulinic acid (ALA) was used as a photosensitizer. Light exposure inhib-
ited attachment of suspended cells to a substratum. The adhesion was most strongly pronounced for light exposures around
200 mJ/cm2 causing cell death. However, sub-lethal exposures (42 mJ/cm2, 97% survival) inhibited cell adhesion as well. Sub-lethal
ALA-PDT increased the intracellular space in dense colonies of WiDr cells. This was attributed to formation of lamellipodia
between the cells and to increased numbers of focal contacts containing aVb3 integrin in some of the cells. The E-cadherin distri-
bution was not changed by the treatment. Complex processes, including changes in cellular shape and reorganization of the cyto-
skeleton, are suggested to participate in the observed ALA-PDT effect on the cell adhesion.
� 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: 5-Aminolevulinic acid; Cell adhesion; Photodynamic therapy; Integrin; Tumour metastasis
Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is based on destruction
of malignant cells and tissues by cytotoxic reactive oxy-
gen species produced during light exposure of cells andtissues in the presence of a photosensitizer [1,2]. Among
other effects PDT damages cell membranes [3] and im-
pairs cell adhesiveness [4–9].
Adhesion is a primordial property of cells, basic for
tissue integrity and centrally involved in formation of
tumour metastasis [10,11]. The remarkable advantage
of PDT as an anti-cancer modality is its capability of
reducing tumour metastases [12,13]. This reductionmay be associated with photoimpairment of the adhe-
siveness of cancer cells [8,9]. Cell adhesion to an extra-
cellular matrix or artificial substrata is mediated by
0006-291X/$ - see front matter � 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.bbrc.2004.07.132
* Corresponding author. Fax: +47 22 93 42 70.
E-mail addresses: uzd@krinc.ru, auzd@yandex.ru (A.B.Uzdensky).
integrins [14–16]. Integrin receptors initiate numerous
signal transduction pathways that control cell shape,
motility, proliferation, and death [16–18]. Cadherinsare responsible for cell–cell adhesion, and play an
important role in maintaining intercellular connections
and tissue architecture [14,17,19]. E-cadherin has been
shown to suppress tumour cell invasiveness and metas-
tasis [14].
5-Aminolevulinic acid (ALA), a biochemical precur-
sor of the endogenous photosensitizer protoporphyrin
IX (PpIX), is being studied for cancer treatment [20].After exogenous administration of ALA, protoporphy-
rin IX is formed and preferentially accumulates in rap-
idly proliferating cancer cells, thus providing selective
destruction of tumours exposed to light. The mecha-
nisms of ALA-PDT at the cellular and tissue levels have
been thoroughly investigated in the past decade [21–23].
A.B. Uzdensky et al. / Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 322 (2004) 452–457 453
However, the effect of ALA-PDT on the adhesive prop-
erties of cultured cells has not been studied in detail so
far. Recently, we investigated the effect of sub-lethal
PDT on the enzymatic detachment of cells from a sub-
stratum [24]. In the present work we have addressed
the effect of ALA-PDT on the attachment of cancer cellsto a plastic substratum, on cell morphology after attach-
ment, and on expression of integrin aVb3 and E-cad-
herin in these cells.
Fig. 1. Attachment of WiDr cells to a substratum after 2 h preincu-
bation with or without 1 mM ALA in the darkness.
Materials and methods
5-Aminolevulinic acid (ALA), RPMI-1640 medium, penicillin/
streptomycin solution, LL-glutamine, trypsin–EDTA, thiazolyl blue
tetrazolium bromide (MTT), isopropanol, phosphate-buffered saline
(PBS), and other chemicals were obtained from Sigma–Aldrich Nor-
way AS (Oslo, Norway). Foetal calf serum (FCS) was obtained from
Gibco-BRL, Life Technologies, Roskilde, Denmark. 30 mM of stock
solution of ALA in RPMI-1640 medium was prepared ex tempera
before every experiment and diluted in this medium to a final con-
centration of 1 mM. Mouse anti-human integrin aVb3 (MAB1976Z,
clone LM609) was obtained from Chemicon International (Temecula,
CA). Mouse anti-E-cadherin was obtained from Transduction Labs
(Lexington, KY). As a secondary antibody we used Cy3-conjugated
goat anti-mouse IgG obtained from Jackson Immunoresearch Labo-
ratories (West Grove, PA). Antibodies were dissolved ex tempera in
TBS (20 mM phosphate-buffered saline containing 5% (w/v) milk
powder and 0.2% (v/v) Triton X-100).
The human WiDr cell line is derived from a primary adenocarci-
noma of the rectosigmoid colon [25]. These cells were maintained in
exponential growth in RPMI 1640 medium with 10% FCS, 100 U/ml
penicillin, 100 lg/ml streptomycin, and 2 mM LL-glutamine. The cells
were incubated in cell culture flasks (Nunc A/S, Roskilde, Denmark) or
plastic 12-well dishes (Costar, Corning, Corning, NY) at 37 �C in a
humidified 5% CO2 atmosphere and subcultured twice a week using
0.01% trypsin in 0.02% EDTA.
The survival of the cells was measured using the colorimetric MTT
assay [26]. The cells were seeded in 75 cm2 cell culture flasks and grown
for three days. Then they were incubated with 1 mM ALA for 2 h,
washed with PBS, and trypsinized. Approximately 105 cells in fresh
medium were seeded into wells and exposed to light. At 24 h after
PDT, MTT (0.25 mg/ml) was added to each well and the samples were
incubated at 37 �C for 4 h. After washing and dissolving of formazan
by isopropanol (200 ll/well), 25 ll samples were transferred into a 96-
well microplate for reading of the optical density by a Multiskan MS-
352 plate reader (Labsystems, Helsinki, Finland).
The ability of the treated cells to attach to a plastic substratum (a
well bottom) was assayed by two methods. The cells were incubated for
2 h in the dark at 37 �C in a 75 cm2 Falcon flask with 1 mM ALA.
Then they were brought into suspension by the trypsin treatment. This
suspension was distributed into four 25 cm2 flasks, which were irra-
diated for 0, 0.3, 1 or 5 min (fluences 0, 14, 42 or 210 mJ/cm2,
respectively). (1) Immediately after irradiation 2 ml aliquots of the cell
suspension from each flask were added into new flask containing 5 ml
RPMI 1640 medium. This was done in triplicate for each experimental
point. Twenty-four hours after light exposure the number of attached
cells in a given area of the bottom of the flask was determined using a
microscope. (2) Immediately after irradiation triplicates of 0.5 ml
aliquots of the cell suspension from each flask were added to incuba-
tion wells containing 2 ml RPMI 1640. At 0, 1, 3 or 5 h after light
exposure 1 ml aliquot of the cell suspension was removed and the
number of non-attached, floating cells was counted by means of a
Glasstic Slide 10 with grids (Hycor Biomedical, Garden Grove, CA).
The rate of cell attachment was estimated by determining the number
of non-attached cells suspended in the medium compared to that in
control samples.
A bank of fluorescent tubes (Model 3026, Applied Photophysics,
London, UK) with an irradiance of 0.7 mW/cm2 was used for photo-
irradiation. The emission of this lamp was mainly in the wavelength
region 370–450 nm, with a peak at 405 nm.
For visualization of integrin aVb3 or E-cadherin, control and
photosensitized (1-min irradiation after 2-h incubation with 1 mM
ALA) cells grown on glass coverslips were fixed for 20 min in 3%
paraformaldehyde at 20 �C. Then they were washed three times in PBS
and labelled for 20 min with the primary antibodies dissolved in TBS,
washed twice with PBS, and then labelled for 20 min with secondary
goat anti-mouse antibodies. After staining, the coverslips were
mounted in Mowiol. Fluorescence microscopy was performed using a
Zeiss Axioplan microscope (Karl Zeiss, FRG) equipped with an oil
immersion objective 63·, an HBO/100 W mercury lamp, an excitation
filter 450–490 nm, a dichroic beam splitter FT 510, and a long pass
emission filter >630 nm. Fluorescence images were taken by a CCD-
camera (Princeton Instruments, Princeton, USA). A Leica TCSNT
(Wetzlar, Germany) microscope was used for confocal microscopy.
Images were taken with an objective 100· and captured with a reso-
lution of 1024 · 1024 pixels.
Standard statistical methods, based on Student�s criterion and the
non-parametric sign criterion, were used. Results are expressed as
means ± SEM.
Results
Suspended WiDr cells gradually sedimented on the
well bottom and attached to the plastic substratum. In
the darkness 50% of the cells were attached after
approximately 50 min. The number of attached cells
was close to maximal after 3–4 h incubation and was
constant during the following 20 h (Fig. 1). Preincuba-tion of the cells with 1 mM ALA for 2 h in the darkness
(cells were then rinsed) did not influence the cell attach-
ment (Fig. 1).
A survival curve of WiDr cells after ALA-PDT
(1 mM ALA, 2 h incubation) is presented in Fig. 2.
Short light exposures (up to 1 min, 42 mJ/cm2) were
Fig. 2. Phototoxicity of WiDr cells after preincubation with 1 mM
ALA for 2 h. The cells were exposed to light in a suspension. Data
represent three independent experiments with three parallels in each
group.
Fig. 3. Effect of different light exposure times on the attachment of
WiDr cells preincubaed with 1 mM ALA for 2 h. Data represent mean
ratios of the number of non-attached cells with the number of initial
cells in the suspension. The dynamics are averaged from 13
experiments.
454 A.B. Uzdensky et al. / Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 322 (2004) 452–457
practically non-phototoxic (LD10 = 50 mJ/cm2),
whereas longer exposures induced cell death (Fig. 2).
A non-phototoxic 1 min exposure (survival 97%, Fig.
2) delayed the cell attachment slightly. In the PDT
group 38% of the cells were attached compared to 57%
in the control at 1 h after light exposure (Fig. 3). Mod-
erate phototoxic light exposures (3–5 min, 126–210 mJ/
cm2) diminished the cell attachment considerably, nota-
Table 1
Number of experiments on ALA-PDT (1 mM, 2 h incubation) influence the
Time after PDT (h) Light exposure
1 min
+ 0 �1 10 2 1
5 5 5 3
‘‘+,’’ weaker attachment; ‘‘0,’’ no difference; ‘‘�,‘‘stronger attachment; and ‘
bly during the early part of the attachment period (Fig.
3). The dynamics of cell attachment were averaged from
13 independent experiments that possibly differed
slightly with respect to experimental conditions. This
might be a reason for rather large error bars in the graph
(Fig. 3). However, in spite of the variations among theexperiments, the differences between the control and
the experimental samples were significant in almost all
of the experiments. Use of the non-parametrical statisti-
cal sign criterion (Table 1) showed that the non-photo-
toxic light exposure (1 min) significantly reduced the
cell attachment at 1 h incubation.
After attachment, WiDr cells proliferated and formed
tightly packed colonies with a little space between cells(Figs. 4A, B, and E; 5A, B, and E). The integrin aVb3was diffusely distributed in these cells. Its immunofluo-
rescence was strongest in the intercellular contact regions
inside the colonies. Fluorescing points presumably indi-
cate focal contacts (Fig. 4A). ALA-PDT of the attached
cells decreased the density of cell packing (Figs. 4C, D,
and F; 5D and F) indicating an inhibitory effect on
cell–cell interactions. The cells formed lamellipodia di-rected not only to the surrounding medium, but also to
the intercellular space inside the colonies (Figs. 4D and
5D). In the photosensitized cells integrin aVb3 was redis-tributed from the intercellular regions and formed
numerous focal contacts throughout the cells. Focal con-
tacts were often observed at the leading edges of the
lamellipodia (Fig. 4C). The E-cadherin fluorescence in
WiDr cells was presented by small granules concentratedin intercellular contacts and at the outer colony border
(Figs. 5A and E). ALA-PDT did not change the distribu-
tion of E-cadherin significantly (Figs. 5C and F), except
in the border between the cells (Fig. 5F) due to the in-
creased intracellular space.
Discussion
After being seeded in an unstirred flask, the cells sedi-
ment on the bottom and attach to it. Our data demon-
strate that ALA-PDT slows down the cell attachment
process. Not only toxic, but also non-toxic light expo-
sures interfered with the cell adhesion process. Thus,
the adhesive properties are impaired even in surviving
cells. The delay of the attachment may be associated with
attachment of WiDr cells to the substratum
5 min
p + 0 � p
<0.05 9 2 1 <0.05
>0.05 11 1 0 <0.01
‘p,’’ statistical significance.
Fig. 4. Integrin aVb3 distribution in WiDr cells (A,C,E,F). In control cells integrin aVb3 localizes mainly in the peripheral regions of intercellular
contacts (A,E). After PDT (1 mMALA, 2 h incubation, 1-min irradiation) it redistributes throughout the cells (C,F). ALA-PDT apparently increases
the space between the cells in the colonies (C,F), which is filled with lamellipodia (D). (A,C) Conventional fluorescence microscopy; (B,D) phase
contrast images on the same cell colonies; and (E,F) confocal images. Bars on (A–D) 20 lm, on (E,F) 30 lm.
Fig. 5. E-cadherin distribution in WiDr cells (A,C,E,F). In control cells E-cadherin localizes mainly in the regions of intercellular contacts (A,E).
After PDT it does not significantly redistribute (B,E), but ALA-PDT apparently increases intercellular spaces in the colonies (F). (A,C) Conventional
fluorescence microscopy; (B,D) phase contrast images of the same cell colonies; and (E,F) confocal images. Scale bars for (A–D) 20 lm, for (E,F)
30 lm.
A.B. Uzdensky et al. / Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 322 (2004) 452–457 455
PDT-induced perturbations in the cell adhesion machin-
ery, including integrins, proteins linking integrins to the
actin cytoskeleton, and the intracellular signalling system
[6,7]. In colonies of the attached WiDr cells, we observed
morphological changes, including formation of lamelli-
podia in the intercellular space, and redistribution of inte-
grin aVb3, indicating creation of focal adhesions. PDT ofcells with hematoporphyrin derivative also decreased cell
attachment to a substratum and to a monolayer of the
same [4] or endothelial cells [5,8]. Photosensitization with
benzoporphyrin derivative-monoacid ring (BPD-MA)
inhibited cell attachment to components of the extracel-
lular matrix as fibronectin, vitronectin, and collagen [6].
It also influenced the cell shape, but, unlike our observa-
tion, inhibited adhesion-induced phosphorylation of
focal adhesion kinase [6] and caused loss of b1 integrin-containing focal adhesion plaques [7]. However, it should
be noted that the light exposures used in these works [6,7]
killed most of the cells.
Cytoplasmic structures, like mitochondria, in which
PpIX is produced from ALA [20], are not directly linkedto the adhesion machinery associated with the plasma
membrane. It is surprising that PDT targeting of mito-
chondria and other perinuclear structures by ALA-pro-
duced PpIX in the present work and in our previous
paper [24], as well as MitoTracker Red [24], or BPD-
MA [6,7] influenced the remote adhesion processes at
the cell surface where cell adhesion molecules such as
456 A.B. Uzdensky et al. / Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 322 (2004) 452–457
integrins and cadherins are placed [14]. One can suggest
that either a number of complex processes, including ener-
gy-dependent changes in the cell shape, reorganization of
the cytoskeleton, and signal transduction, participate in
PDT-induced impairment of the cell adhesion, or a cer-
tain fraction of the ALA-induced PpIX has been relocal-ized to the plasmamembrane at the time of light exposure.
Being receptors of the extracellular matrix, integrins
are responsible for the cell-substratum adhesion. Their
intracellular domain is linked to the actin cytoskeleton
and signalling molecules, such as focal adhesion kinase,
Src kinase, etc. [15,18,27,28]. ALA-PDT-induced
changes in the cell adhesion might be caused either by
a direct PDT effect on integrins or by a PDT-inducedmodulation of integrin expression and inside-out signal-
ling that regulates integrin-ligand affinity and clustering
necessary for strong adhesion [28,29]. Margaron et al.
[6] showed that even strong photosensitization of cancer
cells with BPD-MA (10% survival) did not affect the
expression level of diverse integrins with a2, a4, a5, aV,b1, b2, and b3 subunits. Therefore, the PDT effect on cell
adhesion may be associated with regulation of the affin-ity and/or of the clustering of existing integrin molecules
rather than with their degradation or inhibition of their
expression. We observed redistribution of integrin aVb3and formation of focal adhesions. Simultaneously lamel-
lipodia formation, indicating weakening of intercellular
interactions in the colonies, was observed. However, the
distribution of E-cadherins (responsible for intercellular
contacts [14]) was not changed. Therefore, E-cadherinswere probably not involved in the changes in cell mor-
phology and adhesion.
The aVb3 integrin is a major integrin in focal contacts
[15,28,30]. It binds specifically to vitronectin, a serum
protein that triggers cell attachment [31]. This high-af-
finity integrin plays an important role for formation of
new adhesion points and promotion of lamellipodia,
for cell proliferation, survival, migration, invasion, andfor formation of tumour metastases [30,32]. One can
suggest that a residual amount of a photosensitizer is re-
tained in the plasma membrane during influx of PpIX
after extracellular application or efflux in the case of
ALA-PDT [24] may be sufficient for inducing lipid per-
oxidation [3] and protein cross-linking in the plasma
membrane [33]. This may prevent conformational tran-
sition of integrins to their active state [29] and hindertheir clustering necessary for adhesion [15,29]. ALA-
produced PpIX might also sensitize inside-out signalling
proteins such as Rac, Rho, protein kinase C, etc., that
influence integrin binding to the substratum ligands
and control formation of lamellipodia, stress fibres,
and general cellular response, respectively [15,27,32,34].
A decrease in the adhesiveness of cancer cells after
PDT may reduce the metastatic potential of survivingtumour cells [8,9]. PDT-induced inhibition of tumour
metastasis has been reported in a number of papers
[12,13,35,36]. This may be a unique advantage of PDT
over other cancer treatment modalities, and may be re-
lated to PDT-induced inhibition of both cell attachment
to extracellular matrix or other cells and to changed
detachment of adherent cells [24].
Acknowledgments
The present work was supported by the Research
Foundation of the Norwegian Radium Hospital and
by the Norwegian Research Council.
References
[1] M. Ochsner, Photophysical and photobiological processes in the
photodynamic therapy of tumours, J. Photochem. Photobiol. B
Biol. 39 (1997) 1–18.
[2] T.J. Dougherty, C.J. Gomer, B.W. Henderson, G. Jori, D. Kessel,
M. Korbelik, J. Moan, Q. Peng, Photodynamic therapy, J. Natl.
Cancer Inst. 90 (1998) 889–905.
[3] A. Girotti, Photosensitized oxidation of membrane lipids: reaction
pathways, cytotoxic effects, and cytoprotective mechanisms, J.
Photochem. Photobiol. B Biol. 63 (2001) 103–113.
[4] T. Christensen, J. Moan, L. Smedshammer, A. Western, C.
Rimington, Influence of hematoporphyrin derivative (Hpd) and
light on the attachment of cells to the substratum, Photochem.
Photobiophys. 10 (1985) 53–59.
[5] M.T. Foultier, V. Vonarx-Coinsmann, S. Cordel, A. Combre, T.
Patrice, Modulation of colonic cancer cell adhesiveness by
haematoporphyrin derivative photodynamic therapy, J. Photo-
chem. Photobiol. B Biol. 23 (1994) 9–17.
[6] P. Margaron, R. Sorrenti, J.G. Levy, Photodynamic therapy
inhibits cell adhesion without altering integrin expression, Bio-
chim. Biophys. Acta 1359 (1997) 200–210.
[7] J.M. Runnels, N. Chen, B. Ortel, D. Kato, T. Hasan, BPD-MA-
mediated photosensitization in vitro and in vivo: cellular adhesion
and beta1 integrin expression in ovarian cancer cells, Br. J. Cancer
80 (1999) 946–953.
[8] V. Vonarx, M.T. Foultier, D.B. Xavier, L. Anasagasti, L. Morlet,
T. Patrice, Photodynamic therapy decreases cancer colonic cell
adhesiveness and metastatic potential, Res. Exp. Med. (Berl). 195
(1995) 101–116.
[9] N. Rousset, V. Vonarx, S. Eleouet, J. Carre, E. Kerninon, Y.
Lajat, T. Patrice, Effects of photodynamic therapy on adhesion
molecules and metastasis, J. Photochem. Photobiol. B Biol. 52
(1999) 65–73.
[10] C.W. Evans, Cell adhesion and metastasis, Cell Biol. Int. Rep. 16
(1992) 1–10.
[11] B.R. Zetter, Adhesion molecules in tumor metastasis, Semin.
Cancer Biol. 4 (1993) 219–229.
[12] C.J. Gomer, A. Ferrario, A.L. Murphree, The effect of localized
porphyrin photodynamic therapy on the induction of tumour
metastasis, Br. J. Cancer 56 (1987) 27–32.
[13] G. Canti, D. Lattuada, A. Nicolin, P. Taroni, G. Valentini, R.
Cubeddu, Antitumor immunity induced by photodynamic therapy
with aluminum disulfonated phthalocyanines and laser light,
Anticancer Drugs 5 (1994) 443–447.
[14] B.M. Gumbiner, Cell adhesion: the molecular basis of tissue
architecture and morphogenesis, Cell 84 (1996) 345–357.
[15] E. Zamir, B. Geiger, Molecular complexity and dynamics of cell-
matrix adhesions, J. Cell Sci. 114 (2001) 3583–3590.
A.B. Uzdensky et al. / Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 322 (2004) 452–457 457
[16] F.M. Watt, Role of integrins in regulating epidermis adhesion,
growth and differentiation, EMBO J. 15 (2002) 3919–3926.
[17] A.E. Aplin, A.K. Howe, R.L. Juliano, Cell adhesion molecules,
signal transduction and cell growth, Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 11
(1999) 737–744.
[18] D.D. Schlaepfer, C.R. Hauck, D.J. Sieg, Signalling through focal
adhesion kinase, Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 71 (1999) 435–478.
[19] M.S. Steinberg, P.M. McNutt, Cadherins and their connections:
adhesion junctions have broader functions, Curr. Opin Cell Biol.
11 (1999) 554–560.
[20] Q. Peng, K. Berg, J. Moan, M. Kongshaug, J.M. Nesland, 5-
Aminolevulinic acid-based photodynamic therapy: principles and
experimental research, Photochem. Photobiol. 65 (1997) 235–251.
[21] J.C. Kennedy, S.L. Marcus, R.H. Pottier, Photodynamic therapy
(PDT) and photodiagnosis (PD) using endogenous photosensiti-
zation induced by 5-aminolevulinic acid (ALA): mechanisms and
clinical results, J. Clin. Laser Med. Surg. 14 (1996) 289–304.
[22] Q. Peng, T. Warloe, K. Berg, J. Moan, M. Kongshaug, K.E.
Giercksky, J.M. Nesland, 5-Aminolevulinic acid-based photody-
namic therapy. Clinical research and future challenges, Cancer 79
(1997) 2282–2308.
[23] C.J. Kelty, N.J. Brown, M.W. Reed, R. Ackroyd, The use of 5-
aminolaevulinic acid as a photosensitiser in photodynamic therapy
and photodiagnosis, Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. 1 (2002) 158–168.
[24] A. Uzdensky, A. Juzeniene, L.W. Ma, J. Moan, Photodynamic
inhibition of enzymatic detachment of human cancer cells from a
substratum, Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1670 (2004) 1–11.
[25] P. Noguchi, R. Wallace, J. Johnson, E.M. Earley, S. O�Brien, S.Ferrone, M.A. Pellegrino, J. Milstien, C. Needy, W. Browne, J.
Petricciani, Characterization of the WIDR: a human colon
carcinoma cell line, In Vitro 15 (1979) 401–408.
[26] T. Mosmann, Rapid colorimetric assay for cellular growth and
survival: application to proliferation and cytotoxicity assays, J.
Immunol. Methods 65 (1983) 55–63.
[27] F.G. Giancotti, E. Ruoslahti, Integrin signalling, Science 285
(1999) 1028–1032.
[28] B.-Z. Katz, E. Zamir, A. Bershadsky, Z. Kam, K.M. Yamada, B.
Geiger, Physical state of the extracellular matrix regulates the
structure and molecular composition of cell-matrix adhesions,
Mol. Biol. Cell 11 (2000) 1047–1060.
[29] M. Shimaoka, J. Takagi, T.A. Springer, Conformational regula-
tion of integrin structure and function, Ann. Rev. Biophys.
Biomol. Struct. 31 (2002) 485–516.
[30] D.I. Leavesley, G.D. Ferguson, E.A. Wayner, D.A. Cheresh,
Requirement of the integrin aVb3 for carcinoma cell spreading or
migration on vitronectin and fibrinogen, J. Cell Biol. 117 (1992)
1101–1107.
[31] E.G. Hayman, M.D. Pierschbacher, S. Suzuki, E. Ruoslahti,
Vitronectin—a major cell attachment-promoting protein in fetal
bovine serum, Exp. Cell Res. 160 (1985) 245–258.
[32] W.B. Kiosses, S.J. Shattil, N. Pampori, M.A. Schwartz, Rac
recruits high-affinity integrin aVb3 to lamellipodia in endothelial
cell migration, Nat. Cell Biol. 3 (2001) 316–320.
[33] J. Moan, A.I. Vistnes, Porphyrin photosensitization of proteins in
cell membranes as studies by spin-labeling and by quantification
of DTNB-reactive SH-groups, Photochem. Photobiol. 44 (1986)
15–19.
[34] C.K. Miranti, J.S. Brugge, Sensing the environment: a historical
perspective on integrin signal transduction, Nat. Cell Biol. 4
(2002) 83–89.
[35] W.R. Chen, W.-G. Zhu, J.R. Dynlacht, H. Liu, R. Nordquist,
Long-term tumor resistance induced by laser photo-immunother-
apy, Int. J. Cancer 81 (1999) 808–812.
[36] S. Schreiber, S. Gross, A. Brandis, A. Harmelin, V. Rosenbach-
Belkin, A. Scherz, Y. Salmon, Local photodynamic therapy
(PDT) of rat C6 glioma xenografts with Pd-bacteriopheophorbide
leads to decreased metastases and increase of animal cure
compared with surgery, Int. J. Cancer 99 (2003) 279–285.