Ivermectin has New Application Fighting Cancer Cell Growth
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide and still lacks effective therapy. Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug, has been shown to possess anti-inflammation, anti-virus, and antitumor properties.
However, whether ivermectin affects CRC is still unclear.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of ivermectin on CRC using CRC cell lines SW480 and SW1116. We used CCK-8 assay to determine the cell viability, used an optical microscope to measure cell morphology, used Annexin V-FITC/7-AAD kit to determine cell apoptosis, used Caspase 3/7 Activity Apoptosis Assay Kit to evaluate Caspase 3/7 activity, used Western blot to determine apoptosis-associated protein expression, and used flow cytometry and fluorescence microscope to determine the reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels and cell cycle.
The results demonstrated that ivermectin dose-dependently inhibited colorectal cancer SW480 and SW1116 cell growth, followed by promoting cell apoptosis and increasing Caspase-3/7 activity. Besides, ivermectin upregulated the expression of proapoptotic proteins Bax and cleaved PARP and downregulated antiapoptotic protein Bcl-2. Mechanism analysis showed that ivermectin promoted both total and mitochondrial ROS production in a dose-dependent manner, which could be eliminated by administering N-acetyl-l-cysteine (NAC) in CRC cells.
Following NAC treatment, the inhibition of cell growth induced by ivermectin was reversed. Finally, ivermectin at low doses (2.5 and 5 µM) induced CRC cell arrest. Overall, ivermectin suppressed cell proliferation by promoting ROS-mediated mitochondrial apoptosis pathway and inducing S phase arrest in CRC cells, suggesting that ivermectin might be a new potential anticancer drug therapy for human colorectal cancer and other cancers.
Colorectal cancer (CRC) refers to malignant tumors in the ascending colon, transverse colon, descending colon, sigmoid colon, and rectum and is one of the most common malignant tumors worldwide. Among all malignant tumors globally, CRC ranks third in incidence and second in mortality (Siegel et al., 2020). CRC has caused a heavy economic burden on the country and individuals (Maida et al., 2017).
At present, the treatment of CRC mainly adopts a comprehensive treatment based on surgery, combined with radiotherapy, chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and other treatments (Modest et al., 2019). However, due to the complicated mechanism of the occurrence, development, and metastasis of CRC, there is still a lack of specific drugs for CRC treatment.
Ivermectin is a derivative of the 16-membered macrolide compound abamectin, which was first widely used in clinical practice as an antiparasitic drug (Laing et al., 2017). Ivermectin can increase the activity of γ-aminobutyric acid receptor or glutamate-chloride ion channel (Glu-Cl), increase the influx of chloride ions, and cause the cell membrane hyperpolarization, thereby blocking signal transmission between neurons and muscles (Martin et al., 2021), which exerts its antiparasitic effects.
Ivermectin could be used, in addition to as an antiparasitic drug, as antiviral agents such as Flavivirus, HIV-1 virus, and SARS-CoV-2 virus (Mastrangelo et al., 2012; Wagstaff et al., 2012; Caly et al., 2020). Moreover, studies have shown that ivermectin has an inhibitory effect on various tumor cells and may be a potential broad-spectrum antitumor drug (Juarez et al., 2020). Juarez et al. (2020) have demonstrated that ivermectin is the most sensitive to breast cancer cells MDA-MB-231, MDA-MB-468, MCF-7, and ovarian SKOV-3; whereas ivermectin is the most nonsensitive to the prostate cancer cell line DU145.
The induction of cell cycle arrest at G0/G1 mediates this effect of ivermectin on these sensitive cancer cells. Furthermore, ivermectin can inhibit the proliferation of cancer cells through p21-activated kinase 1 (PAK1)-induced autophagy, Caspase-dependent apoptosis, or immunogenic cell death regulate the signal pathways, including Hippo, Akt/mTOR, and WNT-TCF pathways to inhibit cancer cell proliferation (Liu et al., 2020).
As known, ROS plays a vital role in the apoptosis caused by oxidative stress. ROS is a by-product of normal mitochondrial respiration. Stimuli such as infection, drought, cold, and ultraviolet light result in increased ROS in cells. Then, accumulative ROS could induce cells mitochondrial dysfunction and promote apoptosis in cells (Sinha et al., 2013). Evidence has shown that ivermectin-induced apoptosis is closely related to the production of ROS. Currently, there are few reports on the research of ivermectin in colorectal cancer.
Furthermore, new use of old drugs (that is, drug relocation) is a strategy for expanding old drugs and developing new uses, which has the advantages of low research and development cost and short development time (Pushpakom et al., 2019). Research on drug relocation of ivermectin is a shortcut to developing new antitumor drugs. Given this, we designed a study to explore the impact of ivermectin on the proliferation and apoptosis of CRC cells and the underlying mechanism.
Materials and Methods
Cell Culture
SW480 and SW1116 cells were acquired from ATCC and grown in DMEM medium (Biological Industries, Israel) supplemented with 10 percent FBS (Biological Industries, Israel), 1 percent penicillin/streptomycin (Coolaber, Beijing, China), and 2.5 percent HEPES buffer (Procell, Wuhan, China) in an incubator with a humidified air atmosphere of 5% CO2 at 37°C.
Cell Viability Assay
Cells were seeded at a density of 1 × 104 cells/well in a 96-well plate. After being cultured overnight, cells were treated with ivermectin (Figure 1) (MCE Chemicals, Shanghai, China) at the indicated concentrations for 12, 24, or 36 h or cells were pretreated with N-Acetyl-l-cysteine (NAC, 5 mM) (Aladdin, Shanghai, China) for 1 h and then were cultured in ivermectin (20 μM) for 6 h.
Then, 10 μL of CCK-8 solution was added to each well and incubated at 37°C for 1 h. The absorbance was detected at 450 nm by a microplate reader (SpectraMax i3x, Molecular Devices, United States). The cell viability was calculated as follows: (absorbance of drug-treated sample/absorbance of control sample) × 100.
Cell Morphology
Colorectal cancer cells were plated at 1 × 105 cells/well in twelve-well plates. After being cultured overnight, the cells were treated with ivermectin at the indicated dose for 24 h. Cell morphology was evaluated using an optical microscope.
Flow Cytometry
Apoptosis was determined using the Annexin V-FITC/7-AAD Apoptosis Kit. Briefly, after colorectal cancer cells were exposed to ivermectin (0, 5, 10, and 20 μM) for 6 h, cells were centrifuged at 1,500 rpm for 5 min, washed, and suspended in PBS. Then, cells were stained with Annexin V-FITC and 7-AAD for 15 min. In addition, cells (1 × 106 cells/well) were cultured onto 6-well plates overnight and treated with indicated concentrations (0, 2.5, 5, and 10 μM) of ivermectin.
Then, the cells were harvested and resuspended in PBS and fixed with 70% ethanol, and left at −20°C overnight. After 12 h of fixation, cells were centrifuged, washed, and resuspended in cold PBS. Then, the cells were added with 100 μL of RNase and incubated at 37°C for 30 min. The PI staining solution was then added and incubated at 4°C for 30 min. Cells were acquired by flow cytometry (FACSCanto Plus), and data were analyzed using Flowjo 10.0 software.
The percentage of Q2 (early apoptosis, Annexin V+7-AAD–) plus Q3 (late apoptosis, Annexin V+7-AAD+) region was counted as the percentage of apoptosis cells.
Caspase 3/7 Activity Assay
Caspase 3/7 assay was performed using the Caspase 3/7 Activity Apoptosis Assay Kit (Sangon Biotech, Shanghai, China). Briefly, after colorectal cancer cells (SW480 or SW1116) were treated with different concentrations of ivermectin (0, 5, 10, and 20 μM) for 6 h, we added 100 μL of Caspase 3/7 reagent into each well and mixed using a plate shaker. The Caspase 3/7 activity was then determined using a microplate reader (SpectraMax i3x). The Caspase 3/7 activity was expressed as a fold of the untreated control (Con) treatment.
Western Blot Assay
After colorectal cancer cells (SW480 and SW1116) were treated with 0, 5, and 10 μM ivermectin for 6 h, they were collected, washed with PBS, and lysed with RIPA buffer. Protein quantification was determined using BCA Protein Assay Kit (EpiZyme Biotechnology, Shanghai, China). Equal amounts of protein were loaded onto an SDS-PAGE gel for electrophoresis and transferred to nitrocellulose.
After blocking with 5% nonfat milk for 1 h, the membranes were incubated with the primary antibody [Bcl-2 (1:2000), Bax (1:2000), PARP (1:20,000) (all from Proteintech, Rosemont, IL, United States), and β-actin (1:5000) (Sigma-Aldrich)] on a 4°C shaker overnight. The membranes were then incubated with a secondary antibody for another 1 h at room temperature. A chemiluminescent gel imaging system detected the change in target protein expression (Universal Hood II, Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, United States).
ROS Measurement
For total ROS measurement, colorectal cancer cells (SW1116) were seeded (1 × 105 cells/well) in a 12-well plate and incubated overnight. Cells were treated with different concentrations of ivermectin for another 6 h, and then they were co-cultured with DCFH-DA (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, United States) and DAPI (Biolegend, San Diego, CA, United States) for 20 min at 37°C in the dark. The cell fluorescence was photographed by fluorescence microscopy (OLYMPUS, Tokyo, Japan).
For the mitochondrial ROS measurement, colorectal cancer cells (SW1116) were seeded in a 12-well plate and incubated overnight. After that, cells were treated with 0, 2.5, 5, 10, and 20 μM ivermectin for another 6 h, and then they were tinted with oxidation of MitoSOX Red (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) and DAPI, which is oxidized by superoxide in the mitochondria, emitting red fluorescence.
Cultures were incubated for 10 min at 37°C and washed twice with warm HBSS. Production of mitochondrial ROS was analyzed using MitoSOX Red. The cell fluorescence was photographed by fluorescence microscopy.
Data Analysis
All experiments were repeated at least three times, and data were presented as mean ± S.E.M. The statistics were analyzed using a one-way or two-way ANOVA analysis (ANOVA) followed by Tukey’s test using Prism 9.0 software (Graphpad Software). p values are *, p < 0.05, #, p < 0.05;
Results
Ivermectin Inhibits the Proliferation of Colorectal Cancer Cells
To explore the effect of ivermectin on the proliferation of colorectal cancer cells, we used different concentrations of ivermectin (0, 2.5, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 30 μM) to culture colorectal cancer cells SW480 and SW1116. CCK-8 assay was performed to measure SW480 and SW1116 cancer cell proliferation after cells were incubated for 12, 24, and 36 h.
As shown in Figure 2, the cell viability of SW480 and SW1116 cells decreased dose-dependently by ivermectin treatment (Dose, D: p < 0.01). Furthermore, ivermectin inhibited SW480 and SW1116 cell viability in a time-dependent manner (Time, T: p < 0.01). Finally, Table 1 showed that the IC50 of SW480 cells treated with ivermectin for 12, 24, and 36 h was 16.17 ± 0.76 μM, 15.34 ± 0.81 μM, and 12.11 ± 0.97 μM, respectively; and the IC50 of SW1116 cells treated with ivermectin for 12, 24, and 36 h were 7.60 ± 0.62 μM, 6.27 ± 0.70 μM and 5.76 ± 0.81 μM, respectively.
The present data indicate that ivermectin might have more sensitive to SW1116 cells than that of SW480 cells.
Ivermectin Changes the Morphology of Colorectal Cancer Cells
To study the impact of ivermectin on the cell morphology of colorectal cancer cells, we treated colorectal cancer cells SW480 and SW1116 with different concentrations of ivermectin and then observed the alteration of cell morphology under an optical microscope. After 24 h culture, the cell morphology changed significantly. For the SW480 cells, as the ivermectin concentration increased, the cells became more and more sparse.
Especially at 20 μM, the cells lost their original shape, became rounded, and shrunk or floated in the medium (Figure 3). Consistent with IC50 of ivermectin, ivermectin had more sensitivity to SW1116 cells since ivermectin at 5 μM resulted in the cells shrunk; when the concentration of ivermectin was 10 μM, the cells became round, shrunk, and floated in the medium, and the concentration of ivermectin increased to 20 μM, most of the cells shed and floated in the culture medium (Figure 3).
These results suggest that ivermectin could promote the death of colorectal cancer cells in a dose-dependent manner.
Ivermectin Induces Apoptosis in Colorectal Cancer Cells
To determine whether ivermectin decreased the cell viability and the cell morphology of colorectal cancer cells via inducing cell apoptosis, we cultured colorectal cancer cells SW480 and SW1116 cells with indicated concentrations of ivermectin for 6 h, and apoptosis was evaluated by flow cytometry using Annexin V-FITC/7-AAD co-staining. As shown in Figure 4, ivermectin increased the proportion of apoptosis cells of SW1116 cells from 9.48 percent in the control group to 10.5 percent, 19.87 percent, and 30.5 percent in 5, 10, and 20 μM, respectively.
Like this, ivermectin increased the proportion of apoptosis SW480 cells from 4.65 percent in the control cells to 8.51, 12.27, and 12.66 percent in 5, 10, and 20 μM, respectively. The results indicated that ivermectin had a dose-dependent effect on the induction of colorectal cancer cell apoptosis.
Ivermectin Increases Caspase 3/7 Activity in SW480 and SW1116 Cells
Caspase-3 plays a vital role in the initiation of cell apoptosis. Caspase-3 typically exists in the cytoplasm in the form of zymogen (32KD). Caspase-3 activated by upstream signaling molecules can cleave the downstream key apoptosis proteins in the early stages of apoptosis and ultimately lead to apoptosis. In this study, the Caspase 3/7 Activity Apoptosis Assay kit was used to determine the effect of ivermectin on cell apoptosis. As shown in Figure 5, ivermectin increased Caspase 3/7 activity of SW480 and SW1116 cells in a dose-dependent manner.
Ivermectin Affects the Expression of Apoptosis-Related Proteins in SW480 and SW1116 Cells
Bax and Bcl-2 are critical molecules in the endogenous apoptotic pathway. PARP (poly ADP-ribose polymerase) is a DNA repair enzyme, cleaved into Cleaved-PARP by the Caspase family protein, and cannot perform the repair function. The Western blot assay was used to determine the changes of apoptosis-related proteins Bax, Bcl-2, PARP, and Cleaved-PARP after treatment of colorectal cancer SW480 and SW1116 cells with ivermectin at the indicated doses.
As the concentration of ivermectin increased, the expression of the proapoptotic protein Bax increased significantly, and the expression of the antiapoptotic protein Bcl-2 decreased; that is, the expression of the Bax/Bcl-2 ratio was gradually increasing (Figure 6). Also, the expression of Cleaved-PARP increased following the increase of ivermectin concentration (Figure 6).
This is taken from a very long document. Read the rest here: frontiersin.org
Header image: Medpage Today
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Daniel Knezacek
| #
I am curious if these cell lines, SW480 and SW1116, come from aborted babies, or are they from some other source, such as adult donors, or animals?
There are a lot of ethical issues regarding using cell-lines derived from aborted babies. For one thing, it is impossible for participants in a murder to ethically donate the body of their victim to science!
Whatever the outcome, Ivermectine has been approved for human use for 25 years, and it has been shown to be effective against Covid-19!
Reply
You Are Sentenced
| #
“Whatever the outcome, Ivermectine has been approved for human use for 25 years, and it has been shown to be effective against Covid-19!”
How’s that, I mean, “covid” predicated on religious indoctrinated belief in conflation and misattribution, with the classification of “covid” based on a fraudulent extrapolatory tool.
How is it that an unnecessary industrial toxin that so many are clearly peddling as controlled opposition, to address a non-existent, fraudulent concstruct is “effective” against that imaginary bullshit?
Reply
You Are Sentenced
| #
I mean, I can post whenever. Despite your banning and shit. I just choose not to, because this site has been identified for what it is.
Like John…how can you repeatedly be peddling that shit when you know covid is fraudulent?
Zero respect.
Reply
JaKo
| #
These specific cell-lines, as mentioned in this article (SW480 & AW1116), wouldn’t come from aborted fetuses — e.g. SW480 and even SW1116
For more basic info on cell-lines “production” read this:
https://www.science.org/features/2014/11/art-culture-developing-cell-lines
There should be references or, at least, description of terms in these articles for general public…
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
You Are Sentenced
| #
How good do you think reporting or recognition of say, adverse effects relating to medication in sub-saharan africa is?
Also, do you know what ivermectin does? Coz I’m telling you you’re a moron if you use ivermectin instead of nutrition with suitable proteolytic enzymes.
Ivermectin blocks natural and even necessary function, which shifts and causes (even directly)…some serious brain issues, among other things. The opposite of improving your health and what you’d ideally want (the proteolytic enzyme function).
Ivermectin’s messing with protease function is how it manages to present different material to what the usage of the PCR tool prefers. That’s why it happens to mess with “covid testing”. So does nitric oxide, so does iodine…there’s a lot that messes with that, actually.
Anyway, ivermectin is an unnecessary toxic controlled opposition trojan to fuck up your blood brain barrier, along with vaccines, HCQ, EMF, etc.
Serious adverse reactions associated with ivermectin: A systematic pharmacovigilance study in sub-Saharan Africa and in the rest of the World
https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0009354
“Principal findings
2041 post-ivermectin or post-benzimidazole suspected sADRs were identified including 667 after ivermectin exposure (208 in SSA and 459 in the RoW). We found an increased reporting for toxidermias, encephalopathies, confusional disorders after ivermectin compared to benzimidazole drug administration. Encephalopathies were not only reported from SSA but also from the RoW (adjusted reporting odds ratios [aROR] 6.30, 95% confidence interval: 2.68–14.8), highlighting the fact these types of sADR occur outside loiasis endemic regions.”
Now if you think VAERS is underreported…just imagine in sub-saharan south africa.
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Frank.
Interesting literature on the Ivermectin side effects, thank you. The doses are only marginally more than that recommended for covid treatment protocols.
I was reading some science on vitamin D relationship with T cells for fighting the virus. I had mistakenly thought vitamin D enables T cells but vitamin D ‘regulates’ T cells which suggests adequate vitamin D would inhibit the cytokine storm. Locking people inside without sunshine is dumb and dumber. There are a number of nominees for dumbest.
Have a nice day
Matt
Reply
Josh
| #
Interesting timing of the publication of the article – ie at a time when they’re trying to bury Ivermectin use for Covid. Interesting also that the paper can’t share any of the data that they got from Vigibase, their sole data source. Interesting that Bill Gates is the largest funder of the WHO.
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Josh. I have sympathy for your argument. The vitamin D, T cell study I reference is dated 2015.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4425186/
Reply
Melinda
| #
Ivermectin is a wonder drug. Its been used in horses for over 30 years AND horses don’t get mamy cancets except skin cancer. Its in heartworm medication used regularly by millions and millions of dogs and cats with none of the side effects you mention.
Reply
You Are Sentenced
| #
Listen, if something toxic is used to attack a cancer cell, it also damages normal cells with toxicity.
Ivermectin is such a thing. The cancer cells STILL happen to have functionality mostly related to your underlying, principle physiological function and inputs. The cancer is caused by something (toxicity and deficiency), energy imbalances, ATP and mitochondrial dysfunction, the basics.
Stop trying to attack results as if they’re causative. Covid doesn’t exist, cancers are addressed as causes, with toxicity, though they are results.
What is ivermectin, and what does it do? It’s an industrial product, that is non-essential, a protease inhibitor. Ironically, pineapple (bromelain irrc), serrapeptase, nattokinase, etc…are the sort of things actually associated with improving health. Ivermectin is the OPPOSITE of that.
Reply
You Are Sentenced
| #
Generally, it messes with microbial gut function as a poor substitute to try and a hide or shift a problem. It kinda fucks with electrical function, protein metabolism (which is how it results in genetic material that isn’t PCR “test” positive).
Reply
You Are Sentenced
| #
Pick your poison, vaccines, hcq, ivermectin, remdesivir, monoclonal gmo posoined humanized mice results used as “medicine”, etc. All of it from the fundamentally fraudulent covid narrative and apparently some people struggle with the math of the hegelian dialectic.
Reply
You Are Sentenced
| #
Ivermectin is not DIRECTLY a protease inhibitor, it’s mainly due to the way it messes with OTHER shit that results in it being a protein function fuckup.
Reply
You Are Sentenced
| #
Lemme try and explain it this way.
You have input toxins, deficiencies, resulting genetic damage (consider for instance vitamin D, as one of many factors…is a genetic regulator).
So then your body reacts specifically, naturally to rid your body of that toxicity and damage, debris.
Not even necessarily debris, as these suppoed “contagious pathogenic viruses” have massively overlapping tendencies, and tend more towards homogenization and homology with your body…meaning it is a demonization of your body and its function.
So anyway, that natural (correct) function is then called “a problem” by “medicine”, and you have various industrial toxins and shit to attack that “problem” (which is you) with toxic shit.
While ignoring the causation OF damage and the misattributed “problems”, by addressing a misinterpreted, fraudulent, constructed projection as “causative” with more damaging elements.
A wall breaks because it is attacked, a brick falls. The brick is called the causative problem, the wall is bombed to attack the breaking bricks.
Melinda
| #
Its well known by racehorse trainers that horses given Ivermectin at least once a month improved their performance and were able to do without bute or other NSAIDS or reduce the amount.
Ivermectin has good anti-inflammatory properties.
Reply
zerohunter
| #
Hi Frank,
So, you are suggesting that there really is no Covid Virus and that what presents as the symptomologies of the inflamo-thrombotic disease known as Cov-19 is solely due to nutrient deficiency, environmental toxins including EMF’s etc. and that if a person’s nutritional status is in balance and their mental state is one of not being over stressed that they will likely never experience any of the symptoms of Covid since those symptoms are caused by other factors that create an out of balance condition in the human body which makes it susceptible to “disease” which is actually only an out of balance condition of our body’s needs…
…and therefore there is no Covid or maybe even any other virus.
I can hear you saying it already: It’s the terrain, stupid…
I read an article about Beriberi being misdiagnosed as Covid (thiamine – vitamin B1, deficiency) caused by excess alcohol consumption…
I also remember when all of a sudden the medical establishment grouped 35 individually classified diseases as AIDS and the AIDS epidemic was born (Peter Duesberg’s “there is no HIV virus” also lingers in my mind…)
I think you might like this – A Possible Marburg-RiVax Final Solution:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/09/no_author/a-possible-marburg-rivax-final-solution/
I am so grateful for your tutelage and am not offended by some of your phraseology, but I don’t get the Heavy Metal twist – that drum solo though, was epic.
Thank You!
Z.
Reply
Lenny D.
| #
“YAS” must (IMHO) be a new-boy-bot….still learning the ropes (and AI). How do I know? He/It never mentioned lumbrokinase. He/IT shows a surface understanding of soooo many of the body’s functions that his chop-word-salad offerings almost make sense. (how did he/IT get past the captcha sentry????)
Reply