Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical Education and Research logo
Submit
Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical Education and ResearchAn Official Publication of Association of Pharmaceutical Teachers of India (APTI)
Article

Monotropein Inhibits Cell Growth and Induces Apoptosis in Breast Cancer MDA-MB-231 Cells

1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5★, 3★★ Corresponding author

  1. 1Breast Surgery Department, Affiliated Hospital of Hebei University, Baoding City, Hebei Province, CHINA.
  2. 2Nursing Department, Affiliated Hospital of Hebei University, Baoding City, Hebei Province, CHINA.
  3. 3Outpatient Department, Affiliated Hospital of Hebei University, Baoding City, Hebei Province, CHINA.
  4. 4Gynecology Department, Affiliated Hospital of Hebei University, Baoding City, Hebei Province, CHINA.
  5. 5Endocrinology Department, Affiliated Hospital of Hebei University, Baoding City, Hebei Province, CHINA.

CORRESPONDENCE

Yujie Gu

Endocrinology Department, Affiliated Hospital of Hebei University, Baoding City, Hebei Province, CHINA.

15176391853@163.com

Received: 03-05-2026; Revised: 16-06-2026; Accepted: 21-08-2026.

Volume 61, Issue 1 · pp. 359-367 · 2026 · DOI: 10.5530/ijper.20274150

ABSTRACT

Background: Breast cancer, a complex disease marked by the unregulated growth of atypical cells, is the most widely diagnosed malignancy in women globally, profoundly affecting public health. Breast cancer generally affects older women; however, it can also occur in younger persons.Objectives: The present study focused on investigating the anticancer effects of monotropein on breast cancer cells and elucidating its possible molecular targets through in vitro and in silico analyses.Materials and Methods: The MTT assay was utilized to study the cytotoxicity of monotropein on the growth of MDA-MB-231 cells. The cell damage and subsequent cytotoxicity caused by monotropein in breast cancer cells were studied using an LDH release assay kit. The concentrations of cyclin D1 in the control and monotropein-treated cells were evaluated using kits. Additionally, molecular docking studies were performed to predict potential interactions of monotropein with target proteins cyclin D1 and LDHA involved in cancer progression to understand the compound mechanisms.Results: The MTT assay findings demonstrated a significant reduction in MDA-MB-231 cell proliferation after treatment with various dosages of monotropein. The monotropein treatment caused cellular damage and cytotoxicity in MDA-MB-231 cells, as indicated by elevated LDH activity. Furthermore, the monotropein treatment markedly decreased the cyclin D1 in the breast cancer cells. Molecular docking predicted a stronger interaction between monotropein and LDHA (binding affinity = -6.4 kcal/mol; RMSD = 2.19 Å) than with Cyclin D1 (binding affinity = -5.9 kcal/mol; RMSD = 1.13 Å), suggesting LDHA as a potential direct target. The observed increase in LDH activity and concomitant reduction in Cyclin D1 expression support the hypothesis that monotropein suppresses cell proliferation mainly by interfering with cell-cycle progression, leading to cellular damage and apoptosis in MDA-MB-231 cells.Conclusion: The current findings demonstrate that monotropein treatment markedly suppresses proliferation and triggers apoptosis in MDA-MB-231 cells. Thus, it was apparent that monotropein could provide a beneficial natural compound for designing new therapeutic strategies against breast cancer. However, more experiments, including binding and enzyme kinetic assays, along with genetic perturbation (LDHA knockdown/rescue), are ultimately required to gain a deeper understanding of the mechanisms of monotropein.

KEYWORDS

0% READ

FULL TEXT

INTRODUCTION

Breast cancer, a multifaceted disease characterized by the uncontrolled proliferation of aberrant cells, remains the most widely diagnosed cancer in women globally, significantly impacting public health. In 2020 alone, roughly 2.3 million women diagnosed with breast cancer, contributing to 685,000 fatalities globally.1 This widespread incidence underscores its critical status as a predominant cause of cancer-associated deaths among females. The disease arises when normal cellular regulatory mechanisms are disturbed, such as failure of apoptosis, which allows abnormal or damaged cells to continue dividing uncontrollably and potentially metastasize to other bodily regions.2 This biological heterogeneity necessitates a nuanced understanding of its various forms, as breast cancer is not a singular entity but rather a group of distinct diseases characterized by diverse molecular profiles and clinicopathological features. Globally, cancer is a predominant cause of deaths, accounting for nearly 10 million mortalities in 2020, with breast cancer contributing significantly to this burden, ranking among the top five deadliest cancer types.3 The fundamental cause of breast cancer progression involves abnormalities and irregularities in the normal cell cycle, alongside obstructed apoptosis signaling pathways. These cellular dysregulations often lead to the accumulation of genetic mutations, driving tumorigenesis and subsequent disease progression.4 The incidence of breast cancer, while primarily affecting older women, can also manifest in younger individuals. Indeed, while the most common demographic for breast cancer diagnosis is women between 50 and 69 years of age, there has been a recent trend indicating an increasing occurrence of the disease in women under 40. Despite significant advancements in breast cancer awareness and management, it remains the fifth leading cause of death in women worldwide, with alarmingly increased rates in nearly every region.5 Globally, breast cancer is the predominantly diagnosed cancer in females, and it is imperative to identify and understand the multifactorial elements contributing to its initiation and progression. This neoplastic condition involves a complex interplay of genetic predispositions, environmental causes, and lifestyle habits that collectively modulate cellular proliferation and differentiation within mammary tissues.6 Epidemiological data reveal distinct geographic and demographic disparities in breast cancer cases and mortality worldwide, reflecting the influence of varying risk factor profiles across populations. For instance, while developed nations exhibit higher incidence rates, developing countries often face a greater mortality burden due to delayed diagnosis and limited access to comprehensive care.7 Despite significant advancements in breast cancer therapy, various problems still persist, including the difficulty in optimizing drug dosages, managing adverse effects, and combating drug resistance, which collectively diminish patient quality of life and treatment efficacy. For instance, dose-limiting toxicities from certain inhibitors can cause severe adverse events in healthy tissues before any discernible impact on the tumor, thereby complicating the clinical development of new treatments.8 Furthermore, the development of multidrug resistance further impedes current cancer therapies, often leading to treatment failure due to cancer cells evolving mechanisms to evade therapeutic agents. This resistance can arise through diverse mechanisms, including mutations in drug targets or activation of alternative signaling pathways, highlighting the serious need for novel therapeutic strategies that can circumvent these acquired defense mechanisms.9 Monotropein is a bioactive iridoid glycoside compound extracted from the roots of Morinda officinalis. The diverse pharmacological effects of monotropein were reported previously, including its antioxidant,10 wound healing,11 anti-inflammatory,12 and nephroprotective13 properties. Furthermore, monotropein showed anticancer activity against various cancers, such as colorectal cancer,14 lung cancer,15 and hepatocellular carcinoma.16 Apart from these biological activities, the anticancer mechanism of monotropein against breast cancer has not been reported yet. Therefore, the present study focused on evaluating the anticancer effects of monotropein on breast cancer cells, including in silico analyses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Chemicals

Monotropein, Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS), Dulbecco's Modified Eagle Medium (DMEM), antibiotics, and others were acquired from Sigma-Aldrich, USA. The test kits for quantifying the biochemical markers were acquired from Abcam, USA.

Cell culture

The breast cancer MDA-MB-231 cells were obtained from ATCC, USA, and cultivated in DMEM enriched with FBS (10%) and antibiotics (1%) in a CO2 (5%) chamber. Cells were harvested upon reaching 80% confluency and utilized for subsequent analyses.

MTT cytotoxicity assay

The cytotoxicity of monotropein on the growth of MDA-MB-231 cells were investigated using MTT assay. Cells were cultivated on a 96-well plate for 24 hr. Consequently, the cells underwent monotropein treatment for an additional 24 hr at varying dosages of 2.5, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 μM. Subsequent to the monotropein treatment, MTT (20 μL) and DMEM (100 μL) was mixed with each well for a duration of 4 hr. Finally, the absorbance was measured at 570 nm after dissolving the formed formazan deposits with 100 μL of DMSO and analyzed using an ELISA reader.

Lactate Dehydrogenase (LDH) release assay

LDH is a soluble enzyme leaked into the bloodstream upon cellular injury, serving as an indicator of cellular damage and toxicity. In this study, the release of LDH was employed to evaluate the cytotoxicity of monotropein on MDA-MB-231 cells. The cells were treated for 24 hours with diverse concentrations of monotropein (2.5-30 μM). After that, LDH activity was measured with the LDH Assay Kit (Elabscience, USA) as per the manufacturer's descriptions, with absorbance taken at 490 nm.

Analysis of cyclin D1 levels

The MDA-MB-231 cells from both control and treatment groups were gathered, and cell lysates were prepared using cell lysis buffer to quantify the cyclin D1. The levels of cyclin D1 was quantified in the cell lysates, utilizing the ELISA-based assay kits as per manufacturer's descriptions (Abcam, USA).

In silico analysis

The dataset retrieval for molecular docking analysis

Targets such as cyclin D1 (PDB ID: 6P8H)17 and LDHA (PDB ID: 4QSM)18 were retrieved from the Protein Data Bank (PDB) to perform the molecular docking analysis.

Preparation of protein structures and ligands

The protein structures of cyclin D1 and LDHA were pre-processed using Discovery Studio Visualizer (DSV) v19.1.0.18287 (www.accelerys.com). This involved removing water molecules and associated ligands, including cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 1, as well as cyclin D1 and 3-{[7-(2,4-dimethoxypyrimidin-5-yl)-3-sulfamo ylquinolin-4-yl]amino}benzoic acid, in conjunction with LDHA. The monotropein structure, obtained from the PubChem compound database in SDF format with 3D atomic coordinates provided, was then transformed into PDB format using DSV.19

Molecular docking and Visualization

The molecular docking process was performed for the defined targets, cyclin D1 and LDHA, with monotropein using Autodock Vina, built with an advanced scoring algorithm and integrated into PyRx software.20 This process predicts the most favourable binding modes between the targets and the ligand.

The Autodock vina uses a new scoring mechanism, C-Sum of intermolecular and intramolecular distance; ∑ -Over all of the pairs of atoms; ftitj -Symmetric set of interaction functions; rij -Interatomic distance.

The defined targets cyclin D1, LDHA, and ligand monotropein have been converted into PDBQT format to carry out molecular docking studies. Using the PyRx virtual screening tool, we identified the active site residues interacting with the targeted biomarkers. Additionally, the properties of the grid box were assigned to cyclin D1 (size_x, y, z = 25 Å) and LDHA (size_x, y, z = 25 Å). After, the docked results were analysed using DSV to visualise the interactions with monotropein. The LigPlot + v2.2.9 was utilized to confirm the interactions between the cyclin D1-monotropein and LDHA-monotropein complexes.21

Statistical analysis

The statistical assays were performed using Graphpad Prism software, and data were given as Mean ± SD of triplicates. The data were scrutinized using One-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test, with a significance set at p<0.05.

RESULTS

In vitro

Monotropein treatment inhibits the viability of breast cancer MDA-MB-231 cells

The cytotoxicity of monotropein on the breast cancer MDA-MB-231 cell proliferation was evaluated using MTT assay, with findings depicted in Figure 1. The MTT test results suggest that monotropein treatment at varying dosages (2.5-30 µM) markedly reduced the of MDA-MB-231 cell growth at dose-dependently. A notable decrease in breast cancer cell growth was seen after treatment with high dosages of monotropein. The IC50 value of monotropein against MDA-MB-231 cells were determined to be 15 µM, which is subsequently utilized for future assays.

Monotropein treatment increases the LDH activity in MDA-MB-231 cells

The cytotoxic effects of monotropein on MDA-MB-231 cells were assessed by measuring LDH activity (Figure 2). The cells were subjected to various dosages of monotropein treatment for 24 hr, and LDH release was investigated with an LDH assay kit. Figure 2 demonstrates that monotropein treatment induced considerable cytotoxicity in breast cancer cells, as indicated by the increased LDH activity.

Monotropein treatment decreases the cyclin D1 levels in MDA-MB-231 cells

Figure 3 illustrates the levels of cell cycle regulator protein cyclin D1 in the control and monotropein-treated MDA-MB-231 cells. The control cells had elevated levels of cyclin D1. Simultaneously, the treatment of cells with 15 μM of monotropein resulted in a substantial reduction in cyclin D1 when compared with the control group.

In silico

Molecular docking analysis cyclin D1 and LDHA revealed that monotropein exhibits better binding interactions with both targets. The resulting binding affinity, RMSD, and the types of bonds formed between the targets and monotropein were detailed in Table 1.

Cyclin D1

The monotropein interacted with the residues of cyclin D1, including GLU69, LYS180, GLN183 via the hydrogen bonds. Also, the hydrophobic residues such as LEU65, GLU75, PHE78, PRO79, THR184, VAL186, LEU188, and SER258 surrounded the cyclin D1-monotropein docked complex with the binding affinity of -5.9 kcal/mol and the RMSD of 1.125Å (Figures 4A, 4B and Table 1).

LDHA

The LDHA residues such as ALA98, ASN113, VAL136, ASN138, and THR248, interacted well with monotropein via the hydrogen bonds and the residues that include GLY29, VAL31, THR95, ALA96, GLY97, ARG99, LEU109, SER137, LEU143, LEU165, ALA238, ILE242, TYR247, and ILEU252, interacted via hydrophobic interaction, which helped to stabilize the complex further. The binding affinity was estimated as -6.4 kcal/mol, and the RMSD was observed as 2.191Å (Figures 4C, 4D and Table 1).

The LigPlot + was used to validate the interactions between the cyclin D1 and LDHA with the monotropein (Figures 4E, 4F). The analysis revealed that the hydrogen bonds were formed with the residues GLU69, LYS180, and GLN183, while hydrophobic interactions were observed with the residues LEU65, GLU75, THR184, ALA187, and LEU188. Similarly, the estimated LigPlot + interactions confirmed that monotropein established seven hydrogen bonds with the residues ALA98, ASN113, VAL136, ASN138, and THR248. Meanwhile, the residues such as THR95, GLY97, SER137, ILE242, TYR247, and ILE252 were involved in the hydrophobic interactions.

DISCUSSION

Breast cancer remains the most frequent malignancy in women globally, characterised by significant heterogeneity and complex tumorigenesis pathways. Despite advancements in awareness and management, it continues to be a primary cause of cancer-related mortality in females, responsible for nearly 15% of all cancer deaths.22 The disease is defined by the uncontrolled multiplication of abnormal cells within mammary tissue, often forming squamous cells that disregard normal cellular signaling for programmed cell death. This unregulated cellular growth can lead to tumor formation that, if malignant, may invade surrounding tissues or metastasize to distant anatomical sites.23 The global increase in incidence rates, particularly in high-income countries, highlights the complex interplay of risk factors and ILEU252 - underscores the urgent need for enhanced preventive strategies. This global burden is further compounded by the fact that breast cancer accounts for 25% of all female cancers worldwide. Despite several improvements, breast cancer remains a challenging global health burden, demanding intensified research into its complex etiologies and the development of more effective therapeutic interventions.24 The exploration of natural products, especially plant-derived bioactive compounds, has emerged as a hopeful avenue for identifying anticancer agents due to their diverse chemical structures and pharmacological properties. Despite their therapeutic potential, the clinical translation of many promising compounds faces hurdles, particularly concerning their selectivity towards cancerous cells over healthy tissues.25 This challenge necessitates rigorous in vitro cytotoxic assessments to precisely quantify the differential impact of bioactive compounds on cancer cell viability versus normal cell viability. Consequently, detailed analyses comparing the cytotoxic effects on cancerous cells against those on normal cells are crucial for the early identification of compounds with a favorable therapeutic index, mitigating the risk of systemic toxicities.26 The analysis of the effects of sample drug compounds on cancer cell viability is critical for identifying potential therapeutic agents and understanding their mechanisms of action. This process typically involves quantifying cell proliferation, cytotoxicity, or apoptosis in response to varying drug concentrations, often utilizing metrics like the IC50 index to compare treatment efficacy.27 Furthermore, large-scale drug screens offer valuable data for understanding drug mechanisms, identifying cancer cell vulnerabilities, and facilitating the development of novel drugs and drug repurposing. This systematic approach allows for the functional investigation of cellular pathways underpinning drug sensitivity or resistance, thereby enabling a deeper understanding of therapeutic responses. This analysis helps in distinguishing compounds with favorable therapeutic indices, thereby prioritizing those with a higher likelihood of clinical success and reduced side effects.28 In the current work, the cytotoxicity of monotropein on breast cancer cells were evaluated using MTT assay. These findings revealed that the monotropein treatment noticeably diminished the MDA-MB-231 cell viability. Therefore, it was clear that monotropein can inhibit the development of breast cancer cells.

The LDH release assay is a widely recognized and robust method for quantifying cell viability and cytotoxicity, offering significant advantages in drug discovery and therapeutic efficacy evaluation.29 This assay measures the activity of LDH, a stable cytoplasmic enzyme leaded into the cell culture supernatant upon plasma membrane injury, which is characteristic of cells undergoing necrosis, apoptosis, or other forms of cellular injury.30 The presence of LDH in the extracellular milieu thus serves as a reliable biomarker for compromised cell membrane integrity, enabling the assessment of cell death in response to various stimuli, including potential drug compounds. This method is particularly valuable for screening drug candidates, as it can quantify the extent of cellular damage in a dose-dependent manner, providing critical insights into a compound's cytotoxic potential.31 Unlike assays that measure metabolic activity, the LDH assay directly quantifies membrane damage, providing a distinct advantage in differentiating between cytostatic and cytotoxic effects. This direct assessment of membrane integrity allows for precise evaluation of drug compound impact on cancer cells.32 In this study, the cytotoxic effects of monotropein on MDA-MB-231 cells were assessed by measuring LDH activity. The results demonstrates that monotropein treatment showed marked cytotoxicity in breast cancer cells, which is indicated by the increased LDH activity. The data were evaluated statistically by one-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test tests using GraphPad Prism software. Note: '*' reveals that data were significantly differ at p<0.05 from the control group. Cyclin D1 is an essential protein involved in cell cycle regulation and plays an essential role in promoting the transition from G1 to the S phase by associating with cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6. This interaction facilitates the phosphorylation of the retinoblastoma protein, resulting in the discharge of transcription factors and subsequent progression into DNA synthesis.33 The CCND1 gene, encoding Cyclin D1, is often amplified in numerous human cancers, including up to 20% of breast cancers, highlighting its significance as an oncogene. In particular, nearly 15% of breast tumors exhibit CCND1 gene amplification, with over 50% demonstrating overexpression of the cyclin D1 protein.34 This dysregulation, characterized by increased cyclin D1 levels, often emerges early in breast cancer pathogenesis, observed even in ductal carcinoma in situ and metastatic lesions. The oncogenic overexpression of cyclin D1 is frequently driven by genomic alterations such as gene amplification, where CCND1 is often the primary tumorigenic driver.35 This amplification and subsequent overexpression contribute significantly to uncontrolled cellular proliferation, a hallmark of cancer, by dysregulating cell cycle progression. This proliferative advantage is often linked to a lower nutrient requirement in tumor cells with elevated cyclin D1 levels, further supporting their unchecked growth. Moreover, the aberrant upregulation of Cyclin D1 protein can lead to treatment resistance in breast cancer cells.36 Therefore, targeting cyclin D1 may provide beneficial effects for breast cancer treatment. In a similar manner, the increased levels of cyclin D1 were observed in the MDA-MB-231 cells. Interestingly, the monotropein treatment markedly decreased the cyclin D1 levels in the breast cancer cells.

According to the in vitro findings, molecular docking studies were performed to explore the potential interactions between monotropein and its molecular targets, to elucidate the binding mechanisms underlying its anticancer activity against BC. Cyclin D1 and LDHA were selected as key targets owing to their essential involvement in regulating tumor cell proliferation and metabolic regulation, respectively. The in silico analysis revealed that monotropein binds stably to both the cyclin D1 and LDHA, with binding affinities of -5.9 kcal/mol and -6.4 kcal/mol, indicating favourable interaction energetics. The low RMSD values (≤3.0Å) further support the stability of the complex. The observed in vitro downregulation of cyclin D1 in monotropein-treated cells aligns with these docking results, reinforcing the hypothesis that monotropein suppresses tumour proliferation by targeting cyclin D1, which could inhibit the G1→S phase progression. Likely, monotropein established the hydrogen bonds with the residues specifically ALA98 of LDHA, which is located in the 3-{[7-(2,4-dimethoxypyrimidin-5-yl)-3-sulfam oylquinolin-4-yl]amino}benzoic acid binding site, indicating that potential interference of monotropein with this site leads to the metabolic disruption of LDHA enzymatic activity, thereby disrupting glycolytic metabolism and leakage of LDH observed experimentally.

Visualization using LigPlot⁺ further validated these results, revealing multiple hydrogen bonds and hydrophobic interactions that stabilize both the cyclin D1-monotropein and LDHA-monotropein complexes. The abundance of these interactions highlights the strong molecular interaction of monotropein with these targets. Collectively, the combined in vitro and in silico findings suggest that monotropein exhibits its anticancer effects via dual mechanisms. Firstly, the monotropein might directly bind to cyclin D1, resulting in its lower expression and inhibition of cell-cycle progression. Secondly, modulation of cancer cell metabolism, as evidenced by leakage of the LDHA from the cytosol to the medium, which reflects the process of apoptosis and necrosis.36 Therefore, it was evident that monotropein treatment can inhibit uncontrolled cell proliferation in breast cancer cells via inhibiting cyclin D1 and leakage of LDHA.37

Table 1 Targets, PDB ID, binding affinity (kcal/mol), RMSD (Å), and their interacted residues with monotropein and its type of interactions.
Targets NameTargets (PDB ID)Binding affinity (Kcal/mol)RMSD (Å)Hydrogen bondsHydrophobic residuesOther types of bonds
Cyclin D16P8H-5.91.125GLU69, LYS180, GLN183LEU65, GLU75, PHE78, PRO79, THR184, VAL186, LEU188, SER258ALA187Alkyl
LDHA4QSM-6.42.191ALA98, ASN113, VAL136, ASN138, THR248GLY29, VAL31, THR95, ALA96, GLY97, ARG99, LEU109, SER137, LEU143, LEU165, ALA238, ILE242, TYR247, ILEU252-
Figure 1 Effect of monotropein treatment on the viability of breast cancer MDA-MB-231 cells. The treatment with monotropein at various dosages (2.5-30 μM) remarkably suppressed the MDA-MB-231 cell viability in dose-dependent manner. The data were displayed as a Mean ± SD of triplicates. The data were evaluated statistically by one-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test tests using GraphPad Prism software. Note: ‘*’ reveals that data were significantly differ at p<0.05 from the control group.
Figure 2 Effect of monotropein treatment on the LDH activity in MDA-MB-231 cells. The data were displayed as a Mean ± SD of triplicates. The data were evaluated statistically by one-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test tests using GraphPad Prism software. Note: ‘*’ reveals that data were significantly differ at p<0.05 from the control group.
Figure 3 Effect of monotropein treatment on the cyclin D1 levels in the MDA-MB-231 cells. The data were displayed as a Mean ± SD of triplicates. The data were evaluated statistically by one-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test tests using GraphPad Prism software. Note: ‘*’ reveals that data were significantly differ at p<0.05 from the control group.
Figure 4 The docking poses of targets cyclin D1 and LDHA with the monotropein and its validation using LigPlot+. (A, B) The 3D and 2D docked poses of the Cyclin D1 with monotropein (C, D) The 3D and 2D docked poses of the Cyclin D1 with monotropein (E, F) The LigPlot+ validation for the Cyclin D1 and LDHA complex with the monotropein to confirm the hydrogen bonds.

CONCLUSION

The current findings demonstrate that monotropein treatment markedly suppresses proliferation and triggers apoptosis in MDA-MB-231 cells. The treatment with monotropein caused cellular damage, as indicated by elevated LDH activity and the induction of apoptosis in MDA-MB-231 cells. Also, the molecular docking study demonstrated that the monotropein exerted a better binding affinity with the cyclin D1 and LDHA, which may contribute to reduced cell proliferation, cell cycle arrest, and MDA-MB-231 cells death and subsequent release of LDH. Therefore, it was clear that monotropein has the promise to be a talented anticancer agent to manage breast cancer. However, further research is still required to clarify the specific molecular mechanisms involved in the anticancer effects of monotropein against breast cancer.

SUMMARY

Breast cancer is the most prevalent malignancy among women worldwide, distinguished by heterogeneity and intricate carcinogenesis pathways. Notwithstanding progress in knowledge and management, it remains a leading cause of cancer-related mortality in females. The present data indicate that monotropein administration significantly inhibits proliferation and induces apoptosis in breast cancer cells. The administration of monotropein resulted in cellular damage, as evidenced by increased LDH activity and the initiation of apoptosis in MDA-MB-231 cells. Consequently, it was evident that monotropein had potential as an effective anticancer drug for the treatment of breast cancer.

Abbreviations

CCND1 gene: Cyclin D1 gene; FBS: Fetal Bovine Serum; DMEM: Dulbecco's Modified Eagle Medium; DMSO: Dimethyl sulfoxide; LDH: Lactate Dehydrogenase.

Funding

The project supported by Health Commission of Hebei Province (Grant No. 20210407).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES

As published

Showing references and in-text citations exactly as published.

  1. 1.Sung, H., Ferlay, J., Siegel, R. L., Laversanne, M., Soerjomataram, I., Jemal, A., Bray, F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021;71:209-49. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660CrossrefGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  2. 2.Łukasiewicz, S., Czeczelewski, M., Forma, A., Baj, J., Sitarz, R., Stanisławek, A. Breast Cancer-Epidemiology, Risk Factors, Classification, Prognostic Markers, and Current Treatment Strategies-An Updated Review. Cancers 2021;13(17):4287. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13174287CrossrefGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  3. 3.Smolarz, B., Nowak, A. Z., Romanowicz, H. Breast Cancer-Epidemiology, Classification, Pathogenesis and Treatment (Review of Literature). Cancers 2022;14(10):2569. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14102569CrossrefGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  4. 4.Giaquinto, A. N., Sung, H., Newman, L. A., Freedman, R. A., Smith, R. A., Star, J. Breast cancer statistics 2024. CA Cancer J Clin 2024;74(6):477-95. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21863CrossrefGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  5. 5.Rossing, M., Pedersen, C. B., Tvedskov, T., Vejborg, I., Talman, M. L., Olsen, L. R. Clinical implications of intrinsic molecular subtypes of breast cancer for sentinel node status. Sci Rep 2021;11(1):2259. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81538-4CrossrefGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  6. 6.Molnár, I. A., Molnár, B. Á., Vízkeleti, L., Fekete, K., Tamás, J., Deák, P. Breast carcinoma subtypes show different patterns of metastatic behavior. Virchows Arch 2017;470(3):275-83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-017-2065-7CrossrefGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  7. 7.Winters, S., Martin, C., Murphy, D., Shokar, N. K. Breast Cancer Epidemiology, Prevention, and Screening. Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci 2017;151:1-32.GOOGLE SCHOLAR
  8. 8.Swain, S. M., Ewer, M. S., Viale, G., Delaloge, S., Ferrero, J. M., Verrill, M. Pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and standard anthracycline- and taxane-based chemotherapy for the neoadjuvant treatment of patients with HER2-positive localized breast cancer (BERENICE): a phase II, open-label, multicenter, multinational cardiac safety study. Ann Oncol 2018;29(3):646-53. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdx773CrossrefGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  9. 9.Schmid, P., Rugo, H. S., Adams, S., Schneeweiss, A., Barrios, C. H., Iwata, H. Atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel as first-line treatment for unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (IMpassion130): updated efficacy results from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2020;21(1):44-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(19)30689-8CrossrefGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  10. 10.Shi, Y., Liu, X. Y., Jiang, Y. P., Zhang, J. B., Zhang, Q. Y., Wang, N. N. Monotropein attenuates oxidative stress via Akt/mTOR-mediated autophagy in osteoblast cells. Biomed Pharmacother 2020;121:109566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2019.109566CrossrefGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  11. 11.Wang, C., Mao, C., Lou, Y., Xu, J., Wang, Q., Zhang, Z. Monotropein promotes angiogenesis and inhibits oxidative stress-induced autophagy in endothelial progenitor cells to accelerate wound healing. J Cell Mol Med 2018;22:1583-600. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcmm.13434CrossrefGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  12. 12.Shin, J. S., Yun, K. J., Chung, K. S., Seo, K. H., Park, H. J., Cho, Y. W. Monotropein isolated from the roots of Morinda officinalis ameliorates proinflammatory mediators in RAW 264.7 macrophages and dextran sulfate sodium (DSS)-induced colitis via NF-κB inactivation. Food Chem Toxicol 2013;53:263-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2012.12.013CrossrefGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  13. 13.Zhang, Y., Chen, Y., Li, B., Ding, P., Jin, D., Hou, S. The effect of monotropein on alleviating cisplatin-induced acute kidney injury by inhibiting oxidative damage, inflammation and apoptosis. Biomed Pharmacother 2020;129:110408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2020.110408CrossrefGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  14. 14.Gao, Q., Li, L., Zhang, Q. M., Sheng, Q. S., Zhang, J. L., Jin, L. J. Monotropein Induced Apoptosis and Suppressed Cell Cycle Progression in Colorectal Cancer Cells. Chin J Integr Med 2024;30(1):25-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11655-023-3710-4CrossrefGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  15. 15.Cai, B. N., Ma, B., Zhang, S., He, W. Monotropein represses the proliferation and angiogenesis via the AKT/NF-κB pathway in lung cancer. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol 2025;398(7):8885-97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00210-025-03810-yCrossrefGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  16. 16.Shi, B., Li, Y. P., Gan, Z., Chen, P. Monotropein Induced Ferroptosis to Alleviate the Progression of Hepatocellular Carcinoma via Regulating Nrf2/HO-1/GPX4 Axis. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 2025;41(8):e70034. https://doi.org/10.1002/kjm2.70034CrossrefGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  17. 17.Guiley, K. Z., Stevenson, J. W., Lou, K., Barkovich, K. J., Kumarasamy, V., Wijeratne, T. U., Bunch, K. L., Tripathi, S., Knudsen, E. S., Witkiewicz, A. K., Shokat, K. M., Rubin, S. M. p27 allosterically activates cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and antagonizes palbociclib inhibition. Science 2019;366(6471):eaaw2106.GOOGLE SCHOLAR
  18. 18.Kolappan, S., Shen, D. L., Mosi, R., Sun, J., McEachern, E. J., Vocadlo, D. J., Craig, L. Structures of lactate dehydrogenase A (LDHA) in apo, ternary and inhibitor-bound forms. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr 2015;71(Pt 2):185-95. https://doi.org/10.1107/s1399004714024791CrossrefGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  19. 19.Kim, S., Chen, J., Cheng, T., Gindulyte, A., He, J., He, S., Li, Q., Shoemaker, B. A., Thiessen, P. A., Yu, B., Zaslavsky, L., Zhang, J., Bolton, E. E. PubChem 2023 update. Nucleic Acids Res 2023;51(D1):D1373-80. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkac956CrossrefGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  20. 20.Eberhardt, J., Santos-Martins, D., Tillack, A. F., Forli, S. AutoDock Vina 1.2.0: New Docking Methods, Expanded Force Field, and Python Bindings. J Chem Inf Model 2021;61(8):3891-8. https://doi.org/10.26434/chemrxiv.14774223.v1CrossrefGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  21. 21.Laskowski, R. A., Swindells, M. B. LigPlot+: multiple ligand-protein interaction diagrams for drug discovery. J Chem Inf Model 2011;51(10):2778-86. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci200227uCrossrefGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  22. 22.Siegel, R. L., Miller, K. D., Wagle, N. S., Jemal, A. Cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J Clin 2023;73(1):17-48. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21763CrossrefGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  23. 23.Cardoso, F., Kyriakides, S., Ohno, S., Penault-Llorca, F., Poortmans, P., Rubio, I. T. Early breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up †. Ann Oncol 2019;30(8):1194-220. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdz173CrossrefGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  24. 24.Wang, J., Wu, S. G. Breast Cancer: An Overview of Current Therapeutic Strategies, Challenge, and Perspectives. Breast Cancer 2023;15:721-30. https://doi.org/10.2147/bctt.s432526CrossrefGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  25. 25.Chunarkar-Patil, P., Kaleem, M., Mishra, R., Ray, S., Ahmad, A., Verma, D. Anticancer Drug Discovery Based on Natural Products: From Computational Approaches to Clinical Studies. Biomedicine 2024;12(1):201. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines12010201CrossrefGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  26. 26.Andersson, C. R., Ye, J., Blom, K., Fryknäs, M., Larsson, R., Nygren, P. Assessment in vitro of interactions between anti-cancer drugs and noncancer drugs commonly used by cancer patients. anticancer drugs 2023;34(1):92-102. https://doi.org/10.1097/cad.0000000000001344CrossrefGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  27. 27.Sánchez-Díez, M., Romero-Jiménez, P., Alegría-Aravena, N., Gavira-O'Neill, C. E., Vicente-García, E., Quiroz-Troncoso, J. Assessment of Cell Viability in Drug Therapy: IC50 and Other New Time-Independent Indices for Evaluating Chemotherapy Efficacy. Pharmaceutic 2025;17(2):247. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics17020247CrossrefGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  28. 28.Punyamurtula, U., Brown, T. W., Zhang, S., George, A., El-Deiry, W. S. Cancer cell seeding density as a mechanism of chemotherapy resistance: a novel cancer cell density index based on IC50-Seeding Density Slope (ISDS) to assess chemosensitivity. Am J Cancer Res 2023;13(12):5914-33. https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.am2022-3241CrossrefGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  29. 29.Kaja, S., Payne, A. J., Naumchuk, Y., Koulen, P. Quantification of Lactate Dehydrogenase for Cell Viability Testing Using Cell Lines and Primary Cultured Astrocytes. Curr Protoc Toxicol 2017;72(2):2. https://doi.org/10.1002/cptx.21CrossrefGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  30. 30.Feng, Y., Xiong, Y., Qiao, T., Li, X., Jia, L., Han, Y. Lactate dehydrogenase A: A key player in carcinogenesis and potential target in cancer therapy. Cancer Med 2018;7:6124-36. https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.1820CrossrefGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  31. 31.Han, J. H., Kim, M., Kim, H. J., Jang, S. B., Bae, S. J., Lee, I. K. Targeting lactate dehydrogenase A with catechin resensitizes SNU620/5FU gastric cancer cells to 5-fluorouracil. Int J Mol Sci 2021;22:5406. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22105406CrossrefGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  32. 32.Forkasiewicz, A., Dorociak, M., Stach, K., Szelachowski, P., Tabola, R., Augoff, K. The usefulness of lactate dehydrogenase measurements in current oncological practice. Cell Mol Biol Lett 2020;25:35-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s11658-020-00228-7CrossrefGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  33. 33.Peurala, E., Koivunen, P., Haapasaari, K. M., Bloigu, R., Jukkola-Vuorinen, A. The prognostic significance and value of cyclin D1, CDK4 and p16 in human breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2013;15(1):R5. https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr3376CrossrefGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  34. 34.Lundberg, A., Lindström, L. S., Li, J., Harrell, J. C., Darai-Ramqvist, E., Sifakis, E. G. The long-term prognostic and predictive capacity of cyclin D1 gene amplification in 2305 breast tumours. Breast Cancer Res 2019;21(1):34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-019-1121-4CrossrefGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  35. 35.Mylona, E., Tzelepis, K., Theohari, I., Giannopoulou, I., Papadimitriou, C., Nakopoulou, L. Cyclin D1 in invasive breast carcinoma: favorable prognostic significance in unselected patients and within subgroups with an aggressive phenotype. Histopathol 2013;62:472-80. https://doi.org/10.1111/his.12013CrossrefGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  36. 36.Aksoy, A., Sevim, M., Artas, G. The overexpression of cyclin D1 is a positive prognostic factor in advanced-stage breast carcinoma cases. North Clin Istanb 2023;10(6):726-33. https://doi.org/10.14744/nci.2022.32657CrossrefGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  37. 37.Fani, S., Kamalidehghan, B., Lo, K. M., Nigjeh, S. E., Keong, Y. S., Dehghan, F., Soori, R., Abdulla, M. A., Chow, K. M., Ali, H. M., Hajiaghaalipour, F., Rouhollahi, E., Hashim, N. M. Anticancer activity of a monobenzyltin complex C1 against MDA-MB-231 cells through induction of Apoptosis and inhibition of breast cancer stem cells. Sci Rep 2016;6:38992. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep38992CrossrefGOOGLE SCHOLAR

Cite this article

SELECT FORMAT

Wei, M., Xiao, M., Bi, C., Yan, L., Wang, L., Gu, Y., & Gao, R. (2026). Monotropein Inhibits Cell Growth and Induces Apoptosis in Breast Cancer MDA-MB-231 Cells. Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical Education and Research, 61(1), 359-367. https://doi.org/10.5530/ijper.20274150

Copyright and licence

© 2026 Author(s)

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. CC BY 4.0