4.7 Article

The purine scaffold Hsp90 inhibitor PU-H71 sensitizes cancer cells to heavy ion radiation by inhibiting DNA repair by homologous recombination and non-homologous end joining

期刊

RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY
卷 121, 期 1, 页码 162-168

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2016.08.029

关键词

PU-H71; Hsp90; Heavy ion radiotherapy; Radiosensitization; DNA repair

资金

  1. JSPS KAKENHI [24249067, 23390301]
  2. NIH [R01 GM084020]
  3. Research Project with Heavy Ions at NIRS-HIMAC
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23390301] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and purpose: PU-H71 is a purine-scaffold Hsp90 inhibitor developed to overcome limitations of conventional Hsp90 inhibitors. This study was designed to investigate the combined effect of PU-H71 and heavy ion irradiation on human tumor and normal cells. Materials and methods: The effects of PU-H71 were determined by monitoring cell survival by colony formation, and DNA double-strand break (DSB) repair by gamma-H2AX foci and immuno-blotting DSB repair proteins. The mode of cell death was evaluated by sub-G1 DNA content (as an indicator for apoptosis), and mitotic catastrophe. Results: PU-H71 enhanced heavy ion irradiation-induced cell death in three human cancer cell lines, but the drug did not radiosensitize normal human fibroblasts. In irradiated tumor cells, PU-H71 increased the persistence of gamma-H2AX foci, and it reduced RAD51 foci and phosphorylated DNA-PKcs, key DSB repair proteins involved in homologous recombination (HR) and non-homologous end joining (NHEJ). In some tumor cell lines, PU-H71 altered the sub-G1 cell fraction and mitotic catastrophe following carbon ion irradiation. Conclusion: Our results demonstrate that PU-H71 sensitizes human cancer cells to heavy ion irradiation by inhibiting both HR and NHEJ DSB repair pathways. PU-H71 holds promise as a radiosensitizer for enhancing the efficacy of heavy ion radiotherapy. (C) 2016 Elsevier Irelarid Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据