4.7 Article

Induction and repair of DNA double-strand breaks using constant-field gel electrophoresis and apoptosis as predictive markers for sensitivity of cancer cells to cisplatin

期刊

BIOMEDICINE & PHARMACOTHERAPY
卷 66, 期 7, 页码 554-562

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopha.2012.07.001

关键词

Cisplatin; Drug-resistance; Induction of DSB; Residual breaks; Cell cycle regulation; Apoptosis

资金

  1. Sharjah University [091107]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study was designed to evaluate some parameters that may play a role in the prediction of cancer cells sensitivity to cisplatin (CIS). Sensitivity, induction and repair of DNA double-strand breaks (DSB), cell cycle regulation and induction of apoptosis were measured in four cancer cell lines with different sensitivities to CIS. Using a sulphorhodamine-B assay, the cervical carcinoma cells (HeLa) were found to be the most sensitive to CIS followed by breast carcinoma cells (MCF-7) and liver carcinoma cells (HepG2). Colon carcinoma HCT116 cells were the most resistant. As measured by constant-field gel electrophoresis (CFGE), DSB induction, but not residual DSB exhibited a significant correlation with the sensitivity of cells to CIS. Flow cytometric DNA ploidy analysis revealed that 67% of HeLa cells and 10% of MCF-7 cells shift to sub-G1 phase after incubation with CIS. Additionally, CIS induced the arrest of MCF-7 cells in S-phase and the arrest of HepG2 and HCT116 cells in both S phase and G2/M phase. Determination of the Fas-L level and Caspase-9 activity indicated that CIS-induced apoptosis results from the mitochondrial (intrinsic) pathway. These results, if confirmed using clinical samples, indicate that the induction of DNA DSB as measured by CFGE and the induction of apoptosis should be considered, along with other predictive markers, in future clinical trials to develop predictive assays for platinum -based therapy. (C) 2012 Elsevier Masson SAS. 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