4.6 Article

Diversity of the Senescence Phenotype of Cancer Cells Treated with Chemotherapeutic Agents

Journal

CELLS
Volume 8, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cells8121501

Keywords

senescence; senescence markers; cancer; chemotherapy; DNA damage; SASP

Categories

Funding

  1. Polish National Science Center [UMO-2015/17/B/NZ3/03531]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

It is acknowledged that cancer cells are able to undergo senescence in response to clinically used chemotherapeutics. Moreover, recent years have provided evidence that some drugs can selectively remove senescent cells. Therefore, it is essential to properly identify and characterize senescent cells, especially when it comes to cancer. Senescence was induced in various cancer cell lines (A549, SH-SY-5Y, HCT116, MDA-MB-231, and MCF-7) following treatment with doxorubicin, irinotecan, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, or paclitaxel. Treatment with tested chemotherapeutics resulted in upregulation of p21 and proliferation arrest without cytotoxicity. A comparative analysis with the use of common senescence markers (i.e., morphology, SA-beta-galactosidase, granularity, secretory phenotype, and the level of double-stranded DNA damage) revealed a large diversity in response to the chemotherapeutics used. The strongest senescence inducers were doxorubicin, irinotecan, and methotrexate; paclitaxel had an intermediate effect and oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil did not induce senescence. In addition, different susceptibility of cancer cells to senescence was observed. A statistical analysis aimed at finding any relationship between the senescence markers applied did not show clear correlations. Moreover, increased SA-beta-gal activity coupled with p21 expression proved not to be an unequivocal senescence marker. This points to a need to simultaneously analyze multiple markers, given their individual limitations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available