4.6 Article

Dissociation of gemcitabine chemosensitization by CHK1 inhibition from cell cycle checkpoint abrogation and aberrant mitotic entry

Journal

CELL CYCLE
Volume 15, Issue 5, Pages 730-739

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/15384101.2016.1148841

Keywords

CHK1; AZD7762; aberrant mitotic entry; pancreatic cancer; gemcitabine; checkpoint abrogation

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institute of Health [R01CA163895, R01CA138723, P50CA130810]
  2. AstraZeneca research grant

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In order to determine the relative contribution of checkpoint abrogation and subsequent aberrant mitotic entry to gemcitabine chemosensitization by CHK1 inhibition, we established a model utilizing the CDK inhibitors roscovitine or purvalanol A to re-establish cell cycle arrest and prevent aberrant mitotic entry in pancreatic cancer cells treated with gemcitabine and the CHK inhibitor AZD7762. In this study, we report that the extent of aberrant mitotic entry, as determined by flow cytometry for the mitotic marker phospho-Histone H3 (Ser10), did not reflect the relative sensitivities of pancreatic cancer cell lines to gemcitabine chemosensitization by AZD7762. In addition, re-establishing gemcitabine-induced cell cycle arrest either pharmacologically, with roscovitine or purvalanol A, or genetically, with cyclin B1 siRNA, did not inhibit chemosensitization uniformly across the cell lines. Furthermore, we found that AZD7762 augmented high-intensity gamma H2AX signaling in gemcitabine-treated cells, suggesting the presence of replication stress when CHK1 is inhibited. Finally, the ability of roscovitine to prevent chemosensitization correlated with its ability to inhibit AZD7762-induced high-intensity gamma H2AX, but not aberrant pHH3, suggesting that the effects of AZD7762 on DNA replication or repair rather than aberrant mitotic entry determine gemcitabine chemosensitization in pancreatic cancer cells.

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