4.7 Article

Radiosensitivity of human tumour cells is correlated with the induction but not with the repair of DNA double-strand breaks

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 89, Issue 3, Pages 593-601

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6601133

Keywords

tumour; MCF-7; RT112; Du145; LNCaP; T47D; HeLa; DSB; graded-field gel electrophoresis

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Nine human tumour cell lines (four mammary, one bladder, two prostate, one cervical, and one squamous cell carcinoma) were studied as to whether cellular radiosensitivity is related to the number of initial or residual double-strand breaks (dsb). Cellular sensitivity was measured by colony assay and dsb by means of constant- and graded-field gel electrophoresis (CFGE and GFGE, respectively). The nine tumour cell lines showed a broad variation in cellular sensitivity (SF2 0.17-0.63). The number of initial dsb as measured by GFGE ranged between 14 and 27 dsb/Gy/diploid DNA content. In contrast, normal fibroblasts raised from skin biopsies of seven individuals showed only a marginal variation with 18-20 dsb/Gy/diploid DNA content. For eight of the nine tumour cell lines, there was a significant correlation between the number of initial dsb and the cellular radiosensitivity. The tumour cells showed a broad variation in the amount of dsb measured 24 h after irradiation by CFGE, which, however, was not correlated with the cellular sensitivity. This residual damage was found to be influenced not only by the actual number of residual dsb, but also by apoptosis and cell cycle progression which had impact on CFGE measurements. Some cell line strains were able to proliferate even after exposure to 150 Gy while others were found to degrade their DNA. Our results suggest that for tumour cells, in contrast to normal cells, the variation in sensitivity is mainly determined by differences in the initial number of dsb induced.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available