4.7 Article

The antidepressants maprotiline and fluoxetine induce Type II autophagic cell death in drug-resistant Burkitt's lymphoma

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 128, 期 7, 页码 1712-1723

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.25477

关键词

apoptosis; antidepressants; autophagic cell death; calcium; Bax/Bak

类别

资金

  1. Trinity College

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Resistance to chemotherapy is a major obstacle for the success of cancer therapy and is most commonly attributed to the inability of cancer cells to die by apoptosis, the archetypal programed cell death (PCD) response. The development of anticancer drugs that can overcome this resistance to apoptosis and induce other forms of cell death is therefore paramount for efficient cancer therapy. We report that the antidepressants maprotiline and fluoxetine induce autophagic PCD in the chemoresistant Burkitt's lymphoma (BL) cell line DG-75, which does not involve caspases, DNA fragmentation or PARP cleavage, but is associated with the development of cytoplasmic vacuoles, all consistent with an autophagic mode of PCD. Autophagic PCD was confirmed by transmission electron microscopy, upregulation of Beclin-I and the extent of PCD being reduced by the autophagic inhibitor 3-MA. In contrast, these compounds induced apoptotic PCD in the biopsy-like chemosensitive BL MUTU-I cell line. We provide evidence that the chemoresistant DG-75 cells do not express the proapoptotic Bcl-2 proteins Bax and Bak, show diminished levels of stored intracellular calcium and display shortened rod-like mitochondria, all of which are known to be associated with a defective apoptotic response in cancer cells. PCD in the two cell lines has different Ca2+ responses to maprotiline and fluoxetine, which may also account for their differential PCD responses. Our study, therefore, supports a new mechanistic role for maprotiline and fluoxetine as novel proautophagic agents in the treatment of resistant BL, and thus an alternative therapeutic application for these compounds.

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