4.7 Article

Lovastatin attenuates ionizing radiation-induced normal tissue damage in vivo

期刊

RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY
卷 92, 期 3, 页码 492-499

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2009.06.020

关键词

Ionizing radiation; Normal tissue damage; Stress responses; Cell death; Statins

资金

  1. Deutsche Krebshilfe [107361]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and purpose: HMG-CoA-reductase inhibitors (statins) are widely used lipid-lowering drugs. Moreover, they have pleiotropic effects on cellular stress responses, proliferation and apoptosis in vitro. Here, we investigated whether lovastatin attenuates acute and subchronic ionizing radiation-induced normal tissue toxicity in vivo. Materials and methods: Four hours to 24 h after total body irradiation (6 Gy) of Balb/c mice, acute proinflammatory and pro-fibrotic responses were analyzed. To comprise subchronic radiation toxicity, mice were irradiated twice with 2.5 Gy and analyses were performed 3 weeks after the first radiation treatment. Molecular markers of inflammation and fibrosis as well as organ toxicities were measured. Results: Lovastatin attenuated IR-induced activation of NF-kappa B, mRNA expression of cell adhesion molecules and mRNA expression of pro-inflammatory and pro-fibrotic marker genes (i.e. TNF alpha, IL-6, TGF beta, CTGF, and type I and type III collagen) in a tissue- and time-dependent manner. gamma H2AX phosphorylation stimulated by IR was not affected by lovastatin, indicating that the statin has no major impact on the induction of DNA damage in vivo. Radiation-induced thrombopenia was significantly alleviated by lovastatin. Conclusions: Lovastatin inhibits both acute and subchronic IR-induced pro-inflammatory and pro-fibrotic responses and cell death in normal tissue in vivo. Therefore, lovastatin might be useful for selectively attenuating acute and subchronic normal tissue damage caused by radiotherapy. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. Radiotherapy and Oncology 92 (2009) 492-499

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