4.5 Article

Enhanced toxicity and ROS generation by doxorubicin in primary cultures of cardiomyocytes from neonatal metallothionein-I/II null mice

期刊

TOXICOLOGY IN VITRO
卷 24, 期 6, 页码 1584-1591

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tiv.2010.06.009

关键词

Metallothionein; Doxorubicin; Cardiomyocytes; Reactive oxygen species

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30873130]
  2. Ministry of Science and Technology of China [2009ZX09501-034]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The clinical use of doxorubicin (Dox), a potent anticancer drug, is limited by its concurrent dose-dependent cardiotoxicity. We previously found that metallothionein-I/II (MT-I/II) null mice are more vulnerable to Dox-induced cardiomyopathy, but it is unknown whether depletion of MT would sensitize cardiomyocytes to Dox toxicity in vitro since the protective effect of MT still remains controversial. In the present study, a primary culture system of cardiomyocytes from neonatal MT-I/II null (MT-/-) and corresponding wild type (MT+/+) mice was established to unequivocally determine the effect of MT deficiency on Dox-induced toxicity. MT concentrations in the MT-/- cardiomyocytes were about 2.5-fold lower than those in MT+/+ cardiomyocytes. MT-/- cardiomyocytes were more sensitive to Dox-induced cytotoxicity than MT+/+ cardiomyocytes as measured by morphological alterations, lactate dehydrogenase leakage, cell viability, and apoptosis. Dox time- and concentration-dependently increased reactive oxygen species (ROS) formation in MT+/+ cardiomyocytes, and this effect was exaggerated in MT-/- cardiomyocytes. Antioxidant N-acetylcysteine (NAC) and glutathione (GSH) significantly rescued MT+/+ but not MT(-/-)cardiomyocytes from Dox-induced cell death and ROS generation. These findings suggest that basal MT provide protection against Dox-induced toxicity in cardiomyocytes, particularly highlight the important role of MT as a cellular antioxidant on scavenging ROS. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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