4.1 Article

Kinetic analysis of cystine uptake and inhibition pattern of sulfasalazine in A549 cells

期刊

BIOPHARMACEUTICS & DRUG DISPOSITION
卷 42, 期 8, 页码 389-392

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/bdd.2298

关键词

A549; cystine; kinetic analysis; sulfasalazine; xCT

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [JP19J11051]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the kinetics of xCT in A549 cells and the inhibition pattern of sulfasalazine for cystine uptake. It found that cystine uptake was time-dependent and sulfasalazine inhibited it in a concentration-dependent manner, showing a mixed inhibition pattern. Additionally, xCT siRNA decreased xCT mRNA levels and reduced cystine uptake in A549 cells.
Cystine/glutamate transporter (xCT) is an antiporter involved in cystine uptake and glutamate efflux. However, there are very few reports regarding the kinetic analysis of xCT for cystine uptake using cancer cell lines, as well as the inhibition pattern of sulfasalazine, an inhibitor of xCT, for cystine uptake. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to clarify the kinetics of xCT in A549 cells, human lung cancer cells, and to reveal the inhibition pattern of sulfasalazine. Cystine uptake occurred in a time-dependent manner, with linear cystine uptake observed for 5 min. Additionally, sulfasalazine inhibited cystine uptake in a concentration-dependent manner, presenting an IC50 value of 24.7 +/- 5.6 mu M. Cystine uptake was saturated with increasing concentration, demonstrating K-m and V-max values of 179.4 +/- 26.7 mu M and 30.4 +/- 2.3 nmol/min/mg protein, respectively. Moreover, during cystine uptake with sulfasalazine, K-m and V-max were >300 mu M and 8.0 +/- 1.5 nmol/min/mg protein, respectively, suggesting that sulfasalazine might demonstrate a mixed inhibition pattern. Furthermore, xCT siRNA decreased the xCT mRNA level and reduced cystine uptake. In conclusion, xCT was involved in the cystine uptake in A549 cells and sulfasalazine showed a mixed inhibition pattern to xCT.

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

4.1
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