3.8 Article

Dihydroartemisinin Induces Apoptosis in Human Bladder Cancer Cell Lines Through Reactive Oxygen Species, Mitochondrial Membrane Potential, and Cytochrome C Pathway

出版社

WOLTERS KLUWER MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS
DOI: 10.4103/ijpvm.IJPVM_258_17

关键词

Apoptosis; artemisinins; reactive oxygen species; urinary bladder neoplasms

资金

  1. Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran [391436]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Dihydroartemisinin (DHA) is a semisynthetic derivative of artemisinin and has antiproliferative effect. However, such effects of DHA have not yet been revealed for bladder cancer cells. Methods: We used as bladder cancer cell lines to examine the effect of DHA on the cell viability, cell apoptosis, and monitoring of mitochondrial membrane potential (Delta psi m) changes. Furthermore, the effect of DHA on the reactive oxygen species (ROS) production and cytochrome c release were also detected. We employed MTT assay to investigate the cell proliferation effect of DHA on the EJ-138 and HTB-9 human bladder cancer cells. Annexin/PI staining, caspase-3 activity assay, Bcl-2/Bax protein expression, mitochondrial membrane potential assay, cytochrome c release, and ROS analysis were used for apoptosis detection. Results: DHA significantly reduced cell viability in a dose-dependent manner. Cytotoxicity of DHA was suppressed by N-acetylcysteine. The growth inhibition effect of DHA was related to the induction of cell apoptosis, which were manifested by annexin V-FITC staining, activation of caspase-3. DHA also increased ROS generation, cytochrome c release, and loss of mitochondrial transmembrane potential (Delta psi m) in cells. In addition, the downregulation of regulatory protein Bcl-2 and upregulation of Bax protein by DHA were also observed. Conclusions: These findings demonstrated that DHA induces apoptosis through mitochondrial signaling pathway. These suggest that DHA may be a potential agent for induction of apoptosis in human bladder cancer cells.

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

3.8
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