4.2 Article

Change in Anticancer Drug Sensitivity During Neuronal Differentiation of PC12 Cells

期刊

IN VIVO
卷 32, 期 4, 页码 765-770

出版社

INT INST ANTICANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.21873/invivo.11306

关键词

Neurotoxicity; anticancer drug; differentiation stage; PC12; NGF

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) [16K11519]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [16K11519] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Aim: Although there are many reports of anticancer drug-induced, neurotoxicity, most previous data have been derived from neuronal cell models grown in a variety of culture conditions. This has prevented accurate assessment of the potency of their neurotoxicity and of changes in drug sensitivity of neuronal cells during differentiation. In this study, a simple neuronal differentiation induction system was established and the relative potency of neurotoxicity of eight anticancer drugs was compared during neuronal cell differentiation. Materials and Methods: Rat PC12 cells were induced to differentiate into neuronal cells by 50 ng/ml nerve growth factor in serum-free Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium, followed by overlay of fresh nutrients at day 3, without medium change. Cell viability was determined by the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide method. Results: During differentiation, PC12 cells became 1.1-to more than 10,000-fold resistant to anticancer drugs. Topoisomerase inhibitors (doxorubicin, SN-38, etoposide) were the most toxic to differentiated PC12 cells, followed by docetaxel, gefitinib, melphalan, 5-fluorouracil and methotrexate. Docetaxel showed the highest cytotoxicity against undifferentiated PC12 cells, but its cytotoxicity was dramatically reduced during differentiation. Conclusion: The present study demonstrated considerable variation in the neurotoxicity of anticancer drugs during the cell differentiation process. The present simple assay system may be useful to search for neuroprotective substances.

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

4.2
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