4.7 Article

Chemotherapy drugs cyclophosphamide, cisplatin and doxorubicin induce germ cell loss in an in vitro model of the prepubertal testis

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-19761-9

关键词

-

资金

  1. Medical Research Grant (MRC) grant [G1002118]
  2. Children with Cancer UK [15-198]
  3. Wellcome Trust Intermediate Clinical Fellowship [098522]
  4. MRC [G1002118, G1100357] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Medical Research Council [G1002118, G1100357] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Long term survival rates for childhood cancers is steadily increasing, however cancer survivors can experience fertility problems as a consequence of chemotherapy treatment. This is particularly problematic for young boys, for whom no fertility preservation treatment is yet established. Here, we have determined the effects on prepubertal mouse testis of three commonly used chemotherapy drugs; cyclophosphamide (using its active metabolite phosphoramide mustard), cisplatin and doxorubicin, exposing testicular fragments to a clinically relevant range of concentrations in vitro. All three drugs induced a specific and highly significant loss of germ cells, including spermatogonial stem cells. In contrast, there was no significant effect on somatic cells, for either Sertoli or interstitial cells. Time course analysis of cleaved Caspase-3 expression showed a significant increase in apoptosis eight hours prior to a detectable decrease in germ cell numbers following exposure to phosphoramide mustard or cisplatin, although this pattern was not seen following doxorubicin-exposure. Moreover, analysis of DNA damage at 16 h showed increased gamma H2AX expression in response to all three drugs. Overall, results show that cisplatin, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide all specifically induce loss of germ cells, including of spermatogonial stem cells, in the prepubertal mouse testis at concentrations relevant to human therapeutic exposures.

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