4.6 Article

Grape seed proanthocyanidins promote apoptosis in human epidermoid carcinoma A431 cells through alterations in Cdki-Cdk-cyclin cascade, and caspase-3 activation via loss of mitochondrial membrane potential

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL DERMATOLOGY
卷 16, 期 5, 页码 405-415

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0625.2007.00542.x

关键词

apoptosis; cell cycle; grape seed proanthocyanidins; skin cancer

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA 104428] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAMS NIH HHS [AR 050948-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dietary grape seed proanthocyanidins (GSPs) prevent photocarcinogenesis in mice. Here, we report that in vitro treatment of human epidermoid carcinoma A431 cells with GSPs inhibited cellular proliferation (13-89%) and induced cell death (1-48%) in a dose (5-100 mu g/ml)- and time (24, 48 and 72 h)-dependent manner. GSP-induced inhibition of cell proliferation was associated with an increase in G1-phase arrest at 24 h, which was mediated through the inhibition of cyclin-dependent kinases (Cdk) Cdk2, Cdk4, Cdk6 and cyclins D1, D2 and E and simultaneous increase in protein expression of cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors (Cdki), Cip1/p21 and Kip1/p27, and enhanced binding of Cdki-Cdk. The treatment of A431 cells with GSPs (20-80 mu g/ml) resulted in a dose-dependent increase in apoptotic cell death (26-58%), which was associated with an increased protein expression of proapoptotic Bax, decreased expression of antiapoptotic Bcl-2 and Bcl-xl, loss of mitochondrial membrane potential, and cleavage of caspase-9, caspase-3 and PARP. Pretreatment with the pan-caspase inhibitor (z-VAD-fmk) blocked the GSP-induced apoptosis in A431 cells suggesting that GSP-induced apoptosis is associated primarily with the caspase-3-dependent pathway. Together, our study suggests that GSPs possess chemotherapeutic potential against human epidermoid carcinoma cells in vitro, further in vivo mechanistic studies are required to verify the chemotherapeutic effect of GSPs in skin cancers.

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

4.6
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