4.7 Article

Selective induction of apoptosis by histone deacetylase inhibitor SAHA in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma cells: Relevance to mechanism of therapeutic action

期刊

JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE DERMATOLOGY
卷 125, 期 5, 页码 1045-1052

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.0022-202X.2005.23925.x

关键词

apoptosis; cutaneous T cell lymphoma; histone deacetylase inhibitor

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA 16672, K24-CA 86815, R21-CA 74117] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Suberoylanilide hydroxamic acid (SAHA), an orally administered inhibitor of histone deacetylases, is currently in phase II clinical trials for cutaneous T cell lymphomas (CTCL), but the mechanism of SAHA action is unknown. In this study, we investigated the anti-tumor effects of SAHA in CTCL cell lines and freshly isolated peripheral blood lymphocytes (PBL) from CTCL patients with high percentage of circulating malignant T cells. Three cell lines (MJ, Hut78, and HH) and PBL from 11 patients and three healthy donors were treated with SAHA (1, 2.5, and 5 mu M) for 24 and/or 48 h. Apoptosis was determined by flow cytometry analysis of sub-G, hypodiploid nuclei and/or annexin V binding populations. Acetylated histones and apoptosis-associated proteins were detected by Western blotting. SAHA at 1-5 mu M for 24 and 48 h induced apoptosis in a concentration- and time-dependent manner in three cell lines: MJ (0%-7% and 1%-32%), Hut78 (4%-36% and 5%-54%), and HH (4%-67% and 8%-81%). SAHA at 1-5 mu M for 48 h also induced more apoptosis of patients' PBL than healthy donors' (15%-32% versus 6%-13%, p<0.05). SAHA treatment caused an accumulation of acetylated histones (H2B, H3, and H4), an increase of p21(WAF1) and bax proteins, a decrease of Stat6 and phospho-Stat6 proteins, and activation of caspase-3 in CTCL cells. Our data suggest that selective induction of malignant T cell apoptosis and modulation of acetylated histones, p21(WAF1), bax, Stat6, and caspase-3 may underlie the therapeutic action of SAHA in CTCL patients.

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