4.8 Article

Apoptosis resistance of MCF-7 breast carcinoma cells to ionizing radiation is independent of p53 and cell cycle control but caused by the lack of caspase-3 and a caffeine-inhibitable event

期刊

CANCER RESEARCH
卷 64, 期 19, 页码 7065-7072

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-1082

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have shown previously that ionizing radiation (IR) induces a persistent G(2)-M arrest but not cell death in MCF-7 breast carcinoma cells that harbor functional p53 but lack caspase-3. In the present study, we investigated the mechanisms of apoptosis resistance and the roles of p53, caspase-3, and cell cycle arrest in IR-induced apoptosis. The methylxanthine caffeine and the staurosporine analog UCN-01, which can inhibit ATM and Chk kinases, efficiently abrogated the IR-induced G(2)-M arrest and induced mitochondrial activation as judged by the loss of the mitochondrial membrane potential and the release of cytochrome c and Smac/ Diablo. However, despite these proapoptotic alterations, cell death and activation of the initiator caspase-9 were not induced in MCF-7 cells but were interestingly only observed after reexpression of caspase-3. Sensitization to IR-induced apoptosis by caffeine or UCN-01 was abrogated neither by cycloheximide nor by pifitbrin-alpha, an inhibitor of the transcriptional activity of p53. Furthermore, suppression of p53 by RNA interference could not prevent caffeine- and IR-induced mitochondrial alterations and apoptosis but resulted in an even more pronounced G(2)-M arrest. Collectively, our results clearly show that the resistance of MCF-7 cells to IR-induced apoptosis is caused by two independent events; one of them is a caffeine- or UCN-01-inhibitable event that does not depend on p53 or a release of the G(2)-M arrest. The second event is the loss of caspase-3 that surprisingly seems essential for a fully functional caspase-9 pathway, even despite the previous release of mitochondrial proapoptotic proteins.

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

4.8
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