4.5 Article

Zinc- or cadmium-pre-induced metallothionein protects human central nervous system cells and astrocytes from radiation-induced apoptosis

期刊

TOXICOLOGY LETTERS
卷 146, 期 3, 页码 217-226

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2003.09.013

关键词

metallothionein; primary human CNS; human astrocytes; radiation; cell death; oxidative stress; antioxidant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have shown the protection of human central nervous system (CNS) cultures by zinc (Zn) or cadmium (Cd)-pre-induced metallothionein (MT) synthesis from radiation-induced cytotoxicity (lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) release and neuronal dendritic injury). The present study is to further define the types of cell death induced by different dose levels of radiation and investigate the effect of MT induction (by Zn or Cd) on radiation-induced apoptosis in primary human CNS and astrocyte cultures. Apoptosis was detected by fragmented DNA electrophoresis, TUNEL technique, and propidium iodide staining. Expression of MT protein was examined by immunofluorescent staining. Results showed that exposure of primary human CNS cultures to 15 and 30 Gy gamma-radiation predominantly induced apoptotic cell death, while exposure to 60 Gy gamma-radiation predominantly induced necrotic cell death. Normal primary human CNS cultures showed weak MT staining, while primary human CNS cultures exposed to Zn or Cd showed intense MT staining. The induced apoptotic cell death by exposure to 30 Gy gamma-radiation increased to a maximum level at 12 and 24 h, and was reduced significantly by Zn or Cd pre-induced MT. Using primary human astrocytes, the induction of MT protein by Zn or Cd was further confirmed. The enhanced MT expression also afforded a significant protection from 30 Gy gamma-ray-induced apoptosis in the primary human astrocytes. These results suggest that MT protected human CNS cells from apoptosis following ionizing radiation, probably through its antioxidant property. (C) 2003 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

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

4.5
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