4.2 Article

Induction and mechanism of apoptotic cell death by propofol in HL-60 cells

期刊

ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
卷 46, 期 9, 页码 1068-1074

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1034/j.1399-6576.2002.460903.x

关键词

antioxidant; apoptosis; Bid; caspase; cytochrome c; HL-60 cells; mitochondria; propofol

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Apoptosis (programmed cell death) occurs in various physiological and pathological conditions, exhibits a characteristic mechanism of intracellular sequential reaction and may be involved in determining clinical outcome. The antioxidant activity of propofol (2,6-diisopropylphenol) together with the stimulating effect of protein kinase C suggests that propofol might have the potential to modulate apoptosis. Thus, it is of both clinical interest and biomedical importance to investigate and clarify the effect and mechanism of propofol upon the intracellular reactions underlying apoptotic cell death. Methods: The effect of propofol on apoptosis was investigated using cultured human promyelocytic leukemia HL-60 cells. This well-characterized cell line is useful for the study of apoptosis because the various biochemical steps occurring during apoptosis have been well documented. Results: Treatment of HL-60 cells with propofol resulted in growth inhibition with the formation of apoptotic bodies in a concentration-dependent manner. DNA fragmentation and ladder formation was also observed in a concentration-dependent manner. Propofol treatment resulted in activation of caspase-3, -6, -8 and -9, thereby suggesting that cell surface death receptor activation of the caspase cascade mediates propofol-induced apoptosis with consequent formation of the cleaved product of Bid (a pro-apoptotic Bcl-2 family member protein) and activation of the mitochondrial pathway with cytosolic release of cytochrome c. Conclusion: Propofol may induce apoptosis, which is dependent on the mechanism that activates both the cell surface death receptor pathway and the mitochondrial pathway.

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

4.2
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