4.6 Article

Ceramide induces cell death in the human prostatic carcinoma cell lines PC3 and DU145 but does not seem to be involved in Fas-mediated apoptosis

期刊

LABORATORY INVESTIGATION
卷 80, 期 5, 页码 671-676

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/labinvest.3780070

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA76673] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Treatment of cells with synthetic C2-ceramide has been reported to induce apoptosis in several cell systems, and endogenously formed ceramide has been proposed to act as a second messenger, activating signaling pathways which contribute to the execution of apoptotic cell death after Fas ligation or tumor necrosis factor receptor-1 ligation. In this study, we examined the effect of exogenously administered C2-ceramide on the human prostatic carcinoma cell lines PC3 (Fas-sensitive) and DU145 (Fas-resistant). In both cell lines, C2-ceramide induced cell death in a dose-dependent manner, whereas a structural analog, C2-dihydroceramide, did not. The pan-caspase inhibitor zVAD-fmk did not prevent C2-ceramide-induced cell death but did prevent C2-ceramide-induced DNA fragmentation, indicating that apoptotic and non-apoptotic mechanisms are involved in C2-ceramide-induced death. Interestingly, cycloheximide prevented C2-ceramide-induced DNA fragmentation, indicating that ceramide-induced apoptosis in PC3 and DU145 requires new protein synthesis. In addition, because cycloheximide converts Fas-resistant DU145 to Fas-sensitive as assessed by DNA fragmentation, ceramide does not seem to play a major role in the Fas-mediated pathway in this cell line. We also determined the levels of endogenous sphingomyelin after Fas ligation in PC3. No decrease of sphingomyelin levels could be detected after Fas activation. We conclude that sphingomyelinase-generated ceramide does not play a role in Fas-mediated apoptosis in PC3, and that there are fundamental differences in the mechanisms of cell death induced by C2-ceramide and Fas ligation.

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