4.4 Article

The slow cell death response when screening chemotherapeutic agents

期刊

CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY AND PHARMACOLOGY
卷 68, 期 3, 页码 795-803

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00280-010-1549-9

关键词

Apoptosis; Annexin V; Chemotherapy; Cell death; Screening; Cytotoxicity

资金

  1. NIH [P50CA086355, EB004472, EB009691]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To examine the correlation between cell death and a common surrogate of death used in screening assays, we compared cell death responses to those obtained with the sulforhodamine B (SRB) cell protein-based cytotoxicity assay. With the SRB assay, the Hill equation was used to obtain an IC50 and final cell mass, or cell mass present at infinite agent concentrations, with eight adherent cell lines and four agents (32 agent/cell combinations). Cells were treated with high agent concentrations (well above the SRB IC50) and the death response determined as the time-dependent decrease in cells failing to bind both annexin V and vital fluorochromes by flow cytometry. Death kinetics were categorized as fast (5/32) (similar to the reference nonadherent Jurkat line), slow (17/32), or none (10/32), despite positive responses in the SRB assay in all cases. With slow cell death, a single exposure to a chemotherapeutic agent caused a slow, progressive increase in dead (necrotic) and dying (apoptotic) cells for at least 72 h. Cell death (defined by annexin and/or fluorochrome binding) did not correlate with the standard SRB cytotoxicity assay. With the slow cell death response, a single exposure to an agent caused a slow conversion from vital to apoptotic and necrotic cells over at least 72 h (the longest time point examined). Here, increasing the time of exposure to agent concentrations modestly above the SRB IC50 provides a method of maximizing cell kill. If tumors respond similarly, sustained low doses of chemotherapeutic agents, rather than a log-kill, maximum tolerated dose strategy may be an optimal strategy of maximizing tumor cell death.

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

4.4
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