3.8 Article

Selective sensitivity to wasabi-derived 6-(methylsulfinyl)hexyl isothiocyanate of human breast cancer and melanoma cell lines studied in vitro

期刊

CANCER DETECTION AND PREVENTION
卷 29, 期 2, 页码 155-160

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cdp.2004.07.010

关键词

wasabi; 6-(methylsulfinyl)hexyl isothiocyanate; human cancer cell panel; anticancer screening; computerized algorithm

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recently, attention has focused on the anticancer properties of an aromatic component 6-(methylsulfinyl)hexyl isothiocyanate (6-MITC) in a typical Japanese spice, wasabi. In this paper, anticancer activity of 6-MITC in vitro was studied by using a human cancer cell (HCC) panel. 6-MITC directly affected the cells in the HCC panel and inhibited their growth in culture. The mean concentration required to inhibit 50% of control cell growth was 3.9 mu M, which is a sufficiently low dosage for practical use. The suppression influenced not only the cell growth, but also the survival of these cells. The mean concentration to suppress cells to a 50% survival was 43.7 mu M. The reduction activity of 6-MITC was differential, and it suppressed specific cells. These severely suppressed cell lines included breast cancer and melanoma cell lines. For example, one melanoma line was seriously damaged at a concentration of 0.3 mu M of 6-MITC. Compared with other MITCs (2-MITC, 4-MITC and 8-MITC), 6-MITC showed the most effective suppression and with the most specific manner of the cells mentioned above. A COMPARE analysis using a computerized algorithm, which was based on the HCC database, suggested that the suppression mechanism of 6-MITC is unique and may be different from that of other known chemicals. The actual mechanism may not a simple one but may involve multiple pathways. On account of its sufficiently small size, 6-MITC is a new possible candidate for controlling cancer cells. (c) 2004 International Society for Preventive Oncology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

3.8
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