4.7 Article

Relationship of cellular topoisomerase IIα inhibition to cytotoxicity and published genotoxicity of fluoroquinolone antibiotics in V79 cells

期刊

CHEMICO-BIOLOGICAL INTERACTIONS
卷 203, 期 2, 页码 386-390

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cbi.2013.01.003

关键词

Fluoroquinolone; Clinafloxacin; Lomefloxacin; Topoisomerase II; Genotoxicity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fluoroquinolone (FQ) antibiotics are bacteriocidal through inhibition of the bacterial gyrase and at sufficient concentrations in vitro, they can inhibit the homologous eukaryotic topoisomerase (TOPO) II enzyme. FQ exert a variety of genotoxic effects in mammalian systems through mechanisms not yet established, but which are postulated to involve inhibition of TOPO II enzymes. To assess the relationship of inhibition of cell nuclear TOPO II to cytotoxicity and reported genotoxicity, two FQ clinafloxacin (CLFX) and lomefloxacin (LOFX), having available genotoxicity data showing substantial differences with CLFX being more potent than LOFX, were selected for study. The relative inhibitory activities of these FQ on nuclear TOPO II alpha in cultured Chinese hamster lung fibroblasts (V79 cells) over dose ranges and at equimolar concentrations were assessed by measuring nuclear stabilized cleavage complexes of TOPO II alpha-DNA. Cytotoxicity was measured by relative cell counts. Both FQ inhibited V79 cell nuclear TOPO II alpha. The lowest-observed-adverse-effect levels for TOPO II alpha inhibition were 55 mu M for CLFX, and 516 mu M for LOFX. The no-observed-adverse-effect-levels were 41 mu M for CLFX, and 258 mu M for LOFX. At equimolar concentrations (175 mu M), CLFX was more potent than LOFX. Likewise, CLFX was more cytotoxic than LOFX. Thus, the two FQ, inhibited TOPO II alpha in intact V79 cells, differed in their potencies and exhibited no-observed-adverse-effect levels. These findings are in concordance with published genotoxicity data and observed cytotoxicity. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ireland 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

4.7
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