Anticancer research · 2014
A nelarabine-resistant T-lymphoblastic leukemia CCRF-CEM variant cell line is cross-resistant to the purine nucleoside phosphorylase inhibitor forodesine.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yamauchi Takahiro, Uzui Kanako, Nishi Rie, Tasaki Toshiki, Ueda Takanori
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/AIM: Forodesine inhibits purine nucleoside phosphorylase, resulting in an accumulation of intracellular dGTP and consequently cell death. 9-β-D-Arabinofuranosylguanine (ara-G) is an active compound of nelarabine that is intracellularly phosphorylated to a triphosphate form, which inhibits DNA synthesis. Both agents show cytotoxicity toward T-cell malignancies. In the present study, we investigated the cytotoxicity of forodesine in vitro using ara-G-resistant leukemia cells.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: T-Lymphoblastic leukemia cell line CCRF-CEM and ara-G-resistant CEM variant cell line CEM/ara-G that we had previously established were used.
RESULTS: A growth-inhibition assay demonstrated that CEM cells were insensitive to single-agent forodesine treatment. The cells were also insensitive to deoxyguanosine at a maximal concentration of 10 μM. CEM/ara-G cells were 80-fold more resistant to ara-G than were CEM cells, and the mode of sensitivity to forodesine and deoxyguanosine was similar to that of CEM cells. In the presence of 10 μM deoxyguanosine, forodesine effectively inhibited the growth of CEM cells but not that of CEM/ara-G cells. Flow cytometric analyses showed that combination of forodesine and deoxyguanosine induced apoptosis of CEM cells but not of CEM/ara-G cells. The addition of ara-G did not augment the cytotoxicity of the forodesine/deoxyguanosine combination towards CEM cells or CEM/ara-G cells. The combination index revealed antagonism between forodesine and ara-G. The intracellular production of ara-G triphosphate was reduced in the presence of forodesine.
CONCLUSION: Nelarabine-resistant CEM/ara-G cells are insensitive to forodesine.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: T-Lymphoblastic leukemia cell line CCRF-CEM and ara-G-resistant CEM variant cell line CEM/ara-G that we had previously established were used.
RESULTS: A growth-inhibition assay demonstrated that CEM cells were insensitive to single-agent forodesine treatment. The cells were also insensitive to deoxyguanosine at a maximal concentration of 10 μM. CEM/ara-G cells were 80-fold more resistant to ara-G than were CEM cells, and the mode of sensitivity to forodesine and deoxyguanosine was similar to that of CEM cells. In the presence of 10 μM deoxyguanosine, forodesine effectively inhibited the growth of CEM cells but not that of CEM/ara-G cells. Flow cytometric analyses showed that combination of forodesine and deoxyguanosine induced apoptosis of CEM cells but not of CEM/ara-G cells. The addition of ara-G did not augment the cytotoxicity of the forodesine/deoxyguanosine combination towards CEM cells or CEM/ara-G cells. The combination index revealed antagonism between forodesine and ara-G. The intracellular production of ara-G triphosphate was reduced in the presence of forodesine.
CONCLUSION: Nelarabine-resistant CEM/ara-G cells are insensitive to forodesine.