» Articles » PMID: 30344816

The Effect of Status on Radio-Sensitivity of Quiescent Tumor Cell Population Irradiated With γ-Rays at Various Dose Rates

Overview
Journal J Clin Med Res
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2018 Oct 23
PMID 30344816
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The aim of the study was to clarify the effect of status of tumor cells on radio-sensitivity of solid tumors following γ-ray irradiation at various dose rates, referring to the response of intratumor quiescent (Q) cells.

Methods: Human head and neck squamous cell carcinoma cells transfected with mutant (SAS/) or with neo vector (SAS/) were injected subcutaneously into hind legs of nude mice. Tumor bearing mice received 5-bromo-2'-deoxyuridine (BrdU) continuously to label all intratumor proliferating (P) cells. They received γ-rays at a high, middle or low dose rate. Immediately or 9 h after the high dose-rate irradiation (HDR, 2.5 Gy/min), or immediately after the middle (MDR, 0.039 Gy/min) or low (LDR, 0.00098 Gy/min) dose-rate irradiation, the tumor cells were isolated and incubated with a cytokinesis blocker, and the micronucleus (MN) frequency in cells without BrdU labeling (Q cells) was determined using immunofluorescence staining for BrdU.

Results: Following γ-ray irradiation, SAS/ tumor cells, especially intratumor Q cells, showed a marked reduction in sensitivity due to the recovery from radiation-induced damage, compared with the total or Q cells within SAS/ tumors that showed little repair capacity. The recovery capacities following γ-ray irradiation were greater in Q than total cell population and increased in the following order of 9 h after HDR < MDR < LDR. Thus, the difference in radio-sensitivity between the total (P + Q) and Q cells after γ-ray irradiation increased in the same order.

Conclusion: To secure controlling solid tumors as a whole, difference in sensitivity between total and Q tumor cells especially in solid tumors irrespective of status has to be suppressed as irradiation dose rate decreases, for instance, through employing combined method for enhancing the response of Q tumor cells.

Citing Articles

Regulation of p53 and Cancer Signaling by Heat Shock Protein 40/J-Domain Protein Family Members.

Kaida A, Iwakuma T Int J Mol Sci. 2021; 22(24).

PMID: 34948322 PMC: 8706882. DOI: 10.3390/ijms222413527.


Boron neutron capture therapy: Current status and future perspectives.

Dymova M, Taskaev S, Richter V, Kuligina E Cancer Commun (Lond). 2020; 40(9):406-421.

PMID: 32805063 PMC: 7494062. DOI: 10.1002/cac2.12089.


An attempt to improve the therapeutic effect of boron neutron capture therapy using commonly employed 10B-carriers based on analytical studies on the correlation among quiescent tumor cell characteristics, tumor heterogeneity and cancer stemness.

Masunaga S, Sanada Y, Tano K, Sakurai Y, Tanaka H, Takata T J Radiat Res. 2020; 61(6):876-885.

PMID: 32601693 PMC: 7674684. DOI: 10.1093/jrr/rraa048.

References
1.
Karran P . DNA double strand break repair in mammalian cells. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2000; 10(2):144-50. DOI: 10.1016/s0959-437x(00)00069-1. View

2.
Wulf J, Haedinger U, Oppitz U, Thiele W, Mueller G, Flentje M . Stereotactic radiotherapy for primary lung cancer and pulmonary metastases: a noninvasive treatment approach in medically inoperable patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004; 60(1):186-96. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.02.060. View

3.
Coleman M, Yin E, Peterson L, Nelson D, Sorensen K, Tucker J . Low-dose irradiation alters the transcript profiles of human lymphoblastoid cells including genes associated with cytogenetic radioadaptive response. Radiat Res. 2005; 164(4 Pt 1):369-82. DOI: 10.1667/rr3356.1. View

4.
Sigal A, Rotter V . Oncogenic mutations of the p53 tumor suppressor: the demons of the guardian of the genome. Cancer Res. 2001; 60(24):6788-93. View

5.
Ohnishi K, Wang X, Takahashi A, Ohnishi T . Contribution of protein kinase C to p53-dependent WAF1 induction pathway after heat treatment in human glioblastoma cell lines. Exp Cell Res. 1998; 238(2):399-406. DOI: 10.1006/excr.1997.3842. View