Literature DB >> 16918311

Radiation-induced bystander and other non-targeted effects: novel intervention points in cancer therapy?

Carmel Mothersill1, Colin Seymour.   

Abstract

A major problem in the search for new cancer drug targets is that the drugs are often toxic to normal tissues and require high doses to kill tumor cells. Therefore cellular targets which appear to involve low dose responses to cancer therapy are especially interesting since they could selectively target normal tissues which are not targeted by the treatment and thus may be responsible for unpleasant side effects or may be amenable to exploitation in order to improve the therapeutic ratio. One such target, which is the subject of this review, is radiation-induced bystander effects [RIBE], which result in the observation of radiation like responses in cells which have not been irradiated. RIBE is a novel phenomenon which indicates that at low doses, cell signaling is more important than direct DNA damage. Historically, DNA has always been considered to be the target for radiation therapy. The growing realization that signaling is important opens up several important therapeutic strategies which will be discussed in this review. RIBE appears to be the result of a generalized stress response in tissues or cells which is expressed at the level of the tissue, organ or organism rather than at the level of the individual cell. The signals may be produced by all exposed cells, but the response may require a quorum of cells in order to be expressed. The major response involving low LET (x- or gamma-ray) radiation exposure discussed in the existing literature is a death response. This has many characteristics of apoptosis but may be detected in cell lines without p53 expression, although the death response is suppressed in many tumor cell lines. While a death response in unirradiated normal cells around a tumor might appear to be adverse, it can in fact be protective and remove damaged cells from the population. If harnessed correctly, it could lead to the development of new drugs aimed not at tissue destruction but at enabling homeostatic mechanisms to control tumor expansion. In this scenario, the level of harmful or beneficial response will be related to the background damage, carried by the cell population, and the genetic programme determining response to damage. This focus may be important when attempting to predict the consequences of mixed therapies involving radiation and other cytotoxic agents. In this review, our current knowledge of the mechanisms underlying the induction of bystander effects by ionizing radiation is reviewed, and the question of how bystander effects may be harnessed to produce a new generation of anti-cancer drugs aimed at stabilization of tissue homeostasis rather than tissue destruction is considered.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16918311     DOI: 10.2174/156800906777723976

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Cancer Drug Targets        ISSN: 1568-0096            Impact factor:   3.428


  12 in total

1.  H2AX phosphorylation in response to DNA double-strand break formation during bystander signalling: effect of microRNA knockdown.

Authors:  Jennifer S Dickey; Franz J Zemp; Alvin Altamirano; Olga A Sedelnikova; William M Bonner; Olga Kovalchuk
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2010-12-23       Impact factor: 0.972

2.  Injection of resperpine into zebrafish, prevents fish to fish communication of radiation-induced bystander signals: confirmation in vivo of a role for serotonin in the mechanism.

Authors:  Rohin Saroya; Richard Smith; Colin Seymour; Carmel Mothersill
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2009-12-21       Impact factor: 2.658

3.  Neoplastic transformation of breast epithelial cells by genotoxic stress.

Authors:  Mahendran Botlagunta; Paul T Winnard; Venu Raman
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2010-06-30       Impact factor: 4.430

Review 4.  Antibody tumor penetration: transport opposed by systemic and antigen-mediated clearance.

Authors:  Greg M Thurber; Michael M Schmidt; K Dane Wittrup
Journal:  Adv Drug Deliv Rev       Date:  2008-04-24       Impact factor: 15.470

5.  An Antitumor Immune Response Is Evoked by Partial-Volume Single-Dose Radiation in 2 Murine Models.

Authors:  Ela Markovsky; Sadna Budhu; Robert M Samstein; Hongyan Li; James Russell; Zhigang Zhang; Esther Drill; Chloe Bodden; Qing Chen; Simon N Powell; Taha Merghoub; Jedd D Wolchok; John Humm; Joseph O Deasy; Adriana Haimovitz-Friedman
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2018-10-18       Impact factor: 7.038

6.  Comparing the level of bystander effect in a couple of tumor and normal cell lines.

Authors:  Shokouhozaman Soleymanifard; Mohammad T Toossi Bahreyni
Journal:  J Med Phys       Date:  2012-04

7.  Are epigenetic mechanisms involved in radiation-induced bystander effects?

Authors:  Carmel Mothersill; Colin Seymour
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2012-05-17       Impact factor: 4.599

8.  The role of target and bystander cells in dose-response relationship of radiation-induced bystander effects in two cell lines.

Authors:  Shokouhozaman Soleymanifard; Mohammad Taghi Bahreyni Toossi; Ameneh Sazgarnia; Shokoufe Mohebbi
Journal:  Iran J Basic Med Sci       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 2.699

9.  An evaluation of dose equivalence between synchrotron microbeam radiation therapy and conventional broad beam radiation using clonogenic and cell impedance assays.

Authors:  Mohammad Johari Ibahim; Jeffrey C Crosbie; Yuqing Yang; Marina Zaitseva; Andrew W Stevenson; Peter A W Rogers; Premila Paiva
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-06-19       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 10.  Nothing but NET: a review of norepinephrine transporter expression and efficacy of 131I-mIBG therapy.

Authors:  Keri A Streby; Nilay Shah; Mark A Ranalli; Anne Kunkler; Timothy P Cripe
Journal:  Pediatr Blood Cancer       Date:  2014-08-30       Impact factor: 3.167

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.