PURPOSE: An association between low-dose hyper-radiosensitivity (HRS) and the "early" G2/M checkpoint has been established. An improved molecular understanding of the temporal dynamics of this relationship is needed before clinical translation can be considered. This study was conducted to characterize the dose response of the early G2/M checkpoint and then determine whether low-dose radiation sensitivity could be increased by synchronization or chemical inhibition of the cell cycle. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Two related cell lines with disparate HRS status were used (MR4 and 3.7 cells). A double-thymidine block technique was developed to enrich the G2-phase population. Clonogenic cell survival, radiation-induced G2-phase cell cycle arrest, and deoxyribonucleic acid double-strand break repair were measured in the presence and absence of inhibitors to G2-phase checkpoint proteins. RESULTS: For MR4 cells, the dose required to overcome the HRS response (approximately 0.2 Gy) corresponded with that needed for the activation of the early G2/M checkpoint. As hypothesized, enriching the number of G2-phase cells in the population resulted in an enhanced HRS response, because a greater proportion of radiation-damaged cells evaded the early G2/M checkpoint and entered mitosis with unrepaired deoxyribonucleic acid double-strand breaks. Likewise, abrogation of the checkpoint by inhibition of Chk1 and Chk2 also increased low-dose radiosensitivity. These effects were not evident in 3.7 cells. CONCLUSIONS: The data confirm that HRS is linked to the early G2/M checkpoint through the damage response of G2-phase cells. Low-dose radiosensitivity could be increased by manipulating the transition of radiation-damaged G2-phase cells into mitosis. This provides a rationale for combining low-dose radiation therapy with chemical synchronization techniques to improve increased radiosensitivity. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: An association between low-dose hyper-radiosensitivity (HRS) and the "early" G2/M checkpoint has been established. An improved molecular understanding of the temporal dynamics of this relationship is needed before clinical translation can be considered. This study was conducted to characterize the dose response of the early G2/M checkpoint and then determine whether low-dose radiation sensitivity could be increased by synchronization or chemical inhibition of the cell cycle. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Two related cell lines with disparate HRS status were used (MR4 and 3.7 cells). A double-thymidine block technique was developed to enrich the G2-phase population. Clonogenic cell survival, radiation-induced G2-phase cell cycle arrest, and deoxyribonucleic acid double-strand break repair were measured in the presence and absence of inhibitors to G2-phase checkpoint proteins. RESULTS: For MR4 cells, the dose required to overcome the HRS response (approximately 0.2 Gy) corresponded with that needed for the activation of the early G2/M checkpoint. As hypothesized, enriching the number of G2-phase cells in the population resulted in an enhanced HRS response, because a greater proportion of radiation-damaged cells evaded the early G2/M checkpoint and entered mitosis with unrepaired deoxyribonucleic acid double-strand breaks. Likewise, abrogation of the checkpoint by inhibition of Chk1 and Chk2 also increased low-dose radiosensitivity. These effects were not evident in 3.7 cells. CONCLUSIONS: The data confirm that HRS is linked to the early G2/M checkpoint through the damage response of G2-phase cells. Low-dose radiosensitivity could be increased by manipulating the transition of radiation-damaged G2-phase cells into mitosis. This provides a rationale for combining low-dose radiation therapy with chemical synchronization techniques to improve increased radiosensitivity. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: A K Gupta; V J Bakanauskas; G J Cerniglia; Y Cheng; E J Bernhard; R J Muschel; W G McKenna Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2001-05-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: D Curman; B Cinel; D E Williams; N Rundle; W D Block; A A Goodarzi; J R Hutchins; P R Clarke; B B Zhou; S P Lees-Miller; R J Andersen; M Roberge Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2001-03-07 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Baoguang Zhao; Michael J Bower; Patrick J McDevitt; Huizhen Zhao; Stephen T Davis; Kyung O Johanson; Susan M Green; Nestor O Concha; Bin-Bing S Zhou Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2002-09-19 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Nukhet Aykin-Burns; Benjamin G Slane; Annie T Y Liu; Kjerstin M Owens; Malinda S O'Malley; Brian J Smith; Frederick E Domann; Douglas R Spitz Journal: Radiat Res Date: 2010-11-17 Impact factor: 2.841
Authors: D Guirado; M Aranda; M Ortiz; J A Mesa; L I Zamora; E Amaya; M Villalobos; A M Lallena Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Yulan Cheng; Srinivasan Senthamizhchelvan; Rachana Agarwal; Gilbert M Green; Ronnie C Mease; George Sgouros; David L Huso; Martin G Pomper; Stephen J Meltzer; John M Abraham Journal: Cell Cycle Date: 2012-05-15 Impact factor: 4.534
Authors: Muayad F Almahariq; Thomas J Quinn; Jessica D Arden; P T Roskos; George D Wilson; Brian Marples; Inga S Grills; Peter Y Chen; Daniel J Krauss; Prakash Chinnaiyan; Joshua T Dilworth Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2021-03-25 Impact factor: 12.300