Joseph Blois1, Adam Smith, Lee Josephson. 1. The Center for Translational Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, MA 02129, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the correlation between cell death and a common surrogate of death used in screening assays, we compared cell death responses to those obtained with the sulforhodamine B (SRB) cell protein-based "cytotoxicity" assay. METHOD: With the SRB assay, the Hill equation was used to obtain an IC50 and final cell mass, or cell mass present at infinite agent concentrations, with eight adherent cell lines and four agents (32 agent/cell combinations). Cells were treated with high agent concentrations (well above the SRB IC50) and the death response determined as the time-dependent decrease in cells failing to bind both annexin V and vital fluorochromes by flow cytometry. RESULTS: Death kinetics were categorized as fast (5/32) (similar to the reference nonadherent Jurkat line), slow (17/32), or none (10/32), despite positive responses in the SRB assay in all cases. With slow cell death, a single exposure to a chemotherapeutic agent caused a slow, progressive increase in dead (necrotic) and dying (apoptotic) cells for at least 72 h. CONCLUSIONS: Cell death (defined by annexin and/or fluorochrome binding) did not correlate with the standard SRB "cytotoxicity" assay. With the slow cell death response, a single exposure to an agent caused a slow conversion from vital to apoptotic and necrotic cells over at least 72 h (the longest time point examined). Here, increasing the time of exposure to agent concentrations modestly above the SRB IC50 provides a method of maximizing cell kill. If tumors respond similarly, sustained low doses of chemotherapeutic agents, rather than a log-kill, maximum tolerated dose strategy may be an optimal strategy of maximizing tumor cell death.
PURPOSE: To examine the correlation between cell death and a common surrogate of death used in screening assays, we compared cell death responses to those obtained with the sulforhodamine B (SRB) cell protein-based "cytotoxicity" assay. METHOD: With the SRB assay, the Hill equation was used to obtain an IC50 and final cell mass, or cell mass present at infinite agent concentrations, with eight adherent cell lines and four agents (32 agent/cell combinations). Cells were treated with high agent concentrations (well above the SRB IC50) and the death response determined as the time-dependent decrease in cells failing to bind both annexin V and vital fluorochromes by flow cytometry. RESULTS: Death kinetics were categorized as fast (5/32) (similar to the reference nonadherent Jurkat line), slow (17/32), or none (10/32), despite positive responses in the SRB assay in all cases. With slow cell death, a single exposure to a chemotherapeutic agent caused a slow, progressive increase in dead (necrotic) and dying (apoptotic) cells for at least 72 h. CONCLUSIONS: Cell death (defined by annexin and/or fluorochrome binding) did not correlate with the standard SRB "cytotoxicity" assay. With the slow cell death response, a single exposure to an agent caused a slow conversion from vital to apoptotic and necrotic cells over at least 72 h (the longest time point examined). Here, increasing the time of exposure to agent concentrations modestly above the SRB IC50 provides a method of maximizing cell kill. If tumors respond similarly, sustained low doses of chemotherapeutic agents, rather than a log-kill, maximum tolerated dose strategy may be an optimal strategy of maximizing tumor cell death.
Authors: Elisabeth Garanger; Scott A Hilderbrand; Joseph T Blois; David E Sosnovik; Ralph Weissleder; Lee Josephson Journal: Chem Commun (Camb) Date: 2009-06-12 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: L V Rubinstein; R H Shoemaker; K D Paull; R M Simon; S Tosini; P Skehan; D A Scudiero; A Monks; M R Boyd Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1990-07-04 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: T Hirai; K Kawano; N Hirabayashi; M Nishiyama; Y Yamashita; H Mukaida; T Iwata; T Toge Journal: Anticancer Drugs Date: 1991-06 Impact factor: 2.248
Authors: P E Andreotti; I A Cree; C M Kurbacher; D M Hartmann; D Linder; G Harel; I Gleiberman; P A Caruso; S H Ricks; M Untch Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1995-11-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Quang-Dé Nguyen; Graham Smith; Matthias Glaser; Meg Perumal; Erik Arstad; Eric O Aboagye Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2009-09-03 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: G Kroemer; L Galluzzi; P Vandenabeele; J Abrams; E S Alnemri; E H Baehrecke; M V Blagosklonny; W S El-Deiry; P Golstein; D R Green; M Hengartner; R A Knight; S Kumar; S A Lipton; W Malorni; G Nuñez; M E Peter; J Tschopp; J Yuan; M Piacentini; B Zhivotovsky; G Melino Journal: Cell Death Differ Date: 2008-10-10 Impact factor: 15.828
Authors: Markus Hecht; Thomas Harrer; Verena Körber; Eric O Sarpong; Fabian Moser; Nora Fiebig; Manuela Schwegler; Michael Stürzl; Rainer Fietkau; Luitpold V Distel Journal: Oncol Lett Date: 2017-12-05 Impact factor: 2.967
Authors: Gabriela Vargas; Omar Cortés; Eloisa Arias-Muñoz; Sergio Hernández; Cristobal Cerda-Troncoso; Laura Hernández; Alexis E González; Michael H Tatham; Hianara A Bustamante; Claudio Retamal; Jorge Cancino; Manuel Varas-Godoy; Ronald T Hay; Alejandro Rojas-Fernández; Viviana A Cavieres; Patricia V Burgos Journal: Front Cell Dev Biol Date: 2022-03-02