| Literature DB >> 23799914 |
Chi-Chang Chang1, Chao-Ming Hung, Yun-Ru Yang, Mon-Juan Lee, Yi-Chiang Hsu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Malignant tumors are the single most common cause of death and the mortality rate of ovarian cancer is the highest among gynecological disorders. The excision of benign tumors is generally followed by complete recovery; however, the activity of cancer cells often results in rapid proliferation even after the tumor has been excised completely. Thus, clinical treatment must be supplemented by auxiliary chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Sulforaphane (SFN) is an extract from the mustard family recognized for its anti-oxidation abilities, phase 2 enzyme induction, and anti-tumor activity.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23799914 PMCID: PMC3733945 DOI: 10.1186/1757-2215-6-41
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ovarian Res ISSN: 1757-2215 Impact factor: 4.234
Figure 1SFN mediates the survival of PA-1 cells, and thus inhibits proliferation: (A) In vitro study was initiated by treating each of the PA-1 cells with increasing doses of SFN for 24 to 72 hours. The survival of these SFN-treated cancer cells was then measured using the MTT method; (B) Influence of SFN on apoptosis in PA-1 cells; (C) Total apoptosis in PA-1 cells after 4 h of incubation with SFN; (D) Caspase-3 activation in PA-1 cells following SFN treatment. After being treated with SFN, cells underwent western blot analysis and band intensities (pro-caspase 3) were quantified using an Li-COR near infrared imaging system. Statistical analysis was performed using a t-test; the symbols *, & and # in each group of bars indicate that the differences resulting from treatment with SFN are statistically significant at P < 0.05.
Figure 2Influence of SFN on cell cycle progression/distribution in PA-1 cells: (A) Cell cycle analysis of PA-1 cells after being cultured with SFN for 24 h; (B) SFN induced an increase in the number of G/M phase cells (%). The symbols * and & in each group of bars indicates that the differences resulting from treatment with SFN is statistically significant at P < 0.05.
Figure 3Cell cycle arrest by SFN in PA-1 cells via inhibition of CDC2. Cells were treated with SFN followed by (A) western blot analysis (B) quantification of intensities by Li-COR near infrared imaging system. Significant differences were determined at a level of *P < 0.05 versus the 0 μM control group.
Figure 4Mitosis delay by SFN in PA-1 cells via inhibition of Cdc2-cyclin B1 complex dissociation: Cells were treated with SFN followed by (A) Co-IP and western blot analysis, and (B) quantification of intensities by Li-COR near infrared imaging system. Significant differences were determined at a level of *P < 0.05 versus the 0 μM control group.