| Literature DB >> 24094113 |
Luiza Stankevicins1, Ana Paula Almeida da Silva, Flavia Ventura Dos Passos, Evelin Dos Santos Ferreira, Maria Cecilia Menks Ribeiro, Mariano G David, Evandro J Pires, Samara Cristina Ferreira-Machado, Yegor Vassetzky, Carlos Eduardo de Almeida, Claudia Vitoria de Moura Gallo.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: MicroRNAs are non-coding RNAs involved in the regulation of gene expression including DNA damage responses. Low doses of low energy X-ray radiation, similar to those used in mammographic exams, has been described to be genotoxic. In the present work we investigated the expression of miR-34a; a well described p53-regulated miRNA implicated in cell responses to X-ray irradiation at low doses.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24094113 PMCID: PMC3829672 DOI: 10.1186/1748-717X-8-231
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Radiat Oncol ISSN: 1748-717X Impact factor: 3.481
Figure 1Single cell electrophoresis assay performed after 4 and 24 hours incubation on X-ray irradiated cells at 0.003; 0.012; 0.048 Gy/28 kV and 5 Gy/30 kV. The percentage of DNA strand breaks observed in the mammary epithelial cell lines (A) MCF-10A and (B) MCF-7 was analyzed according to the length and thickness of comet tail and classified into four categories from 1–4 representing increasing tail intensities. The percentage of tail DNA was assigned by summing the total number of cells containing tail DNA, multiplied by its respective category number. Total analyzed cells per slide 100. (C) Example of silver stained of a nuclei with no visible lesion (1) and a tail DNA classified as lesion type 2 (2, 3) * significant difference in comparison irradiated versus non-treated cells (Student’s t test * P ≤ 0.05; ** P ≤ 0.001). (D) Table showing the percentage of cells detected in each category of damage. † Comet tail type: 0 corresponds for no visible DNA breaks and the categories 1 to 4 represents increasing amounts of DNA breaks. DS stands for Damage Score and corresponds to the total percentage of tail DNA.
Figure 2Percentage of micronuclei formation, observed by fluorescent microscopy (1000x) after Hoechst staining. (A) MCF-10A and (B) MCF-7 cell lines 24 hours after 0.003; 0.012; 0.048 Gy/28 kV and 5 Gy/30 Kv X-ray irradiation. (C) Example of a cell containing a micronucleus formed after irradiation. Paired t-test with 95% confidence intervals were performed on the irradiated samples of each type of cell line in comparison to its corresponding mock control. Student’s t test * P ≤ 0.05.
Figure 3Percentage of cells containing apoptotic features, observed by fluorescent microscopy (1000x) after Hoechst staining. (A) MCF-10A and (B) MCF-7 cell lines 4 and 24 hours after 0.003; 0.012; 0.048 Gy/28 kV and 5 Gy/30 Kv X-ray irradiation (C) Example of an apoptotic cell displaying a perturbation in its nuclear envelope. Paired t-test with 95% confidence intervals were performed on the irradiated samples of each type of cell line in comparison to its corresponding mock control. (Student’s t test * P ≤ 0.05; ** P ≤ 0.001).
Figure 4microRNA expression by qRT-PCR in MCF-10A, MCF-7 and T-47D cell lines, assessed 4 and 24 hours after 5 Gy/30 Kv X-ray irradiation event. Relative expression of miRNAs (A) miR-34a, (B) let-7a and (C) miR-21 was calculated by ΔΔCT method and the acquired fold change values are relative to their respective non-treated mock control. * significant difference in comparison irradiated versus non-treated cells (Student’s t test P ≤ 0.05).
Figure 5miR-34a expression by qRT-PCR in (A) MCF-10A and (B) MCF-7cell lines, assessed 4 and 24 hours after X-ray irradiation at 0.003; 0.012 and 0.048 Gy/28 Kv conditions. Relative expression of miR-34a was calculated by ΔΔCT method and the acquired fold change values are relative to their respective non-treated mock control. * significant difference in comparison irradiated versus non-treated cells (Student’s t test P ≤ 0.05).