AIM: To identify drugs that may reduce the impact of oxidant stress on cell viability. METHODS: Human umbilical vein endothelial cells were treated with 200 nmol/l CDDO-Im (imidazole) and CDDO-Me (methyl) after exposure to menadione and compared to vehicle-treated cells. Cell viability and cytotoxicity were assessed, and gene expression profiling was performed. RESULTS: CDDO-Im was significantly more cytoprotective and less cytotoxic (p < 0.001) than CDDO-Me. Although both provided cytoprotection by induction of gene transcription, CDDO-Im induced more genes. In addition to a higher induction of the key cytoprotective gene heme oxygenase-1 (38.9-fold increase for CDDO-Im and 26.5-fold increase for CDDO-Me), CDDO-Im also induced greater expression of heat shock proteins (5.5-fold increase compared to 2.8-fold for CDDO-Me). CONCLUSIONS: Both compounds showed good induction of heme oxygenase, which largely accounted for their cytoprotective effect. Differences were detected in cytotoxicity at higher doses, indicating that CDDO-Me was more cytotoxic than CDDO-Im. Significant differences were detected in the ability of CDDO-Im and CDDO-Me to affect differential gene transcription. CDDO-Im induced more genes than did CDDO-Me. The source of the differences in gene expression patterns between CDDO-Im and CDDO-Me was not determined but may be important in long-term use of this class of drugs.
AIM: To identify drugs that may reduce the impact of oxidant stress on cell viability. METHODS:Human umbilical vein endothelial cells were treated with 200 nmol/l CDDO-Im (imidazole) and CDDO-Me (methyl) after exposure to menadione and compared to vehicle-treated cells. Cell viability and cytotoxicity were assessed, and gene expression profiling was performed. RESULTS:CDDO-Im was significantly more cytoprotective and less cytotoxic (p < 0.001) than CDDO-Me. Although both provided cytoprotection by induction of gene transcription, CDDO-Im induced more genes. In addition to a higher induction of the key cytoprotective gene heme oxygenase-1 (38.9-fold increase for CDDO-Im and 26.5-fold increase for CDDO-Me), CDDO-Im also induced greater expression of heat shock proteins (5.5-fold increase compared to 2.8-fold for CDDO-Me). CONCLUSIONS: Both compounds showed good induction of heme oxygenase, which largely accounted for their cytoprotective effect. Differences were detected in cytotoxicity at higher doses, indicating that CDDO-Me was more cytotoxic than CDDO-Im. Significant differences were detected in the ability of CDDO-Im and CDDO-Me to affect differential gene transcription. CDDO-Im induced more genes than did CDDO-Me. The source of the differences in gene expression patterns between CDDO-Im and CDDO-Me was not determined but may be important in long-term use of this class of drugs.