Doo Yeob Koo1, Se Hee Lee2, SungHo Lee3, Jiwon Chang4, Hak Hyun Jung5, Gi Jung Im6. 1. Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Korea University College of Medicine, South Korea. Electronic address: jams9098@daum.net. 2. Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Korea University College of Medicine, South Korea. Electronic address: lshe5@naver.com. 3. Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Korea University College of Medicine, South Korea. Electronic address: ratm1017@naver.com. 4. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Hallym University, College of Medicine, Inchon-ro 73, Seongbuk-Gu KR02841, Seoul, South Korea. Electronic address: brune77@naver.com. 5. Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Korea University College of Medicine, South Korea. Electronic address: ranccoon@naver.com. 6. Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Korea University College of Medicine, South Korea. Electronic address: logopas@korea.ac.kr.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to examine lipoic acid (LA)- or glutathione (GSH)-mediated protection against cytotoxicity following cisplatin exposure in HEI-OC1 auditory cells and measure the potential of LA and GSH to scavenge reactive oxygen species (ROS). This study also compares their protective effects and discusses the determination of a preventive or therapeutic dose. METHODS: HEI-OC1 cells were pretreated with LA or GSH for 24 h and then exposed to 15 μM cisplatin for 48 h. The resulting cytotoxicity was measured using a cell counting kit-8, and intracellular ROS level was measured using flow cytometry. The protective or anti-ROS effects of LA and GSH were compared. Measurement of caspase 3, 8, 9 activity and Western blot analysis of PARP were performed. RESULTS: Pretreatment with LA at 300 μM and GSH at 3 mM protected HEI-OC1 cells against cisplatin-induced cytotoxicity and significantly reduced the cisplatin-induced increase in ROS. LA showed a significantly more effective protection against cisplatin-induced ototoxicity compared to that shown by GSH (85.4% vs. 73.1% cell viability). Both LA and GSH showed the maximal protective effect at different concentrations in normal or cisplatin-induced cytotoxic conditions. The preventive or therapeutic dose for harmful conditions is quite different for the two drugs and needs careful adjustments. CONCLUSION: This comparative study on the protective effects of LA and GSH against cisplatin-induced ototoxicity in an auditory cell line posed many challenges. Although LA and GSH showed a significant protective effect against cisplatin, the LA's effect was superior. The concentration at which the maximal protective effect of LA or GSH was noted was 3 times higher in cytotoxic conditions than in normal conditions, which suggests the need for drug dose adjustments based on the purpose (preventive or therapeutic).
OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to examine lipoic acid (LA)- or glutathione (GSH)-mediated protection against cytotoxicity following cisplatin exposure in HEI-OC1 auditory cells and measure the potential of LA and GSH to scavenge reactive oxygen species (ROS). This study also compares their protective effects and discusses the determination of a preventive or therapeutic dose. METHODS: HEI-OC1 cells were pretreated with LA or GSH for 24 h and then exposed to 15 μM cisplatin for 48 h. The resulting cytotoxicity was measured using a cell counting kit-8, and intracellular ROS level was measured using flow cytometry. The protective or anti-ROS effects of LA and GSH were compared. Measurement of caspase 3, 8, 9 activity and Western blot analysis of PARP were performed. RESULTS: Pretreatment with LA at 300 μM and GSH at 3 mM protected HEI-OC1 cells against cisplatin-induced cytotoxicity and significantly reduced the cisplatin-induced increase in ROS. LA showed a significantly more effective protection against cisplatin-induced ototoxicity compared to that shown by GSH (85.4% vs. 73.1% cell viability). Both LA and GSH showed the maximal protective effect at different concentrations in normal or cisplatin-induced cytotoxic conditions. The preventive or therapeutic dose for harmful conditions is quite different for the two drugs and needs careful adjustments. CONCLUSION: This comparative study on the protective effects of LA and GSH against cisplatin-induced ototoxicity in an auditory cell line posed many challenges. Although LA and GSH showed a significant protective effect against cisplatin, the LA's effect was superior. The concentration at which the maximal protective effect of LA or GSH was noted was 3 times higher in cytotoxic conditions than in normal conditions, which suggests the need for drug dose adjustments based on the purpose (preventive or therapeutic).