| Literature DB >> 29416750 |
Rosilene Cristina Rossetto Burgos1,2, Rawi Ramautar1, Eduard P A Van Wijk2, Thomas Hankemeier1, Jan Van Der Greef1,2, Alireza Mashaghi1.
Abstract
Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a blood cancer that is caused by a disorder of the process that normally generates neutrophils. Function and dysfunction of neutrophils are key to physiologic defense against pathogens as well as pathologies including autoimmunity and cancer. A major mechanism through which neutrophils contribute to health and disease is oxidative burst, which involves rapid release of reactive oxygen species (ROS) generated by a chemical reaction network catalyzed by enzymes including NADPH oxidase and myeloperoxidase (MPO). Due to the involvement of neutrophil-derived reactive oxygen species in many diseases and importance of NADPH oxidase and MPO-mediated reactions in progression and treatment of myeloid leukemia, monitoring this process and modulating it by pharmacological interventions is of great interest. In this work, we have evaluated the potential of a label-free method using ultra-weak photon emission (UPE) to monitor ROS production in neutrophil-like HL60 myeloid leukemia cells. Suppression of ROS was achieved by several drug candidates that target different parts of the reaction pathway. Our results show that UPE can report on ROS production as well as suppression by pharmacological inhibitors. We find that UPE is primarily generated by MPO catalyzed reaction and thus will be affected when an upstream reaction is pharmacologically modulated.Entities:
Keywords: NADPH oxidase; myeloperoxidase; pharmacological inhibitors; reactive oxygen species; ultra-weak photon emission
Year: 2017 PMID: 29416750 PMCID: PMC5788618 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.23175
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Figure 1A representative UPE profile of HL-60 cells in resting state and upon triggering ROS response stimulated by PMA
UPE profile was recorded for 9000 seconds at 37°C in the dark. The lines represent the smoothed UPE intensity followed by normalization by the highest UPE intensity.
Figure 2Plumbagin and Apocynin effects on UPE profile in HL-60 cells
(A) Dynamic UPE profileshowing the suppression of UPE intensity with the administration of scavengers Plumbagin and Apocynin in two different concentrations (n=1). (B) Analysis of the interval (3000 – 3600 seconds and 6000 – 6600 seconds) as indicated in (A) by the vertical lines. Statistical significance was determined by two-way ANOVA with errors bars represented as standard deviation (SD) and n≥3. ****p<0.0001.
Figure 3VAS2870 and AEBSF effects on UPE profile in HL-60 cells
(A) Dynamic UPE profileshowing the suppression of UPE intensity with the administration of NADPH oxidase inhibitor VAS2870 and AEBSF in two different concentrations (n=1). (B) Analysis of the interval as indicated in (A) by the vertical lines. Statistical significance was determined by two-way ANOVA with errors bars represented as standard deviation (SD) and n≥3.
Figure 4MPO inhibitor tested in the HL-60 cell model system measured by UPE
(A) Dynamic UPE profileshowing the suppression of UPE intensity with the administration of 4-ABAH in five different concentrations (n=1). (B) Analysis of the interval as indicated in (A) by the vertical lines. Statistical significance was determined by two-way ANOVA with errors bars represented as standard deviation (SD) and n≥3. ****p<0.0001.