OBJECTIVE: Technological advances in radiation therapy are evolving with the use of hadrons, such as protons, indicated for tumors where conventional radiotherapy does not give significant advantages or for tumors located in sensitive regions, which need the maximum of dose-saving of the surrounding healthy tissues. The genomic response to conventional and non-conventional linear energy transfer exposure is a poor investigated topic and became an issue of radiobiological interest. The aim of this work was to analyze and compare molecular responses in term of gene expression profiles, induced by electron and proton irradiation in breast cancer cell lines. METHODS: We studied the gene expression profiling differences by cDNA microarray activated in response to electron and proton irradiation with different linear energy transfer values, among three breast cell lines (the tumorigenic MCF7 and MDA-MB-231 and the non-tumorigenic MCF10A), exposed to the same sublethal dose of 9 Gy. RESULTS: Gene expression profiling pathway analyses showed the activation of different signaling and molecular networks in a cell line and radiation type-dependent manner. MCF10A and MDA-MB-231 cell lines were found to induce factors and pathways involved in the immunological process control. CONCLUSION: Here, we describe in a detailed way the gene expression profiling and pathways activated after electron and proton irradiation in breast cancer cells. Summarizing, although specific pathways are activated in a radiation type-dependent manner, each cell line activates overall similar molecular networks in response to both these two types of ionizing radiation. Advances in knowledge: In the era of personalized medicine and breast cancer target-directed intervention, we trust that this study could drive radiation therapy towards personalized treatments, evaluating possible combined treatments, based on the molecular characterization.
OBJECTIVE: Technological advances in radiation therapy are evolving with the use of hadrons, such as protons, indicated for tumors where conventional radiotherapy does not give significant advantages or for tumors located in sensitive regions, which need the maximum of dose-saving of the surrounding healthy tissues. The genomic response to conventional and non-conventional linear energy transfer exposure is a poor investigated topic and became an issue of radiobiological interest. The aim of this work was to analyze and compare molecular responses in term of gene expression profiles, induced by electron and proton irradiation in breast cancer cell lines. METHODS: We studied the gene expression profiling differences by cDNA microarray activated in response to electron and proton irradiation with different linear energy transfer values, among three breast cell lines (the tumorigenic MCF7 and MDA-MB-231 and the non-tumorigenic MCF10A), exposed to the same sublethal dose of 9 Gy. RESULTS: Gene expression profiling pathway analyses showed the activation of different signaling and molecular networks in a cell line and radiation type-dependent manner. MCF10A and MDA-MB-231 cell lines were found to induce factors and pathways involved in the immunological process control. CONCLUSION: Here, we describe in a detailed way the gene expression profiling and pathways activated after electron and proton irradiation in breast cancer cells. Summarizing, although specific pathways are activated in a radiation type-dependent manner, each cell line activates overall similar molecular networks in response to both these two types of ionizing radiation. Advances in knowledge: In the era of personalized medicine and breast cancer target-directed intervention, we trust that this study could drive radiation therapy towards personalized treatments, evaluating possible combined treatments, based on the molecular characterization.
Authors: Sara Ståhl; Eva Fung; Christopher Adams; Johan Lengqvist; Birgitta Mörk; Bo Stenerlöw; Rolf Lewensohn; Janne Lehtiö; Roman Zubarev; Kristina Viktorsson Journal: Mol Cell Proteomics Date: 2009-01-23 Impact factor: 5.911
Authors: Kristina Viktorsson; Jessica Ekedahl; Maria C Lindebro; Rolf Lewensohn; Boris Zhivotovsky; Stig Linder; Maria C Shoshan Journal: Exp Cell Res Date: 2003-10-01 Impact factor: 3.905
Authors: Chao Sun; Daniel Kilburn; Alex Lukashin; Thomas Crowell; Humphrey Gardner; Ralf Brundiers; Beate Diefenbach; John P Carulli Journal: Genomics Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 5.736
Authors: Luigi Minafra; Valentina Bravatà; Francesco P Cammarata; Giorgio Russo; Maria C Gilardi; Giusi I Forte Journal: Anticancer Res Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 2.480
Authors: Francesco P Cammarata; Filippo Torrisi; Giusi I Forte; Luigi Minafra; Valentina Bravatà; Pietro Pisciotta; Gaetano Savoca; Marco Calvaruso; Giada Petringa; Giuseppe A P Cirrone; Anna L Fallacara; Laura Maccari; Maurizio Botta; Silvia Schenone; Rosalba Parenti; Giacomo Cuttone; Giorgio Russo Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2019-09-24 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Valentina Bravatà; Walter Tinganelli; Francesco P Cammarata; Luigi Minafra; Marco Calvaruso; Olga Sokol; Giada Petringa; Giuseppe A P Cirrone; Emanuele Scifoni; Giusi I Forte; Giorgio Russo Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2021-04-16