| Literature DB >> 31312280 |
Shin-Ichiro Masunaga1, Keizo Tano1, Yu Sanada1, Minoru Suzuki2, Akihisa Takahashi3, Ken Ohnishi4, Koji Ono5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to examine the dependency of p53 status and the usefulness of mild hyperthermia (MHT) as an inhibitor of recovery from radiation-induced damage, referring to the response of quiescent (Q) tumor cell population.Entities:
Keywords: Caffeine; Dose-rate effect; Mild hyperthermia; Quiescent cell; Recovery from radiation-induced damage; Wortmannin; p53 status
Year: 2019 PMID: 31312280 PMCID: PMC6615912 DOI: 10.14740/wjon1203
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Oncol ISSN: 1920-4531
Plating Efficiencies and Micronucleus Frequencies at 0 Gy
| Treatment | SAS/ | SAS/ |
|---|---|---|
| Plating efficiency (%) | ||
| Total tumor cells | ||
| None | 48.4 (39.3 - 57.5)a | 28.5 (22.4 - 34.6) |
| MHT | 43.2 (39.3 - 47.1) | 20.9 (18.0 - 23.8) |
| Caffeine | 28.3 (24.3 - 32.3) | 17.9 (14.9 - 20.9) |
| Wortmannin | 28.6 (25.3 - 31.9) | 18.1 (15.6 - 20.6) |
| Micronucleus frequency | ||
| Total tumor cells | ||
| None | 0.038 (0.032 - 0.044) | 0.072 (0.064 - 0.080) |
| MHT | 0.050 (0.045 - 0.055) | 0.075 (0.068 - 0.082) |
| Caffeine | 0.088 (0.079 - 0.097) | 0.137 (0.127 - 0.147) |
| Wortmannin | 0.086 (0.078 - 0.094) | 0.136 (0.120 - 0.152) |
| Quiescent tumor cells | ||
| None | 0.056 (0.049 - 0.063) | 0.10 (0.09 - 0.11) |
| MTH | 0.059 (0.053 - 0.065) | 0.10 (0.09 - 0.11) |
| Caffeine | 0.114 (0.105 - 0.122) | 0.177 (0.164 - 0.190) |
| Wortmannin | 0.116 (0.103 - 0.129) | 0.181 (0.161 - 0.201) |
aNumbers in parentheses are 95% confidence limits, determined using mean values, standard deviations and the numbers of observations on which the means and standard deviations were based. The difference between the values for SAS/neo and SAS/mp53 is statistically significant under each set of condition (P < 0.05). MHT: mild hyperthermia.
Figure 1A marked reduction in sensitivity of SAS/neo tumor cells, especially quiescent tumor cells, compared with SAS/mp53 tumor cells with little recovery capacity. The clonogenic cell survival curves for total tumor cells and the net micronucleus frequencies for total and quiescent tumor cells immediately and 9 h after γ-ray irradiation with high dose-rate irradiation (HDR) and immediately after γ-ray irradiation with low dose-rate irradiation (LDR) are shown in (a) and (b), respectively. The left and right panels show SAS/neo and SAS/mp53 tumor cells, respectively. Bars represent 95% confidence limits. Three mice were used to assess each set of conditions and each experiment was repeated twice.
Figure 2Mild hyperthermia efficiently suppressed the reduction in sensitivity caused by leaving an interval between high dose-rate irradiation (HDR) and the assay in both total and quiescent cells within SAS/neo tumors, as well as wortmannin administration. The clonogenic cell survival curves for total tumor cells and the net micronucleus frequencies for total and quiescent tumor cells immediately after and 9 h after γ-ray irradiation with HDR immediately followed by mild hyperthermia, the administration of caffeine, that of wortmannin, or no treatment are shown in (a) and (b), respectively. The left and right panels show SAS/neo and SAS/mp53 tumor cells, respectively. Bars represent 95% confidence limits. Three mice were used to assess each set of conditions and each experiment was repeated twice.
Figure 3Mild hyperthermia efficiently suppressed the reduction in sensitivity caused by decreasing the irradiation dose rate in both total and quiescent cells within SAS/neo tumors, as well as wortmannin administration. The clonogenic cell survival curves for total tumor cell populations and the net micronucleus frequencies for total and quiescent cell populations immediately after γ-ray irradiation with high dose-rate irradiation (HDR) and after γ-ray irradiation with low dose-rate irradiation (LDR) in simultaneous combination with mild temperature hyperthermia, the administration of caffeine or wortmannin, or no treatment are shown in (a) and (b), respectively. The left and right panels show SAS/neo and SAS/mp53 tumor cells, respectively. Bars represent 95% confidence limits. Three mice were used to assess each set of conditions and each experiment was repeated twice.
Dose-Modifying Factors by Recoverya
| SAS/ | SAS/ | |
|---|---|---|
| Surviving fraction = 0.04 | ||
| Total tumor cells | ||
| Right after HDR | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| 9 h after HDR | 1.3 (1.2 - 1.4)b | 1.05 (1.0 - 1.1) |
| MHT right after HDR, 9 h later | 1.2 (1.1 - 1.3) | 1.04 (1.01 - 1.07) |
| WM right after HDR, 9 h later | 1.05 (1.0 - 1.1) | 1.02 (1.0 - 1.05) |
| CAF right after HDR, 9 h later | 1.25 (1.2 - 1.3) | 1.05 (1.0 - 1.1) |
| After LDR | 1.4 (1.3 - 1.5) | 1.1 (1.0 - 1.1) |
| LDR with MHT | 1.25 (1.2 - 1.3) | 1.06 (1.04 - 1.08) |
| LDR with WM | 1.05 (1.0 - 1.1) | 1.05 (1.0 - 1.1) |
| LDR with CAF | 1.35 (1.3 - 1.4) | 1.07 (1.05 - 1.1) |
| Net micronucleus frequency = 0.1 | ||
| Total tumor cells | ||
| Right after HDR | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| 9 h after HDR | 1.25 (1.3 - 1.4) | 1.05 (1.0 - 1.1) |
| MHT right after HDR, 9 h later | 1.2 (1.1 - 1.3) | 1.04 (1.0 - 1.08) |
| WM right after HDR, 9 h later | 1.1 (1.0 - 1.2) | 1.03 (1.0 - 1.05) |
| CAF right after HDR, 9 h later | 1.25 (1.2 - 1.3) | 1.05 (1.0 - 1.1) |
| After LDR | 1.3 (1.2 - 1.4) | 1.1 (1.0 - 1.2) |
| LDR with MHT | 1.25 (1.2 - 1.3) | 1.06 (1.04 - 1.08) |
| LDR with WM | 1.1 (1.0 - 1.2) | 1.03 (1.0 - 1.05) |
| LDR with CAF | 1.3 (1.2 - 1.4) | 1.07 (1.05 - 1.1) |
| Quiescent tumor cells | ||
| Right after HDR | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| 9 h after HDR | 1.5 (1.4 - 1.6) | 1.07 (1.05 - 1.1) |
| MHT right after HDR, 9 h later | 1.25 (1.2 - 1.3) | 1.05 (1.0 - 1.1) |
| WM right after HDR, 9 h later | 1.1 (1.0 - 1.2) | 1.02 (1.0 - 1.05) |
| CAF right after HDR, 9 h later | 1.35 (1.3 - 1.4) | 1.07 (1.04 - 1.1) |
| After LDR | 1.65 (1.6 - 1.7) | 1.15 (1.1 - 1.2) |
| LDR with MHT | 1.3 (1.2 - 1.4) | 1.07 (1.04 - 1.1) |
| LDR with WM | 1.1 (1.0 - 1.2) | 1.02 (1.0 - 1.05) |
| LDR with CAF | 1.45 (1.4 - 1.5) | 1.1 (1.0 - 1.1) |
aThe dose of radiation required to obtain each endpoint with each treatment in relation to that required to obtain each endpoint immediately after HDR. bNumbers in parentheses are 95% confidence limits, determined using mean values, standard deviations and the numbers of observations on which the means and standard deviations were based. Except for the conditions using treatment with wortmannin, the difference between the values for SAS/neo and SAS/mp53 is statistically significant under each set of condition (P < 0.05). HDR: high dose-rate irradiation; MHT: mild hyperthermia; WM: wortmannin; CAF: caffeine; LDR: low dose-rate irradiation.
Dose Ratiosa for Quiescent Tumor Cells Relative to the Total Tumor Cell Population
| SAS/ | SAS/ | |
|---|---|---|
| Net micronucleus frequency = 0.1 | ||
| Right after HDR | 2.2 (2.1 - 2.3)b | 1.9 (1.8 - 2.0) |
| 9 h after HDR | 2.35 (2.25 - 2.45) | 1.95 (1.85 - 2.05) |
| MHT right after HDR, 9 h later | 2.2 (2.1 - 2.3) | 1.9 (1.8 - 2.0) |
| WM right after HDR, 9 h later | 2.1 (2.0 - 2.2) | 1.85 (1.75 - 1.95) |
| CAF right after HDR, 9 h later | 2.3 (2.2 - 2.4) | 1.9 (1.8 - 2.0) |
| After LDR | 2.35 (2.25 - 2.45) | 1.95 (1.85 - 2.05) |
| LDR with MHT | 2.2 (2.1 - 2.3) | 1.9 (1.8 - 2.0) |
| LDR with WM | 2.1 (2.0 - 2.2) | 1.85 (1.75 - 1.95) |
| LDR with CAF | 2.3 (2.2 - 2.4) | 1.9 (1.8 - 2.0) |
aThe dose of radiation required to obtain a net micronucleus frequency of 0.1 in quiescent tumor cells in relation to that required to obtain a net micronucleus frequency of 0.1 in the total tumor cell population. bNumbers in parentheses are 95% confidence limits, determined using mean values, standard deviations and the numbers of observations on which the means and standard deviations were based. The difference between the values for SAS/neo and SAS/mp53 is statistically significant under each set of condition (P < 0.05). HDR: high dose-rate irradiation; MHT: mild hyperthermia; WM: wortmannin; CAF: caffeine; LDR: low dose-rate irradiation.