Literature DB >> 7450772

Chromosome studies on lymphocytes of patients under cytostatic therapy. II. Studies Using the BUDR-labelling technique in cytostatic interval therapy.

E Gebhart, B Windolph, F Wopfner.   

Abstract

Lymphocyte cultures from the peripheral blood of 38 patients undergoing a cytostatic interval therapy with a regimen of methyl-CCNU (1-[2-chloroethyl-3-(4-methyl-cyclohexyl)]-1-nitrosourea), 5-fluorouracil, and vincristine (each 5-day course of therapy was followed by a therapy interval of 4 weeks) were supplied with 5-bromodeoxyuridine (BUDR) for the whole culture time to determine the sister chromatid labelling pattern. From a total of 92 individual blood samples sister chromatid exchange (SCE) studies were performed including analyses before the start of the therapy, and immediately and 4 weeks after each course of therapy. In addition, the frequency of first, second, and third metaphases in the 72-h cultures was estimated using the characteristic labelling patterns. A distinct increase of SCE frequency over the control level (i.e., lymphocyte cultures of patients before the start of therapy) was observed at all phases of therapy. It was clearly correlated with the number of courses of therapy up to course 7, later on the SCE rate remained more or less at the level reached. The influence of the composition of each drug regimen on the SCE rate was less pronounced than it was on the breakage rate. Moreover, although a clear correlation existed between the individual rates of breakage and SCE, the formation of the latter appeared to reflect a long-term effect of the therapy rather than did the formation of break aberrations. In addition, as the intercellular variability of the number of SCEs per cell was much higher than that of breaks, the interindividual variability (variation of the mean values for each patient) was small compared to the respective variability of breakage rates. The proportion of first, second, and third metaphases present in 72-h cultures evidently was influenced by single courses of therapy. The observed delay of proliferation was also reflected in different amounts of chromosome damage. Although the BUDR treatment enhanced the cytostatic effect of the therapy on the lymphocytes in culture rendering SCE analysis rather difficult in several cases, the other data of this study and in particular the experiences with the "long-term effect" make it imperative to include BUDR-labelling in further cytogenetic studies in subjects with exceptional exposure to chemicals. However, the SCE method can by no means, replace the classic cytogenetic analysis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1980        PMID: 7450772     DOI: 10.1007/bf00295688

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Genet        ISSN: 0340-6717            Impact factor:   4.132


  29 in total

1.  Differential chromatid staining by in vivo treatment as a mutagenicity test system.

Authors:  W Vogel; T Bauknecht
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1976-04-01       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Induction of sister chromatid exchanges by chemical mutagens and its possible relevance to DNA repair.

Authors:  H Kato
Journal:  Exp Cell Res       Date:  1974-04       Impact factor: 3.905

3.  [An assessement of the in vivo sister chromatid exchange (SCE)-test using various cytostatics (author's transl)].

Authors:  H W Renner
Journal:  Arzneimittelforschung       Date:  1979

4.  Sister chromatid exchange as an assay for genetic damage induced by mutagen-carcinogens. I. In vivo test for compounds requiring metabolic activation.

Authors:  D G Stetka; S Wolff
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1976-12       Impact factor: 2.433

5.  Proliferation of PHA- and PWM-stimulated lymphocytes measured by sister chromatid differential staining.

Authors:  P E Crossen; W F Morgan
Journal:  Cell Immunol       Date:  1977-08       Impact factor: 4.868

6.  Giemsa technique for the detection of sister chromatid exchanges.

Authors:  J R Korenberg; E F Freedlender
Journal:  Chromosoma       Date:  1974       Impact factor: 4.316

7.  Mitotic spindle inhibitors and sister-chromatid exchange in human chromosomes.

Authors:  W F Morgan; P E Crossen
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1980-03       Impact factor: 2.433

8.  Sister-chromatid exchanges and chromosal breakage in patients treated with cytostatics.

Authors:  J Musilová; K Michalová; J Urban
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1979-07       Impact factor: 2.433

9.  Effect of vincristine on sister chromatid exchanges of normal human lymphocytes.

Authors:  C Stoll; D S Borgaonkar; J M Levy
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  1976-08       Impact factor: 12.701

10.  The incidence of sister chromatid exchanges in cultured human lymphocytes.

Authors:  W F Morgan; P E Crossen
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1977-02       Impact factor: 2.433

View more
  4 in total

1.  In vitro effect of glutathione on mitomycin-C in human lymphocytes.

Authors:  D Geetanjali; P Rita; P P Reddy
Journal:  Bull Environ Contam Toxicol       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 2.151

2.  The effect of the male contraceptive agent Gossypol on human lymphocytes in vitro: traditional chromosome breakage, micronuclei, sister chromatid exchange, and cell kinetics.

Authors:  Y C Tsui; M R Creasy; M A Hultén
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  1983-04       Impact factor: 6.318

Review 3.  Sister chromatid exchange (SCE) and structural chromosome aberration in mutagenicity testing.

Authors:  E Gebhart
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  1981       Impact factor: 4.132

4.  A study protocol for the evaluation of occupational mutagenic/carcinogenic risks in subjects exposed to antineoplastic drugs: a multicentric project.

Authors:  Massimo Moretti; Roberta Bonfiglioli; Donatella Feretti; Sofia Pavanello; Francesca Mussi; Maria G Grollino; Milena Villarini; Anna Barbieri; Elisabetta Ceretti; Mariella Carrieri; Annamaria Buschini; Massimo Appolloni; Luca Dominici; Laura Sabatini; Umberto Gelatti; Giovanni B Bartolucci; Paola Poli; Laura Stronati; Giuseppe Mastrangelo; Silvano Monarca
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2011-03-30       Impact factor: 3.295

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.