DNA Damage Response of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Cells (Primary Culture) to Chemo-radiotherapy
Abstract
To detect protein dynamic changes of cellular localization and the DNA damage response of epithelial ovarian cancer cells to chemo-radiotherapy. Methods 28 specimens of epithelial ovarian cancer were collected, with 6 cases diagnosed as borderline serous cystadenoma, 5 as highly differentiated, 6 as medium differentiated and 11 as poorly differentiated cystadenocarcinoma. Collagenase A was used for digesting tissues before primary culture. We compared the characteristics of cells cultured in different mediums (MCDB/M199 medium, primary culture medium, and DMEM medium) supplemented with multiple growth-promoting factors. The characteristics of cells were examined in terms of the maintenance of normal cell morphology, proliferation potential, and cell fibrosis proteins （53BP1 and γ-H2AX） responsive to DNA damage 〔those in the ATM checkpoint pathway determined by indirect immunofluorescent staining after treatment with camptothecin (CPT) and X-ray〕. Results Normal morphology was maintained relatively well in the cells cultured in MCDB/M199 medium and its cell fibrosis was slow compared with the cells cultured in other media. Gradually increased endogenous damage was demonstrated by the expression of 53BP1 and γ-H2AX foci （P<0.05） in all of the ovarian primary cells. After treatment with CPT and ionizing radiation, increased levels of DNA double-strand breaks were observed indicating a classic DNA damage response. Conclusion We have successfully established a protocol for the primary culture of epithelial ovarian cancer cells, which provides an important platform for characterizing DNA damage responses of the cells. With the progression of epithelial ovarian cancers, the ATM checkpoint pathway is activated by endogenous DNA lesions. This signaling pathway can be further activated by CPT or X-ray irradiation, hampering the growth of tumor cells and further progression of cancers.
Keywords: Ovarian cancer, Primary culture, DNA damage
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM,et at. Global cancer statistics. С A Cancer J Clin, 2011 ;61(2); 69-90.
Coleman RL. Monk BJ. Sood AK, et al. Latest research and treatment of advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol,2013;10(4):211-24.
Ricciardellic C, Ween MP, Lokman N A, et al. Chemetherapy- induced hyaluronan production: a novel chemoresistence mechanism in ovarian cancer. BMC Cancer, 2013; 13 (1) ;476- 481.
Lincet H, Kafara P. Giffard F, et al. Inhibition of Mcl-1 expression by citrate enhance the effect of Bcl-xL inhibitors on human ovarian carcinoma cells. J Ovarian Res, 2013; 6( 1); 72- 78.
Dunfield LD, Shepherd. TO, Nachtigal MW. et al. Primary cuture and mRNA analysis of human ovarian cell. Biol Proced Online, 2002; 4(3); 55-61.
Jackson SP. Bartek J. The DNA-damage response in human biology and disease. Nature,2009;461(7267); 1071-1078.
Rouse J, Jackson SP. Interfaces between the detection, signaling, and repair of DNA damage. Science, 2002; 297 (5581):547-551.
Bakkenist CJ, Kastan MB. DNA damage activates ATM through intermolecular autophosphorylation and dimer dissociation. Nature,2003;421( 6922);499-506.
Haley S. Knowledge essential to ovarian cancer care. Nurs Times,2000;96(5):41-42.
Jablonska E, Chlosta M, Pawlega J. Ovarian cancer therapeutic options after the failure of the first line of treatment. Ginekol Pol,2004 ;75( 1): 58-64.
Morris EJ, Geller HM. Induction of neuronal apoptosis by camptothecin, an inhibitor of DNA topoisomerase I : evidence for cell cycle-independent toxicity. J Cell Biol, 1996; 134 ( 3); 757-770.
Safra T, Berman T, Yachnin A,etal. Weekly topotecan for recurrent ovarian, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal carcinoma: tolerability and efficacy study the Israeli experience. Int J Gynecol Cancer,2013;23(3) ;475-480.
Pecorelli S. Ray-Coquard I, Tredan O, et al. Phase II of oral gimatecan in patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or peritoneal cancer, previously treated with platinum and taxanes. Ann ()ncol.2010;21(4);759-765.
Pabla N, Huang S. Mi QS,et al. ATR-Chk2 signaling in p53 activation and DNA damage response during cisplatin-induced apoptosis. J Biol Chem,2008;283( 10) s6572-6583.
Bartek J, Lukas J. Mammalian Gi and S-phase checkpoints in response to DNA damage. J Curr Opin Cell Biol,2001; 13(6) : 738-747.
Jeggo PA, Lubrich M. Contribution of DNA repair and cell cycle checkpoint arrest to the maintenance of genomic stability. DNA Repair (Amst) .2006;5(9-10): 1192-1198.
Lieber MR, Ma Y. Pannicke U, et al. Mechanism and regulation of human non-homologous DNA end-joining. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol,2003;4(9):712-720.
Duckworth BC, Weaver JS, Ruderman JV, et al. G2 arrest in Xenopus oocytes depends on phosphoyrlation of cdc25 by protein kinase A. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2002; 99 ( 26 ): 16794-16799.
Badgwell DB, Lu Z, Le K, et al. The tumor-suppressor gene ARHI ( DIRAS3) suppresses ovarian cancer cell migration through inhibition of the Stat3 and FAK/Rho signaling pathways. Oncogene,2011;31 (1);68-79.
Tanaka K. Ivvasaki K, Feghali KE, et al. Comparison of characteristics of periodontal ligament cells obtained from outgrowth and enzyme-digested culture methods. Arch Oral Biol,2011;56(4) ;380-388.
Shepherd TG, Theriault BL, Campbel EJ, et al. Primary culture of ovarian surface epithelial cells and ascites-derived ovarian cancer cells from patients. Nat Protoc, 2006; 1 (6): 2643-2649.
Naruke Y, Nakashima M, Suzuki K, et al. Alteration of p53 binding protein 1 express ion during skin carcinogenesis association with genomic instability. Can cer Sci, 2008; 99 ( 5); 946-951.
Bartkova J, Horejs Z, Koed K, et al. DNA damage response as a candidate anti-cancer barrier in early human tumorigenesis. Nature,2005 ; 434(7035): 864-870.
Gorgoulis VG, Vassiliou LV, Karakaidos P, et al. Activation of the DNA damage checkpoint and genomic instability in human precancerous lesions. Nature, 2005; 434 ( 7035 ); 907- 913.
Gamper AM, Rofougaran R. Watkins SC, et al. ATR kinase activation in G1 phase facilitates the repair of ionizing radiation- induced DNA damage. Nucleic Acids Res, 2013; 36 ( 5 ); 626- 645.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
