Carcinogenesis, Vol. 23, No. 3, 389-401,
March 2002
© 2002 Oxford University Press
CANCER BIOLOGY |
Flow cytometric analysis of the cell cycle phase specificity of DNA damage induced by radiation, hydrogen peroxide and doxorubicin
1 Department of Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195,
2 Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA 98109, USA
We have optimized a flow cytometric DNA alkaline unwinding assay to increase the sensitivity in detecting low levels of DNA damage (strand breaks and alkali-labile sites) and to permit the measurement of the extent of DNA damage within each cell cycle compartment. The lowest
radiation dose that induced detectable DNA damage in each cell cycle phase of HeLa and CEM cells was 10 cGy. The lowest H2O2 concentration that induced detectable DNA damage in each cell cycle phase was 0.5 µM in HeLa cells, and 12.5 TµM in CEM cells. For both HeLa cells and CEM cells, DNA damage in each cell cycle compartment increased approximately linearly with increasing doses of
radiation and H2O2. Although untreated HeLa and CEM cells in S phase consistently exhibited greater DNA unwinding than did G1 or G2 cells (presumably due to DNA strand breaks associated with replication forks), there was no difference between the susceptibility of G0/G1, S and G2/M phase cells to DNA damage induced by
radiation or H2O2, or in the rate of repair of this damage. In each cell cycle phase, the susceptibility to
radiation-induced DNA damage was greater in CEM cells than in HeLa cells. In contrast to the lack of cell cycle phase-specific DNA damage induced by exposure to
radiation or H2O2, the cancer chemotherapeutic drug doxorubicin (adriamycin) predominantly induced DNA damage in G2 phase cells.
![]()
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
P. Ubezio, M. Lupi, D. Branduardi, P. Cappella, E. Cavallini, V. Colombo, G. Matera, C. Natoli, D. Tomasoni, and M. D'Incalci Quantitative Assessment of the Complex Dynamics of G1, S, and G2-M Checkpoint Activities Cancer Res., June 15, 2009; 69(12): 5234 - 5240. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B. Thyagarajan, K. E. Anderson, C. J. Lessard, G. Veltri, D. R. Jacobs, A. R. Folsom, and M. D. Gross Alkaline unwinding flow cytometry assay to measure nucleotide excision repair Mutagenesis, March 1, 2007; 22(2): 147 - 153. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B. Hutter, C. Schaab, S. Albrecht, M. Borgmann, N. A. Brunner, C. Freiberg, K. Ziegelbauer, C. O. Rock, I. Ivanov, and H. Loferer Prediction of Mechanisms of Action of Antibacterial Compounds by Gene Expression Profiling Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., August 1, 2004; 48(8): 2838 - 2844. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J.-H. Yuan, Y. Feng, R. H. Fisher, S. Maloid, D. L. Longo, and D. K. Ferris Polo-Like Kinase 1 Inactivation Following Mitotic DNA Damaging Treatments Is Independent of Ataxia Telangiectasia Mutated Kinase Mol. Cancer Res., July 1, 2004; 2(7): 417 - 426. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. S. DiPaola To Arrest or Not To G2-M Cell-Cycle Arrest : Commentary re: A. K. Tyagi et al., Silibinin Strongly Synergizes Human Prostate Carcinoma DU145 Cells to Doxorubicin-induced Growth Inhibition, G2-M Arrest, and Apoptosis. Clin. Cancer Res., 8: 3512-3519, 2002. Clin. Cancer Res., November 1, 2002; 8(11): 3311 - 3314. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||




