Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (12)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mendonca, M. S.
Right arrow Articles by Mayhugh, B. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mendonca, M. S.
Right arrow Articles by Mayhugh, B. M.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Mutagenesis, Vol. 15, No. 3, 187-193, May 2000
© 2000 UK Environmental Mutagen Society/Oxford University Press

Loss of chromosome 14 increases the radiosensitivity of CGL1 human hybrid cells but lowers their susceptibility to radiation-induced neoplastic transformation

Marc S. Mendonca*, Lael A. Desmond, Toni M. Temples, Daphne L. Farrington and Brendan M. Mayhugh

Radiation and Cancer Biology Laboratory, Department of Radiation Oncology, 975 West Walnut Street, IB-346, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA

Loss of active tumor suppressor alleles on fibroblast chromosomes 11 and 14 are involved in radiation-induced neoplastic transformation of human hybrid CGL1 cells. Loss of either chromosome 11 or 14 alone is not sufficient for neoplastic transformation. To gain insight into the potential functions of these tumor suppressor loci, we have investigated the effects of chromosome 11 or 14 loss on radiation-induced neoplastic transformation. We recently demonstrated that loss of chromosome 11 increases the susceptibility to X-ray induced cell killing, neoplastic transformation and the expression of delayed death. The data suggested that one possible function of the chromosome 11 tumor suppressor gene may be to help maintain genome stability after radiation damage. We postulated that if the chromosome 14 allele is functioning in a similar manner, then the loss of chromosome 14 may also make the hybrid cells more susceptible to radiation-induced cell killing and neoplastic transformation. A hybrid cell line which has lost one copy of chromosome 14 was isolated and designated CON3(–14). CON3(–14) cells were more sensitive to X-ray-induced cell killing when compared with parental CGL1 cells. However, the susceptibility to radiation-induced neoplastic transformation was significantly reduced (by a factor of two) compared with the parental CGL1 cells. The expression of delayed death in the progeny of the irradiated CON3(–14) cells, growing in transformation flasks, was similar to CGL1 cells during the 21 day assay period. Taken together, the data indicate that loss of chromosome 14 alone increased the X-ray sensitivity of the hybrid cells but reduced their susceptibility to radiation-induced neoplastic transformation. These data suggest that the tumor suppressor alleles on chromosomes 11 and 14 may be functionally distinct in terms of their regulation of genomic instability and neoplastic transformation after radiation exposure.

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel: +1 317 278 0404; Fax: +1 317 278 0405; Email: mmendonc{at}iupui.edu


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Radiat Prot DosimetryHome page
M. Frankenberg-Schwager, S. Spieren, E. Pralle, U. Giesen, H. J. Brede, M. Thiemig, and D. Frankenberg
The RBE of 3.4 MeV {alpha}-particles and 0.565 MeV neutrons relative to 60Co {gamma}-rays for neoplastic transformation of human hybrid cells and the impact of culture conditions
Radiat Prot Dosimetry, January 1, 2010; 138(1): 29 - 39.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Br. J. Radiol.Home page
G J Heyes, A J Mill, and M W Charles
Authors' reply
Br. J. Radiol., October 1, 2006; 79(946): 855 - 857.
[Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.