Synergetic effects of the combined action of carbon ions and the chemotherapy drug doxorubicin on HeLa cancer cells

Proton and carbon beam therapy is currently recognized as the most effective and highly accurate form of radiation therapy for deeply located tumors, including radioresistant ones. This is due to the fact that they have all the advantages of spatial dose distribution and, at the same time, are densely ionizing radiations capable of effectively affecting hypoxic, slow-growing tumors and other neoplasms that are insensitive to traditional types of radiation. It is well known that one of the main methods for treating neoplasms is chemotherapy. The predominant mechanism of action of anti-tumor drugs is the induction of DNA damage with the subsequent impossibility of repair. In our study, we used an anti-tumor antibiotic of the anthracycline series, doxorubicin. The assessment of the potential significance of the synergistic interaction of ionizing radiation with chemical preparations in medical radiology remains an urgent and unresolved problem. It is possible to achieve the maximum effect of the combined action of two agents when they act simultaneously. The phenomenon of synergy can be used to optimize the combined use of radiation and chemotherapy in clinical practice. In this regard, it seems relevant to conduct a study for HeLa cancer cells exposed to ionizing radiation, an antitumor drug, as well as their combination. In the course of the study, results were obtained on the manifestation of the synergistic nature of the agents used, which is of great practical and theoretical importance for understanding the mechanism of the combined effect of ionizing radiation and the chemotherapy drug (doxorubicin). The obtained data can be helpful in optimizing the combined effects in order to achieve maximum synergistic interaction.

Download Full-text

Synergistic Interaction between an Anti-p185HER-2 Pseudomonas Exotoxin Fusion Protein [scFv(FRP5)–ETA] and Ionizing Radiation for Inhibiting Growth of Ovarian Cancer Cells That Overexpress HER-2

Gynecologic Oncology ◽

10.1006/gyno.2000.6040 ◽

2001 ◽

Vol 80 (2) ◽

pp. 145-155 ◽

Cited By ~ 18

Author(s):

Mathias Schmidt ◽

Amanda McWatters ◽

R.Allen White ◽

Bernd Groner ◽

Winfried Wels ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Ovarian Cancer ◽

Ionizing Radiation ◽

Fusion Protein ◽

Cancer Cells ◽

Synergistic Interaction ◽

Ovarian Cancer Cells ◽

Pseudomonas Exotoxin ◽

Her 2

Download Full-text

Comparison of the Combined Effects of Hyperthermia with Ionizing Radiation or Cisplatin on Yeast and Mammalian Cells

Medical Radiology and radiation safety ◽

10.12737/article_5a25317ce480f3.74497732 ◽

2017 ◽

pp. 21-28 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

М. Пронкевич ◽

M. Pronkevich ◽

Е. Евстратова ◽

E. Evstratova ◽

С. Белкина ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Ionizing Radiation ◽

Synergistic Effect ◽

Exposure Time ◽

Mammalian Cells ◽

Synergistic Interaction ◽

Yeast Cells ◽

Simultaneous Action ◽

Optimal Temperature ◽

Combined Action ◽

Combined Actions

Purpose: To compare radiation responses of yeast and mammalian cells to combined actions of various agents and on this basis to draw a conclusion about the possibility of synergy ideas application in medical radiology. Material and methods: The yeast cells of Saccharomyces cerevisiae were exposed to the combined action of hyperthermia (22–58 °C, exposure time 0–9 hrs) with ionizing radiation (25 MeV bremsstrahlung 5 and 25 Gy/min or γ-rays 60Co, 2, 10, and 80 Gy/min, acute irradiation) or anti-tumor drug cisplatin (0,05 or 0,25 mg/ml, exposure time 0–3 hrs). The result of synergistic interaction for yeast cells was assessed by the survival curves obtained by the authors after separate exposure to hyperthermia, ionizing radiation, cisplatin and after combined action of hyperthermia with ionizing radiation or cisplatin. To quantify the synergistic interaction of similar combined actions on mammalian cells, the data published by other authors have been used who did not evaluate the synergistic effect themselves. Results: The synergistic interaction of hyperthermia with ionizing radiation or cisplatin was established for yeast and mammalian cells. It is shown that the synergistic effect of the simultaneous action of these agents is observed only within a certain temperature range, within which there is an optimal temperature at which the greatest synergism occurs. This optimal temperature is shifted to lower values with a decrease in the dose rate of ionizing radiation or concentration of cisplatin. For sequential application of hyperthermia and ionizing radiation the effect of combined action increases with an increase in acting temperature up to a certain limit, after which it remains constant. These results are interpreted using the mathematical models previously proposed, in accordance with which the synergism is determined by the formation of additional damage due to the interaction of sub-damage that are not effective after separate application of agents. Despite the fact that all of the data presented were obtained at temperatures far beyond the ambient temperature, it is not excluded that there could be optimal intensities of harmful agents existing in the biosphere and capable of interacting with physiological heat of animals and man in a synergistic manner. Hence, the assessment of health or environmental risks from numerous natural and man-made agents at the level of intensities found in environmental and occupational settings should take into account synergistic interaction between harmful agents. Conclusion: The general regularities of synergistic effects of combined action of hyperthermia with ionizing radiation or with cisplatin for yeast and mammalian cells have been established – the existence of optimal parameters for acting agents providing the highest synergy and its dependence on the intensity of agents applied.

Download Full-text

Combined action of celecoxib and ionizing radiation in prostate cancer cells is independent of pro-apoptotic Bax

Radiotherapy and Oncology ◽

10.1016/j.radonc.2008.10.021 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 90 (3) ◽

pp. 413-421 ◽

Cited By ~ 10

Author(s):

René Handrick ◽

Ute Ganswindt ◽

Heidrun Faltin ◽

Barbara Goecke ◽

Peter T. Daniel ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Ionizing Radiation ◽

Cancer Cells ◽

Prostate Cancer Cells ◽

Combined Action

Download Full-text

Radiopharmacology: Hazard or/and Benefit

Nuklearmedizin ◽

10.1055/s-0038-1624200 ◽

1984 ◽

Vol 23 (02) ◽

pp. 87-91 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

K. Flemming

Keyword(s):

Ionizing Radiation ◽

Late Effects ◽

Radiation Risk ◽

Dose Effect ◽

Radiation Hazard ◽

Radiation Doses ◽

Low Doses ◽

Medical Radiology ◽

Experimental Findings ◽

In The Beginning

SummaryIn the beginning of medical radiology, only the benefit of ionizing radiation was obvious, and radiation was handled and applied generously. After late effects had become known, the radiation exposure was reduced to doses following which no such effects were found. Thus, it was assumed that one could obtain an optimal medical benefit without inducing any hazard. Later, due to experimental findings, hypotheses arose (linear dose-effect response, no time factor) which led to the opinion that even low and lowest radiation doses were relevant for the induction of late effects. A radiation fear grew, which was unintentionally strengthened by radiation protection decrees: even for low doses a radiation risk could be calculated. Therefore, it was believed that there could still exist a radiation hazard, and the radiation benefit remained in question. If, however, all presently known facts are considered, one must conclude that large radiation doses are hazardous and low doses are inefficient, whereas lowest doses have a biopositive effect. Ionizing radiation, therefore, may cause both, hazard as well as benefit. Which of the two effects prevails is determined by the level of dose.

Download Full-text

Interplay of CREB and ATF2 in Ionizing Radiation-Induced Neuroendocrine Differentiation of Prostate Cancer Cells

10.21236/ada512026 ◽

2009 ◽

Author(s):

Chang-Deng Hu

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Ionizing Radiation ◽

Cancer Cells ◽

Neuroendocrine Differentiation ◽

Prostate Cancer Cells ◽

Radiation Induced

Download Full-text

CircZNF208 enhances the sensitivity to X-rays instead of carbon-ions through the miR-7-5p /SNCA signal axis in non-small-cell lung cancer cells

Cellular Signalling ◽

10.1016/j.cellsig.2021.110012 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 110012

Author(s):

Bingtao Liu ◽

Hongbin Li ◽

Xiongxiong Liu ◽

Feifei Li ◽

Weiqiang Chen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Lung Cancer ◽

Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽

Cancer Cells ◽

Cell Lung Cancer ◽

Small Cell ◽

Lung Cancer Cells ◽

X Rays ◽

Carbon Ions ◽

Small Cell Lung

Download Full-text

Differential Effects of Gold Nanoparticles and Ionizing Radiation on Cell Motility between Primary Human Colonic and Melanocytic Cells and Their Cancerous Counterparts

International Journal of Molecular Sciences ◽

10.3390/ijms22031418 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 22 (3) ◽

pp. 1418

Author(s):

Elham Shahhoseini ◽

Masao Nakayama ◽

Terrence J. Piva ◽

Moshi Geso

Keyword(s):

Gold Nanoparticles ◽

Ionizing Radiation ◽

Cancer Cells ◽

Cell Lines ◽

Colorectal Adenocarcinoma ◽

X Rays ◽

Cell Adherence ◽

Cancerous Cell ◽

Primary Colon ◽

Radiation Induced

This study examined the effects of gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) and/or ionizing radiation (IR) on the viability and motility of human primary colon epithelial (CCD841) and colorectal adenocarcinoma (SW48) cells as well as human primary epidermal melanocytes (HEM) and melanoma (MM418-C1) cells. AuNPs up to 4 mM had no effect on the viability of these cell lines. The viability of the cancer cells was ~60% following exposure to 5 Gy. Exposure to 5 Gy X-rays or 1 mM AuNPs showed the migration of the cancer cells ~85% that of untreated controls, while co-treatment with AuNPs and IR decreased migration to ~60%. In the non-cancerous cell lines gap closure was enhanced by ~15% following 1 mM AuNPs or 5 Gy treatment, while for co-treatment it was ~22% greater than that for the untreated controls. AuNPs had no effect on cell re-adhesion, while IR enhanced only the re-adhesion of the cancer cell lines but not their non-cancerous counterparts. The addition of AuNPs did not enhance cell adherence. This different reaction to AuNPs and IR in the cancer and normal cells can be attributed to radiation-induced adhesiveness and metabolic differences between tumour cells and their non-cancerous counterparts.

Download Full-text