Cytosine Arabinoside Differentially Alters Survival and Neurite Outgrowth of Neuronal PC12 Cells
Jason Y. Chang * and Scott Brown +
*Department of Anatomy, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, 72205; +Department of Biology, Hendrix College, Conway, AR, 72032
Received 7 December 1995. Available online 22 April 2002
Summary
This study tries to understand the mechanism for the negative effects of an anticancer drug- AraC- on the viability of PC12 neural cells. It concludes that AraC does not interfere with the NGF signaling pathway- a pathway which leads to neurite growth. Yet AraC shows a time-dependant effect on the viability of these cells.
Background
Cytosine arabinoside (AraC) is a potent antimitotic agent commonly used as an anticancer drug. However, high dosage of this drug comes with severe neurotoxic effects. Due to the fact that neural cells are generally post-mitotic cells, the reasoning and process for this neuronal dysfunction is unclear.
PC12 cells are tumor cells; therefore, they grow continuously under normal culture conditions. Once PC12 cells are treated with NGF, they become post-mitotic cells and exhibit the normal morphology of neural cells similar to sympathetic neurons.
Results
1. AraC does not block the NGF signal pathway for neurite growth after one day:
Neuronal PC12 cells were obtained by being treated with NGF for 10 days. The neuronal PC12 cells were then cultured in plates: A. With NGF in the media, B. With no NGF yet with NGF antibodies, C. With NGF as well as AraC (Figure 1). The viability tests of MTT showed that the plate with NGF (B) is the only one that does not have NGF signaling while the presence of NGF with or without AraC shows the same amount of NGF signaling.
The results show the low sensitivity of neuronal PC12 cells to large amounts of AraC (Figure 2A). However there is a large reduction of viability for regular PC12 tumor cells (e.i. PC12 cells not treated with NGF) after the exposure to low amounts of AraC (Figure 2B).
Several different neuroprotective agents were examined. Out of these only Aurintricarboxylic acid (ATA) and KCI could enhance the viability of neuronal PC12 cells. The 25um of Aurintricarboxylic acid (ATA) could increase the viability of neuronal PC12 cells treated with 100uM of Arac from 50% to 80%. Moreover, 30um of KCI could increase the viability of such cells to about 85%.
Discussion
NGF converts PC12 tumor cells into post-mitotic cells, so this could partially be a reason for the lower sensitivity of neuronal PC12 cells to AraC. However, NGF has shown to protect the viability of many other neuronal cells against AraC, cells which are already post-mitotic. This suggests that NGF does not increase the viability of neural PC12 cells against AraC merely due to its ability to introduce the post-mitotic phenotype. Moreover the nuclear staining with bisbenzimide indicated the nuclei condensation of some neuronal PC12 cells- this event usually indicates the neuronal programmed cell death. However, since only some cells showed the programmed cell death, apoptosis cannot be introduced as the main reason for the effects of AraC on neuronal PC12 cells. Overall there is a distinction between the neurite growth and the nerve growth factor mechanism.
2 comments:
Interesting paper. Did they hypothesize at all as to what is causing the effects of AraC on P12 cells? Did they suggest any further avenue of study? Also, what were some of the caveats you noticed within the paper?
This is an interesting paper although I am not very familiar with the topic. For the experiment they did for figure 1, I was wondering if they also had samples that were grown in just media (without NGF, NGF antibodies, or AraC) and just did not show them. That seems like it would be a relevant control. Nevertheless, they do get their point across in showing that AraC doesn't affect NGF signaling. I am also interested to know how the results would be different if they did it with just PC12 cells (not pretreated with NGF), although that is not as clinically relevant.
I don't know if the paper mentions this at all, but I was wondering how the concentrations that they use in figure 2 relate to clinically observed AraC concentrations in the brain during cancer treatment. That would be helpful in contextualizing the data presented.
With regards to finding the mechanism of NGF protection of cell viability (mentioned in your discussion), it seem like it would be better to use other post-mitotic neuronal cells. In those cases, other effects of NGF on the cells won't be confused with changes that result from changing PC12 tumor cells to be post-mitotic. Did they say anything about such future studies in this paper?
Post a Comment