A chemosensitization screen identifies TP53RK, a kinase that restrains apoptosis after mitotic stress.

Taxanes are very effective at causing mitotic arrest; however, there is variability among cancer cells in the apoptotic response to mitotic arrest. The variability in clinical efficacy of taxane-based therapy is likely a reflection of this variability in apoptotic response, thus elucidation of the molecular mechanism of the apoptotic response to mitotic stress could lead to improved clinical strategies. To identify genes whose expression influences the rate and extent of apoptosis after mitotic arrest, we screened a kinase-enriched small interfering RNA library for effects on caspase activation in response to maximally effective doses of paclitaxel, a PLK1 inhibitor, or cisplatin. Small interfering RNA oligonucleotides directed against an atypical protein kinase, TP53RK, caused the greatest increase in caspase-3/7 activation in response to antimitotic agents. Time-lapse microscopy revealed that cells entered mitosis with normal kinetics, but died after entry into mitosis in the presence of paclitaxel more rapidly when TP53RK was depleted. Because expression levels of TP53RK vary in cancers, TP53RK levels could provide a molecular marker to predict response to antimitotic agents. TP53RK inhibition may also sensitize cancers to taxanes.

A paracrine signal mediates the cell transformation response to low dose gamma radiation in JB6 cells.

The carcinogenic response to radiation is complex and may involve adaptive cellular responses as well as a bystander effect mediated by paracrine or intercellular signaling activities. Using a newly developed co-culture model we have examined whether low dose gamma radiation induces the transformation of JB6 mouse epidermal cells as well as non-irradiated bystander cells. Cell transformation response is defined as the acquisition of anchorage-independent growth properties and is quantified by counting colonies on soft agar. Exposure of JB6 cells to low dose (2-20 cGy) gamma radiation resulted in an approximate 1.9 +/- 0.1 and 2.8 +/- 0.5-fold increase in cell transformation response when cells were seeded at 1 x 10(4) or 1 x 10(5) cells/dish, relative to respective sham exposed controls. We developed a co-culture model where sham exposed or irradiated JB6 cells were mixed with non-irradiated JB6 cells that had been stably transfected with the enhanced yellow fluorescent protein (EYFP) to enable the distinction of fluorescent bystander-specific colonies. A significant increase in the number of bystander-specific colonies was observed in co-culture with 10 cGy irradiated JB6 cells (224 +/- 9), relative to the number of bystander-specific colonies arising in co-culture with sham exposed JB6 cells (55 +/- 16). Our results indicate that low dose radiation induces the transformation of JB6 cells and that a soluble paracrine factor that is secreted by irradiated cells induces the transformation of non-irradiated bystander cells.

Interactions in the tumor-promoting activity of carbon tetrachloride, trichloroacetate, and dichloroacetate in the liver of male B6C3F1 mice.

Interactions between carcinogens in mixtures found in the environment have been a concern for several decades. In the present study, male B6C3F1 mice were used to study the responses to mixtures of dichloroacetate (DCA), trichloroacetate (TCA), and carbon tetrachloride (CT). TCA produces liver tumors in mice with the phenotypic characteristics common to peroxisome proliferators. DCA increases the growth of liver tumors with a phenotype that is distinct in several respects from those produced by TCA. These chemicals are effective as carcinogens at doses that do not produce cytotoxicity. Thus, they encourage clonal expansion of initiated cells through subtle, selective mechanisms. CT is well known for its ability to promote the growth of liver tumors through cytotoxicity that produces a generalized growth stimulus in the liver that is reflected in a reparative hyperplasia. Thus, CT is relatively non-specific in its promotion of initiated cells within the liver. The objective of this study was to determine how the differing modes of action of these chemicals might interact when given as mixed exposures. The hypothesis was that the effects of two selective promoters would not be more than additive. On the other hand, CT would be selective only to cells not sensitive to its effects as a cytotoxin. Thus, it was hypothesized that neither DCA nor TCA would add significantly to the effects produced by CT. Mice were initiated by vinyl carbamate (VC), and then promoted by DCA, TCA, CT, or the pair-wised combinations of the three compounds. The effect of each treatment or treatment combination on tumor number per animal and mean tumor volume was assessed in each animal. Dose-related increases in mean tumor volume were observed with 20 and 50mg/kg CT, but each produced equal numbers of tumors at 36 weeks. As the dose of CT was increased to >/=100mg/kg substantial increases in the number of tumors per animal were observed, but the mean tumor size decreased. This finding suggests that initiation occurs as doses of CT increase to >/=100mg/kg, perhaps as a result of the inflammatory response that is known to occur with high doses of CT. When administered alone in the drinking water at 0.1, 0.5 and 2g/l, DCA increased both tumor number and tumor size in a dose-related manner. With TCA treatment at 2g/l in drinking water a maximum tumor number was reached by 24 weeks and was maintained until 36 weeks of treatment. DCA treatment did not produce a plateau in tumor number within the experimental period, but the numbers observed at the end of the experimental period were similar to TCA and doses of 50mg/kg CT. The tumor numbers observed at the end of the experiment are consistent with the assumption that the administered dose of the tumor initiator, vinyl carbamate, was the major determinant of tumor number and that treatments with CT, DCA, and TCA primarily affected tumor size. The results with mixtures of these compounds were consistent with the basic hypotheses that the responses to tumor promoters with differing mechanisms are limited to additivity at low effective doses. More complex, mutually inhibitory activity was more often observed between the three compounds. At 24 weeks, DCA produced a decrease in tumor numbers promoted by TCA, but the numbers were not different from TCA alone at 36 weeks. The reason for this result became apparent at 36 weeks of treatment where a dose-related decrease in the size of tumors promoted by TCA resulted from DCA co-administration. On the other hand, the low dose of TCA (0.1g/l) decreased the number of tumors produced by a high dose of DCA (2g/l), but higher doses of TCA (2g/l) produced the same number as observed with DCA alone. DCA inhibited the growth rate of CT-induced tumors (CT dose = 50mg/kg). TCA substantially increased the numbers of tumors observed at early time points when combined with CT, but this was not observed at 36 weeks. The lack of an effect at 36 weeks was attributable to the fact that more than 90% of the livers consisted of tumors and the earlier effect was masked by coalescence of tumors. Thus, the ability of TCA to significantly increase tumor numbers in CT-treated mice was probably real and contrary to our original hypothesis that CT was non-specific in its effects on initiated cells. It is probable that the interaction between CT and TCA is explained through stimulation of the growth of cells with differing phenotypes. These data suggest that the outcome of interactions between the mechanisms of tumor promotion vary based on the characteristics of the initiated cells. The interactions may result in additive or inhibitory effects, but no significant evidence of synergy was observed.

Changes in biomarkers from space radiation may reflect dose not risk.

This presentation evaluates differences between radiation biomarkers of dose and risk and demonstrates the consequential problems associated with using biomarkers to do risk calculations following radiation exposures to the complex radiation environment found in deep space. Dose is a physical quantity, while risk is a biological quantity. Dose does not predict risk. This manuscript discusses species sensitivity factors, tissue weighting factors, and radiation quality factors derived from relative biological effectiveness (RBE). These factors are used to modify dose to make it a better predictor of risk. At low doses, where it is not possible to measure changes in risk, biomarkers have been used incorrectly as an intermediate step in predicting risk. Examples of biomarkers that do not predict risk are reviewed. Species sensitivity factors were evaluated using the Syrian hamster and the Wistar rat. Although the frequency of chromosome damage is very similar in these two species, the Wistar rat is very sensitive to radiation-induced lung cancer while the Syrian hamster is very resistant. To illustrate problems involved in using tissue weighting factors, rat trachea and deep lung tissues were compared. The similar level of chromosome damage observed in these two tissues would predict that the risk for cancer induction would be the same. However, even though large numbers of deep lung tumors result from inhaled radon, under the same exposure conditions there has never been a tracheal tumor observed. Finally, the Relative Biological Effectiveness (RBE) used to generate "quality factors" that convert exposure and dose from different types of radiation to a single measure of risk, is discussed. Important risk comparisons are done at very low doses, where the response to the reference radiation has been shown to either increase or decrease as a function of dose. Thus, the RBE and the subsequent risk predicted is more dependent on the background response of the endpoint and the shape of the dose response to the reference radiation than it is on the radiation type of interest. A large study using micronuclei as biomarkers following exposure to different energies of mono-energetic neutrons, x-rays and gamma rays delivered at very low doses (0.0 to 0.10 Gy) is reported. As additional biomarkers of risk involved in critical steps in the carcinogenic process are developed, it may become possible to base risk estimates on biological change rather than the radiation energy deposition or dose.