Effect of camptothecin on mitogenic stimulation of human lymphocytes: Involvement of DNA topoisomerase I in cell transition from G0 to G1 phase of the cell cycle and in DNA replication
- 1 June 1992
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Journal of Cellular Physiology
- Vol. 151 (3) , 478-486
- https://doi.org/10.1002/jcp.1041510306
Abstract
The possible involvement of DNA topoisomerase I in cell transition from G0 to G1 and in progression through the cell cycle was studied by estimating the ability of human peripheral blood lymphocytes to undergo mitogenic stimulation in the presence of the topoisomerase I inhibitor camptothecin (CAM). Exposure of quiescent G0 lymphocytes to up to 3 μM CAM for 24 h had no significant effect on their ability to subsequently undergo mitogenic stimulation in the presence of phytohemagglutinin (PHA); higher doses of CAM, although not immediately cytotoxic, impaired the mitogenic response. Stimulation of lymphocytes with PHA in the presence of ≤ 1.5 μM CAM resulted in unperturbed transition of these cells from G0 to G1 characterized as an increase in cellular rRNA content, appearance of interleukin‐2 receptor, and, after removal of CAM, response to interleukin‐2 by entering S phase of the cell cycle. However, lymphocytes were prevented from entering S phase in the presence of CAM at a concentration of ≥30 nM, and their rate of progression through S was minimal even at CAM concentration as low as 3 nM. When cycling lymphocytes (48 h after stimulation by PHA) were treated with CAM, the cell progression through S and G2 was also very sensitive to the inhibitor: the cells were “frozen” in S and G2 at ≥ 6 nM CAM. These cells died within 24 h; their selective loss from the cultures (with only G0/G1 cells remaining) coincided with the appearance of cells with fractional DNA content, typical of apoptotic cells. Human lymphocytic leukemic MOLT‐4 cells were arrested in S and G2 at ≥ 7.5 nM CAM. Thus, progressions through S and G2 of both normal and leukemic lymphocytes were perturbed at approximately two orders of magnitude lower CAM concentration than the G0 to G1 transition. These data suggest that DNA replication and chromosomal events during G2 are more sensitive to inhibition of DNA topoisomerase I, compared with the early events of lymphocyte stimulation, which involve activation and transcription of numerous genes associated with the G0 to G1 transition. The antitumor properties of CAM may be related to its high cytostatic/cytotoxic activity toward cycling cells and relative resistance of cells in G0 or undergoing transition from G0 to G1.Keywords
This publication has 30 references indexed in Scilit:
- Changes in cell nuclei during S Phase: Progressive chromatin condensation and altered expression of the proliferation-associated nuclear proteins Ki-67, cyclin (PCNA), p105, and p34*1Experimental Cell Research, 1991
- The concentration-dependent diversity of effects of DNA topoisomerase I and II inhibitors on the cell cycle of HL-60 cells*1Experimental Cell Research, 1991
- Tumor progression by dna flow cytometry in human colorectal cancerInternational Journal of Cancer, 1990
- Expression of c-myc proto-oncogene in normal human lymphocytes. Regulation by transcriptional and posttranscriptional mechanisms.Journal of Clinical Investigation, 1987
- Sequential expression of genes involved in human T lymphocyte growth and differentiation.The Journal of Experimental Medicine, 1985
- DNA topoisomerase I and II activities during cell proliferation and the cell cycle in cultured mouse embryo fibroblast (C3H 10T1/2) cellsExperimental Cell Research, 1985
- The G0 ⇆ G1 transitions of human lymphocytes as monitored by quantitative14C-uridine autoradiography and high-resolution image analysisCytometry, 1985
- DNA topoisomerase activities in concanavalin A‐stimulated lymphocytesFEBS Letters, 1984
- Correlation between cell cycle duration and RNA contentJournal of Cellular Physiology, 1979
- Sequential changes in ribosomal activity during the activation and cessation of growth in lymphocytes stimulated with concanavalin AJournal of Cellular Physiology, 1978