Cargando…
Difference in Membrane Repair Capacity Between Cancer Cell Lines and a Normal Cell Line
Electroporation-based treatments and other therapies that permeabilize the plasma membrane have been shown to be more devastating to malignant cells than to normal cells. In this study, we asked if a difference in repair capacity could explain this observed difference in sensitivity. Membrane repair...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer US
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4942495/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27312328 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00232-016-9910-5 |
_version_ | 1782442419414892544 |
---|---|
author | Frandsen, Stine Krog McNeil, Anna K. Novak, Ivana McNeil, Paul L. Gehl, Julie |
author_facet | Frandsen, Stine Krog McNeil, Anna K. Novak, Ivana McNeil, Paul L. Gehl, Julie |
author_sort | Frandsen, Stine Krog |
collection | PubMed |
description | Electroporation-based treatments and other therapies that permeabilize the plasma membrane have been shown to be more devastating to malignant cells than to normal cells. In this study, we asked if a difference in repair capacity could explain this observed difference in sensitivity. Membrane repair was investigated by disrupting the plasma membrane using laser followed by monitoring fluorescent dye entry over time in seven cancer cell lines, an immortalized cell line, and a normal primary cell line. The kinetics of repair in living cells can be directly recorded using this technique, providing a sensitive index of repair capacity. The normal primary cell line of all tested cell lines exhibited the slowest rate of dye entry after laser disruption and lowest level of dye uptake. Significantly, more rapid dye uptake and a higher total level of dye uptake occurred in six of the seven tested cancer cell lines (p < 0.05) as well as the immortalized cell line (p < 0.001). This difference in sensitivity was also observed when a viability assay was performed one day after plasma membrane permeabilization by electroporation. Viability in the primary normal cell line (98 % viable cells) was higher than in the three tested cancer cell lines (81–88 % viable cells). These data suggest more effective membrane repair in normal, primary cells and supplement previous explanations why electroporation-based therapies and other therapies permeabilizing the plasma membrane are more effective on malignant cells compared to normal cells in cancer treatment. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4942495 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Springer US |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-49424952016-07-26 Difference in Membrane Repair Capacity Between Cancer Cell Lines and a Normal Cell Line Frandsen, Stine Krog McNeil, Anna K. Novak, Ivana McNeil, Paul L. Gehl, Julie J Membr Biol Article Electroporation-based treatments and other therapies that permeabilize the plasma membrane have been shown to be more devastating to malignant cells than to normal cells. In this study, we asked if a difference in repair capacity could explain this observed difference in sensitivity. Membrane repair was investigated by disrupting the plasma membrane using laser followed by monitoring fluorescent dye entry over time in seven cancer cell lines, an immortalized cell line, and a normal primary cell line. The kinetics of repair in living cells can be directly recorded using this technique, providing a sensitive index of repair capacity. The normal primary cell line of all tested cell lines exhibited the slowest rate of dye entry after laser disruption and lowest level of dye uptake. Significantly, more rapid dye uptake and a higher total level of dye uptake occurred in six of the seven tested cancer cell lines (p < 0.05) as well as the immortalized cell line (p < 0.001). This difference in sensitivity was also observed when a viability assay was performed one day after plasma membrane permeabilization by electroporation. Viability in the primary normal cell line (98 % viable cells) was higher than in the three tested cancer cell lines (81–88 % viable cells). These data suggest more effective membrane repair in normal, primary cells and supplement previous explanations why electroporation-based therapies and other therapies permeabilizing the plasma membrane are more effective on malignant cells compared to normal cells in cancer treatment. Springer US 2016-06-16 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC4942495/ /pubmed/27312328 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00232-016-9910-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Article Frandsen, Stine Krog McNeil, Anna K. Novak, Ivana McNeil, Paul L. Gehl, Julie Difference in Membrane Repair Capacity Between Cancer Cell Lines and a Normal Cell Line |
title | Difference in Membrane Repair Capacity Between Cancer Cell Lines and a Normal Cell Line |
title_full | Difference in Membrane Repair Capacity Between Cancer Cell Lines and a Normal Cell Line |
title_fullStr | Difference in Membrane Repair Capacity Between Cancer Cell Lines and a Normal Cell Line |
title_full_unstemmed | Difference in Membrane Repair Capacity Between Cancer Cell Lines and a Normal Cell Line |
title_short | Difference in Membrane Repair Capacity Between Cancer Cell Lines and a Normal Cell Line |
title_sort | difference in membrane repair capacity between cancer cell lines and a normal cell line |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4942495/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27312328 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00232-016-9910-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT frandsenstinekrog differenceinmembranerepaircapacitybetweencancercelllinesandanormalcellline AT mcneilannak differenceinmembranerepaircapacitybetweencancercelllinesandanormalcellline AT novakivana differenceinmembranerepaircapacitybetweencancercelllinesandanormalcellline AT mcneilpaull differenceinmembranerepaircapacitybetweencancercelllinesandanormalcellline AT gehljulie differenceinmembranerepaircapacitybetweencancercelllinesandanormalcellline |