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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Frandsen, Stine Krog, McNeil, Anna K., Novak, Ivana, McNeil, Paul L., Gehl, Julie
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