Cancer Research Meeting Calendar  Protein Translation and Cancer
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online

[Cancer Research 33, 1253-1257, June 1, 1973]
© 1973 American Association for Cancer Research

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Goldenberg, G. J.
Right arrow Articles by Sinha, B. K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Goldenberg, G. J.
Right arrow Articles by Sinha, B. K.

Protection of L5178Y Lymphoblasts by Choline and Ethanolamine against Cytocidal Effect of Nitrogen Mustard in Vitro1

Gerald J. Goldenberg2 and B. K. Sinha

Departments of Medicine [G. J. G.] and Surgery [B. K. S.], University of Manitoba and The Manitoba Institute of Cell Biology, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3E OV9, Canada

Structural analogs of nitrogen mustard including choline and ethanolamine, previously shown to act as competitive inhibitors of nitrogen mustard (HN2) transport, have been examined for their ability to protect L5178Y lymphoblasts against the cytocidal action of HN2 in vitro. The Do (the dose of drug reducing survival to 37% of the initial cell population) for cells treated with HN2 was increased 6.5-fold in the presence of 1 mM choline and 12.7-fold in the presence of 1 mM ethanolamine, and each of these observations was highly significant (p < 0.001). Protection against HN2 was also observed with hydrolyzed HN2 and the hydrolyzed monofunctional compound, hydrolyzed dimethyl 2-chloroethylamine. The time interval between HN2 treatment and addition of protective agent was critical in that one-half the protective effect was lost if the agent was added 30 min after the drug and little protection remained at 2 hr. Exposure of cells to choline prior to HN2 treatment was no more effective than administration of choline simultaneously with drug therapy. No protection was noted in cells preloaded with choline for 20 hr and then washed immediately before HN2 treatment. These findings suggested that the mechanism of protection probably depends upon direct competition between protective agent and drug for transport into the cell. Attempts to protect mice against lethal doses of HN2 and rats from the myelosuppressive effects of drug were unsuccessful.

1 This work was supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute of Canada.

2 Clinical Research Associate of the National Cancer Institute of Canada.

Received 12/19/72. Accepted 3/14/73.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online
Copyright © 1973 by the American Association for Cancer Research.