This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kimler, B. F. Articles by Cheng, C. C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kimler, B. F. Articles by Cheng, C. C.

Comparison of the Effects of Dihydroxyanthraquinone and Adriamycin on the Survival of Cultured Chinese Hamster Cells

Radiation Biology Laboratory, Department of Radiation Therapy [B. F. K.], and Mid-American Cancer Center [C. C. C.], University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas 66103

Dihydroxyanthraquinone [1,4-dihydroxy-5,8-bis{{2-{[(2-hydroxyethyl)amino]ethyl}amino}}-9,10-anthracenedione (DHAQ) (NSC 279836)] is currently being tested as a cancer chemotherapeutic agent because of its structural similarity to Adriamycin (ADR) and other DNA-intercalating antibiotics. We have therefore studied the effect of DHAQ on the survival of cultured Chinese hamster cells in direct comparison to ADR. Both DHAQ and ADR produced cytotoxicity that was dependent upon the concentration and duration of drug exposure. For 1-hr pulse exposures of asynchronous populations of exponentially growing cells, a 5- to 10-fold greater concentration of ADR than of DHAQ was required to produce the same level of cell killing. There were also differences in the cell cycle age specificity demonstrated by treating at various times before or after selection of cells in mitosis. DHAQ produced the greatest cytotoxicity in cells treated while in G₁ or G₂; ADR was more effective on cells located in S phase or mitosis. Overall, DHAQ was found to be similar to ADR and other DNA-intercalating antibiotics with regard to the induction of cell lethality. The only differences were those of the concentration required to produce a certain level of effect and of the cell cycle phase specificities for maximum effect.

¹ To whom requests for reprints should be addressed.

Received 1/26/82. Accepted 6/15/82.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. Ubezio, M. Lupi, D. Branduardi, P. Cappella, E. Cavallini, V. Colombo, G. Matera, C. Natoli, D. Tomasoni, and M. D'Incalci Quantitative Assessment of the Complex Dynamics of G1, S, and G2-M Checkpoint Activities Cancer Res., June 15, 2009; 69(12): 5234 - 5240. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]