| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Experimental Therapeutics, Molecular Targets, and Chemical Biology |
1 Gray Cancer Institute, Mount Vernon Hospital, Northwood, United Kingdom and 2 Centre for Cancer Research and Cell Biology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom
Requests for reprints: Kevin M. Prise, Centre of Cancer Research and Cell Biology, Queen's University Belfast, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast BT9 7BL, United Kingdom. Phone: 44-28-9026-3911; Fax: 44-28-9026-4733; E-mail: k.prise{at}qub.ac.uk.
The accepted paradigm for radiation effects is that direct DNA damage via energy deposition is required to trigger the downstream biological consequences. The radiation-induced bystander effect is the ability of directly irradiated cells to interact with their nonirradiated neighbors, which can then show responses similar to those of the targeted cells. p53 binding protein 1 (53BP1) forms foci at DNA double-strand break sites and is an important sensor of DNA damage. This study used an ionizing radiation microbeam approach that allowed us to irradiate specifically the nucleus or cytoplasm of a cell and quantify response in irradiated and bystander cells by studying ionizing radiation-induced foci (IRIF) formation of 53BP1 protein. Our results show that targeting only the cytoplasm of a cell is capable of eliciting 53BP1 foci in both hit and bystander cells, independently of the dose or the number of cells targeted. Therefore, direct DNA damage is not required to trigger 53BP1 IRIF. The use of common reactive oxygen species and reactive nitrogen species (RNS) inhibitors prevent the formation of 53BP1 foci in hit and bystander cells. Treatment with filipin to disrupt membrane-dependent signaling does not prevent the cytoplasmic irradiation-induced 53BP1 foci in the irradiated cells, but it does prevent signaling to bystander cells. Active mitochondrial function is required for these responses because pseudo-
0 cells, which lack mitochondrial DNA, could not produce a bystander signal, although they could respond to a signal from normal
+ cells. [Cancer Res 2007;67(12):58729]
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
J. S. Dickey, B. J. Baird, C. E. Redon, M. V. Sokolov, O. A. Sedelnikova, and W. M. Bonner Intercellular communication of cellular stress monitored by {gamma}-H2AX induction Carcinogenesis, October 1, 2009; 30(10): 1686 - 1695. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Burdak-Rothkamm, K. Rothkamm, and K. M. Prise ATM Acts Downstream of ATR in the DNA Damage Response Signaling of Bystander Cells Cancer Res., September 1, 2008; 68(17): 7059 - 7065. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| 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 |