il\VOLVEMENT OF RETII\OIC ACID II{ - MSpace at the University of ...
il\VOLVEMENT OF RETII\OIC ACID II{ - MSpace at the University of ...
il\VOLVEMENT OF RETII\OIC ACID II{ - MSpace at the University of ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
did not cause in any significant change in <strong>the</strong> total RAR receptor levels when compared<br />
to control, however <strong>the</strong>se values were found to be 25o/o increased when compared to<br />
ADR goup cells @ig. 16). The total RXR receptor levels were increased by I2Io/o when<br />
compared with <strong>the</strong> ADR group (FiS. 17). These changes in <strong>the</strong> total RAR and RXR<br />
receptor levels led to a signiflrcant increase (126%) in <strong>the</strong> RAR/RXR r<strong>at</strong>io (Fig. 18). The<br />
administr<strong>at</strong>ion <strong>of</strong> 0.1 UM retinoic acid to adriamycin-tre<strong>at</strong>ed cells resulted in a 60Yo<br />
decrease in <strong>the</strong> tot<strong>at</strong> RAR receptor levels when compared to CONT (Fig. 16), but it did<br />
not cause any changes in <strong>the</strong> total RXR receptor levels when compared to CONT (Fig.<br />
17). These changes were reflected in <strong>the</strong> RAR/R)R r<strong>at</strong>io which was decreased to about<br />
75Yo when compared to <strong>the</strong> ADR group (Fig.l8). Retinoic acid (l pM) administr<strong>at</strong>ion<br />
caused 50 o/o increase in <strong>the</strong> total RAR receptor levels when compared to control but <strong>the</strong><br />
change was not st<strong>at</strong>istically signifrcant (Fig. 16). The same tre<strong>at</strong>ment resulted in<strong>the</strong> 97o/o<br />
increase in <strong>the</strong> tot<strong>at</strong> RXR receptor levels (Fig. 17). The changes in combined RAR and<br />
RXR receptor levels resulted in <strong>the</strong> 42 % decrease in <strong>the</strong> RARIRXR receptor r<strong>at</strong>io when<br />
compared to <strong>the</strong> control (Fig. 18).<br />
96