07.01.2014 Views

LIFE01200604005 Shri Somnath Ghosh - Homi Bhabha National ...

LIFE01200604005 Shri Somnath Ghosh - Homi Bhabha National ...

LIFE01200604005 Shri Somnath Ghosh - Homi Bhabha National ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.08.006<br />

Int. J. Radiation Oncology Biol. Phys., Vol. 72, No. 5, pp. 1567–1574, 2008<br />

Copyright Ó 2008 Elsevier Inc.<br />

Printed in the USA. All rights reserved<br />

0360-3016/08/$–see front matter<br />

BIOLOGY CONTRIBUTION<br />

ROLE OF iNOS IN BYSTANDER SIGNALING BETWEEN MACROPHAGES AND<br />

LYMPHOMA CELLS<br />

SOMNATH GHOSH, M.SC.,* DHARMENDRA KUMAR MAURYA, PH.D.,* AND MALINI KRISHNA, PH.D.*<br />

*Radiation Biology and Health Science Division, <strong>Bhabha</strong> Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India<br />

Purpose: The present report describes the bystander effects of radiation between similar and dissimilar cells and<br />

the role of iNOS in such communication.<br />

Materials and Methods: EL-4 and RAW 264.7 cells were exposed to 5 Gy g-irradiation. The medium from irradiated<br />

cells was transferred to unirradiated cells.<br />

Results: Irradiated EL-4 cells as well as those cultured in the presence of medium from g-irradiated EL-4 cells<br />

showed an upregulation of NF-kB, iNOS, p53, and p21/waf1 genes. The directly irradiated and the bystander<br />

EL-4 cells showed an increase in DNA damage, apoptosis, and NO production. Bystander signaling was also found<br />

to exist between RAW 264.7 (macrophage) and EL-4 (lymphoma) cells. Unstimulated or irradiated RAW 264.7<br />

cells did not induce bystander effect in unirradiated EL-4 cells, but LPS stimulated and irradiated RAW 264.7 cells<br />

induced an upregulation of NF-kB and iNOS genes and increased the DNA damage in bystander EL-4 cells. Treatment<br />

of EL-4 or RAW 264.7 cells with L-NAME significantly reduced the induction of gene expression and DNA<br />

damage in the bystander EL-4 cells, whereas treatment with cPTIO only partially reduced the induction of gene<br />

expression and DNA damage in the bystander EL-4 cells.<br />

Conclusions: It was concluded that active iNOS in the irradiated cells was essential for bystander response.<br />

Ó 2008 Elsevier Inc.<br />

Radiation, Bystander signaling, Nuclear factor-kB, iNOS, p53 and p21.<br />

INTRODUCTION<br />

It is now apparent that the target for biologic effects of ionizing<br />

radiation is not solely the irradiated cell, but also the surrounding<br />

cells and tissues. Preliminary evidence indicates<br />

that similar signal transduction pathways are activated in directly<br />

irradiated cells and the bystander cells and contribute to<br />

the induction of bystander DNA damage (1). Many genes<br />

have been shown to be activated in bystander cells (2), but<br />

evidence for genes that are involved in the signaling pathways<br />

is lacking.<br />

Several factors involving soluble growth factors (3, 4), oxidative<br />

metabolites (5), and those that pass through gap junction<br />

(5–7) have been implicated. Among the various<br />

compounds that could transmit the signal from irradiated<br />

cells to bystander cells, nitric oxide (NO), by virtue of its diffusible<br />

nature and long life in vivo is a promising candidate<br />

(8–10). The accumulation of inducible nitric oxide synthase<br />

(iNOS) and the increased activity of constitutive NOS have<br />

been known to be an early signaling event induced by radiation.<br />

Gamma irradiation–induced DNA damage is known to<br />

enhance NO production in lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-stimulated<br />

macrophages (11). It is likely that stimulated and unstimulated<br />

macrophage behave differently where bystander<br />

response is concerned.<br />

Although abscopal effects have been deemed responsible<br />

for retarding the growth of a similar tumors located at a distant<br />

site in the mice (12), their contribution in transferring signals<br />

between dissimilar cells have not been extensively examined.<br />

To validate the presence of abscopal effects in vitro, we have<br />

used two dissimilar cell lines viz. EL-4 cells, a lymphoma cell<br />

line and RAW 264.7 cells, a macrophage cell line. Because<br />

there is extensive intercellular communications between dissimilar<br />

cells during immune responses, the leukocytes and<br />

lymphocytes were deemed suitable candidates to study<br />

bystander effects.<br />

The present report looks at the mechanism of bystander response<br />

in similar cells (EL-4 Vs EL-4 cells) and whether the<br />

state of activation of RAW 264.7 cells affects the bystander<br />

response in dissimilar cells (EL-4 Vs RAW 264.7).<br />

METHODS AND MATERIALS<br />

Cell culture, reagents, and irradiation schedule<br />

Mouse lymphoma cell line, EL-4 and mouse macrophage RAW<br />

264.7 cells were grown in RPMI 1640 (Sigma, St. Louis, Mo),<br />

Reprint requests to: Dr. Malini Krishna, Ph.D., <strong>Bhabha</strong> Atomic<br />

Research Centre, Radiation Biology and Health Science Division,<br />

Trombay, Mumbai, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400085, India. Tel:<br />

(+91) 22-25593868; Fax: (+91) 22-2550 5151; E-mail: malini@<br />

barc.gov.in<br />

1567<br />

Conflict of interest: none<br />

Received April 25, 2008, and in revised form July 30, 2008.<br />

Accepted for publication Aug 2, 2008.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!