Research Article
Open Access
Assessment of molecular DNA damage by
comet assay in HeLa cells exposed to rohituka,
Aphanamixis polystachya (wall.) R.N. Parker
Ganesh Chandra Jagetia1* and V. A. Venkatesha2
1*10 Maharana Pratap Colony1, Sector-13, Hiran Magri,Udaipur-313002, India.
2Jubilant Biosys, Bangalore - 560 022, India.
*Corresponding author: Ganesh Chandra Jagetia, 10 Maharana Pratap Colony, Sector-13, Hiran Magri, Udaipur-313002, India. E-mail:
@
Received: July 21, 2018; Accepted: August 20 , 2018; Published: August 24, 2018
Citation: Ganesh Chandra J, Venkatesha VA (2018) Assessment of molecular DNA damage by comet assay in HeLa cells exposed to rohituka, Aphanamixis polystachya (wall.) R.N. Parker J of Biosens Biomark Diagn 3(1): 1-11. DOI:
10.15226/2575-6303/3/1/00121
Abstract
The stem bark extract of rohituka, Aphanamixis polystachya Wall.
Parker (family Meliaceae) used traditionally to treat spleen and liver
tumors was evaluated for its DNA damaging ability in the HeLa cells.
The cells were treated with various concentrations of chloroform
fraction of the stem bark of rohituka (APE) for 2, 4, 6 or 8 h to find
out the optimum exposure time. HeLa cells embedded in agarose
were microelectrophoresed in alkaline conditions to visualize the
DNA damage as comets and expressed as Olive Tail Moment (OTM).
Incubation of HeLa cells with APE for 6 or 8 h increased the OTM
when compared with 2 or 4 h treatment and no significant difference
was observed between 6 or 8 h treatment duration as a result, 6 h
was considered as an optimum treatment time. The DNA repair
kinetics were studied at different post-treatment times in HeLa cells
exposed to 5, 10, 25, 50, 75 or 100 μg/ml APE. APE treatment caused
a significant rise in the DNA damage as indicated by increased OTM
when compared with the dimethyl sulfoxide treatment (p< 0.01).
An approximate 7, 12, 18, 25, 34, 40-folds increase in baseline DNA
damage was recorded in HeLa cells treated with 5, 10, 25, 50, 75 or
100 μg/ml APE in comparison with dimethyl sulfoxide treatment.
When the APE treated cells were allowed to repair for various posttreatment
times, a concentration-dependent inhibition in repair of
DNA damage was observed. The repair of DNA damage was inversely
related to APE concentration. A mild but non-significant repair of the
damaged DNA was observed up to 2 h post-APE treatment, which
remained unaltered thereafter. Exposure of HeLa cells to different
concentrations of APE resulted in a concentration-dependent decline
in the growth kinetics up to day 5 and 6, respectively followed by a
reduction in the clonogenic potential of HeLa cells in a concentration
dependent manner. Our study demonstrates that rohituka triggers
DNA damage in HeLa cells at molecular level that may be the major
cause of reduced clonogenicity and growth kinetics.
Keywords: Aphanamixis polystachya; HeLa cells; Comet assay;
DNA damage; Growth kinetics;
Introduction
Use of plants and natural products for human healthcare
originated when the humans faced with some ailments since the
advent of human history. This has evolved into the sophisticated
traditional medicine systems in Southeast Asia, China and Japan
that have originated thousands of years ago in these regions.
The Ayurveda, the healthcare system of India has its origin in
Vedic times and it is at least five thousand years old [1]. The
humans from different parts of the globe have positive attitude
towards medicinal use of plants and natural products as they
are time tested, their use is very old and do not possess known
adverse side effects. The medicinal plants have been tested for
their curing capacity for generations on humans, which also
repose faith in their use for human healthcare [2]. This is the
reason that an estimate by world health organization shows that
approximately 80% of the global population use plant based
traditional medicinal systems for healthcare in the era of modern
medicine [3].
The plants have a very long history of use to cure cancer,
when the cancer was not defined as it is in the modern context.
However, many, if not all of such claims for their efficacy for cancer
treatment should be viewed with skepticism because cancer, as
a specific disease entity, is poorly defined in terms of folklore
and traditional medicine. Cancer has been defined by these
systems as a hard swelling, tumors, corns, calluses, abscesses,
warts, polyps etc., which all may not be cancerous [4]. Despite
this, several modern chemotherapeutic agents including, vinca
alkaloids, vinblastine and vincristine have been isolated from
the Madagascan periwinkle, Catharanthus roseus before their
chemical synthesis actually begun. Similarly, other molecules
like camptothecins, epipodophyllotoxins, taxols etc. have been
isolated from plants [5]. Extracts from plants like Tinospora
cordifolia, Alstonia scholaris, Colocasia ginentia, Helicia niligirica
and Schima wallichii have been reported to show a marked tumor
inhibitory activity in vitro against HeLa cells [6-11]. Therefore,
plants still form the source of new drugs for the cancer treatment
and continue to attract the attention of the investigators for the
development of new molecules for cancer treatment.
Aphanamixis polystachya Wall. Parker also known as Amoora
rohituka (Roxb.) Wight & Arn. (family: Meliaceae) or rohituka
grows throughout India in evergreen forests. Stem bark and
seeds of rohituka have been reported to cure splenomegaly, liver
disorders, and tumors [12]. Its stem bark has been reported to
treat liver and spleen tumors [13&14]. The alcoholic extract of
stem bark of rohituka has been reported to exhibit anticancer
activity against Friend’s leukemia and Ehrlich ascites carcinoma in
mice and increase the effect of radiation [15-17]. Our recent study
has indicated that chloroform extract of rohituka had cytotoxic
effect on HeLa cells and increased micronuclei in a concentration
dependent manner [18]. Its chloroform extract increased the cell
killing effect of radiation in cultured HeLa cells recently [19].
Earlier, ethyl acetate fraction of rohituka showed radio protective
action against the radiation-induced chromosome damage [20].
The amoorastatin and 12-hydroxyamoorastatin alkaloids isolated
from the stem bark extract of rohituka have been shown cytotoxic
and growth inhibitory activities in murine P388 lymphocytic
leukaemia cells [21]. Rohituka contains limonoids and these
phytochemicals have shown cytotoxic action against various
human cancer cell lines [22-24].
Cytotoxic effect of most chemotherapeutic drugs is due to their
ability to damage DNA and kill the neoplastic cells. This indicates
that it is prudent to evaluate DNA damage at molecular level in
neoplastic and normal cells against chemotherapy to determine
their effectiveness [25]. Comet assay is one such technique, which
is able to estimate the amount of DNA damage (both single and
double strand breaks and conformational changes) in individual
cells treated with chemical or physical agents that damage
DNA after removing most of the non-DNA material in a weak
electric field to the remaining DNA embedded in an agarose gel
[26]. The cells are lysed and treated in situ with alkali to render
the DNA single-stranded prior to applying the electric field to
the gel, which allows the genomic DNA to migrate out of the
nucleus into the agarose, which can be visualized by staining
with the intercalating fluorescent dye ethidium bromide under
a fluorescent microscope. The combination of the DNA that has
stayed within the confines of the nucleus is called head and DNA
that migrates out of the nucleus as “tail” of DNA of the individual
cells and look like ‘celestial comets’ [27]. Quantitative microscopic
evaluation is done by measuring the length and intensity of the
comets in relation to the signal of the non-migrating nuclear
DNA in comparison with standards [28]. Our earlier study has
shown that chloroform extract of rohituka induced damage to the
genome of HeLa cells in the form of micronuclei [26]. However,
the induction of DNA damage by the chloroform extract of
rohituka at molecular level has not been studied. Therefore, the
present study was undertaken to investigate the effect of various
concentrations of APE on cell proliferation, DNA damage and cell
survival in cultured HeLa cells.
Materials and Methods
Chemicals
Low melting agarose (LMA, CAS No. A-4718, Lot
111K1532), Eagle’s minimum essential medium (MEM), agarose,
dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), fetal calf serum, L-glutamine,
Ethylenediaminetetraacetic Acid (EDTA), Trichloroacetic Acid
(TCA) and ethidium bromide were procured from Sigma Chemical
Co. (St. Louis, MO, USA), whereas all other chemicals were
requisitioned from Ranbaxy Fine Chemicals, Mumbai, India.
Doxorubicin (DOX) was a kind gift from, Dabur Pharmaceuticals,
Oncology Division, New Delhi, India.
Preparation of Extract
Aphanamixis polystachya (Wall) R. N. Parker (family-Meliaceae),
Rohituka also known as Aglaia polystachya, Amoora rohituka and
Andersonia rohituka was identified and authenticated by Dr. G. K.
Bhat (a well-known taxonomist), Department of Botany, Poorna
Pragna College, Udupi, India and the herbarium specimen (RBAP01)
has been stored with us. The matured and non-infected
stem bark of rohituka was carefully peeled off, washed with clean
water, chopped, shade-dried, and coarsely powdered in a ball
mill. The powdered bark was extracted sequentially in petroleum
ether and chloroform in a Soxhlet apparatus until the solvents
became clear. The chloroform extract (APE) was collected and
allowed to evaporate at room temperature and the viscous extract
was subjected to freeze-drying so as to obtain a fine powder of
the extract.
Dissolution of APE
APE was weighed and freshly dissolved in DMSO immediately
before use at a concentration of 25 mg/ml and diluted with MEM
as required.
Cell line and Culture
HeLa S3 (human cervical carcinoma) cells, having a doubling
time of 20 ± 2 h, procured from National Centre for Cell Science,
Pune, India were used throughout the study. The cells were
routinely grown in 25 cm2 culture flasks (Techno Plastic Products,
Trasadingën, Switzerland) containing Eagle’s minimum essential
medium (MEM) supplemented with 10% fetal calf serum, 1%
L-glutamine and 50 μg/ml gentamicin sulfate at 37°C in an
atmosphere of 5% CO2 in humidified air in a CO2 incubator (NuAir,
Plymouth, USA) with their caps loosened.
Experimental Design
A fixed number (5 x 105) of exponentially growing HeLa cells
were inoculated into several culture flasks and were allowed to
grow for 2 days. The cells from the above cultures were divided
into the following groups according to the treatment: -
DMSO treatment: The cells of this group were treated with 2 μl/
ml of sterile DMSO.
APE treatment: This group of cells was exposed to 5, 10, 25, 50,
75 or 100 μg/ml of APE.
DOX treatment: The cultures of this group were treated with 10
μg/ml of doxorubicin and served as a positive control.
Optimum Treatment Duration
A separate experiment was conducted to evaluate the effect
of APE treatment duration on the DNA damage, where HeLa cells
were divided into all the groups listed above and the cells were
exposed to APE for 2, 4, 6 or 8 h. The results of this experiment
showed that 6h APE treatment induced maximum DNA damage
in HeLa cells as evidenced by a highest OTM. Therefore, 6 h
was considered as an optimum APE treatment time and further
studies were carried out using this treatment time.
DNA Repair Kinetics
A separate experiment was carried out to assess the APEinduced
alteration in the DNA damage with assay time, where the
grouping and design of experiment was essentially similar to that
described above except that HeLa cells were treated with 5, 10,
25, 50, 75 or 100 μg/ml APE for 6 h (optimum duration). After the
elapse of 6 h, the cells were washed twice with PBS and harvested.
Thereafter, cells were embedded in Low Melting Agarose (LMA)
and layered on to precoated agarose slides and incubated in MEM
for 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 12, 16, 18 or 24 h post APE-treatment to
study the APE-induced alteration in DNA repair.
Alkaline Comet Assay
The technique described by Singh et al., for alkaline comet
assay was followed with minor modification as described earlier
[28&29-32]. Briefly, frosted Axiva slides (Axiva Sichem Pvt. Ltd.,
New Delhi, India, Cat. No. 450100F) were covered with 100
μl of 0.6% LMA prepared in Ca- and Mg-free PBS at 37°C and
the agarose was allowed to congeal under a cover slip on ice.
Thereafter, the cover slips were removed and 1 x 105 cells treated
with APE or MEM in 1 ml MEM were centrifuged at 1500 rpm
for 5 min. The pelleted cells were resuspended in 80 μl of 0.6%
LMA, mixed gently, layered onto the precoated agarose slides and
allowed to solidify on ice. All the steps described were conducted
under dim light to prevent additional DNA damage.
The agarose slides embedded with cells, were kept in cold
lysis buffer consisting of 2.5 M NaCl, 100 mM Na2EDTA, 10 mM
Trizma base, pH 10.0 and 1% Triton X-100 (added a fresh) to
solubilize cellular proteins leaving DNA as nucleoids, at 4°C for
2 h. After cell lysis, lysis buffer was drained off from the slides
that were placed into a horizontal gel electrophoresis tank filled
with fresh electrophoresis buffer containing 300 mM NaOH,
1 mM Na2EDTA (pH 13.0) up to a level of ~0.25 cm above the
slides. The slides were kept in the buffer for 20 min to allow DNA
unwinding. Electrophoresis was carried out for 20 min at 25 V
and 300 mA in the cold condition. The slides were removed from
the electrophoresis tank drained and flooded slowly with three
changes of neutralization buffer (0.4 M Trizma base, pH7.5) for 5
min each. The slides were stained with 50 μl of ethidium bromide
(2 mg/ml) and covered with a coverslip for immediate analysis.
Ethidium bromide stained DNA on each slide was visualized as
“comets” with a fluorescent head and a tail at 40 X magnification
using epifluorescence microscope. Olympus BX51, Olympus
Microscopes, Tokyo, Japan equipped with a 515-535 nm excitation
filter, a 590 nm barrier filter, and a CCD camera (CoolSNAP-Procf
Digital Color Camera Kit Ver 4.1, Media Cybergenetics, Silver
Spring, Maryland, USA) was used to capture the comet images.
One hundred comets per slide and a minimum of 400 comets
per drug concentration per assay time were analysed to give a
representative result of the cell population [26&33]. The comets
thus captured were analysed using Komet Software (Version 5.5,
Kinetic Imaging Ltd, Bromborough, UK). The mean Olive Tail
Moment (OTM) was selected as the parameter that best reflects
DNA damage (defined as the distance between the profile centres
of gravity for DNA in the head and tail). OTM (Olive Tail Moment=
(Tail.mean - Head.mean) X Tail%DNA/100) was measured from
three independent experiments, each containing quintuplicate
measures and presented as mean ± SEM.
Growth Kinetics
A separate experiment was carried out to assess the effect
of APE on growth kinetics. Six hours after different treatments,
the drug-containing medium was removed and the cells were
dislodged from the culture flasks by trypsin-EDTA treatment. The
growth kinetic assay was performed as described earlier [35].
Usually, 1 x 104 cells were inoculated into 25 cm2 petridishes in
triplicate for each drug concentration. The cells were allowed to
grow for 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 days. The cells from each culture dish were
detached at the end of 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 days, stained with trypan blue
and viable cells were scored under an inverted microscope (Ernst
Leitz, Wetzlar GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany) using a hemocytometer
(American Optical Company, USA).
Clonogenic assay
The reproductive integrity of HeLa cells after treatment with
different concentrations of APE was determined as described
earlier by setting a separate experiment [34]. Generally, 200-300
log phase cells were plated on to several individual culture dishes
(Cellstar, Greiner, Germany) containing 5 ml drug free MEM in
triplicate for each drug concentration for each group. The cells
were incubated for 24 h and the cells of APE group were exposed
to 5, 10, 25, 50, 75 or 100μg/ml APE for 6h as indicated in the
earlier section, thereafter APE containing media was removed,
the cultures were washed with Phosphate Buffered Saline (PBS)
and fed with APE free medium. The cells were transferred
back into CO2 incubator and allowed to grow for next 11 days.
Thereafter, the cultures were stained with 1 % crystal violet
dissolved in absolute methanol. The cells colonies were scored
under a stereozoom microscope (Wild M3, Wild Heerbrugg Ltd.,
Heerbrugg, Switzerland). The clones containing 50 or more cells
were scored as a colony. The plating efficiency was determined
and Surviving Fraction (SF) calculated. The data were fitted on to
linear quadratic equation:
Statistical Analysis
The statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad
Prism version 2.01 statistical software (GraphPad Software,
San Diego, CA, USA). The comet results were analysed using the
regression analysis (Systat Software, Systat, Evanston, IL, USA),
where the various concentrations of APE and OTM were plotted
on to X and Y axes, respectively. The statistical significance of
various groups in other studies was obtained with one-way
ANOVA with application of Tukey’s post-hoc test. A p value
of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All data are
expressed as mean±standard error of the mean (SEM).
Results
The results of DNA damage as OTM, growth kinetics, and cell
survival are expressed as mean ± SEM in Tables 1-3 and Figure
1-5.
Assessment of DNA Damage
Optimum treatment duration
Olive tail moment (OTM, the product of tail length and DNA
content in the tail) is recommended and commonly applied
in such analyses as the most complex and reliable parameter
to describe the degree of DNA damage on a per cell basis [27].
OTM from the mean of 100 comets randomly screened under
a microscope for each culture has been presented in tables
(1-2). Treatment of HeLa cells with DMSO did not alter the
baseline DNA damage significantly at various post-treatment
times (Table 1). Treatment of HeLa cells with 0, 5, 10, 25, 50,
75 and 100μg/ml APE increased DNA damage significantly
(p < 0.0001) and in a concentration dependent manner at all
treatment times (Figure 1). The greatest DNA damage was
observed for 100 μg/ml APE, whereas the lowest DNA damage
was induced by 5 μg/ml APE. Similarly, DNA damage increased
with increase in APE treatment duration and a maximum OTM
was observed for 8 h APE treatment for all concentrations (Figure
1). APE treatment resulted in a greater than 10 folds rise in DNA
damage in HeLa cells treated with 25 μg/ml APE (9.16 ± 0.075),
which was significantly (p< 0.005) higher when compared with
concurrent DMSO treatment (Table 1). A further increase in APE
concentration resulted in an increased DNA damage and the
highest damage was observed for 100 μg/ml APE (63.72 ± 0.077)
for 6 h APE treatment duration. Incubation of HeLa cells with APE
for 6 h increased the DNA damage further when compared with
2 or 4 h (Figure 1). Since a greater DNA damage was observed
for 6 h treatment, further studies were conducted using this APE
treatment duration (Table 1). A similar trend was registered for
10 μg/ml doxorubicin, which also showed the maximum DNA
damage at 6h treatment duration (Table 1). The amount of DNA
damage caused by 10 μg/ml doxorubicin was almost equal to
75μg/ml APE (Figure 1).
Table 1: Effect of treatment time on the DNA damage in HeLa cells exposed to different concentration of chloroform stem bark extract of Aphanamixis polystachya or doxorubicin
Post-treatment time (h) |
|
Olive Tail Moment (mean±SEM) |
MEM |
Doxorubicin
(10 µg/ml) |
5 |
10 |
25 |
50 |
75 |
100 |
0 |
0.76±0.035 |
0.76±0.032 |
0.75±0.038 |
0.77±0.034 |
0.77±0.030 |
0.75±0.042 |
0.74±0.033 |
0.77±0.034 |
2 |
0.75±0.057 |
12.84±0.064c |
2.18±0.026a |
4.53±0.050b |
7.16±0.075c |
9.38±0.067c |
12.44±0.084c |
15.73±0.089c |
4 |
0.78±0.038 |
17.55±0.072c |
3.58±0.051a |
6.82±0.063b |
9.64±0.054c |
13.39±0.065c |
16.77±0.075c |
19.86±0.080c |
6 |
0.82±0.071 |
24.75±0.066c |
5.68±0.058b |
9.92±0.062c |
14.44±0.065c |
19.47±0.070c |
25.30±0.069c |
30.72±0.077c |
8 |
0.81±0.057 |
25.68±0.074c |
5.77±0.062b |
10.11±0.070c |
15.00±0.086c |
19.82±0.079c |
25.92±0.093c |
31.36±0.085c |
p < a = 0.05, b = 0.01, c = 0.005 (when compared with the concurrent DMSO group); no symbols = not-significant
Figure 1:Effect of treatment duration of various concentrations of chloroform
stem bark extract of Aphanamixis polystachya (APE) or doxorubicin
(DOX) on the induction of molecular DNA damage in HeLa cells.
Closed squares: DMSO; Open squares: DOX; Closed circles: 5μg/ml APE;
Open circles: 10μg/ml APE; Closed triangles: 25μg/ml APE; Open triangles:
50μg/ml APE; Closed diamonds: 75μg/ml APE and Open diamonds:
100μg/ml APE.
DNA Damage Repair Kinetics
Estimation of DNA damage in HeLa cells exposed to 0, 5, 10,
25, 50, 75 and 100 μg/ml showed a concentration-dependent but
significant elevation in the DNA damage at various post-treatment
assay times (Table 2; Figure 2). The greatest acceleration in
DNA damage was observed at 0 h post-treatment for all APE
concentrations which declined steadily thereafter with posttreatment
assay time, indicating repair of DNA damage (Figure 2).
However, control values could not be restored by 24 h even for the
lowest concentration of APE (5 μg/ml). The OTM steadily declined
with assay time up to 2 h post-APE treatment and remained
almost unaltered for subsequent assay times (Table 2; Figure 2),
indicating a maximum repair in the damaged DNA by 2 h posttreatment
for all APE concentrations. This repair was statistically
non-significant when compared with 0 h post-treatment (Table
2; Figure 2). Assessment of DNA damage in HeLa cells exposed to
10 μg/ml doxorubicin also showed a trend similar to that of APE
treatment where the maximum DNA damage was recorded at 0 h
post treatment, that constantly declined with assay time up to 2
h post-treatment and remained unaltered thereafter (Figure 2).
The degree of DNA damage induced after 75μg/ml APE has been
equal to that of 10μg/ml doxorubicin treatment at all assay times
(Figure 2).
Table 2: Alteration in the DNA repair in HeLa cells exposed to different concentrations of chloroform stem bark extract of Aphanamixis polystachya or doxorubicin
Post-treatment time (h) |
Olive Tail Moment (mean±SEM) |
MEM |
Doxorubicin
(10 µg/ml) |
Chloroform stem bark extract Aphanamixis polystachya (µg/ml) |
5 |
10 |
25 |
50 |
75 |
100 |
0 |
0.86±0.055 |
24.26±0.052 |
5.55±0.029b |
9.62±0.059c |
14.43±0.057c |
19.89±0.078c |
25.96±0.087c |
31.13±0.096c |
0.5 |
0.91±0.056 |
23.32±0.05 |
4.79±0.022b |
8.82±0.038c |
13.65±0.055c |
18.07±0.064c |
24.26±0.082c |
29.75±0.090c |
1 |
0.92±0.052 |
21.55±0.043 |
4.24±0.031b |
7.97±0.043c |
12.82±0.048c |
17.54±0.063c |
23.67±0.079c |
28.26±0.076c |
2 |
0.92±0.041 |
20.74±0.043 |
3.94±0.024a |
6.42±0.052c |
12.20±0.06c |
16.98±0.072c |
22.12±0.076c |
27.82±0.097c |
4 |
0.92±0.035 |
20.20±0.05 |
3.44±0.022a |
5.84±0.057b |
12.32±0.053c |
16.36±0.077c |
22.76±0.064c |
27.70±0.090c |
6 |
0.92±0.035 |
20.46±0.047 |
3.56±0.028a |
5.65±0.062b* |
12.43±0.055c |
16.97±0.081c |
22.40±0.077c |
27.53±0.110c |
8 |
0.91±0.035 |
20.56±0.053 |
3.47±0.030a |
5.26±0.06b* |
12.34±0.062c |
16.13±0.082c |
22.23±0.059c |
27.46±0.096c |
12 |
0.90±0.056 |
20.30±0.055 |
3.73±0.028a |
5.30±0.059b* |
12.68±0.049c |
15.78±0.079c |
21.82±0.062c |
27.34±0.075c |
16 |
0.89±0.054 |
20.28±0.052 |
3.36±0.03a |
5.13±0.067b* |
12.07±0.052c |
15.22±0.070c |
21.53±0.072c |
26.40±0.088c |
24 |
0.88±0.033 |
20.33±0.049 |
3.05±0.028a |
5.15±0.062b* |
11.86±0.055c |
15.16±0.072c |
21.36±0.07c |
26.42±0.090c |
p < a = 0.05, b = 0.01, c = 0.005 (when compared to the concurrent DMSO group); * = 0.05 (in comparison with the 0 h group); no symbols = notsignificant
Figure 2: Effect of various concentrations of chloroform stem bark extract
of Aphanamixis polystachya (APE) or doxorubicin (DOX) on the repair
of molecular DNA damage in HeLa cells at different post treatment
assay times. Closed squares: DMSO; Open squares: DOX; Closed circles:
5μg/ml APE; Open circles: 10μg/ml APE; Closed triangles: 25μg/ml
APE; Open triangles: 50μg/ml APE; Closed diamonds: 75μg/ml APE and
Open diamonds: 100μg/ml APE.
Growth Kinetics
The number of viable cells increased with each scoring time
in the non-drug-treated group, and a peak number of cells was
observed on day 5 (Table 3; Figure 3). Exposure of HeLa cells
to 5, 10, 25, 50, 75, and 100 μg/ml APE led to a concentrationdependent
decline in cell viability when compared to DMSO
treatment (Figure 3). Despite this decline the cell proliferation
increased with assay time and a maximum increase in cell number
for all concentrations of APE was scored on day 5 post-treatment
(Figure 3). The number of viable cells scored was significantly
lower in APE-treated group when compared to non-drug treated
control (p< 0.01 for 25-100 μg/ml APE on day 2; p< 0.05 for 10
and p< 0.01 for 25-100 μg/ml APE on day 3; p< 0.01 for 10 and
p< 0.005 for 25-100 μg/ml APE on day 4; p< 0.05 for 5, p< 0.01 for
10, and p< 0.005 for 25-100 μg/ml APE on day 5 post-treatment
incubation time). A significant decrease in the number of viable
cells was observed on day 5 post-treatment, irrespective of the
APE concentration in the APE treated group when compared to
concurrent non-drug treated control group (Table 3). Treatment
of HeLa cells with 100 μg/ml APE completely inhibited the cell
division as there was no appreciable change in the cell number
with increasing scoring time (Table 3; Figure 3). An almost
identical effect was observed for 10 μg/ml DOX treatment
(p< 0.01; Table 3). The inhibition in the proliferation of HeLa cells
by 50 μg/ml APE was equivalent to 10 μg/ml DOX (Figure 3).
Clonogenic Assay
Exposure of HeLa cells with different concentrations of APE
resulted in a concentration dependent decline in the survival
of HeLa cells (Figure 4). The lowest concentration of APE
attenuated the survival by 10%. Increasing APE concentration led
to a corresponding decline in the cell survival and 50μg/ml APE
reduced the surviving fraction by 0.58 and further increase in
APE concentration reduced the surviving fraction by 0.79, when
cells were exposed to 100μg/ml resulting in a survival of 21%
(Figure 3).
Biological Response
The biological response was determined by plotting survival
on X-axis and OTM on Y axis. The increasing DNA damage in
the form of OTM resulted in a corresponding decline in the cell
survival (Figure 5).
Table 3: Alteration in growth kinetics of HeLa cells exposed to various concentrations of chloroform extract of Aphanamixis polystachya (concentrations) or doxorubicin
APE (µg/ml) |
Cell count (in 104) ± SEM when cells were treated for 6 h with APE and allowed to grow in separate culture dishes for different times (days) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
0 |
2.71±0.017 |
4.24±0.028 |
8.23±0.046 |
16.34±0.086 |
|
5 |
2.60±0.014 |
3.90±0.020 |
6.30±0.033b |
10.50±0.064b |
17.50±0.010c |
10 |
2.30±0.015 |
3.10±0.021b |
4.50±0.023c |
6.50±0.051c |
10.50±0.072c |
25 |
1.30±0.014c |
1.61±0.011c |
2.10±0.016c |
3.02±0.024c |
4.41±0.031c |
50 |
1.08±0.012c |
1.29±0.010c |
1.41±0.013c |
1.68±0.013c |
2.25±0.016c |
75 |
0.88±0.009c |
1.19±0.010c |
1.27±0.011c |
1.51±0.012c |
2.16±0.016c |
100 |
0.71±0.006c |
0.89±0.007c |
1.14±0.010c |
1.39±0.011c |
1.82±0.013c |
DOX(µg/ml) |
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
2.67±0.016 |
4.16±0.033 |
8.21±0.059 |
16.29±0.136 |
31.04±0.242 |
10 |
1.12±0.010b |
1.33±0.012c |
1.54±0.014c |
1.79±0.015c |
2.37±0.021c |
APE = chloroform fraction of the stem bark of Aphanamixis polystachya; DOX=doxorubicin; and SEM = standard error of the mean. p < a = 0.05, b = 0.01, c = 0.001, no symbols = not significant calculated using one-way ANOVA.
Figure 3: Effect of different concentrations of chloroform stem bark
extract of Aphanamixis polystachya (APE) or doxorubicin (DOX) on the
growth kinetics of HeLa cells. Closed squares: DMSO; Open squares:
DOX; Closed circles: 5μg/ml APE; Open circles: 10μg/ml APE; Closed triangles:
25μg/ml APE; Open triangles: 50μg/ml APE; Closed diamonds:
75μg/ml APE and Open diamonds: 100μg/ml APE.
Figure 4: Effect of different concentrations of chloroform stem bark extract
of Aphanamixis polystachya on the survival of HeLa cells. r2=0.95.
Figure 5: fCorrelation of DNA damage expressed as Olive tail moment
with cell survival in HeLa cells exposed to different concentrations of
chloroform stem bark extract of Aphanamixis polystachya. Squares: 0.5
h and Circles: 24 h post-treatment. r2=0.98.
Discussion
he history of use of natural products and plants can be traced
to the time when humans faced with some kind of ailments. The
use of natural products has been tested for several generations and
their safety has been beyond doubt in humans [36]. Development
of drug resistance is a major impediment in the success of modern
cancer chemotherapy, yet it is generally not possible to predict
the degree or timing of the emergence of tumor resistance in
most chemotherapy protocols [37]. Recent developments in the
single-cell gel electrophoresis or ‘comet’ assay for estimation of
molecular DNA damage at the single-cell level indicate that this
technique is able to identify and potentially monitor tumor cell
responsiveness to many anticancer agents in situ [38]. In principle,
this assay could be applied to any accessible tumor being treated
with chemotherapeutic agents that cause overt DNA damage and
also in the lymphocytes of patients undergoing chemotherapy
[39&40]. The comet assay can be easily performed in super coiled
genomic cell DNA of any cell line or tissue, which can be made into
single cell suspensions including differentiated cells as it does not
require cells to undergo division [41]. Therefore, present study
was designed to assess the DNA damage in the HeLa cells exposed
to different concentrations of chloroform extract of the stem bark
of Aphanamixis polystachya.
Comet assay of HeLa cells exposed to different concentration
of APE for different exposure time revealed a concentration
and time dependent increase in the DNA damage as indicated
by increased OTM in the present study up to six hours, where a
maximum DNA damage was estimated. A similar effect has been
reported earlier in HeLa cells treated with dichloromethane
extract of giloe, Tinospora cordifolia [30]. Likewise, treatment of
HeLa cells with berberine for different times have been found to
increase DNA damage in a concentration dependent manner up
to a certain time [31]. The time dependent treatment of HCT-116
and HT-29 cells exposed to irinotecan has been found to increase
maximum DNA damage after 24h of drug exposure [42]. The
study of DNA repair kinetics in HeLa cells exposed to different
concentrations showed a maximum DNA damage/OTM at 0 h
and a steady decline thereafter indicating that cells were able to
undergo repair. However, the rate of DNA repair dwindled with
increasing concentrations of APE, especially after 10 μg/ml. The
level of DNA damage was far from the control even at 5μg/ml,
where it was 3.5 folds higher at 24 hours. Tinospora cordifolia
has been reported to increase DNA damage consistently up to
10 h post-treatment in HeLa cells in a concentration dependent
manner and a marginal repair thereafter [30]. An identical effect
was observed in HeLa cells treated with different concentrations
of berberine earlier [31]. This variation in the time of maximum
damage in the present study may be due to the variation in
experimental design. In earlier studies the cells were impregnated
in agarose and then exposed to drug/s, whereas in the present
study the cells were exposed to drug and then embedded in
agarose for comet assay. Bleomycin exposure to V79 cells also
continuously increased the OTM with no signs of DNA repair up
to six hours earlier [29]. Irinotecan exposure of HCT-116 and
HT-29 cells also increased the DNA damage in a concentration
dependent manner up to 24h and a repair in the DNA damage
thereafter [42]. Doxorubicin treatment has been reported to
increase OTM and tail DNA in V79 cells and a repair with time up
to 24 h however, the DNA damage did not reach to spontaneous
level even by 6 h post-treatment [32]. In contrast, treatment
of Agaricus blazei, a mushroom in hepatic carcinoma of rat and
bladder cancer has been reported to induce DNA repair [43 & 44].
The APE has been reported to induce DNA damage in the
form of micronuclei in our earlier study and the present study
supports these observations as the APE triggered DNA damage at
molecular level and did now allow it to repair [18]. The extracts
of Ajuga postii containing an iridoid glucoside, reptoside, and
the ethanolic extract of Stephania dinklagei containing corydine
and atherospemidine alkaloids have been reported to cause DNA
damage in RS321NpRAD52 and RS321NpRAD52 yeast cells [45].
Ethyl acetate fractions of Combretum apiculatum, Combretum
hereroense, Combretum molle and Combretum mossambicense
reported to have DNA damaging properties in different cells
[46]. Similarly, idarubicin has been reported to cause DNA strand
breaks in a concentration-dependent manner in promyelocytic
leukemia cells, HL-60, murine pro-B lymphoid, BaF3 cell lines
earlier as assessed by comet assay [47]. Nitrogen mustards,
cisplatin and related platinum compounds have been reported
to induce covalent modifications of DNA and induce DNA interstrand
cross-links, resulting in DNA double strand breaks in
A2780/100 cells [48 & 49].
The gross cytotoxicity of any chemical or drug can be easily
determined by Pratt and Willis assay and treatment of HeLa cells
with different concentrations of chloroform extract of rohituka
killed the cells in a concentration dependent manner as there
was a constant decline in the growth kinetics of HeLa cells with
each assay day after treatment with rohituka. The lowest survival
was observed for 100 μg/ml APE. Determination of reproductive
integrity further confirmed these results where, clonogenicity of
HeLa cells declined with increasing concentration of APE. Our
earlier study has shown a similar effect in HeLa cells treated
with different concentrations of APE, where the reproductive
capacity of HeLa cells declined with increased APE concentration
[18]. Similarly, a reduction in the growth kinetics has been
observed in HeLa cells exposed to different concentrations of
the dichloromethane extract of Tinospora cordifolia, berberine,
Tinospora cordifolia or berberine and γ-radiation [30,31,50&51].
Amooranin isolated from Aphanamixis polystachya (Amoora
rohituka) stem bark, has been reported to be cytotoxic by
inducing DNA damage and apoptosis in HeLa, MCF-7, MCF-7/
TH and MCF-10A cells [51]. Amooranin arrested leukemia and
colon carcinoma cell cells in G2+M phase [52]. A semi synthetic
derivative of rohitukine, the flavopiridol has been reported to
target serine/threonine kinases and inhibit cell proliferation
[53&54]. An identical effect has been observed in the HeLa
cells treated with stem bark extract of Tinospora cordifolia or
berberine chloride earlier [7 & 55].
The biological response determination revealed an inverse
correlation between DNA damage and cell survival for all the
concentrations of APE. The higher the DNA damage lower
was the cell survival. Our earlier study on micronuclei has
shown that increasing frequency of micronuclei resulted in
a rise in the cytotoxicity of HeLa cells [18]. Treatment of HeLa
cells with different concentrations of dichloromethane extract
of Tinospora cordifoila increased the OTM and subsequently
reduced the clonogenicity [30]. A similar correlation between
increasing OTM and reduced clonogenic survival was reported
in HeLa cells treated with different concentrations of berberine
and doxorubicin [31,32]. Similarly, treatment of V79 cells with
Bleomycin has been found to reduce their clonogenicity with
increasing OTM [29]. An identical observation has been reported
earlier where increasing DNA damage (Olive tail moment) was
accompanied by a corresponding decline in the cell survival
[50,51&57-59].
The exact mechanism of action of APE by which it induced DNA
damage and led to a decline in cell the survival is not known. The
DNA damaging effect of APE may not be due a single mechanism
but may have acted through numerous putative mechanisms. APE
may have increased oxidative stress in HeLa cells by triggering
formation of free radicals, which may have attacked the cellular
genome leading to different types of DNA damages including,
DNA adduct formation, base damages, DNA strand breaks or
alkali labile sites, which are measured by comet assay and
expressed as OTM in the present study. Attrition of glutathione
might have caused chromatin dysfunction causing single strand
and double strand DNA breaks and internucleosomal DNA
fragmentation, whose repair would have been a daunting task,
which might have ultimately led the cells to undergo apoptosis
and necrosis [60]. DNA damage response triggers the activation
of many enzymes including nucleases, topoisomerases, helicases,
polymerases, recombinases, ligases, glycosylases, demethylases,
kinases and phosphatases to neutralize the DNA damage [61].
The presence of APE seems to suppress the activation of these
enzymes leading to inhibition of DNA repair and higher amount
of DNA damage in HeLa cells. Inhibition of topoisomerase II by
APE in HeLa cells may have also contributed to the increased
DNA damage. Quercetin which is present in the stem bark
of Aphanamixis polystachya has been reported to inhibit
topoisomerase II [62&63]. Topoisomerase II acts by passing
an intact segment of duplex DNA through a transient double
stranded break that it generates in a separate double helix and
inhibition of topoisomerase II by APE may cause stabilization of
the DNA double strand breaks detected in the present study [64-
66]. The APE may have inhibited p53 expression and disallowed
DNA repair as indicated by futile attempt by HeLa cells to repair
the DNA damage in the present study. p53 is involved in the
repair of DNA damage apart from other cellular functions [67].
The increased DNA damage by APE may be due to suppression
of NF-κB, and COX-II. Amooranin present in APE has been found
to repress NF-κB, and COX-II transcriptional activation [68&69].
The Nrf2 transcription is known to facilitate DNA repair, whereas
its inactivation suppresses repair of DNA strand breaks [70]. A
similar possibility cannot be ruled out in the present study, where
APE might have down modulated Nrf2 expression.
The study was carried out in the homogenous populations of
HeLa cells that have less variability than the natural in situ tumor
cells therefore, the result of DNA damage may be variable when
compared to in vivo study which may be one of the limitations.
The use of lesion specific enzymes during comet assay would
have given better information about individual specific lesions
induced by APE at molecular level in the DNA. However, we were
unable to incorporate lesion specific enzymes, hence our study
provides indication of the gross DNA damage in the HeLa cells
and not the specific DNA lesions induced by APE in HeLa cells.
The use of enzymes would have also given the information about
the repair of specific DNA lesions with elapse of time. Further
in our study it was not possible to pin point specific chemical
component that would have been responsible for triggering DNA
damage by APE as it is a complex mixture of several chemicals.
Conclusions
APE treatment induced DNA damage in concentrationdependent
manner as evident by a corresponding increase in
the OTM. This was reflected in reduction in the cell proliferation
and clonogenicity of HeLa cells. The induction of DNA damage
in HeLa cells by APE may be due to the rise in oxidative stress
and repression of the activation of nucleases, topoisomerases,
helicases, polymerases, recombinases, ligases, glycosylases,
demethylases, kinases and phosphatases. APE may have
suppressed the transcriptional activation of p53, NF-κB, COX-II
and Nrf2 leading to suppression of DNA repair and higher DNA
damage in the present study.
Ackowledgements
The authors are also grateful to the Council of Scientific and
Industrial Research, and Indian Council of Medical Research, Govt.
of India for extending the financial support during this study.
Conflict of interest statement
Authors don’t have any conflict of interest statement to
declare.
Pandey MM, Rastogi S and Rawat AK. Indian traditional ayurvedic system of medicine and nutritional supplementation. Evid Complem Altern Med. 2013;2013:376327. Doi: 10.1155/2013/376327.
Jagetia GC, Lyngdoh R, Lalramchuana and Borah BK. Mimosa pudica (Lajwanti) accelerates repair and regeneration of deep dermal excision wound in Swiss albino mice. Int J Compl Altern Med. 2017;9(2):00293. Doi: 10.15406/ijcam.2017.09.00293.
Ekor M. The growing use of herbal medicines: issues relating to adverse reactions and challenges in monitoring safety. Front Pharmacol. 2014;4:177. Doi: 10.3389/fphar. 2013.00177.
Cragg GM and Newman DJ. Plants as a source of anti-cancer agents. J Ethnopharmacol. 2005;100(1-2):72-79. DOI:10.1016/j.jep.2005.05.011.
Pan L, Chai HB and Kinghorn AD. Discovery of new anticancer agents from higher plants. Front Biosci (Scholar edition). 2012; 4:142-156.
Jagetia GC, Nayak V and Vidyasagar MS. Evaluation of the antineoplastic activity of guduchi (Tinospora cordifolia) in cultured HeLa cells. Cancer lett. 1998;127(1-2):71-82.
Jagetia GC and Rao SK. Evaluation of cytotoxic effects of dichloromethane extract of guduchi (Tinospora cordifolia Miers Ex h\Hook f & Thoms) in cultured HeLa cells. Evid Complem Altern Med. 2006;3(2):267-272. Doi: 10.1093/ecam/nel011.
Jagetia GC and Baliga MS. Evaluation of anticancer activity of the alkaloid fraction of Alstonia scholaris (Sapthaparna) in vitro and in vivo. Phytother Res. 2006;20(2):103-109.
Zoremsiami J and Jagetia GC. Evaluation of the cytotoxic effects of Helicia nilagirica Bedd in vitro. Int J Sci Res. 2017;6(9):497-502.
Devi NB and Jagetia GC. Anticancer activity of Colocasia gigantea (Blume) Hook. f. in cultured cell lines. Int J Curr Eng Sci Res. (IJCES) 2017;4(9):2393-8374.
Lalhminghlui and Ganesh Chandra Jagetia. Evaluation of The Anticancer Activity of Chilauni, Schima Wallichii (Dc.) Korth. In Vitro. Int Res J Pharmaceut Biosci (Irjpbs). 2017;4(4):30-51.
Chopra RN, Nayar SL and Chopra IC. Glossary of Indian Medicinal Plants (New Delhi, India: Council of Scientific & Industrial Research) 1956.
Srivastava SK and Agnihotri VK. New glycosides from the stem bark of Aphanamixis polystachya. Curr Sci. 1985;54(1):38–40.
Rabi T and Gupta RC. Antitumor and cytotoxic investigation of Amoora rohituka. Int. J. Pharmacog. 1995;33(4):359-361.
Dhar ML, Dhar MM, Dhawan BN, Mehrotra BN and Ray C. Screening of Indian Plants for biological activity. Ind J Exp Biol. 1968; 6(4):232-247.
Jagetia GC and Venkatesha VA. Enhancement of radiation effect by Aphanamixis polystachya in mice transplanted with Ehrlich ascites carcinoma. Biol Pharm Bull. 2005;28(1);69-77.
Jagetia GC and Venkatesha VA. Preclinical determination of the anticancer activity ofrohituka (Aphanamixis polystachya)in Ehrlich ascites tumor-bearing mice. Med Aromatic Plant Sci Biotechnol. 2012;6(Special Issue 2):42-51.
Jagetia GC and Venkatesha VA. Determination of antineoplastic activity of rohituka, Aphanamixis polystachya (Wall) RN Parker in Hela Cells: correlation with clonogenicity and DNA damage. Int J Complem Alt Med. 2016;3(4):00083. Doi:10.15406/ijcam.2016.03.00083.
Jagetia GC and Venkatesha VA. Rohituka, Aphanamixis polystachya (Wall.) R. Parker augments the radiosensitivity of HeLa cells exposed to different doses of γ -radiation: correlation of DNA damage and clonogenicity. J Altern Med Res. 2017;3(10):120.
Jagetia GC and Venkatesha VA. Treatment of Mice With Stem Bark Extract of Aphanamixis Polystachya Reduces Radiation-Induced Chromosome Damage. Int J Radiat Biol. 2006;82(3):197-209.26.
Polonsky J, Varon Z, Marazano C, Arnoux B, Pettit GR and Schmid JM. The structure of amoorastatone and the cytotoxic limonoid 12-hydroxyamoorastatin. Experientia. 1979;35(8):987-989.
Harmon AD, Weiss U and Silverton JV. The structure of rohitukine, the main alkaloid of Amoora rohituka (Syn. Aphanamixis polystachya) (Maliaceae). Tetrahed Lett. 1979;20(8):721-724.
Mulholland DA and Naidoo N. Limonoids from Aphanamixis polystachya. Phytochem. 1999;51:927-930.
Ahn JW. Cytotoxic limonoids from Melia azedarachta var. Japonica. Phytochemistry. 1994;36(6):1493-1496.
Gentile JM, Rahimi S, Zwiesler J, Gentile GJ and Ferguson LR. Effects of selected antimutagens on the genotoxicity of antitumor agents. Mutat Res. 1998;402(1-2):289–298.
Collins AR, Annangi B, Rubio L, Marcos R, Dorn M and Merker C. et al. High Throughput Toxicity Screening and Intracellular Detection of Nanomaterials. Wiley Interdiscip Rev: Nanomed Nanobiotechnol. 2017;9(1):E1413. Doi: 10.1002/Wnan.1413.
Olive Pl. Impact of The Comet Assay In Radiobiology. Mutat Res. 2009;681(1):13-23. Doi:10.1016/J.Mrrev.2007.11.001.
Singh NP, Mccoy MT, Tice RT, Schneider El. A Simple Technique For Quantitation of Low Levels of DNA Damage In Individual Cells. Exp Cell Res. 1988,175(1):184-191.
Jagetia A, Jagetia GC And Jha S. Naringin, a Grapefruit Flavanone, Protects V79 Cells Against The Bleomycin‐Induced Genotoxicity and Decline In Survival. J App Toxicol. 2007;27(2):122-132.
Jagetia GC. The Indian medicinal plant giloe (Tinospora cordifolia) induces cytotoxic effects by damaging cellular DNA in HeLa cells: A comet assay study. Trends Green Chem 2015;1(1):6.
Jagetia GC. Isoquinoline alkaloid berberine exerts its antineoplastic activity by inducing molecular DNA damage in HeLa cells: A comet assay study. Biol Med. 2015;7(1):1.
Jagetia GC . Alteration in the doxorubicin-induced DNA damage in cultured V79 cells by Aegle marmelos (L.) Correa (Bael): A comet assay study. Int J Neurorehabil. 2015;2(1000190):2376-0281. Doi:10.4172/2376-0281.1000190.
Azqueta A and Collins AR. The essential comet assay: a comprehensive guide to measuring DNA damage and repair. Arch toxicol. 2013;87(6):949-968. Doi: 10.1007/s00204-013-1070-0.
Puck TT and Marcus PI. A rapid method for viable cell titration and clone production with hela cells in tissue culture: the use of x-irradiated cells to supply conditioning factors. Proc nat acad sci. 1955;41(7):432-437.
Pratt RM and Willis Wd. In vitro screening assay for teratogens using growth inhibition of human embryonic cells. Proc nat acad sci. 1985;82(17):5791-5794.
Jagetia GC. Radioprotective potential of plants and herbs against the effects of ionizing radiation. J Clin Biochem Nutri. 2007; 40(2):74-81. Doi: 10.3164/jcbn.40.74.
Senthebane DA, Rowe A, Thomford NE, Shipanga H, Munro D and Al Mazeedi MA. Et al. The role of tumor microenvironment in chemoresistance: To survive, keep your enemies closer. Int J Mol Sci. 2017;18(7):1586. Doi: 10.3390/ijms18071586.
McKenna DJ, McKeown SR and McKelvey-Martin VJ. Potential use of the comet assay in the clinical management of cancer. Mutagenesis. 2008;23(3):183-190. Doi: 10.1093/mutage/gem054.
Bowman KJ, Al‐Moneef MM, Sherwood BT, Colquhoun AJ, Goddard JC and Griffiths TL. Et al.. Comet assay measures of DNA damage are predictive of bladder cancer cell treatment sensitivity in vitro and outcome in vivo. Int J Cancer. 2014; 134(5):1102-1111. Doi: 10.1002/ijc.28437.
Kværner AS, Minaguchi J, El Yamani N, Henriksen C, Ræder H and Paur I. et al. DNA damage in blood cells in relation to chemotherapy and nutritional status in colorectal cancer patients—A pilot study. DNA Repair. 2018; 63:16-24. Doi: 10.1016/j.dnarep.2018.01.005.
Koppen G, Azqueta A, Pourrut B, Brunborg G, Collins AR and Langie SA. The next three decades of the comet assay: a report of the 11th International Comet Assay Workshop. Mutagenesis.2017;32(3):397-408. Doi: 10.1093/mutage/gex002.
Wood JP, Smith AJ, Bowman KJ, Thomas AL and Jones GD. Comet assay measures of DNA damage as biomarkers of irinotecan response in colorectal cancer in vitro and in vivo. Cancer Med. 2015;4(9):1309-1321. Doi: 10.1002/cam4.477.
Barbisan LF, Scolastici C, Miyamoto M, Salvadori DM, Ribeiro LR and da Eira AF. Et al. Effects of crude extracts of Agaricus blazei on DNA damage and on rat liver carcinogenesis induced by diethylnitrosamine. Genet Mol Res. 2003;2(3):295-308.
McKeown SR, Robson T, Price ME, Ho ETS, Hirst DG and McKelvey-Martin VJ. Potential use of the alkaline comet assay as a predictor of bladder tumor response to radiation. Br J Cancer, 2003;89(12):2264-2270.
Gören AC, Zhou BN and Kingston DG. Cytotoxic and DNA damaging activity of some aporphine alkaloids from Stephania dinklagei. Planta Med. 2003;69(9):867-868.
McGaw LJ, Rabe T, Sparg SG, Jäger AK, Eloff JN and Van Staden J. An investigation on the biological activity of Combretum species. J Ethnopharmacol. 2001;75(1):45-50.
Blasiak J, Gloc E, Mlynarski W, Drzewoski J and Skorski T. Amifostine differentially modulates DNA damage evoked by idarubicin in normal and leukemic cells. Leuk Res. 2002;26(12):1093-1096.
Boldogh I, Roy G, Lee MS, Bacsi A, Hazra TK and Bhakat KK. et al. Reduced DNA double strand breaks in chlorambucil resistant cells are related to high DNA-PKcs activity and low oxidative stress. Toxicology. 2003;193(1-2):137-152.
Gniazdowski M, Denny WA, Nelson SM and Czyz M. Transcription factors as targets for DNA-interacting drugs. Curr Med Chem. 2003;10(11):909-924.
Jagetia G. C. and S.K. Rao. Assessment of radiation-induced DNA damage by comet assay in cultured HeLa cells treated with guduchi (Tinospora cordifolia Miers) before exposure to different doses of -radiation. Res Pharmaceut Biotechnol. 2011;3(7):93-103.
Jagetia GC and Rao SK. Modulation of radioresponse by an isoquinoline alkaloid berberine in cultured HeLa cells exposed to different doses of γ–radiation. Curr Trends Biomedical Eng Biosci. 2017;8(1):555726. Doi: 10.19080/ CTBEB.2017.08.555726.
Rabi T, Ramachandran C, Fonseca HB, Nair RP, Alamo A and Melnick SJ. et al. Novel drug amooranin induces apoptosis through caspase activity in human breast carcinoma cell lines. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2003;80(3):321-330. Doi:10.1023/A:1024911925623.
Ramachandran C, Nair PK, Alamo A, Cochrane CB, Escalon E and Melnick SJ. Anticancer effects of amooranin in human colon carcinoma cell line in vitro and in nude mice xenografts. Int J Cancer. 2006;119(10):2443-2454. Doi:10.1002/ijc.22174.
Kaur G, Stevenson SM, Sebers S, Worland , Sedlacek H and Myers C. et al. Growth inhibition with reversible cell cycle arrest of carcinoma cells by flavone L86-8275. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1992;84(22):1736-1740.
Losiewicz MD, Carlson BA, Kaur G, SausvilleEA and Worland PJ. Potent inhibition of CDC2 kinase activity by the flavonoid L86-8275. Biochem Biophys Res Commun.1994;201(2):589-595. DOI:10.1006/bbrc.1994.1742.
Jagetia GC and Rao SK. Berberine Chloride, An Isoquinoline alkaloid induces cytotoxicity in cultured HeLa cells. Adv Biotechnol Biochem. 2017;J120.
Moneef MA, Sherwood BT, Bowman KJ, Kockelbergh RC, Symonds RP and Steward WP. Et al. Measurements using the alkaline comet assay predict bladder cancer cell radiosensitivity. Br J Cancer. 2003;89(12):2271-2276. DOI:10.1038/sj.bjc.6601333.
Dunne AL, Price ME, Mothersill C, McKeown SR, Robson T and Hirst DG. Relationship between clonogenic radiosensitivity, radiation-induced apoptosis and DNA damage/repair in human colon cancer cells. Br J Cancer. 2003;89(12):2277-2283. Doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6601427.
Li P, Zhou LB, Jin XD, He J, Dai ZY and Zhou GM. et al. Assessment of DNA damage of Lewis lung carcinoma cells irradiated by carbon ions and X-rays using alkaline comet assay. Nuclear Instrum Methods Phys Res Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms. 2008;266(2):262-266.
Higuchi Y. Glutathione depletion‐induced chromosomal DNA fragmentation associated with apoptosis and necrosis. J Cell Mol Med. 2004;8(4):455-464.
Ciccia A and Elledge SJ. The DNA damage response: making it safe to play with knives. Mol Cell. 2010;40(2):179-204. Doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2010.09.019.
Cantero G, Campanella C, Mateos S and Cortes F. Topoisomerase II inhibition and high yield of endoreduplication induced by the flavonoids luteolin and quercetin. Mutagenesis. 2006;21(5):321-325.
Biechonski S, Gourevich D, Rall M, Aqaqe N, Yassin M and Zipin‐Roitman A. et al. Quercetin alters the DNA damage response in human hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells via Topo II‐and PI 3 K‐dependent mechanisms synergizing in leukemogenic rearrangements. Int J Cancer. 2017;140(4):864-876. Doi: 10.1002/ijc.30497.
Vos SM, Tretter EM, Schmidt BH and Berger JM. All tangled up: how cells direct, manage and exploit topoisomerase function. Nature Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2011;12(12):827-841. Doi: 10.1038/nrm3228.
Pommier Y, Sun Y, Shar-yin NH and Nitiss JL. Roles of eukaryotic topoisomerases in transcription, replication and genomic stability. Nature Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2016;17(11):703-721. Doi: 10.1038/nrm.2016.111.
Nelson WG, Haffner MC and Yegnasubramanian S. The structure of the nucleus in normal and neoplastic prostate cells: untangling the role of type 2 DNA topoisomerases. Am J Clin Exp Urol. 2018;6(2):107-113.
Fischer M. Census and Evaluation of p53 target genes. Oncogene. 2017;36(28):3943-3956. Doi: 10.1038/onc.2016.502.
Ramachandran C, Nair PK, Alamo A, Cochrane CB, Escalon E and Melnick SJ. Anticancer effects of amooranin in human colon carcinoma cell line in vitro and in nude mice xenografts. Int j cancer. 2006;119(10):2443-2454. Doi:10.1002/ijc.22174.
Rabi T, Huwiler A and Zangemeister-wittke U. Amr-me inhibits pi3k/akt signaling in hormone-dependent mcf-7 breast cancer cells and inactivates nf-κb in hormone-independent mda-mb-231 cells. Mol carcinogen. 2014; 53(7): 578-588. Doi: 10.1002/mc.22012.
Jayakumar S, Pal D and Sandur SK. Nrf2 facilitates repair of radiation induced DNA damage through homologous recombination repair pathway in a ROS independent manner in cancer cells. Mutat Res. 2015;779:33-45. Doi: 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2015.06.007.