© 2002 by Oxford University Press
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 94, No. 2, 88-94,
January 16, 2002
© 2002 Oxford University Press
ARTICLE |
Cell-Based Assays for Identification of Novel Double-Strand Break-Inducing Agents
Affiliation of authors:Program in Molecular Pharmacology, Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA.
Correspondence to:John R. Lamb, Ph.D., Program in Molecular Pharmacology, Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, 1100 Fairview Ave., N., Seattle, WA 98109 (e-mail: jlamb{at}fhcrc.org).
Background:We are developing cell-based assays to identify anticancer agents that are selectively toxic to cells with defined mutations. As a test, we used a three-stage strategy to screen compounds from the National Cancer Institute's repository for agents that are selectively toxic to double-strand break repair-deficient yeast cells. Methods:Compounds identified in the screen were further analyzed by use of yeast and vertebrate cell-based and in vitroassays to distinguish between topoisomerase I and II poisons. Results:Of the more than 85 000 compounds screened, 126 were selectively toxic to yeast deficient in DNA double-strand break repair. Eighty-seven of these 126 compounds were structurally related to known topoisomerase poisons, and 39 were not. Twenty-eight of the 39 were characterized, and we present data for eight of the compounds. Among these eight compounds, we identified two novel topoisomerase II poisons (NSC 327929 and NSC 638432) that were equipotent to etoposide in biochemical tests and in cells, five (NSC 63599, NSC 65601, NSC 380271, NSC 651646, and NSC 668370) with topoisomerase I-dependent toxicity in yeast that induced DNA damage and toxicity in mammalian cells, and one (NSC 610898) that directly bound to DNA and induced strand breaks. Conclusions:Cell-based assays can be used to identify molecules that are selectively toxic to cells with a predetermined genetic background, including mutations in genes involved in the cell cycle and its checkpoints, for which there are currently no selectively toxic compounds.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  E. J. Calabrese, E. J. Stanek III, M. A. Nascarella, and G. R. Hoffmann Hormesis Predicts Low-Dose Responses Better Than Threshold Models International Journal of Toxicology, September 1, 2008; 27(5): 369 - 378. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Stepanov, K. C. Nitiss, G. Neale, and J. L. Nitiss Enhancing Drug Accumulation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae by Repression of Pleiotropic Drug Resistance Genes with Chimeric Transcription Repressors Mol. Pharmacol., August 1, 2008; 74(2): 423 - 431. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. D. Mertins, T. G. Myers, S. L. Holbeck, W. Medina-Perez, E. Wang, G. Kohlhagen, Y. Pommier, and S. E. Bates In vitro evaluation of dimethane sulfonate analogues with potential alkylating activity and selective renal cell carcinoma cytotoxicity Mol. Cancer Ther., July 1, 2004; 3(7): 849 - 860. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F. M. Balis Evolution of Anticancer Drug Discovery and the Role of Cell-Based Screening J Natl Cancer Inst, January 16, 2002; 94(2): 78 - 79. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|