Limits...
The investigation of effects of quercetin and its combination with Cisplatin on malignant mesothelioma cells in vitro.

Demiroglu-Zergeroglu A, Basara-Cigerim B, Kilic E, Yanikkaya-Demirel G - J. Biomed. Biotechnol. (2010)

Bottom Line: In this study, we have investigated the antiproliferative effect of Quercetin (QU) and its combination with Cisplatin (CIS) on SPC212 and SPC111 cell lines.Our experiments showed that QU significantly reduced the proliferation of cell lines, altered the cell cycle distribution, and increased the level of Caspase 9 (C9) and Caspase 3 (C3) in concentration and time-dependent manner.Additionally, the combination of QU + CIS was found more effective when compared with individual treatment of agents.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Gebze Institute of Technology, Gebze 41400, Kocaeli, Turkey.

ABSTRACT
Malignant Mesothelioma (MM) is an aggressive and lethal tumour of the serosal surfaces with poor prognosis. In this study, we have investigated the antiproliferative effect of Quercetin (QU) and its combination with Cisplatin (CIS) on SPC212 and SPC111 cell lines. Our experiments showed that QU significantly reduced the proliferation of cell lines, altered the cell cycle distribution, and increased the level of Caspase 9 (C9) and Caspase 3 (C3) in concentration and time-dependent manner. Additionally, the combination of QU + CIS was found more effective when compared with individual treatment of agents.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

SPC212 cells ((a) and (b)) and SPC111 cells ((c) and (d)) were untreated, treated with 5 μg/mL CIS, 10 μg/mL CIS, 50 μM QU, and combination of both at 24 hours ((a) and (c)) and 48 hours ((b) and (d)). Accumulation of cells in S phase was detected in SPC212 but not in SPC111 cells following QU treatments for 48 hours ((b) and (d)). However, individual CIS applications resulted in accumulation of both cells in S phase at the first 24 hours period ((a) and (c)), and cells were arrested at G2/M phase in the following 24 hours ((b) and (d)). Distribution of cell cycle was altered in both cells with 5 μg/mL CIS + 50 μM QU treatment compared with untreated cells and cells were treated with individual agents. The percentage of S phase arrest was observed as 86.7% in SPC212 and 99% in SPC111 cells, at 48 hours ((b) and (d)). On the other hand, cells treated with 10 μg/mL CIS + 50 μM QU showed a similar profile to that of individual 10 μg/mL CIS dose applications in SPC111 cells ((c) and (d)).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2875771&req=5

fig3: SPC212 cells ((a) and (b)) and SPC111 cells ((c) and (d)) were untreated, treated with 5 μg/mL CIS, 10 μg/mL CIS, 50 μM QU, and combination of both at 24 hours ((a) and (c)) and 48 hours ((b) and (d)). Accumulation of cells in S phase was detected in SPC212 but not in SPC111 cells following QU treatments for 48 hours ((b) and (d)). However, individual CIS applications resulted in accumulation of both cells in S phase at the first 24 hours period ((a) and (c)), and cells were arrested at G2/M phase in the following 24 hours ((b) and (d)). Distribution of cell cycle was altered in both cells with 5 μg/mL CIS + 50 μM QU treatment compared with untreated cells and cells were treated with individual agents. The percentage of S phase arrest was observed as 86.7% in SPC212 and 99% in SPC111 cells, at 48 hours ((b) and (d)). On the other hand, cells treated with 10 μg/mL CIS + 50 μM QU showed a similar profile to that of individual 10 μg/mL CIS dose applications in SPC111 cells ((c) and (d)).

Mentions: To investigate effect of QU (50 μM), CIS (5 and 10 μg/mL), and CIS + QU (5 μg/mL + 50 μM and 10 μg/mL + 50 μM) on the cell cycle progression of MM cells, we performed a flow cytometric analysis by using PI staining. As shown in Figure 3(b), 50 μM dose of QU caused accumulation of SPC212 cells at S phase. However no alteration was observed at the cell cycle profile of SPC111 cells when compared with control cells at 48 hours (Figures 3(c) and 3(d)). Following 5 μg/mL CIS treatments, both cell lines were arrested in S phase for 24 hours (Figures 3(a) and 3(c)), then cells were passed through to G2/M phase in the next 24- hour period (Figures 3(b) and 3(d)). However, when 5 μg/mL CIS was used in combination with 50 μM QU both cell lines were arrested and kept in S phase for 48 hours. The percentage of cells reached up to 86%, 7% and 99% in SPC212 and SPC111 cells, respectively at 48 hours (Figures 3(b) and 3(d)). This result might suggest that the prolongation of S phase was due to enhanced antiproliferative effect. On the other hand, when CIS dose was increased to 10 μg/mL and applied with 50 μM QU, the combination effect was not observed to be different from individual treatments in SPC111 cells (Figures 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), and 3(d)).


The investigation of effects of quercetin and its combination with Cisplatin on malignant mesothelioma cells in vitro.

Demiroglu-Zergeroglu A, Basara-Cigerim B, Kilic E, Yanikkaya-Demirel G - J. Biomed. Biotechnol. (2010)

SPC212 cells ((a) and (b)) and SPC111 cells ((c) and (d)) were untreated, treated with 5 μg/mL CIS, 10 μg/mL CIS, 50 μM QU, and combination of both at 24 hours ((a) and (c)) and 48 hours ((b) and (d)). Accumulation of cells in S phase was detected in SPC212 but not in SPC111 cells following QU treatments for 48 hours ((b) and (d)). However, individual CIS applications resulted in accumulation of both cells in S phase at the first 24 hours period ((a) and (c)), and cells were arrested at G2/M phase in the following 24 hours ((b) and (d)). Distribution of cell cycle was altered in both cells with 5 μg/mL CIS + 50 μM QU treatment compared with untreated cells and cells were treated with individual agents. The percentage of S phase arrest was observed as 86.7% in SPC212 and 99% in SPC111 cells, at 48 hours ((b) and (d)). On the other hand, cells treated with 10 μg/mL CIS + 50 μM QU showed a similar profile to that of individual 10 μg/mL CIS dose applications in SPC111 cells ((c) and (d)).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2875771&req=5

fig3: SPC212 cells ((a) and (b)) and SPC111 cells ((c) and (d)) were untreated, treated with 5 μg/mL CIS, 10 μg/mL CIS, 50 μM QU, and combination of both at 24 hours ((a) and (c)) and 48 hours ((b) and (d)). Accumulation of cells in S phase was detected in SPC212 but not in SPC111 cells following QU treatments for 48 hours ((b) and (d)). However, individual CIS applications resulted in accumulation of both cells in S phase at the first 24 hours period ((a) and (c)), and cells were arrested at G2/M phase in the following 24 hours ((b) and (d)). Distribution of cell cycle was altered in both cells with 5 μg/mL CIS + 50 μM QU treatment compared with untreated cells and cells were treated with individual agents. The percentage of S phase arrest was observed as 86.7% in SPC212 and 99% in SPC111 cells, at 48 hours ((b) and (d)). On the other hand, cells treated with 10 μg/mL CIS + 50 μM QU showed a similar profile to that of individual 10 μg/mL CIS dose applications in SPC111 cells ((c) and (d)).
Mentions: To investigate effect of QU (50 μM), CIS (5 and 10 μg/mL), and CIS + QU (5 μg/mL + 50 μM and 10 μg/mL + 50 μM) on the cell cycle progression of MM cells, we performed a flow cytometric analysis by using PI staining. As shown in Figure 3(b), 50 μM dose of QU caused accumulation of SPC212 cells at S phase. However no alteration was observed at the cell cycle profile of SPC111 cells when compared with control cells at 48 hours (Figures 3(c) and 3(d)). Following 5 μg/mL CIS treatments, both cell lines were arrested in S phase for 24 hours (Figures 3(a) and 3(c)), then cells were passed through to G2/M phase in the next 24- hour period (Figures 3(b) and 3(d)). However, when 5 μg/mL CIS was used in combination with 50 μM QU both cell lines were arrested and kept in S phase for 48 hours. The percentage of cells reached up to 86%, 7% and 99% in SPC212 and SPC111 cells, respectively at 48 hours (Figures 3(b) and 3(d)). This result might suggest that the prolongation of S phase was due to enhanced antiproliferative effect. On the other hand, when CIS dose was increased to 10 μg/mL and applied with 50 μM QU, the combination effect was not observed to be different from individual treatments in SPC111 cells (Figures 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), and 3(d)).

Bottom Line: In this study, we have investigated the antiproliferative effect of Quercetin (QU) and its combination with Cisplatin (CIS) on SPC212 and SPC111 cell lines.Our experiments showed that QU significantly reduced the proliferation of cell lines, altered the cell cycle distribution, and increased the level of Caspase 9 (C9) and Caspase 3 (C3) in concentration and time-dependent manner.Additionally, the combination of QU + CIS was found more effective when compared with individual treatment of agents.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Gebze Institute of Technology, Gebze 41400, Kocaeli, Turkey.

ABSTRACT
Malignant Mesothelioma (MM) is an aggressive and lethal tumour of the serosal surfaces with poor prognosis. In this study, we have investigated the antiproliferative effect of Quercetin (QU) and its combination with Cisplatin (CIS) on SPC212 and SPC111 cell lines. Our experiments showed that QU significantly reduced the proliferation of cell lines, altered the cell cycle distribution, and increased the level of Caspase 9 (C9) and Caspase 3 (C3) in concentration and time-dependent manner. Additionally, the combination of QU + CIS was found more effective when compared with individual treatment of agents.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus