No abstract

No abstract

Apoptosis was induced in a human chondrocyte cell line, T/C 28a4, by treatment with various stimuli, including camptothecin, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, staurosporine, okadaic acid, and reduced serum conditions. All stimuli induced a cytosolic DEVDase activity, coincident with apoptosis. Caspase activities in the lysates were characterized and quantitated with peptide cleavage profiles. To confirm that the results were not related to the immortalized nature of the cell line, primary human chondrocytes also were shown to undergo apoptosis under similar conditions, which resulted in increased cytosolic DEVDase activity. There was little or no caspase-1 (interleukin-1beta-converting enzyme) or caspase-8-like activity in the apoptotic cells. In all cases, the irreversible nonselective caspase inhibitor, Z-VAD-FMK, and the caspase-3-selective inhibitor, Ac-DMQD-CHO, inhibited DEVDase activity and apoptosis, whereas the caspase-1-selective inhibitor, Ac-YVAD-CHO, had no effect. Human chondrocytes were stably and transiently transfected with a type-II collagen gene (COL2A1) regulatory sequence driving a luciferase reporter as a specific marker of chondrocyte gene expression. Treatment of the cells with camptothecin or tumor necrosis factor-alpha plus cycloheximide significantly inhibited COL2A1 transcriptional activity. Significantly, cotreatment with Z-VAD-FMK or Ac-DMQD-CHO maintained COL2A1-reporter gene activity, indicating that the prevention of apoptosis by caspase-3 inhibition was sufficient to maintain cell functionality as assessed by the retention of type-II collagen promoter activity.

Background: The receptor (ER) for estrogen (E2) is routinely assayed as a marker to determine the feasibility of anti-hormone therapy against breast cancer because ER-positive (ER+) tumors are much more likely to respond to anti-hormone therapy than are ER-negative (ER-). However 40% of ER+ breast cancer patients do not respond to anti-hormone therapy. We suggest that this unpredictability of therapeutic responses lies in the current ER assays, which measure only an initial component of the E2-responsive pathway, and that the difference depends upon altered downstream processes. We propose a functional criterion that subclassifies breast cancers on the basis of specific binding of ER to its cognate DNA sequence, the estrogen response element (ERE). Materials and Methods: ER was identified in breast cancer cell lines by immunofluorescence assay, Western blot analysis, identification of ER-specific mRNA, and by interaction of the ER-ERE complex with three different ER-specific antibodies. ER-ERE complex formation was measured by electrophoretic mobility shift assay (EMSA). Transactivation of the E2-responsive gene was studied by transfection of cells with fusion gene construct with the promoter-containing ERE sequence and assay of reporter gene activity in the cell extracts. Results: The growth of ER+ T47D cells was sensitive to tamoxifen, ICI-182,780, and ethynyl estradiol (EE2), whereas another ER+ breast cancer cell line, 2 1PT, was resistant to these compounds. The estrogen receptor (ER) in the nuclear extracts of MCF-7 and T47D demonstrated hormone-dependent interaction with the response element (ERE) and also downstream transactivation of the E2-responsive PS2 promoter. But in the 21PT cell line that was designated as ER-on the basis of ligand-binding assay and was found to be ER+ by all the other ER assays, ER-ERE interaction and PS2 promoter transactivation were independent of hormone. Conclusions: On the basis of the downstream functional assay of ER interaction with ERE, ER+ breast tumor cells can be subclassified into two categories. The first is E2-dependent (ERd+) and these cells should respond to anti-hormone therapy. The second type of ER interacts with ERE independent of E2 (ER'+) and constitutively transactivates responsive genes. It is predicted that the latter type of breast cancers will not respond to antihormone therapy.