Our system is currently under heavy load due to increased usage. We're actively working on upgrades to improve performance. Thank you for your patience.
2002
DOI: 10.1038/sj.onc.1205047
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A protective role for HIF-1 in response to redox manipulation and glucose deprivation: implications for tumorigenesis

Abstract: We have investigated the role of HIF-1 in the cellular response to redox modulation via the inhibition of oxidative phosphorylation. We demonstrate that manipulation of redox in air, achieved by inhibiting cytochrome oxidase with cyanide, induces HIF-1 mediated transcription in wild-type CHO and HT1080 human tumour cells but not in CHO cells de®cient in the oxygen responsive, HIF-1a sub-unit of HIF-1. Hypoglycaemia attenuates cyanide-mediated transcription in nontransformed HIF-1 wild-type CHO cells but not th… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
57
0

Year Published

2003
2003
2009
2009

Publication Types

Select...
4
4
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 75 publications
(61 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
(34 reference statements)
4
57
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Thus, as shown by most published experimental tumor models, HIF-1b (Jiang et al, 1997;Maxwell et al, 1997;Griffiths et al, 2002;Ho¨pfl et al, 2002) as well as HIF-1a (Ryan et al, 1998Kung et al, 2000;Ho¨pfl et al, 2002;Williams et al, 2002) are positive factors for solid tumor growth. However, in one embryonic stem cell tumor model, HIF-1a-deficient (HIF-1a À/À ) tumors have been shown to grow faster when compared with HIF-1a wildtype (HIF-1a +/+ ) tumors, apparently because of an increased rate of p53-dependent apoptosis in the HIF1a +/+ cells (Carmeliet et al, 1998).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Thus, as shown by most published experimental tumor models, HIF-1b (Jiang et al, 1997;Maxwell et al, 1997;Griffiths et al, 2002;Ho¨pfl et al, 2002) as well as HIF-1a (Ryan et al, 1998Kung et al, 2000;Ho¨pfl et al, 2002;Williams et al, 2002) are positive factors for solid tumor growth. However, in one embryonic stem cell tumor model, HIF-1a-deficient (HIF-1a À/À ) tumors have been shown to grow faster when compared with HIF-1a wildtype (HIF-1a +/+ ) tumors, apparently because of an increased rate of p53-dependent apoptosis in the HIF1a +/+ cells (Carmeliet et al, 1998).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Cells were maintained in hypoxic or standard atmospheric conditions and drugs administered for 16 h. Media were replaced and cells incubated under normoxia for 6 days before SRB assay as previously described (Vichai and Kirtikara, 2006), and the concentration that reduced growth by 50% (IC 50 ) was determined. Clonogenicity after a 16 h drug exposure was determined as previously described (Williams et al, 2002). IC 50 was the concentration resulting in a surviving fraction of 0.5 compared with untreated cells.…”
Section: Cell Viability and Clonogenicitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[13][14][15] However, the story is far more complicated since CHO-K1 cells, which are considered to be tumorigenic, showed incomparably higher cellular response to dsDNA than HEK293 and melanoma cells. 16,17 It is possible that a high level of response to exogenous dsDNA in CHO-K1 cells could be due to species difference since rodent cells are known to express lower levels of many repair factors in the baseline state than human cell lines.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%