Inducible Protective Processes in Animal Systems XIII: Comparative Analysis of Induction of Adaptive Response by EMS and MMS in Ehrlich Ascites Carcinoma Cells

Abstract

In order to investigate the presence of adaptive response in cancerous cells, two monofunctional alkylating agents, namely, ethyl methanesulfonate (EMS) and methyl methanesulfonate (MMS), were employed to treat Ehrlich ascites carcinoma (EAC) cells in vivo. Conditioning dose of 80 mg/kg body weight of EMS or 50 mg/kg body weight of MMS and challenging dose of 240 mg/kg body weight of EMS or 150 mg/kg body weight of MMS were selected by pilot toxicity studies. Conditioned EAC cells when challenged after 8 h time lag resulted in significant reduction in chromosomal aberrations compared to challenging dose of respective agents. As has been proved in earlier studies with normal organisms, even in cancerous cells (EAC), there is presence of adaptive response to methylating and ethylating agents. Furthermore, it is also interesting to note in the present studies that the methylating agent, MMS, is a stronger inducer of the adaptive response than the ethylating agent, EMS.

Differential response of biochemical parameters to EMS and MMS treatments and their dose effect relationship on chromosomes in induced diabetic mouse

“…It is worthy to mention that, there are extensive reports on the induction of chromosomal aberrations by alkylating agents in various in vivo test systems like Yeast [6], Plant [7,8], Drosophila [9], Poecilocerus pictus [10], non diabetic mouse [11,12], non diabetic rats [13] and in vitro test systems like Chinese hamster ovary cells [14,15] and Human lymphocytes [16,17]. Mahadimane and Vasudev [18,19] working in in vivo Ehrlich ascites, a disease condition, have demonstrated a dose dependent increase in clastogenicity using MMS or EMS. Though voluminous reports on the effects of alkylating agents in normal conditions are available, there is no literature as far as we know on diabetic animal systems.…”