1996
DOI: 10.1016/0165-4608(95)00294-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of topoisomerase II inhibition in lymphoblasts from patients with progeroid and “chromosome instability” syndromes

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
18
0

Year Published

1998
1998
2008
2008

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
5
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is thus reasonable to ask whether the mutant WS protein might alter the sensitivity of WS cells to agents that block the action of one or the other topoisomerase. Indeed, it has been shown that human WS lymphoblasts show an increased sensitivity to both topoisomerase type I and II inhibitors, camptothecin and etoposide (46,47). Consistent with this, we have shown that the murine mutant ES cells are similarly more sensitive to etoposide and even more sensitive to the type I topoisomerase inhibitor, camptothecin.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 75%
“…It is thus reasonable to ask whether the mutant WS protein might alter the sensitivity of WS cells to agents that block the action of one or the other topoisomerase. Indeed, it has been shown that human WS lymphoblasts show an increased sensitivity to both topoisomerase type I and II inhibitors, camptothecin and etoposide (46,47). Consistent with this, we have shown that the murine mutant ES cells are similarly more sensitive to etoposide and even more sensitive to the type I topoisomerase inhibitor, camptothecin.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 75%
“…We noticed that murine mutant ES cells are more sensitive to both types I and II topoisomerase inhibitors than are wild type ES cells. Similar results were obtained with human WS cell lines (31,32). Because both of these topoisomerases are involved in DNA replication, it is possible that the WS protein acts in concert with these enzymes as part of a replication structure.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 74%
“…EBV-transformed WS and normal lymphoblast cell lines were exposed to different concentrations of VP-16, m-AMSA and 50 cGy X-rays. Our results show higher susceptibility of WS cells for the induction of chromatid-type exchanges after G 2 treatment with both VP-16 and m-AMSA, confirming the data reported by Elli et al (1996), but not with X-rays. Further analysis will performed on the localisation and type of induced chromosomal damage (breaks versus exchanges).…”
Section: P220supporting
confidence: 82%