Journal of Environmental Pathology, Toxicology and Oncology

ISSN for PRINT: 0731-8898

For Online Access

Best Paper Award Selection - Editorial Board Site

2004, Volume23

Issue 1

88 pages

DOI: 10.1615/JEnvPathToxOncol.v23.i1

Issue price - $160.00

Meredith E. Crosby
Department of Cancer Biology, Lerner Research Institute and Department of Radiation Oncology, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation; and Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

Marcela Oancea
Department of Cancer Biology, Lerner Research Institute and Department of Radiation Oncology, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation; and Department of Chemistry, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

Alex Almasan
Dept.of Cancer Biology,Lerner Research Institute and Dept.of Radiation Oncology,The Cleveland Clinic Foundation; Dept.of Environmental Health Sciences,Case Western Reserve School of Medicine; Dept.of Chemistry,Cleveland State University, Cleveland,OH,USA

Although radiation therapy has been an important modality for cancer treatment, the molecular mechanisms underlying the overall genomic response of mammalian cells to radiation are not well characterized. The success of radiation therapy using ionizing radiation relies upon the regulation of both the cell cycle and apoptosis, as conferred by the activation of DNA damage-responsive genes. To better understand the key players involved in this response, expression-profiling experiments were performed using custom-made cDNA microarrays. In MOLT-4 lymphoma tumor cells, the induction of target gene products following irradiation supports a major role for p53 as a transcriptional activator, but also invokes questions regarding conditional transcription regulation following irradiation. Using chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP), p53 binding to chromatin was examined following irradiation using primers that are specific for p53 binding sites in target genes. PCR analysis indicates dynamic target gene binding.Thus, at 8 hours following radiation treatment, the p21 and puma promoter sites were characterized by relative increases in chromatin precipitation, while the bax promoter site was not. Because the binding of p53 to these sites only changed modestly following radiation, other studies were conducted to characterize the presence of constitutive binding to putative p53 DNA binding sites in several other genes.

DOI: 10.1615/JEnvPathToxOncol.v23.i1.70 Download article, 14 pages

Article price - $35.00

<< Previous article