Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 79–81 | Cite as

Differential cytotoxicity of Combretastatins A1 and A4 in two daunorubicin-resistant P388 cell lines

  • Alan T. McGown
  • Brian W. Fox
Short Communication


Combretastatin A4, a novel anti-mitotic agent was effective against two P388 cell lines with acquired resistance to daunorubicin. In contrast, Combretastatin A1, a close structural analogue of A4, showed a high degree of cross-resistance. Combretastatin A1 was also more efficient at increasing intracellular daunorubicin concentrations in both resistant cell lines. Neither agent was capable of altering anthracycline accumulation in the parental (sensitive) cell line. We propose that the cross-resistance to Combretastatin A1 occurs, at least in part, as a result of the increased affinity of the drug-efflux process operative in these resistant cells for Combretastatin A1 vs Combretastatin A4. Hence, Combretastatin A4 may play a role in the treatment of tumours with acquired resistance to the anthracycline antibiotics.


Daunorubicin Clonogenic Assay Vinca Alkaloid Resistant Cell Line Vindesine 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Capranico G, Dasdia T, Zunino F (1986) Comparison of doxorubicin-induced DNA damage in doxorubicin-sensitive and -resistant P388 murine leukemia cells. Int J Cancer 37: 227PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cornwell MM, Pastan I, Gottesman MM (1987) Certain calcium channel blockers bind specifically to multidrug-resistant human KB carcinoma membrane vesicles and inhibit drug binding to P-glycoprotein. J Biol Chem 262: 2166PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kessel D, Wilberding C (1984) Interactions between calcium antagonists, calcium fluxes and anthracycline transport. Cancer Lett 25: 97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McGown AT, Fox BW (1983) Comparative studies of the uptake of daunorubicin in sensitive and resistant cell lines by flow cytometry and biochemical extraction procedures. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 11: 113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McGown AT, Fox BW (1989) Structural and biochemical comparison of the anti-mitotic agents colchicine, combretastatin A4 and amphethinile. Anti-Cancer Drug Des 3: 249Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pettit GR, Singh SB, Niven ML, Hamel E, Schmidt JM (1987) Antineoplastic agents: 123. Isolation, structure and synthesis of Combretastatins A1 and B1, potent new inhibitors of microtubule assembly, derived from Combretum caffrum. J Nat Prod 50: 119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pettit GR, Singh SB, Hamel E, Lin CM, Alberts DS, Garcia-Kendall D (1989) Isolation and structure of the strong cell growth and tubulin inhibitor combretastatin A4. Experentia 45: 209 - 211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Poppitt DG, McGown AT, Fox BW (1984) Collateral sensitivity of a methotrexate-resistant L1210 cell line to the vinca alkaloids. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 13: 43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alan T. McGown
    • 1
  • Brian W. Fox
    • 1
  1. 1.Paterson Institute for Cancer ResearchChristie HospitalWithington, ManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations