Advertisement

Radiation-Induced Neoplastic Transformation of Human Cell Hybrids

  • J. L. Redpath

Abstract

In vitro cell systems are well established in the study of mechanisms of neoplastic transformation by a variety of agents including chemicals, ultraviolet light and ionizing radiation (for recent reviews see references 1-4). However, with few exceptions, systems that are used for quantitative studies are rodent-derived cell lines, usually of fibroblastic origin. This situation exists for the very good reason that human cells in culture are extremely difficult to transform, and where this has been achieved the frequency of transformation is three to four orders of magnitude less than that typically seen for rodent cells (2). There is an obvious need for a human cell system(s) for use in in vitro investigations of neoplastic transformation.

Keywords

HEPES Buffer Neoplastic Transformation Cell Surface Protein Immunoperoxidase Staining Tumorigenic Cell 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J.C. Barrett and D.G. Thomassen, Use of quantitative cell transformation assayis in risk estimation. In: Methods for Estimating Risk of Chemical Injury: Human and Non-human Biota & Ecosystems (V.B. Vouk, G.C. Butler, D.G. Hoel, and D.B. Peakall, Eds.), pp. 201–234. Scope, 1985.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. Borek, The induction and control of radiogenic transformation in vitro; Cellular and molecular mechanisms, Pharmacol. Ther. 27, 99–142 (1985).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    G.L. Chan and J.B. Little, Neoplastic transformation in vitro. In; Radiation Carcinogenesis (A.C. Upton, R.E. Albert, F.J. Burns, and R.E. Shore, Eds.), pp. 107–136. Elsevier, New York, 1986.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    E.J. Hall and T.K. Hei, Oncogenic transformation of cells in culture: Pragmatic comparisons of oncogenicity, cellular and molecular mechanisms, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 12, 1909–1921 (1986).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    E.J. Stanbridge, C.J. Der, C-J Doersen, R.Y. Nishiml, D.M. Peehl, B.E. Weissman, and J.E. Wilkinson, Human cell hybrids: Analysis of transformation and tumorigenicity, Science 215, 252–259 (1982).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    C.J. Der and E.J. Stanbridge, A tumor-specific membrane phosphoprotein marker in human cell hybrids, Cell 26, 429–438 (1981).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    J.L. Redpath, C. Sun, M. Colman, and E.J. Stanbridge, Neoplastic transformation of human hybrid cells by gamma radiation; A quantitative assay. Radiat. Res. 110, 468–472 (1987).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    E.J. Stanbridge and J. Wilkinson, Dissociation of anchorage independence from tumorigenicity in human cell hybrids. Int. J. Cancer 26, 1–8 (1980).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    E.J. Stanbridge, L.R. Boulger, C.R. Franks, J.A. Garrett, D.E. Reeson, D. Bishop, and F.T. Perkins, Optimal conditions for the growth of malignant and human animal cell populations in immunosuppressed mice, Cancer Res. 35, 2203–2212 (1975).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    E.J. Stanbridge, Suppression of malignancy in human cells, Nature (London) 260, 17–20 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Han and M.M. Elkind, Transformation of mouse C3H10T1/2 cells by single and fractionated doses of X-rays and fission spectrum neutrons, Cancer Res. 39, 123–130 (1979).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    P.J. Saxon, E.S. Srivatsan, and E.J. Stanbridge, Introduction of human chromosome 11 via microcell transfer controls tumorlgenic expression of the HeLa cells, EMBO J. 5, 3461–3466 (1986).PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. L. Redpath
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Radiological SciencesUniversity of California, IrvineIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations