LIFE09200604007 Tabish - Homi Bhabha National Institute
LIFE09200604007 Tabish - Homi Bhabha National Institute
LIFE09200604007 Tabish - Homi Bhabha National Institute
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Synopsis<br />
G2/M arrest and delaying entry into mitosis until the damage has been repaired 17 . Our<br />
results demonstrated that after exposure to γ-radiation G2 delay was more pronounced<br />
and significantly higher in control cell lines as compared to MPN patients‟ cell lines.<br />
Defects in cell cycle G2 delay are strongly associated to human carcinogenesis.<br />
Consequently we speculate that individuals with inherited defects in the G2 checkpoint<br />
may be predisposed to MPN development. Contrary to the observations following<br />
radiation exposure, there was no marked difference in S or G2/M arrest between patient<br />
and control group after BPDE exposure.<br />
Under normal circumstances when DNA damage is severe and cannot be<br />
repaired, an apoptotic response is elicited to eliminate the damaged cell. A failure in<br />
proper apoptotic response after extreme genotoxic exposure may also contribute to<br />
MPN development. There are reports available where disruption of apoptosis is<br />
associated with cancer 11, 14, 18 . We found that after radiation as well as BPDE exposure<br />
there was remarkable difference in the apoptotic response between MPN patient and<br />
control cell lines which was statistically significant. We believe that low apoptotic<br />
response in MPN cases could enable cells with DNA damage to accumulate, possibly<br />
conserving mutations in critical genes and inducing carcinogenesis.<br />
Differences in cellular responses can be traced back to differential gene<br />
expression. In order to find any association between varied phenotypic response after<br />
genotoxic exposure and gene expression in our cell lines we carried out expression<br />
profiling. Although there was no marked difference in expression of genes falling in<br />
important pathways related to cancer development but we indeed observed a variation<br />
in expression of genes like MAFB, ZNF429 and HMGA2 that are involved in<br />
transcription regulation, along with MAPK10, ARHGAP25, and GNG12 signal<br />
transduction genes which may in turn have an effect on downstream molecules. While<br />
few other differentially expressed genes like TMEFF1, AREG and SMAD6 are known<br />
to be associated with cancers. It is unlikely that such microarray studies will identify<br />
the etiology of UADT MPN but we expect that it may help in highlighting pathway<br />
defects playing crucial role related to pathogenesis.<br />
The differences that were observed in phenotypic response after genotoxic<br />
exposure between patient and controls can be attributed to differences in the polygenic<br />
susceptibility to genotoxins between the two groups. Genetic variations present in<br />
patients may give rise to phenotypes leading to multiple cancers on genotoxic exposure.<br />
Therefore we considered it important to compare phenotypic findings with the genotype<br />
16