Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Institute
- Medizin (1)
The formation of acquired drug resistance is a major reason for the failure of anti-cancer therapies after initial response. Here, we introduce a novel model of acquired oxaliplatin resistance, a sub-line of the non-MYCN-amplified neuroblastoma cell line SK-N-AS that was adapted to growth in the presence of 4000 ng/mL oxaliplatin (SK-N-ASrOXALI4000). SK-N-ASrOXALI4000 cells displayed enhanced chromosomal aberrations compared to SK-N-AS, as indicated by 24-chromosome fluorescence in situ hybridisation. Moreover, SK-N-ASrOXALI4000 cells were resistant not only to oxaliplatin but also to the two other commonly used anti-cancer platinum agents cisplatin and carboplatin. SK-N-ASrOXALI4000 cells exhibited a stable resistance phenotype that was not affected by culturing the cells for 10 weeks in the absence of oxaliplatin. Interestingly, SK-N-ASrOXALI4000 cells showed no cross resistance to gemcitabine and increased sensitivity to doxorubicin and UVC radiation, alternative treatments that like platinum drugs target DNA integrity. Notably, UVC-induced DNA damage is thought to be predominantly repaired by nucleotide excision repair and nucleotide excision repair has been described as the main oxaliplatin-induced DNA damage repair system. SK-N-ASrOXALI4000 cells were also more sensitive to lysis by influenza A virus, a candidate for oncolytic therapy, than SK-N-AS cells. In conclusion, we introduce a novel oxaliplatin resistance model. The oxaliplatin resistance mechanisms in SK-N-ASrOXALI4000 cells appear to be complex and not to directly depend on enhanced DNA repair capacity. Models of oxaliplatin resistance are of particular relevance since research on platinum drugs has so far predominantly focused on cisplatin and carboplatin.
As members of the editorial board of Neobiota who, for various reasons, didn’t get our names on the original editorial (Kühn et al. 2011), we would like to add a coda to it. Even though there were 38 bullet points listing areas in invasion science where more work is needed, we would like to mention additional areas that we hope would be addressed in future issues of Neobiota. Like the other editors, we would like this innovative and exciting new journal to lead the way in all areas of invasion science. As the graphs in Gurevitch et al. (2011) and Kühn et al. (2011) show, the literature on invasions has been increasing almost exponentially since the early 1980s and so we cannot expect any list of areas of interest to stay complete and up to date for very long. Three areas that we would like to stress are the interaction between invasion science and economics and the role that invasion science should play in advancing pure ecology in two areas, population dynamics and ecosystem ecology. Neither ecology nor economics appears as a word in the original bullet list, but many of the topics are obviously ecological while none are obviously economic. For economics, we want to point out its relevance to invasion science and the feedback between the two disciplines, particularly in a rapidly changing world with powerful new emerging economies. For ecology, we want to emphasise not what ecology tells us about invasions but what invasions reveal about ecology and evolution at two scales.