Cisplatin Sensitivity in Hmgb1minus /minus and Hmgb1+/+ Mouse Cells*

Min WeiDagger, Olga Burenkova, and Stephen J. Lippard§

From the Department of Chemistry, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139

Received for publication, October 15, 2002

    ABSTRACT
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES

The study presented here investigates the effect of HMGB1 knockout on the sensitivity of mouse embryonic fibroblasts treated with the anticancer drug cisplatin. We evaluated both the growth inhibition by cisplatin and cisplatin-induced cell death in the Hmgb1-/- cells and its wild-type counterpart. No significant differences were observed in the responses of these cells to cisplatin, indicating that HMGB1 does not play a significant role in modulating the cellular responses to cisplatin in this context. Since HMGB1 significantly enhances the cytotoxicity of cisplatin in other cells, these results illustrate the importance of cell type in determining the ability of this and probably other cisplatin-DNA-binding proteins to influence the efficacy of the drug.

    INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES

cis-Diamminedichloroplatinum(II) (cisplatin)1 is one of the most widely used anticancer drugs for the treatment of a variety of human malignancies (1). Whereas cisplatin is extremely effective in treating testicular cancer, the cure rate being >90% when tumors are promptly diagnosed (2), the curative potential of the drug against other tumors, such as ovarian, breast, and lung cancers, is significantly undermined by intrinsic and acquired resistance (3). Determining the factors that influence cellular sensitivity to cisplatin is thus important for understanding the anticancer activity of cisplatin and for developing a more effective platinum-based chemotherapy.

The cytotoxicity of cisplatin arises from its ability to react with DNA and form covalent DNA adducts (4). The major adducts, 1,2-intrastrand d(GpG) and d(ApG) platinum-DNA cross-links, are formed by coordination of the {Pt(NH3)2}2+ moiety to the N7 atoms of adjacent purines in double-stranded DNA. The cisplatin modification produces distinct changes in the architecture of the DNA duplex that inhibit replication and transcription and stimulate nucleotide excision repair (1). Cisplatin damage throughout the genome leads to cell cycle arrest and apoptosis (5). Moreover, cisplatin-DNA adducts are recognized by a variety of cellular proteins, a process that may affect the fate of platinum-DNA lesions and the responsiveness of tumor cells to cisplatin treatment (6, 7). Recognition of cisplatin-modified DNA by damage recognition proteins in the nucleotide excision repair pathway leads to the removal of platinum lesions and restoration of genomic integrity. Studies have suggested that increase in the repair of platinum-DNA adducts is key to cisplatin resistance (3). Several proteins not involved in repair, including HMGB1, TATA-binding protein, and other structure-specific recognition proteins, also bind tightly to the major platinum-DNA adducts (1). The role that these proteins might play in mediating the cytotoxicity of cisplatin is a subject of much current interest. One hypothesis, which has been proposed in various studies, suggests that the binding of these proteins to platinum-DNA adducts blocks the removal of DNA lesions, thereby enhancing the sensitivity of cells to cisplatin (8-14). This model is termed repair shielding. HMGB1, an abundant chromosomal protein in mammalian cells, interacts with platinum-DNA intrastrand d(GpG) and d(ApG) cross-links and interferes with their repair in vitro. It is thus one of the candidate proteins for participation in the repair shielding mechanism (11, 15).

HMGB1 belongs to the family of proteins that contain at least one HMG box domain, an 80-amino acid DNA-binding motif that recognizes bent DNA structures (16, 17). HMGB1 is highly conserved in mammals with >95% amino acid identity between rodent and human forms (16). HMGB1 is an extremely versatile protein. It increases transcription activation involving steroid hormone receptors, p53, Hox, and Pou protein (18-20). The regulation of transcription activation by HMGB1 is attributed to its DNA binding and bending activity. Protein-protein interactions between HMGB1 and the transcription factors presumably facilitate the formation of high order nucleoprotein complexes required for transcription initiation (for a review, see Ref. 21). Hmgb1 knockout mice die shortly after birth due to hypoglycemia resulting from a defect in transcription activation by the glucocorticoid receptor (22). Beside its intranuclear roles, HMGB1 was also discovered recently to function as an extracellular signaling molecule during inflammation, cell differentiation, cell migration, and tumor metastasis (23-25). HMGB1 is secreted by certain cells, including macrophages and monocytes (21). The secretion and signaling mechanism by which HMGB1 activates cells during these processes is largely unknown.

HMGB1 has been linked to cisplatin activity in a number of studies. HMGB1 binds specifically to cisplatin-modified 1,2-intrastrand d(GpG) and d(ApG) cross-links but not to the DNA adducts formed by the clinically inactive isomer, trans-diamminedichloroplatinum(II) (15, 26). Addition of HMGB1 to an in vitro nucleotide excision repair assay inhibited the repair of cisplatin-DNA damage (11, 14). Given the abundance of HMGB1 in nuclei, one copy per kb of the human genome, and its roles in various biological processes, it was hypothesized that the cellular HMGB1 level might modulate the cisplatin sensitivity of cancer cells. Consistent with this notion, hormone-induced HMGB1 up-regulation in MCF-7 breast cancer cells correlates with enhanced cisplatin sensitivity (27). Increased cisplatin sensitivity was also observed in a lung adenocarcinoma cell line transfected with a plasmid expressing HMGB2, a protein with more than 80% identity to HMGB1 (28). A recent study, however, showed that loss of NHP6A, an abundant HMG box protein in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, sensitized yeast to cisplatin, suggesting that a mechanism other than repair shielding was in effect in the yeast system (29).

To investigate further how HMGB1 might affect cisplatin sensitivity in mammalian cells, we studied the cisplatin sensitivity and cisplatin-induced apoptosis in the mouse Hmgb1-/- cell line. Here, we report the results of this work and discuss its implications. Our studies reveal little difference in the cisplatin sensitivity and cisplatin-induced apoptosis between the Hmgb1-/- and its parental cell lines, suggesting that in this mouse model, HMGB1 does not modulate cellular sensitivity to cisplatin. To our knowledge, this is the first direct examination of the impact of HMGB1 loss on cisplatin sensitivity in mammalian cells.

    EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES

Tissue Culture-- Mouse embryonic fibroblast cell lines, Hmgb1+/+ and Hmgb1-/-, were kindly provided by M. E. Bianchi (22). Cells were maintained as monolayer cultures in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's media containing 10% heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum and 2 mM L-glutamine at 37 °C in a humidified incubator with 5% CO2.

Western Blotting-- Cell extracts were prepared from near confluent cells on 100-mm plates. Cells were washed with phosphate-buffered saline and lysed in 250 µl of buffer containing 2% SDS, 10 µg/ml of pepstatin, leupeptin and aprotinin, and 0.5 mg/ml Pefabloc in phosphate-buffered saline. The lysate was pulled through a 25G5/8 syringe needle to shear genomic DNA and was cleared by centrifugation. The protein concentrations of extracts were determined by a bicinchoninic acid protein assay kit (Sigma). The proteins in cell extracts were resolved on 12% SDS-PAGE gels and then electroblotted onto polyvinylidene difluoride membranes (Bio-Rad). Following blocking with a 5% bovine serum albumin and 0.01% Tween 20 solution in Tris-buffered saline at pH 7.4, membranes were incubated in the primary antibody, rabbit alpha -HMGB1 (1:2,000 dilution) (Pharmingen), in 0.01% Tween 20 at pH 7.4 with Tris-buffered saline. Finally, blots were incubated in the secondary antibody, 1:2,000 dilution of alpha -rabbit whole antibody conjugated to horseradish peroxidase (Amersham Biosciences). After washing, blots were soaked for 1 min in chemiluminescent reagents (Sigma) and then exposed to BioMax film (Eastman Kodak Co.).

Growth Inhibition Assay-- Cells were seeded on 96-well plates at a density of 1,000 cells/100 µl/well. Treatment with cisplatin began the next day after cells had attached to the plates. For continuous treatment, cells were incubated in growth medium containing various concentrations of cisplatin for 72 h. For short time treatment, cells were treated with cisplatin-containing medium for 4 h followed by incubation in drug-free medium for an additional 90 h. After incubation, the cell density of each sample was determined by using WST-1, a tetrazolium salt (Chemicon International Inc.). The assay was carried out according to the manufacturer's protocol. Briefly, 10 µl of WST-1 dissolved in Electro Coupling Solution (Chemicon International Inc.) was added to each well of 96-well plates that contained cells at the end of the incubation. Plates were incubated under standard growth conditions for 1.5 h, and the absorbance at 440 nm was recorded by using an absorbance microplate reader, SpectroMax 340pc (Molecular Devices). Percentages of surviving cells were calculated by the ratio of absorbance of cisplatin-treated cultures over that of untreated control culture. Cisplatin kill curves were obtained by plotting the percentage of survival against the concentration of cisplatin. In addition, a second set of cultures was analyzed by using sulforhodamine B (SRB). First, 10% cold trichloroacetate solution was added to the cells. Plates were incubated for 30 min at 4 °C to allow fixation to come to completion and then washed five times with distilled water. Plates were air-dried at room temperature in the hood. Trichloroacetate-fixed cells in each well were then stained with 100 µl of 0.4% (w/v) SRB in 1% acetic acid for 30 min. Excess SRB was removed by washing the plates four times with 1% acetic acid. Plates were air-dried until no remaining moisture was visible. The bound SRB was solubilized by adding 100 µl of 10 mM Tris base (pH 10.5) to each well and shaking for 5 min on a shaker platform. The absorbance at 564 nm was recorded by using the microplate reader. Cisplatin kill curves were obtained as described above.

Annexin V Assay-- A portion (1.5 × 105) of cells was plated on 60-mm plates and allowed to attach overnight. Cells were then incubated in cisplatin-containing media for 34 h. After incubation, the attached cells in each plate were collected by trypsinization and combined with the detached cells of the same sample. Cells were washed twice with cold phosphate-buffered saline and resuspended in the binding buffer (Pharmingen). Cell suspensions were counted with a hemocytometer and diluted to a final concentration of 1 × 106 cells/ml. An aliquot of cells (100 µl) was labeled with propidium iodide (PI) and fluorescein isothiocyanate-conjugated annexin V (annexin V-FITC) according to the manufacturer's instructions. The labeled cell suspensions were analyzed by a flow cytometer, FACScan, equipped with a 488-nm argon laser light source (BD Biosciences). The emission filter used was 515-545 nm for FITC and 563-607 nm for DNA·PI complexes. Data were analyzed with CellQuest software. Cell debris was excluded from data analysis.

    RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES

Cisplatin Sensitivity of Hmgb1+/+ and Hmgb1-/- Cells-- Two independent methods were used to compare the cisplatin sensitivity of the Hmgb1-/- and wild-type mouse cells. The WST-1 assay measures the live cell population because WST-1 is quantitatively reduced to a colored formazan in viable cells (30, 31). The SRB assay measures cell density by quantitating colored sulforhodamine B bound to cells fixed to the plates by trichloroacetate (32, 33). Similar results were obtained by using the two methods (Fig. 1). Cisplatin inhibited the growth of Hmgb1+/+ and Hmgb1-/- cells to a similar extent when added to growth medium for 72 h (Fig. 1, A and B). Likewise, a 4-h cisplatin treatment followed by an 84-h incubation in drug-free medium equally inhibited the growth of both cell lines (Fig. 1, C and D). No significant difference between the cisplatin sensitivity of Hmgb1+/+ and Hmgb1-/- cells was observed in repeated trials.


View larger version (26K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1.   Cisplatin kill curve of Hmgb1+/+ and Hmgb1-/- cells. Cells were plated in 96-well plates at a density of 1,000 cells/100 µl/well. Cells were incubated with cisplatin-containing medium for 72 h (A and B) or treated with cisplatin for 4 h and incubated in fresh medium for 84 h (C and D). Cell density was measured either by the SRB assay (A and C) or by the WST-1 assay (B and D).

Cisplatin-Induced Apoptosis in Hmgb1+/+ and Hmgb1-/- Cells-- A common cellular response to cisplatin exposure is activation of the apoptotic pathway (34). In the present study, the apoptosis of Hmgb1+/+ and Hmgb1-/- cells induced by cisplatin was probed by labeling with PI and annexin V-FITC. Early apoptotic cells lose membrane phospholipid asymmetry and expose phosphatidylserine on the outer leaflet of the plasma membrane. Previous work has demonstrated that phosphatidylserine externalization in apoptotic cells can be labeled with annexin V-FITC and quantitated by flow cytometry (35-37). The late apoptotic cells and dead cells can also be labeled with PI in addition to the annexin V labeling because of damaged cell membrane. The annexin V-FITC/PI assay has been successfully applied to study cisplatin-induced apoptosis in a number of cell lines (35, 38, 39).

Fig. 2 shows the density plots of PI fluorescence versus annexin V-FITC fluorescence obtained from control (untreated) or cisplatin-treated Hmgb1+/+ and Hmgb1-/- mouse cells. These cells were continuously treated with cisplatin for 34 h before fluorescence-activated cell sorter analysis. The plots illustrate four cell populations (live, apoptotic, necrotic, and late apoptotic/dead) defined by their fluorescence characteristics. Live cells are annexin V- and PI-negative. Early apoptotic cells are annexin V-positive and PI-negative; their membranes are not permeable. Necrotic cells are annexin V-negative and PI-positive because of damaged cell membrane. The late apoptotic and dead cells are both annexin V- and PI-positive. The untreated Hmgb1+/+ and Hmgb1-/- cell cultures contained very few apoptotic cells (<3%) but included 6-7% dead cells, which we assign as the background cell death in these cultures. By comparison, significant percentages of apoptotic cells and dead cells were present in cisplatin-treated cultures. The necrotic populations in all cultures were generally less than 4%, suggesting that dead cells did not arise from necrosis following cisplatin treatment. The sums of apoptotic and dead cell populations in cultures treated with various concentrations of cisplatin are plotted in Fig. 3. Hmgb1-/- cells exhibited similar levels of apoptosis as wild-type Hmgb1+/+ cells for all concentrations of cisplatin. Similar apoptotic responses to cisplatin in the Hmgb1-/- and Hmgb1+/+ cells were consistently observed in repeated experiments.


View larger version (53K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2.   Density plots of PI labeling versus annexin V-FITC binding in Hmgb1+/+ (left panels) and Hmgb1-/-(right panels) cells treated with 0 (A), 2 (B), 5 (C), or 10 µM (D) cisplatin for 34 h. FL1-H represents PI fluorescence, and FL2-H represents annexin V-FITC fluorescence. The four regions in each plot represent vital (annexin V-/PI-), early apoptotic (annexin V+/PI-), damaged (annexin V-/PI+), and late apoptotic/dead (annexin V+/PI+) cells, respectively.


View larger version (29K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3.   Cisplatin induces similar apoptotic responses in Hmgb1+/+ and Hmgb1-/- cells. Each bar represents the sum of percentages of the early apoptotic (annexin V+/PI-) and late/dead cells (annexin V+/PI-) in the given culture.

HMGB1 Expression Levels in the Hmgb1+/+ Mouse Cells and MCF-7 Cells-- The expression levels of HMGB1 are similar in different tissues of the same animal (40). It is not clear whether different animals have significantly different levels of expressed protein. Here, we used Western blotting to compare the levels of HMGB1 in the mouse fibroblasts with those in MCF-7 cells, a human breast cancer line. The same total amount of cellular proteins was subjected to SDS-PAGE separation and Western analysis using the HMGB1 antibody. The Western blot showed similar levels of HMGB1 expression in the mouse fibroblasts and MCF-7 cells (Fig. 4).


View larger version (39K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4.   Western analysis shows similar levels of HMGB1 expression in MCF-7 (lane 1) and wild-type mouse embryonic fibroblast cells (lane 2) as well as lack of HMGB1 expression in Hmgb1-/- mouse cells (lane 3). A, Western blot using anti-HMGB1 antibodies. B, Western blot using anti-beta -actin. *, a protein band nonspecifically recognized by the anti-HMGB1 antibody observed in the wild-type and Hmgb1-/- mouse cells.


    DISCUSSION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES

The goal of this study was to explore the connection between HMGB1 levels and the sensitivity of mammalian cells to cisplatin. We addressed this question by comparing the response of wild-type cells with those of Hmgb1 knockout mouse cells established previously (22). Hmgb1-/- mice die shortly after birth due to a defect in the transcriptional activation of the glucocorticoid receptor, consistent with the notion that HMGB1 functions as a regulator of transcription involving steroid hormone receptors. The HMGB1 deficiency is also manifested at the cellular level. The cultured Hmgb1-/- embryonic fibroblasts are defective in transcription activation by the glucocorticoid and progesterone receptors (22). The Hmgb1-/- cells have a morphology and growth rate similar to those of the Hmgb1+/+ cells, and the levels of Hmgb2 and Hmgb3 mRNA are comparable in both cell lines (22). The Hmgb1-/- and the wild-type cell lines thus provide an adequate system for investigating the involvement of HMGB1 in cellular responses to cisplatin.

Both the growth inhibition by cisplatin and cisplatin-induced apoptosis in the Hmgb1-/- and the wild-type cells were examined. Two independent methods (see "Experimental Procedures") revealed that continuous treatment with cisplatin inhibited the growth of Hmgb1-/- cells to the same extent as that of Hmgb1+/+ cells (Fig. 1). When cells were treated with cisplatin for a short time (4 h), the survival rates of both cell lines were also similar (Fig. 1). Furthermore, the cisplatin-induced apoptosis in these cells was investigated by using annexin V-FITC/PI labeling. In cisplatin-treated cell cultures of both lines, there was a significant apoptotic (annexin V-positive) but very little necrotic population (annexin V-negative/PI-positive), suggesting that the cells die via the former pathway (Fig. 2). Increasing cisplatin concentration in the cultures resulted in increasing apoptosis in both cell lines, confirming that apoptosis of the cells was induced by cisplatin (Figs. 2 and 3). Comparison of the apoptotic population in the Hmgb1-/- and Hmgb1+/+ cultures treated with the same concentrations of cisplatin showed essentially the same degree of cell death in both cell lines (Fig. 3). Collectively, these results indicate that the Hmgb1-/- cells are as sensitive to cisplatin as the Hmgb1+/+ cells.

HMGB1 has been implicated in the cytotoxicity of cisplatin since the discovery of its ability to bind cisplatin-modified DNA in vitro. A number of experiments (42-47) have discerned the molecular interactions between HMGB1 and cisplatin-modified DNA. Few studies, however, investigated the effect of HMGB1 on cisplatin sensitivity at the cellular level. The present results suggest that HMGB1 does not play a significant role in the mechanism of cisplatin-induced cytotoxicity in the mouse embryonic cells. Given the high binding affinity of HMGB1 for cisplatin-modified DNA and the abundance of HMGB1 in mammalian cells, this observation seems surprising. There are, however, a number of scenarios that might prevent HMGB1 from interacting with cisplatin-modified DNA in the cells and modulating their responses to cisplatin. One possibility is that the HMGB1 level in the mouse embryonic fibroblasts is considerably lower than that of cells in other tissues or animals, such as MCF-7 human breast cancer cells, the subject of a previous study (27). A Western analysis for HMGB1 levels in both cell lines excluded this possibility. More likely is that HMGB1 proteins engage in tight interactions with other targets in the cells. HMGB1 contains two tandem HMG boxes and an extremely acidic C-terminal domain (21), through which it interacts with several other proteins (19, 20, 41). In the mouse fibroblasts, HMGB1 proteins may be engaged in tight nucleoprotein complexes and may not be available for ready binding to cisplatin-modified DNA. A recent study discovered that during apoptosis induced by tumor necrosis factor alpha , HMGB1 became firmly attached to the hypoacetylated chromatin. The binding of HMGB1 to apoptotic chromatin may similarly block the interaction of HMGB1 to platinum-DNA adducts (23). Finally, as yet unidentified proteins in these embryonic cells may dominate the interaction with cisplatin-modified DNA. A comprehensive analysis of the correlation between cisplatin sensitivity and protein expression levels in cells may lead to the discovery of such protein candidates. In any event, our results stress the importance of cell type in determining the ability of this and possibly other platinated DNA-binding proteins to influence the effectiveness of cisplatin as a cytotoxic agent.

    CONCLUSION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES

HMGB1 has been postulated to influence cellular sensitivity to cisplatin through specific binding to cisplatin-DNA 1,2-intrastrand cross-links. Our results reveal little difference in the cisplatin sensitivity and cisplatin-induced apoptosis in embryonic native and Hmgb1-/- cell lines, suggesting that in this mouse model, HMGB1 does not modulate the cellular sensitivity to cisplatin.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Dr. M. E. Bianchi for the gift of Hmgb1-/- and Hmgb1+/+ cell lines and Glenn Paradis at the MIT flow cytometry core facility for assistance on the fluorescence-activated cell sorter experiments.

    FOOTNOTES

* This work was supported by Grant CA34992 from the National Cancer Institute.The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Dagger Anna Fuller Fund postdoctoral fellow.

§ To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel.: 617-253-1892; Fax: 617-258-8150; E-mail: lippard@lippard.mit.edu.

Published, JBC Papers in Press, November 11, 2002, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M210562200

    ABBREVIATIONS

The abbreviations used are: cisplatin, cis-diamminedichloroplatinum(II); HMG, high mobility group; HMGB1, HMG box protein 1; SRB, sulforhodamine B; PI, propidium iodide; FITC, fluorescein isothiocyanate; annexin V-FITC, FITC-conjugated annexin V.

    REFERENCES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES

1. Jamieson, E. R., and Lippard, S. J. (1999) Chem. Rev. 99, 2467-2498[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
2. Bosl, G. J., and Motzer, R. J. (1997) N. Engl. J. Med. 337, 242-253[Free Full Text]
3. Perez, R. P. (1998) Eur. J. Cancer 34, 1533-1542
4. Lepre, C. A., and Lippard, S. J. (1990) Nucleic Acids Mol. Biol. 4, 9-38
5. Chu, G. (1994) J. Biol. Chem. 269, 787-790[Abstract/Free Full Text]
6. Zlatanova, J., Yaneva, J., and Leuba, S. H. (1999) FASEB J. 12, 791-799[Abstract/Free Full Text]
7. Kartalou, M., and Essigmann, J. M. (2001) Mutat. Res. 478, 1-21[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
8. Donahue, B. A., Augot, M., Bellon, S. F., Treiber, D. K., Toney, J. H., Lippard, S. J., and Essigmann, J. M. (1990) Biochemistry 29, 5872-5880[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
9. Lippard, S. J. (1993) The Robert A. Welch Foundation 37th Conference on Chemical Research , pp. 49-60, The Robert A. Welch Foundation, Dallas, TX
10. Brown, S. J., Kellett, P. J., and Lippard, S. J. (1993) Science 261, 603-605[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
11. Huang, J.-C., Zamble, D. B., Reardon, J. T., Lippard, S. J., and Sancar, A. (1994) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 91, 10394-10398[Abstract/Free Full Text]
12. McA'Nulty, M. M., Whitehead, J. P., and Lippard, S. J. (1996) Biochemistry 35, 6089-6099[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
13. McA'Nulty, M. M., and Lippard, S. J. (1996) Mutat. Res. 362, 75-86[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
14. Zamble, D. B., Mu, D., Reardon, J. T., Sancar, A., and Lippard, S. J. (1996) Biochemistry 35, 10004-10013[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
15. Pil, P. M., and Lippard, S. J. (1992) Science 256, 234-237[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
16. Read, C. M., Cary, P. D., Crane-Robinson, C., Driscoll, P. C., Carrillo, M. O. M., and Norman, D. G. (1995) in Nucleic Acids and Molecular Biology (Eckstein, F. , and Lilley, D. M. J., eds) , pp. 222-250, Springer-Verlag, Berlin
17. Baxevanis, A. D., and Landsman, D. (1995) Nucleic Acids Res. 23, 1604-1613[Abstract]
18. Boonyaratanakornkit, V., Melvin, V., Prendergast, P., Altmann, M., Ronfani, L., Bianchi, M. E., Taraseviciene, L., Nordeen, S. K., Allegretto, E. A., and Edwards, D. P. (1998) Mol. Cell. Biol. 18, 4471-4487[Abstract/Free Full Text]
19. Jayaraman, L., Moorthy, N. C., Murthy, K. G. K., Manley, J. L., Bustin, M., and Prives, C. (1998) Genes Dev. 12, 462-472[Abstract/Free Full Text]
20. Zappavigna, V., Falciola, L., C. M., H., Mavilio, F., and Bianchi, M. E. (1996) EMBO J. 15, 4981-4991[Abstract]
21. Muller, S., Scaffidi, P., Degryse, B., Bonaldi, T., Ronfani, L., Agresti, A., Beltrame, M., and Bianchi, M. E. (2001) EMBO J. 20, 4337-4340[Free Full Text]
22. Calogero, S., Grassi, F., Aguzzi, A., Voigtlander, T., Ferrier, P., Ferrari, S., and Bianchi, M. E. (1999) Nat. Genet. 22, 276-280[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
23. Scaffidi, P., Misteli, T., and Bianchi, M. E. (2002) Nature 418, 191-195[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
24. Wang, H., Bloom, O., Zhang, M., Vishnubhakat, J. M., Ombrellino, M., Che, J., Frazier, A., Yang, H., Ivanova, S., Borovikova, L., Manogue, K. R., Faist, E., Abraham, E., Andersson, J., Andersson, U., Molina, P. E., Abumrad, N. N., Sama, A., and Tracey, K. J. (1999) Science 285, 248-251[Abstract/Free Full Text]
25. Taguchi, A., Blood, D. C., del Toro, G., Canet, A., Lee, D. C., Qu, W., Tanji, N., Lu, Y., Lalla, E., Fu, C., Hofmann, M. A., Kislinger, T., Ingram, M., Lu, A., Tanaka, H., Hori, O., Ogawa, S., Stern, D. M., and Schmidt, A. M. (2000) Nature 405, 354-360[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
26. Hughes, E. N., Engelsberg, B. N., and Billings, P. C. (1992) J. Biol. Chem. 267, 13520-13527[Abstract/Free Full Text]
27. He, Q., Liang, C., and Lippard, S. J. (2000) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 97, 5768-5772[Abstract/Free Full Text]
28. Arioka, H., Nishio, K., Ishida, T., Fukumoto, H., Fukuoka, K., Nomoto, T., Kurokawa, H., Yokote, H., Abe, S., and Saijo, N. (1999) Jpn. J. Cancer Res. 90, 108-115[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
29. Wong, B., Masse, J. E., Yen, Y. M., Giannikopoulos, P., Feigon, J., Johnson, R. C., and Giannikoupolous, P. (2002) Biochemistry 41, 5404-5414[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
30. Decker, T., and Lohmann-Matthes, M. L. (1988) J. Immunol. Methods 115, 61-69[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
31. Korzeniewski, C., and Callewaert, D. M. (1983) J. Immunol. Methods 64, 313-320[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
32. Rubinstein, L. V., Shoemaker, R. H., Paull, K. D., Simon, R. M., Tosini, S., Skehan, P., Scudiero, D. A., Monks, A., and Boyd, M. R. (1990) J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 82, 1113-1118[Abstract]
33. Perez, R. P., Godwin, A. K., Handel, L. M., and Hamilton, T. C. (1993) Eur. J. Cancer 29A, 395-399[CrossRef]
34. Eastman, A. (1990) Cancer Cells 2, 275-280[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
35. Boersma, A. W. M., Nooter, K., Oostsrum, R. G., and Stoter, G. (1996) Cytometry 24, 123-130[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
36. Clarke, R., Lund, E., Johnson, I. I., and Pinder, A. (2000) Cytometry 39, 141-150[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
37. van Engeland, M., Ramaekers, F. C. S., Schutte, B., and Reutelingsperger, C. P. (1996) Cytometry 24, 131-139[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
38. Pestell, K. E., Hobbs, S. M., Titley, J. C., Kelland, L. R., and Walton, M. I. (2000) Mol. Pharmacol. 57, 503-511[Abstract/Free Full Text]
39. Cummings, B. S., and Schnellmann, R. G. (2002) J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 302, 8-17[Abstract/Free Full Text]
40. Bucci, L. R., Brock, W. A., and Meistrich, M. L. (1985) Biochem. J. 229, 233-240[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
41. Sutrias-Grau, M., Bianchi, M. E., and Bernues, J. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 628-634[Abstract/Free Full Text]
42. Dunham, S. U., and Lippard, S. J. (1997) Biochemistry 36, 11428-11436[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
43. Farid, R. S., Bianchi, M. E., Falciola, L., Engelsberg, B. N., and Billings, P. C. (1996) Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 141, 532-539[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
44. Jamieson, E. R., and Lippard, S. J. (2000) Biochemistry 39, 8426-8438[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
45. Ohndorf, U. M., Rould, M. A., He, Q., Pabo, C. O., and Lippard, S. J. (1999) Nature 399, 708-712[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
46. Chow, C. S., Whitehead, J. P., and Lippard, S. J. (1994) Biochemistry 33, 15124-15130[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
47. Chow, C. S., Barnes, C. M., and Lippard, S. J. (1995) Biochemistry 34, 2956-2964[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]


Copyright © 2003 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.