cytogenetic alterations associated with the acquisition of ... · chromosome banding analysis of...

[CANCER RESEARCH 47, 6646-6652, December 15, 1987]

Cytogenetic Alterations Associated with the Acquisition of Doxorubicin Resistance:Possible Significance of Chromosome 7 Alterations1

Marilyn L. Slovak,2 Gerald A. Hoeltge, and Jeffrey M. Trent3

Department of Radiation Oncology, Arizona Cancer Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85724 [M. L. S., J. M. T.], and Department of Blood Banking,Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio 44106 Â¡G.A. H.]

ABSTRACT

Cytogenetic abnormalities associated with the acquisition of doxorub-icin (DOX) resistance (DOXK) were examined in two cell lines (HT1080

fibrosarcoma and LoVo colon adenocarcinoma) which were selected inthe presence of increasing concentrations of DOX over a 2-year period.Karyotypes of both tumor lines were initially near-diploid although theydiffered significantly in their intrinsic sensitivities to DOX (DOX 50%inhibiting concentrations: LoVo, 0.10 /ig/ml; HT1080, 0.006 /ig/ml).Chromosome banding analysis of DOX" sublines of the LoVo and

111I(ISOcell lines demonstrated a strikingly different response to DOXselection with regard to both numeric and structural chromosome alterations. DOX" LoVo cells maintained the parental modal chromosomalnumber of 49 despite a 285-fold increase in the level of resistance, withminimal structural chromosome changes observed. In contrast, the development of DOX" in HT1080 cells was accompanied by marked

aneuploidy, including a significant increase in the complexity of the tumorkaryotype with increasing levels of DOXR. Cytogenetic evidence sugges

tive of gene amplification (double minutes and homogeneously stainingregions) was also observed in the DOXR HT1080 cell line. Examination

of chromosome alterations common to both resistant lines revealedalterations of chromosomes 1, 5, 7, and 11, with chromosome 7q themost frequent site of chromosome change. Reversion of DOX" in both

the HT 1080 and LoVo cell lines (by continuous in vitro passage once offdrug) resulted in an accompanying loss in structurally altered No. 7chromosomes.' Our data suggest that alterations of chromosome 7 are acommon and'perhaps significant feature of DOX" tumor cells.

INTRODUCTION

DOX4 (Adriamycin) is the principal therapy for many forms

of human cancer (1,2). Unfortunately, DOX treatment is oftenlimited by the development of drug resistant cell populations,which characteristically display collateral (or multiple drug)resistance to a wide range of amphiphilic, heterocyclic antican-cer agents (3). The acquisition of this MDR phenotype hasbeen correlated with several biological phenomena, most notably the overexpression of a M, 150,000-180,000 glycoprotein(termed P-glycoprotein) (3-10). The principal focus of thispaper will be to compare the chromosome changes accompanying the development of doxorubicin induced MDR.

Cytogenetic analyses of DOXR tumors are limited, with mostpreviously reported cases examining rodent tumors (11-15).The specific objective of the present study was to cytogeneticallycharacterize two recently developed DOXR human tumor cell

lines, LoVo (a colon carcinoma cell line) and HT 1080 (afibrosarcoma cell line). These cell lines were chosen for this

Received 4/28/87; revised 8/25/87; accepted 9/9/87.The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment

of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement inaccordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

' Research supported in part by a grant from the Del Webb Foundation andDepartment of Health and Human Services Grants CA-17094 and CA-41183awarded by the National Cancer Institute.

2To whom requests for reprints should be addressed, at Arizona Cancer Center,University of Arizona, 1515 N. Campbell, Room 3951, Tucson, AZ 85724.

' Scholar of the Leukemia Society of America.4The abbreviations used are: DOX, doxorubicin; DOX", doxorubicin resistant;

MDR, multiple drug resistance; 1CÂ»,50% inhibiting concentration; HSR, homogeneously staining region.

study because of their near-diploid karyotypes and their verydifferent intrinsic sensitivities to DOX (IC50:LoVo, 0.10 fig/ml;HT 1080, 0.006 Mg/ml). As described below, these two tumorcell lines were strikingly different in their patterns of chromosome alterations that followed a similar DOX selection schema.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cell Culture. The HT1080 cell line was obtained from the AmericanType Culture Collection (Rockville, MD). Cells were maintained inEagle's minimum essential medium with Earle's salts supplemented

with 10% heat inactivated fetal bovine serum, 1.0 DIM nonessentialamino acids, 2.0 HIML-glutamine, penicillin (100 units/ml), and streptomycin (100Mg/ml).

The LoVo cell line was a gift from Dr. Benjamin Drewinko (M. D.Anderson Hospital and Tumor Institute, Houston, TX). Cells weremaintained in Ham's F-10 medium supplemented with 20% heat in

activated fetal bovine serum, 1.0 HIML-glutamine, penicillin (100 units/ml), and streptomycin (100 Â¿ig/ml).

Detailed characterization of the selection schemata and pharmacology of the LoVo and HT 1080 cell lines will be presented elsewhere.5Briefly, DOX" sublines of both LoVo and HT1080 were generated via

incremental stepwise selection (without mutagenic pretreatment) overa 2-year period. Log phase cultures were treated continuously withDOX with concentrations doubled approximately every 8 weeks. Relative resistance was determined by comparing the ratio of IC50for theresistance versus the sensitive cell line. Levels of resistance of the

HT1080 cell line reached ~222-fold, while levels of resistance forthe LoVo cell line reached -285-fold. Parallel chromosome bandinganalysis of the LoVo and HT 1080 cell lines was performed at preselected DOX levels [LoVo: 0.05 (LoVo/DR2), 0.10 (LoVo/DR3), 0.50(LoVo/DR4), and 1.00 ^g/ml (LoVo/DR5); HT 1080: 0.01 (HT 1OSO/DRl), 0.025 (HT1080/DR2), 0.05 (HT1080/DR3), and 0.10 ^g/ml(HT1080/DR4)] (Table 1).

Cytogenetic Analysis. Parental and DOXR sublines (at similar pas

sage) were harvested and the chromosomes were banded as describedpreviously (16). Nomenclature follows ISCN recommendations (17).In agreement with ISCN recommendations, chromosome abnormalitieswere classified as clonal if two or more metaphases had an identicalstructural abnormality, or three or more metaphases had gained or losta specific chromosome.

RESULTS

The following sections will describe and contrast the clonalnumeric and structural chromosome alterations which accompanied the acquisition of DOXR for both the LoVo and HT 1080

cell lines. The data will first be summarized with regard tonumeric chromosome alterations followed by a description ofstructural chromosome alterations unique to the resistant sub-lines.

Numeric Chromosome Alterations Accompanying DOXR. Parallel Cytogenetic studies of the parental and DOXR LoVo and

HT 1080 sublines were performed at preselected drug levels(Table 1). The pattern of numeric chromosome alteration which

5 M. L. Slovak, G. A. Hoeltge, W. S. Dalton, and J. M. Trent. Pharmacologie

and biologic evidence for differing mechanisms of doxorubicin resistance in twohuman tumor cell lines, submitted for publication.

6646

on April 30, 2020. © 1987 American Association for Cancer Research. cancerres.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/

CHROMOSOME CHANGES IN DOX-RESISTANT CELLS

Fig. I. Histograms indicating the numberof chromosomes per cell from LoVo (left) andHT 1080 (right) parental and DOX" sublines.At least 30 metaphases were analyzed per sub-line. The percentages of cells at a particularchromosome number are indicated in the leftcolumn for the LoVo parental (A) and DOX"sublines (/(/â€¢')and in the right column for the

parental (G) and HTI080 DOX" sublines (//-

AT).Note that the modal chromosome numberremains essentially constant during the acquisition of DOX" in the various LoVo sublines,while in contrast, HT1080 DOX" sublines displayed significant numeric changes. /â€¢'and /,DOX" sublines carried free of drug (LoVo/

DR4 DR; HT1080/DR3 DF).

Â«0

Ã•45 50 55 60 95 100

80

75

20

15

10

5

Ã–LÂ«,<40

*40 45 50 85 90 95 100

LoVo parental(n=75)

LOVO/OR2(n=30l

LoVoDR3(n=31)

1

<40 45 50 55 90 95 100

G 60

50

20

IS

10

s0

I d

LL_HT 1060 parental

(n=50)

1<40 50 60 70 90 >100

H 35

30

20

15

10

5

HT1080OR1i <n=35)

< 46 60 70 80 90

I 20

IS

10

5

<55 60 70 80 90 >100

< 40 45 50 55 90 95 100I

HT1080DR3(n=36)

<55 60 70 80 90 >100

LoVoDRS(n=47)

< 40 45 50 85 90 95 100 <55 60 70 80 90 >100

60

5520

15

10

5

0ijLoVo

DH4 OF(n=34)1

HT1080OR3 DF(n=32)

accompanied the increasing levels of DOXR varied significantly

between these two cell lines (Fig. 1). LoVo parental cells werecharacterized by a modal chromosome number of 49 whichremained stable over the entire 2-year selection period (Fig.\A). The modal chromosome number and range of chromosomes per cell remained essentially constant (with some occasional hyperdiploid cells) despite an increase in the level ofDOXR to 285-fold control (Fig. 1, B-E). In contrast to the

stability of the modal chromosome number of the LoVo parental line, the pseudodiploid stemline of the HT1080 parentalline (Fig. IG) was shown following serial in vitro passagewithout drug to be almost entirely replaced by cells in the near-tetraploid range. In further contrast to the LoVo cell line, theacquisition of DOXR in HT 1080 cells was also accompanied byprominent changes in chromosome number (principally hyper-diploidy) (Fig. \,H-K).

Chromosome Number

Both the LoVo/DR4 (LoVo/DR4 DF) and the HT1080/DR3 (HT1080/DR3 DF) sublines were grown in the absenceof DOX to assess the stability of the DOXR phenotype and to

correlate the stability of the observed karyotype alterations.After 5 months (~90 population doublings) with no drug exposure, the LoVo/DR4 subline returned to a level of drugresistance approximating the parent, demonstrated a near-dip-loid chromosome number, and maintained a range around themode essentially identical to that of the parental line (Table 1;Fig. IF). In contrast, the HT1080/DR3 subline quickly lost its'drug resistant phenotype and shifted to a near-tetraploid chromosome number (after ~1 month and ~30 population doublings) (Table 1; Fig. \L). This tendency toward replacementof the diploid population with near-tetraploid cells as mentioned previously was also observed for the parental line carriedcontinuously in cell culture.

6647




Table 1 DOX resistance and cytogenetic characteristics in the various HT1080and LoVo sublines

CelllineLoVoLoVo/DRlLoVo/DR2LoVo/DR3LoVo/DR4LoVo/DRSLoVo/DR4

DF*HT

1080HT1080/DR1HT1080/DR2HT1080/DR3HT1080/DR4

HT1080/DR3 DF1SÃ©lective

concentrationG<g/ml)00.0250.050.100.501.00000.010.0250.050.10

0Relative*

rÃ©sistance1.010.015.028.0129.0285.01.81.016.030.092.0222.0

1.8Cytological

evidence of geneamplification(Y/N)/typeNNNNNNNNY/DMscY/DMsY/DMsY/DMs/HSR

Y/DMs'Modal

chromosomeno.49494949494949467975716986

* 1CÂ»of the resistant sublines/ICÂ«,of the parental cells.*The LoVo/DR4 DF subline was grown in drug free medium for 175 days.' DM, double minute.'The HT1080/DR3 DF subline was grown in drug free medium for 30 days.'Only 2 metaphases contain 1-2 DMs/cell.

Structural Chromosome Alterations Accompanying DOXR.Spec-ilk- chromosome alterations accompanied the acquisitionof DOXR. In general, structural chromosome alterations in theLoVo cell line (both the parental and DOXR sublines) wereminimal and remained relatively stable, while the DOXR

HT 1080 sublines increased markedly in the complexity of thekaryotype associated with increasing levels of DOXR.

The parental LoVo cell line demonstrated a stem line karyotype of 49XY,-2,+der(2)t(2;12)(q21;pl2),+5,+7,+del(12)-(ql4q22),-15,+der(15)t(15;15)(pll;qll) (Fig. 2A). Addition

ally, minor sidelines (sdÃ¬)were identified within this DOXsensitive parental line which differed from the main stem lineby the following changes: sdÃ¬1 +12; sdÃ¬2 -Y; sdÃ¬3 -12; sdÃ¬4-der(15)t(15;15)(pll;qll). Selection in DOX to a level ofrelative resistance of ~285-fold (LoVo/DR5) resulted in theappearance of several clonal chromosome alterations uniqueto this resistance subline (Fig. 2B). The stem line karyotypefor the LoVo/DR5 was: 49XY,-2,+der(2)t(2;12)(q21;pl2),+5,+inv(7)(pl3p22), inv dup(8)(ql l-Â»q24::q24-Â»qll),-15,

+der( 15)t( 15; 15)(p 11;q 11) with 4 sidelines observed which differed from the stem line by the following changes: sdÃ¬6-invdup(8); sdÃ¬7 +del(7)(q21q32); sdÃ¬8 -Y; sdÃ¬9 t(8;ll)

(q24;ql3)(Fig. 2B).The parental HT 1080 cell line demonstrated a stemline

karyotype of 46XY,-5,+der(5)t(5;?)(p 15;?),-11 ,+der( 11)t-(3;ll)(3qter-Â»3ql2::llq25->llpter) (Fig. 3A). Four sidelineswere recognized which differed from the stemline as follows:sdÃ¬1 + centric fragment; sdÃ¬2 t(17;18)(qll;pll); sdÃ¬3t(8; 15)(p 11;q 11); sdÃ¬4 del(6)(q 11).

Fig. 3B demonstrates the significant increase in the complexity of the karyotype of HT 1080 cells selected in DOX to a levelof relative resistance ~30-fold over the parental line (HT1080/DR2). Identifiable chromosome changes within the DOXR

HT108Ã’/DR2 subline included: del(l)(pl3), t(3;10)(qll;qll),del(5)(q22q34), del[der(5)](q22q34), i(5q), del(7)(q21q31),der(10)t(4;10)(4pter-Â»4qll::10q21-Â»10q26::10q26-Â»10qll),

;pll), del(l I)(ql3), der(13)t(13;?)(pl 1;?),ll), t(14;14)(pll;qll), der(19)t(3;ll;19)(3qter

->3ql2::llq25-Â»llql3::19ql3-Â»19pter),del(20)(qll)(Fig.3fi).Fig. 4 presents the proposed sequence of clonal karyotypic

evolution in both the LoVo and HT 1080 DOXR sublines. Of

interest, the type of chromosomal alterations varied betweenthe two cell lines, with translocations and inversions the mostcommon cytogenetic abnormalities observed in the LoVo

Â«'XreoiluÃ¬t'Â»Vi

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

X ti M Â»'13 14 15

19 20

16 17 18

*â€¢ II21 22 X/Y

V s*>( t>m}7Ã7<X Â«VfÂ«}

10 11 12

u13 14 15

ti IÂ»1Â« 20

II

17

,. Ã®,16 17 ia

21 22 UH

Fig. 2. Representative G-banded karyotype of the LoVo parental (A) andLoVo/DRS DOX" sublines (B). Arrows, clonal chromosomal changes. Inset, two

derivative No. 8 alterations observed in LoVo/DRS cells: a, t(8;l I)(q24;ql 1); o,inv dup(8ql l-Â»8q24::8q24-Â»8ql1).

DOXR sublines, whereas in the HT1080 DOXR subline, dele

tions were most frequent in the early steps of selection whiletranslocations were most frequent at the highest levels of DOX.

When all chromosomal changes were analyzed for both theLoVo/DOXR and HT1080/DOXR sublines, four chromosomes

(chromosomes 1,5,7, and 11) were shown to be most frequentlyinvolved in structural chromosome alterations. These alterations included chromosome translocations, deletions, inversions, and the presence of a putative HSR. The single mostfrequently altered chromosome was chromosome 7. Pictorialdocumentation of structural alterations of chromosome 7 whichaccompanied the acquisition of DOXR for both the HT 1080

and LoVo cell lines is presented in Fig. 5. Although neither theLoVo nor HT1080 parental cell lines evidenced structuralalterations of chromosome 7, by the second step of selectionchromosome 7 alterations were present in both lines. Selectionat increasing DOX concentrations resulted in an associatedincrease in the number of chromosome 7 changes (Fig. 5). Thedistribution of breakpoints along chromosome 7 was variable,although the preponderance of breaks occurred between bandregions 7q21â€”Â»q36.[Of interest, the P-glycoprotein gene in

6648




?fÂ»DH Y

â€¢Â«y 11^10 11

U it *t13 14 15

If It ti17 1816

If It19 20

Ã•9 It I â€¢21

Fig. 3. Representative G-banded karyotypeof the HT1080 parental (A) and HT1080/DR2DOX* subline (B). Arrows, clonal chromosomal alterations; l'mura, unidentifiable

marker chromosomes; DMs, double minutes.

X/Y

i\Ã®>\ Â»FÂ«Â»v

flit Iti* -.. li/119â€¢ 20 21 22X/J(,,.-Umars*

â€¢DMs

normal cells has been localized within this chromosomal region(18) (see "Discussion")]. All copies of structurally altered No.

7 chromosomes were lost from the HT 1080 and LoVo sublineswhich reverted to drug sensitivity after being passaged continuously i/i vitro with no drug exposure.

Cytological evidence of gene amplification (i.e., double minutes or HSRs) have frequently been reported in DOXR cell lines(5, 11-15, 19-21). Examination of the LoVo/DOXR sublines

failed to demonstrate cytological evidence of amplification atany level of DOXR. In contrast, chromosomal instability (dicen-

trics, rings, chromosomal pulverization, etc.) was a common

feature of HT1080/DOXR sublines (even at the earliest stepsof DOXR) with both double minutes and a putative HSR

(involving chromosome 7) observed at the highest level ofDOXR (HT1080/DR4) (Fig. 6).

DISCUSSION

The mechanism by which DOX kills cells is suggested toinvolve DNA intercalation and subsequent inhibition of DNAreplication related functions (2). It is therefore not surprisingthat in normal cells acute DOX exposure results in significantchromosome damage, including breaks, gaps, dicentrics, pul

6649




Fig. 4. Proposed sequence of clonal kary-otypic evolution during the acquisition ofDOX" for the LoVo (upper) and HT1080(lower) sublines. The indicated chromosomealterations represent deviations from the stem-line of the parental and DOX* sublines (seeTable 1). The circles represent the size of thecell population, with O representing the clonalchromosomal alterations present in the stem-line.

LoVo(parent)SttrSâ€”\^rsiMSâ€¢5sdÃ¬

1Â«-YsdÃ¬

2nisdÃ¬

34*-aSisi

sdÃ¬4

|0.00LoVo/OR2

Â»*tfSsit(3.M)

7\sdÃ¬

59%7*17%I

..-0.05LOVÃ“/DR3A^Jsi7Xâ„¢,7p,

9X'Sie3Xmi010

[DOX] M9/mlLoVo/Dfl4in

_Â»/-\si"

>s'Si7-kÂ£IS\M9Â»1050LoVb/D1Â»Â»6Xiia.1Â«

sdÃ¬99Xm

*jp(8q)47t!v^>yuLi1

|QsdÃ¬8100

HT-1080 (parent)

MXo-HT-W80/DR1 HT-1080/DR2 HT-1080/DR3 HT-1080/DR4

MX

oâ€¢trag

sdÃ¬1

a1(17 18)

sdÃ¬2as

1(8.15)

sdÃ¬36X

sdÃ¬51p-.1q-.Sq-

7Q-. nv(7p).)0p-

llq- I3q- 1(13.13).

1(14.14).1(19.11.3)

dfns

Si

6q-sdl

4I0.0010.010.025

[DOX] M9/mlt0.05j0.10

verization, and an increase in sister chromatid exchange (22-24). In the current study, we have examined the cytogeneticeffects of chronic exposure to DOX in two human tumor cellline: HT 1080, which initially was extremely sensitive to thecytotoxic effects of DOX (IC50 0.006 Mg/ml); and LoVo, whichinitially was quite resistant to this drug (ICSO0.10 Mg/ml). It isof interest, then, that the two tumor cell lines had strikinglydifferent karyotypic responses to acquired DOXR, which we

speculate might be partially accounted for by the observeddifferences in their "inherent" sensitivities to the cytotoxic

action of DOX. Currently, it is not clear whether the karyotypicdifferences relate to possible differences in the cellular pharmacology of DOX between these cell lines (e.g., drug metabolism, intracellular drug distribution, etc.) although pharmaco-kinetic studies are currently under way which may help answerthis question.

Structural rearrangements common to both the LoVo andHT 1080 DOXR cell lines included chromosomes 1, 5, 7, and

11. However, the most consistently altered single chromosomein both independently selected lines was chromosome 7. Theseresults are of possible interest for two reasons: (a) nonrandom

chromosomal alterations (deletions and translocations) involving chromosomes 5q and 7q have been described repeatedly intumor cells from patients with "treatment or mutagen associated" leukemia (tumors which are highly refractory to antineo-plastic therapy) (25-28); (Â¿>)the clustering of chromosomaldeletions and rearrangements to the long arm of chromosome7 is coordinate with the loci of the P-glycoprotein (MDR1)gene in normal cells (7q21-31) (18). Preliminary studies havefailed to demonstrate a rearrangement of P-glycoprotein sequences (recognized by Southern blotting) associated with chromosome 7 alterations in either the LoVo or HT 1080 DOXRsublines.6 However, despite the lack of evidence of structural

alteration of the MDR gene, we have demonstrated by Northernblotting the overexpression of P-glycoprotein in mRNA in theLoVo DOXR, but not the HT 1080 DOXR cell lines.6

In addition to alterations involving the long arm of chromosome 7, both the HT 1080 and LoVo DOXR sublines also

â€¢P. S. Meltzer, M. L. Slovak, M. Coccia, S. Cole, W. S. Dalton, and J. M.Trent. Molecular analysis of anthracycline induced multiple drug resistance(MDR), manuscript in preparation.

6650




LoVo

HiÂ«HT1080

f*7

Hi-U-

Chromosome 7Breakpoints

EGFR p

c-metr

PGLY;mdr1

Fig. 5. Chromosome 7 abnormalities in DOX" LoVo and HT 1080 sublines.Pictorial documentation of chromosome 7 alterations in the LoVo/DOXHsublines included: a, inv(7)(pl3p22); ft, dic(7) (pterâ€”Â»q36::?::q36â€”Â»pter);c,dic(7) (7pter-Ki36::q36â€”pter); </, t(l;7)(p34;ql 1); e, t(7;10)(qll;q26);/, dup(7)(q21 q32); g, t(7;17)(q22;q23); A, t(5;7)(q22;q32); and i, del(7)(q21q32). Pictorial documentation of chromosome 7 alterations from the HT1080/DOX"sublines included: j, del(7)(q21q31); *, inv(7Xpllp22); and /, der(7)(pl2?â€”HSR?::p22::?). Bottom, Idiogram of G-banded chromosome 7 depicting breakpoints involved in structural rearrangements in both the LoVo and HT 1080 cells.The percentage of breakpoints observed on the 7q arm was 74% with 32%observed near or at the loci of the P-glycoprotein gene (P-gly), cystic fibrosis gene(CF); and c-met cellular oncogene. Breakpoints along 7p were also observedcoordinate with the loci of the epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR).

Fig. 6. Various cytogenetic abnormalities observed in HT 1080 DOX" cells.

A. endoreduplication; B, chromosome 7 abnormalities, fragments, dicentrics, anda ring chromosome; C, double minutes; D, der(7) HSR.

demonstrated structural alterations of the short arm of chromosome 7 (pi3â€”>p22).This region of 7p is coincident with thechromosomal loci of the epidermal growth factor receptor gene(29). Recent reports have suggested that epidermal growthfactor receptor expression is significantly elevated in M DR celllines (30), while other reports have demonstrated that DOXexposure itself may modulate the expression of epidermalgrowth factor receptor in HeLa and murine 3T3 cells (31).

This study demonstrates that as cells acquire DOXR they

may also concordantly display recurring sites of chromosomechange. Studies are now under way to examine the possible roleof these chromosome alterations in modulating the expressionof P-glycoprotein for alternate genes which may be importantin the acquisition of DOXR.

REFERENCES

1. Blum, R. II.. and Carter, S. K Adriamycin: a new anticancer drug withsignificant clinical activity. Ann. Intern. Med., 80: 249-259, 1974.

2. Barranco, S. C. Cellular and molecular effects of Adriamycin on dividing andnondividing cells. Pharmacol. Ther., 24: 303-319, 1984.

3. Ling, V. Genetic basis of drug resistance in mammalian cells. In: N. Umchovsky and }. H. Goldie (eds.). Drug and Hormone Resistance in Neoplasia,Vol. 1, pp. 1-19. Miami, FL: CRC Press, 1982.

4. Biedler, ]. I... and Peterson, R. H. F. Altered plasma membrane glycocon-jugates of Chinese hamster cells with acquired resistance to actinomycin D,daunorubicin, and vincristine. In: A. C. Sartorelli, L. S. Lazo, and ]. R.Benino (eds.). Molecular Actions and Targets for Cancer ChemotherapeuticAgents, pp. 453-482. New York: Academic Press, 1981.

5. Fojo, A. T., Whang-Peng,}., Gottesman, M. M., and Pastan, I. Amplificationof DNA sequences in human multidrug-resistant KB carcinoma cells. Proc.Nati. Acad. Sci. USA, 82: 7661-7665, 1985.

6. Riordan, ÃŒ.R., Deuchars, K., Kartner, N., AlÃ³n,N., Trent, Â¡.M., and Ling,

6651




V. Amplification of P-glycoprotein genes in multidnig-resistant mammaliancell lines. Nature (Lond.), 316: 817-819, 1985.

7. van der Bliek, A. M., van der Velde-Koerts, T., Ling, V., and Borst, P.Overexpression and amplification of five genes in a multidrug-resistantChinese hamster ovary cell line. Mol. Cell. Biol., 6: 1671-1678, 1986.

8. Scotto, K. W., Biedler, J. L., and Melera, P. W. Amplification and expressionof genes associated with multidrug resistance in mammalian cells. Science(Wash. DC), 232: 751-755, 1986.

9. Shen, D. W., Fojo, A., Chin, J. E., Roninson, I. B., Richer!, N., Pastan, I.,and Gottesman, M. M. Human multidrug resistant cell lines: increased mdrlexpression can precede gene amplification. Science (Wash. DC), 232: 643-645, 1986.

10. Ueda, K., Cornwell, M. M., Gottesman, M. M., Pastan, I., Roninson, I. B.,Ling, V., and Riordan, J. R. The mdrl gene, responsible for multidrug-resistance, codes for P-glycoprotein. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun., 141:956-962, 1986.

11. Massino, Y. S.. and Kopnin, B. P. Genotypic and phenotypic alterations inDjungarian hamster cells resistant to Adriamycin. liiull. Eksp. Biol. Med.,96:92-94, 1983.

12. Howell, N., Belli, T. A., Zaczkiewicz, L. T., and Belli, J. A. High level,unstable Adriamycin resistance in a Chinese hamster mutant cell line withdouble minute chromosomes. Cancer Res., Â«.-4023-4029, 1984.

13. Slovak, M. L., Hoeltge, G. A., and Ganapathi, R. Abnormally bandedchromosomal regions in doxorubicin-resistant B16-BL6 murine melanomacells. Cancer Res., 46:4171-4177, 1986.

14. Tapiero. H., Patet, J., Fourcade, A., and Huppert, J. Chromosomal changesassociated with resistance to doxorubicin: correlation with tumorigenicity.Anticancer Res., 6: 203-208, 1986.

15. Vasanthi, L. G., Bakanauskas, V. J., and Conger, A. D. Early changesaccompanying development of Adriamycin resistance in spheroids of a mousemammary carcinoma line. Anticancer Res., 6: 567-572, 1986.

16. Yunis, J. J. New chromosome techniques in the study of human neoplasia.Hum. Pathol., 12: 540-549, 1981.

17. ISCN: An international system for human cytogenetic nomenclature. In: D.B. Harnden and H. P. Klinger (eds.), published in collaboration with Cyto-genetics and Cell Genetics, pp. 1-118. Basel: S. Karger AG, 1985.

18. Trent, J. M., and Witkowski, C. M. Clarification of the chromosomalassignment of the human P-glycoprotein/mdrl gene: possible coincidencewith the cystic fibrosis and c-mel oncogene. Cancer Genet. Cytogenet., 26:187-190, 1987.

19. Trent, J. M., Meltzer, P. S., Slovak, M. L., Hill, A. B., Dalton, W. S., Beck,W. T., and Cole, S. Cytogenetic and molecular biologic alterations associated

with anthracycline resistance. In: P. V. Woolley and K. D. Tew (eds.). DrugResistance in Neoplastic Cells, Vol. 9, pp. 259-275. New York: AcademicPress, 1987.

20. Tsuruo, T., lida-Saito, H., Kawabata, H., Oh-Hara, T., Hamada, H., andUtakojo, T. Characteristics of resistance to Adriamycin in human myelogen-ous leukemia K562 resistant to Adriamycin and in isolated clones. Jpn. J.Cancer Res., 77:682-692, 1986.

21. Mirski, S. E. L., Gerlach, J. H., and Cole, S. P. C. Multidrug resistance in ahuman small cell lung cancer cell line selected in Adriamycin. Cancer Res.,47: 2594-2598, 1987.

22. Vig, B. K. Chromosome aberrations in human leukocytes by the antileukemicantibiotic Adriamycin. Cancer Res., 31: 32-38, 1971.

23. Nevstad, N. P. Sister chromatid exchanges and chromosomal aberrationsinduced in human lymphocytes by the cytostatic drug Adriamycin in vivo andin vitro. MutÃ¢t.Res., 57: 253-258, 1978.

24. Musilova, J., Michalova, K., and Urban, J. Sister chromatid exchanges andchromosomal breakage in patients treated with cystostatics. MutÃ¢t.Res., 67:289-294, 1979.

25. Rowley, J. D., Golomb, H. M., and Vardiman, J. Nonrandom chromosomalabnormalities in acute nonlymphocytic leukemia in patients treated forHodgkin disease and non-Hodgkin's lymphomas. Blood, 50: 759-770, 1977.

26. Fourth International Workshop on Chromosomes in Leukemia 1982. Abnormalities of chromosome 7 resulting in monosomy 7 or in deletion of thelong arm (7qâ€”):review of translocations, breakpoints and associated abnormalities. Cancer Genet. Cytogenet., //: 300-303, 1984.

27. Mitelman, F., Brandt, L., and Nilsson, P. G. Relation among occupationalexposure to potential mutagenic/carcinogenic agents, clinical findings, andbone marrow chromosome in acute nonlymphocyte leukemia. Blood, 52:1229-1237, 1978.

28. Rowley, J. D. Chromosome changes in leukemia cells as indicators ofmutagenic exposure. In: ]. D. Rowley and J. E. I limami (eds.). Chromosomes and Cancer: From Molecules to Man, pp. 139-159. New York:Academic Press, 1983.

29. Smith, M., and Spence, M. A. Human gene mapping 8: report of thecommittee on the genetic constitution of chromosome 7, 8, 9. Cytogenet.Cell Genet., 40: 156-178, 1985.

30. Meyers, M. B., Merluzzi, V. J., Spengler, B. A., and Biedler, J. L. Epidermalgrowth factor receptor is increased in multidrug resistant Chinese hamsterand mouse tumor cells. Proc. Nati. Acad. Sci. USA, 83: 5521-5525, 1986.

31. Zuckier, G., and Tritimi. T. R. Adriamycin causes up regulation of epidermalgrowth factor receptors in actively growing cells. Exp. Cell Res., 148: 155-161, 1983.

6652



1987;47:6646-6652. Cancer Res Marilyn L. Slovak, Gerald A. Hoeltge and Jeffrey M. Trent 7 AlterationsDoxorubicin Resistance: Possible Significance of Chromosome Cytogenetic Alterations Associated with the Acquisition of

Updated version

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/47/24_Part_1/6646

Access the most recent version of this article at:

E-mail alerts related to this article or journal.Sign up to receive free email-alerts

Subscriptions

Reprints and

[email protected] at

To order reprints of this article or to subscribe to the journal, contact the AACR Publications

Permissions

Rightslink site. Click on "Request Permissions" which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center's (CCC)

.http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/47/24_Part_1/6646To request permission to re-use all or part of this article, use this link



http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/alerts

mailto:[email protected]



cytogenetic alterations associated with the acquisition of ... · chromosome banding analysis of...

Documents