BioMed Research International

BioMed Research International / 2010 / Article

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2010 |Article ID 851589 | 7 pages | https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/851589

The Investigation of Effects of Quercetin and Its Combination with Cisplatin on Malignant Mesothelioma Cells In Vitro

Academic Editor: Michael Kalafatis
Received28 Dec 2009
Revised21 Mar 2010
Accepted25 Mar 2010
Published17 May 2010

Abstract

Malignant Mesothelioma (MM) is an aggressive and lethal tumour of the serosal surfaces with poor prognosis. In this study, we have investigated the antiproliferative effect of Quercetin (QU) and its combination with Cisplatin (CIS) on SPC212 and SPC111 cell lines. Our experiments showed that QU significantly reduced the proliferation of cell lines, altered the cell cycle distribution, and increased the level of Caspase 9 (C9) and Caspase 3 (C3) in concentration and time-dependent manner. Additionally, the combination of QU + CIS was found more effective when compared with individual treatment of agents.

1. Introduction

MM is a deadly and difficult disease to treat [1]. Chemotherapeutic agents including Gemcitabine, Imatinib/Gleevec, Gefitinib/Iressa, Bevacizumab/Avastin, Pemeterexed CIS, and Gemcitabine CIS are currently used to treat patients of MM [26]. However, treatments are not always successful. The bioactivity of flavonoids has been shown in many biological mechanisms related to cancer [7, 8]. QU is known to possess anticarcinogenic effects, which interfere with the pathways of cancer. QU has been previously reported to have antiproliferative effects on numerous cancers cells including leukemia [9], breast carcinoma [10], colon adenocarcinoma [11], prostate [12], and endometrial cancer [13]. It has also been reported that QU blocks colon, gastric cancer, and human leukemic T cells at G1/S phase of cell cycle [14] and arrests nononcogenic fibroblast and laryngeal, breast, and human acute leukaemia cancer cells at G2/M phase [1518].

In addition QU induces apoptosis in leukaemia [19], breast [20], ovarian [21], lung [22], oral [23], and colon cancer, [24] and melanoma [25]. CIS is widely used in the treatment of several cancers including head and neck, testicular ovarian, cervical, lung, colorectal, and relapsed lymphoma [26]. CIS and the other platinum drugs are conventionally employed by chemotherapeutic protocols against MM. However, mesothelial cells were found to be intrinsically resistant to CIS [27]. Although the anticarcinogenic effects of CIS and QU have been investigated separately, there is limited data, in the literature examining the combined effects. CIS QU in combination appear to have a pro-apoptotic effect in HeLa cells [28]. Additionally, QU has been shown to enhance the antiproliferative effect of CIS in leukaemia (HL-60 and L1210) and human laryngeal Hep2 cells [29].

The biological functions of QU combined with CIS on MM cells have not been examined before. In this paper, we have investigated the dose- and time-dependent antiproliferative and apoptotic effects of QU and its combination with CIS on MM cell lines.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Cell Lines

MM cells were obtained from The Institute of Histology and General Embryology, University of Fribourg, Switzerland. SPC111 cell lines were derived from pleural effusion with mixed histology of male patient and SPC212 cells originate from tumour with mixed histology of female patient. All the cells were maintained in RPMI 1640 medium (Invitrogen-Gibco) supplemented with 10% FBS, 9.2% NaHCO3 (Sigma-Aldrich), and 1% penicillin/streptomycin (Invitrogen-Gibco) and incubated at 3 C in a humidified atmosphere containing 5% CO2 in the air.

2.2. Drugs and Reagents

QU (3, , , , -pentahydroxy flavone) and CIS (Cis-diamminedichloroplatinum Pt (NH3)2Cl2) were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich. Both drugs were dissolved in dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) (cell culture tested; Sigma-Aldrich) as 1000-fold concentrated stock solutions and stored at 2 C. In order to avoid photoisomerization, all procedures involving drugs were prepared under subdued lighting.

2.3. Assay for Proliferation

One thousand cells per well were seeded in a 96-well plate for 24 hours. Then they were incubated with different concentrations of QU (5, 10, 50, and 100  M), CIS (1, 5, and 10  g/mL), and CIS QU (5  g/mL 50  M and 10  g/mL 50  M) for 0–96 hours. Following incubations, a cell titer 96 Aqueous One Solution Cell Proliferation Assay Kit (Promega Madison, W1 USA) was used to measure cell proliferation rate. Two wells of medium without cells were used to give background readings. To each well 20  l of MTS compound was added and the plates were incubated 2 hours before reading the absorbance at 490 nm with an Elisa reader (Bio-tek instruments.inc).

2.4. Assay for Cell Cycle Distribution

The cells (1 106) were plated into 50 mm diameter Petri dishes and incubated overnight then treated with QU, CIS, and CIS QU combinations for 24 and 48 hours. At the end of each incubation period, cells were harvested using Trypsin-EDTA (Sigma-Aldrich) washed with ice-cold 1X PBS and fixed in cold 70% ethanol. After fixation, cells were washed twice with PBS and incubated in dark for 30 minutes with a staining solution containing 0.1% Triton X-100/PBS (Sigma-Aldrich) with 1 mg/mL of RNase A (Sigma-Aldrich) and PI (20  g/mL) (Sigma-Aldrich) at room temperature. Fluorescence emitted from the PI-DNA complex was quantified after excitation of the fluorescent dye by FACScan flow cytometry (Beckman Coulter Epics XL-MCL).

2.5. Assay for Cell Apoptosis

Both cell lines were initially cultured in Petri dishes for 24 hours. QU (50  M), CIS (5 and 10  g/mL), and CIS QU (5  g/mL 50  M and 10  g/mL 50  M) were added for further 48 hours. 5 106 cells were washed with ice-cold PBS and lysed with caspase cell lysis buffers (Biovision, USA). The lysates were then centrifuged, and the amount of protein was measured by Bicinchoninic acid (BCA) assay at 24 and 48 hour intervals. Samples containing 100  g of total protein were assayed with LEHD-pNA as a caspase-9-specific substrate (Biovision, USA) for C9 activity and with DEVD-pNA as a caspase-3-specific substrate (Biovision, USA) for C3 activity. The absorbance was measured at 405 nm in a microplate reader.

2.6. Statistical Analysis

Results were expressed as mean s.d. of three-five independent experiments and each experiment included duplicate sets. Data was statistically evaluated by one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s test. The level of significance was chosen as , between control groups and multiple doses, between QU CIS treatment and CIS alone, and between QU CIS treatment and QU alone. Flow cytometric histograms were generated in linear mode and then analyzed using multicycle DNA software.

3. Results

3.1. Effects of QU and QU CIS on Cell Proliferation

To examine the effects of QU, CIS, and CIS QU on SPC212 and SPC111 cells, exponentially growing cells were treated by QU (0–100  M), CIS (1–10  g/mL), and CIS QU (5  g/mL 50  M and 10  g/mL 50  M) for 96 hours. The growth inhibition of SPC212 cells was observed at concentrations of QU 10  M at 72 hours (Figure 1(a)) and CIS 5  g/mL (data not shown). However, QU reduced the proliferation of SPC111 cells at concentrations 50  M at 72 hours (Figure 1(b)). Thus, to prove the ability of QU to enhance anti-proliferative activity of CIS, the optimal dose of QU (50  M) was used for 96 hours. As shown in Figure 2(a), 5  g/mL CIS 50  M QU and 10  g/ml CIS 50  M QU applications significantly decreased the proliferation of SPC212 cells when compared with control and the individual agents. The proliferation of SPC111 was also inhibited at same concentrations when compared with control cells, but combined effect was not significantly different from the effects observed in individual treatments on SPC111 cells for 96 hours (Figure 2(b)). In summary, agents inhibited proliferation of SPC212 and SPC111 cells independently or in combination at dose- and time-dependent manner, and combination of CIS QU resulted in an enhanced antiproliferative activity.

3.2. Effect of Treatments on Cell Cycle Distribution

To investigate effect of QU (50  M), CIS (5 and 10  g/mL), and CIS QU (5  g/mL 50  M and 10  g/mL 50  M) on the cell cycle progression of MM cells, we performed a flow cytometric analysis by using PI staining. As shown in Figure 3(b), 50  M dose of QU caused accumulation of SPC212 cells at S phase. However no alteration was observed at the cell cycle profile of SPC111 cells when compared with control cells at 48 hours (Figures 3(c) and 3(d)). Following 5  g/mL CIS treatments, both cell lines were arrested in S phase for 24 hours (Figures 3(a) and 3(c)), then cells were passed through to G2/M phase in the next 24- hour period (Figures 3(b) and 3(d)). However, when 5  g/mL CIS was used in combination with 50  M QU both cell lines were arrested and kept in S phase for 48 hours. The percentage of cells reached up to 86%, 7% and 99% in SPC212 and SPC111 cells, respectively at 48 hours (Figures 3(b) and 3(d)). This result might suggest that the prolongation of S phase was due to enhanced antiproliferative effect. On the other hand, when CIS dose was increased to 10  g/mL and applied with 50  M QU, the combination effect was not observed to be different from individual treatments in SPC111 cells (Figures 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), and 3(d)).

3.3. Effect of Treatments on C3 and C9 Activity

Both cell lines were treated with 5  g/mL CIS 50  M QU and 10  g/mL CIS 50  M QU in combination as well as individually. Caspase activities were measured after drug treatments at 24 and 48 hours. Increased C9 activity was observed in SPC212 compared to the control cells and the cells treated with single doses of 5, 10  g/mL CIS, and 50  M QU at 48 h. Additionally 5  g/mL CIS 50  M QU and 10  M CIS 50  M QU significantly raised C9 activation when compared with individual treatments at 48 hours ( ) (Figure 4(a)). Increased C3 activation was also detected in SPC212 cell lines at the same concentration of drugs individually and in combination for 48 hours (Figure 4(b)). Interestingly, 10  g/mL CIS 50  M QU applications activated both caspases at 24 hours (Figures 4(a) and 4(b)). On the contrary, SPC111 cell lines showed different profile on caspase activation. No C9 activation was observed with individual doses of agents but only 10  g/mL CIS 50  M QU applications activated C9 (Figure 4(c)). As shown in Figure 4(d) neither single nor combined treatments activated C3 in SPC111 cells.

4. Discussion

In this paper, we have investigated the effects of the QU molecule alone and in combination with a chemotherapeutic agent, CIS, on two MM cell lines. Antiproliferative action of QU on MM cells was observed in dose- and time-dependent manner.

QU inhibited cell proliferation of SPC212 and SPC111 cells at concentrations of QU 10  M and QU 50  M, respectively (Figures 1(a) and 1(b)). However, we have observed a biphasic effect of QU 50  M. Interestingly, doses less then 50  M of QU treatment increased cell proliferation of SPC111 cells (Figure 1(b)). The dual effect of QU on the cell proliferations has been previously described in human oral cancer cells, SCC-25 [30], colon carcinoma (HCT-116 and HT-29), and mammary adenocarcinoma cell lines (MCF-7) [31]. Moreover, the protective effect at low concentrations and the cytotoxic effects at high concentrations (QU 50  M) were indicated in rat cells [32]. These results suggest that related to the utilised dose QU works differently in the same cells. Furthermore, QU actions were also found to be cell selective. As indicated in [33], QU inhibited growth of aggressive PC-3 cells and DU145 prostate cancer cells but was not effective on poorly aggressive LNCaP prostate cancer and normal BG-9 fibroblasts. Our results indicate that QU applications caused reduction of cell numbers in both SPC212 and SPC111 cells. Additionally, SPC212 cells were affected by QU at lower doses compared to that of SPC111 suggesting the former cells were more sensitive to QU treatments.

Mesothelial cells were found to be intrinsically resistant to CIS [27], and CIS QU in combination appear to have enhanced antiproliferative effect in leukaemia and human laryngeal cells [29]. Therefore, combination experiments were performed to investigate whether addition of QU to CIS enhanced anti-proliferative activity on MM cells. Our experiments indicate that combined QU CIS applications were much more effective to inhibit cell proliferation than using agents individually (Figures 2(a) and 2(b)).

The effect of QU on the cell cycle distributions was pointed out in various cells including /S transition in gastric cancer and human leukemic T cells [14] and /M block in nononcogenic fibroblast, laryngeal, breast, and human acute leukaemia cancer cell lines [1820]. In our experiments, applications of 50  M QU resulted in S phase arrest in SPC212 cells (Figures 3(a) and 3(d)) but not in SPC111 cells (Figures 3(c) and 3(d)). In addition, 5  g/mL CIS 50  M QU treatments accumulated both cells in S phase and there were no transition to /M phase between 24 and 48 hours (Figures 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), and 3(d)). These results might suggest the existence of enhanced antiproliferative effect due to CIS QU working in combination. However, when CIS dose was increased to 10  g/mL and applied with 50  MQU, the combination effect was not different from individual treatments in SPC111 cells (Figures 3(c) and 3(d)).

Several groups demonstrated that treatment with QU causes apoptosis [1925, 34, 35]. QU leads to activation of C3 in HPB-ALL [36], HT-29 colon cancer cells [37], and pancreatic cells [34], C3 and C9 activation in HL-60 [38], and C3, C7, and C9 activation in A549 lung cancer cells [22]. In our experiments, C9 and C3 activation in SPC212 (Figures 4(a) and 4(b)) and C9 activation in SPC111 cells were observed (Figure 4(c)), indicating that apoptosis was induced by QU. The effect of QU was found to be time and dose dependent.

The enhanced effect of QU on CIS was reported in human laryngeal Hep2 cells. 2, 5  g/mL CIS 40  M QU induced apoptosis and increased C9 and C8 activity [39]. In addition, 10  g/mL CIS 15  g/mL QU enhanced the pro-apoptotic effect of HeLa cells through strong activation of C3 [28]. It is also reported that QU inhibits growth of several cancer cell lines where anti-proliferative activity was mediated by Type II Estrogen-Binding Sides (Type II EBS) [40, 41]. Furthermore, it is suggested that QU may synergize with CIS by interaction with these binding sites [41, 42]. We observed that QU alone and in combination with CIS activated C9 and C3 in SPC212 cells. Activation level of caspases was significantly increased by combine treatments when compared with individual agents (Figures 4(a) and 4(b)).

Although similar experiments were performed in different cancer cells, to our best knowledge, this is the first report investigating anti-proliferative activity of QU and QU CIS partnership on MM cells in vitro. QU alone and together with CIS have an anti-proliferative potential on MM cells by reducing cell proliferation and altering the cell cycle profile of both cells. In addition, C9 and C3 activations were observed, indicating that apoptosis induced by agents alone and in combination.

The interaction between QU and CIS might provide an interesting approach to combination therapy of MM. This may allow the use of lower concentration of the chemotherapeutic drug CIS and will also have the benefit of increased efficiency and reduction in side effects and drug resistance.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by grant TBAG 2336 103T-145 from Turkish Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK). Special thanks to Dr. Pınar Ergenekon (GYTE) for statistical calculation and Dr. Nil Saydan (GYTE) for providing the cell lines.

References

  1. S. J. Weiner and S. Neragi-Miandoab, “Pathogenesis of malignant pleural mesothelioma and the role of environmental and genetic factors,” Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology, vol. 135, no. 1, pp. 15–27, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. R. Garcia-Carbonero and L. Paz-Ares, “Systemic chemotherapy in the management of malignant peritoneal mesothelioma,” European Journal of Surgical Oncology, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 676–681, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. J. Green, Y. Dundar, S. Dodd, R. Dickson, and T. Walley, “Pemetrexed disodium in combination with cisplatin versus other cytotoxic agents or supportive care for the treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, no. 1, Article ID CD005574, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. A. Y. Lee, D. J. Ras, B. He, and D. M. Jablons, “Update on the molecular biology of malignant mesothelioma,” Cancer, vol. 109, no. 8, pp. 1454–1461, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. J. Dowell, R. Taub, C. Lan. et al., “A multicenter phase II study of pemetrexed, cisplatin, and bevacizumab in patients with advanced malignant mesothelioma,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 27, no. 15S, p. 401s, 2009, Abstr. 7578. View at: Google Scholar
  6. G. Pasello and A. Favaretto, “Molecular targets in malignant pleural mesothelioma treatment,” Current Drug Targets, vol. 10, no. 12, pp. 1235–1244, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. G. L. Russo, “Ins and outs of dietary phytochemicals in cancer chemoprevention,” Biochemical Pharmacology, vol. 74, no. 4, pp. 533–544, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. S. K. Jaganathan and M. Mandal, “Antiproliferative effects of honey and of its polyphenols: a review,” Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology, vol. 2009, Article ID 830616, 13 pages, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. T.-B. Kang and N.-C. Liang, “Studies on the inhibitory effects of quercetin on the HL-60 leukemia cells,” Biochemical Pharmacology, vol. 54, no. 9, pp. 1013–1018, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. J. A. Choi, J. Y. Kim, J. Y. Lee et al., “Induction of cell cycle arrest and apoptosis in human breast cancer cells by quercetin,” International Journal of Oncology, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 837–844, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  11. M. Salucci, L. A. Stivala, G. Maiani, R. Bugianesi, and V. Vannini, “Flavonoids uptake and their effect on cell cycle of human colon adenocarcinoma cells (Caco2),” British Journal of Cancer, vol. 86, no. 10, pp. 1645–1651, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. T. Kobayashi, T. Nakata, and T. Kuzumaki, “Effect of flavonoids on cell cycle progression in prostate cancer cells,” Cancer Letters, vol. 176, no. 1, pp. 17–23, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. M. Kaneuchi, M. Sasaki, Y. Tanaka, N. Sakuragi, S. Fujimoto, and R. Dahiya, “Quercetin regulates growth of Ishikawa cells through the suppression of EGF and cyclin D1,” International Journal of Oncology, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 159–164, 2003. View at: Google Scholar
  14. M. Yoshida, M. Yamamoto, and T. Nikaido, “Quercetin arrests human leukemic T-cells in late G1 phase of the cell cycle,” Cancer Research, vol. 52, no. 23, pp. 6676–6681, 1992. View at: Google Scholar
  15. M. A. Avila, J. A. Velasco, J. Cansado, and V. Notario, “Quercetin mediates the down-regulation of mutant p53 in the human breast cancer cell line MDA-MB468,” Cancer Research, vol. 54, no. 9, pp. 2424–2428, 1994. View at: Google Scholar
  16. G. Ferrandina, G. Almadori, N. Maggiano et al., “Growth-inhibitory effect of tamoxifen and quercetin and presence of type II estrogen binding sites in human laryngeal cancer cell lines and primary laryngeal tumors,” International Journal of Cancer, vol. 77, no. 5, pp. 747–754, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. E. J. Choi, S. M. Bae, and W. S. Ahn, “Antiproliferative effects of quercetin through cell cycle arrest and apoptosis in human breast cancer MDA-MB-453 cells,” Archives of Pharmacal Research, vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 1281–1285, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. G. Rusak, H. O. Gutzeit, and J. L. Müller, “Structurally related flavonoids with antioxidative properties differentially affect cell cycle progression and apoptosis of human acute leukemia cells,” Nutrition Research, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 143–155, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. S. U. Mertens-Talcott and S. S. Percival, “Ellagic acid and quercetin interact synergistically with resveratrol in the induction of apoptosis and cause transient cell cycle arrest in human leukemia cells,” Cancer Letters, vol. 218, no. 2, pp. 141–151, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. F. Hakimuddin, G. Paliyath, and K. Meckling, “Selective cytotoxicity of a red grape wine flavonoid fraction against MCF-7 cells,” Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, vol. 85, no. 1, pp. 65–79, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. M. M. Chan, D. Fong, K. J. Soprano, W. F. Holmes, and H. Heverling, “Inhibition of growth and sensitization to cisplatin-mediated killing of ovarian cancer cells by polyphenolic chemopreventive agents,” Journal of Cellular Physiology, vol. 194, no. 1, pp. 63–70, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. T. T. T. Nguyen, E. Tran, T. H. Nguyen, P. T. Do, T. H. Huynh, and H. Huynh, “The role of activated MEK-ERK pathway in quercetin-induced growth inhibition and apoptosis in A549 lung cancer cells,” Carcinogenesis, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 647–659, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. C. S. Ong, E. Tran, T. T. Nguyen et al., “Quercetin-induced growth inhibition and cell death in nasopharyngeal carcinoma cells are associated with increase in Bad and hypophosphorylated retinoblastoma expressions,” Oncology Reports, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 727–733, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  24. M. J. van Erk, P. Roepman, T. R. van der Lende et al., “Integrated assessment by multiple gene expression analysis of quercetin bioactivity on anticancer-related mechanisms in colon cancer cells in vitro,” European Journal of Nutrition, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 143–156, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. X.-M. Zhang, J. Chen, Y.-G. Xia, and Q. Xu, “Apoptosis of murine melanoma B16-BL6 cells induced by quercetin targeting mitochondria, inhibiting expression of PKC-α and translocating PKC-δ,” Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 251–262, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | a%20and%20translocating%20PKC-d&author=X.-M. Zhang&author=J. Chen&author=Y.-G. Xia&author=&author=Q. Xu&publication_year=2005" target="_blank">Google Scholar
  26. C. A. Rabik and M. E. Dolan, “Molecular mechanisms of resistance and toxicity associated with platinating agents,” Cancer Treatment Reviews, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 9–23, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. A. de Cupis, C. Semino, P. Pirani, M. Loprevite, A. Ardizzoni, and R. E. Favoni, “Enhanced effectiveness of last generation antiblastic compounds vs. cisplatin on malignant pleural mesothelioma cell lines,” European Journal of Pharmacology, vol. 473, no. 2-3, pp. 83–95, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. J. Jakubowicz-Gil, R. Paduch, T. Piersiak, K. Glowniak, A. Gawron, and M. Kandefer-Szerszen, “The effect of quercetin on pro-apoptotic activity of cisplatin in HeLa cells,” Biochemical Pharmacology, vol. 69, no. 9, pp. 1343–1350, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. L. Cipak, P. Rauko, E. Miadokova, I. Cipakova, and L. Novotny, “Effects of flavonoids on cisplatin-induced apoptosis of HL-60 and L1210 leukemia cells,” Leukemia Research, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 65–72, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. T. M. Elattar and A. S. Virji, “The inhibitory effect of curcumin, genistein, quercetin and cisplatin on the growth of oral cancer cells in vitro,” Anticancer Research, vol. 20, no. 3A, pp. 1733–1738, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  31. H. van der Woude, A. Gliszczyńska-Swigło, K. Struijs, A. Smeets, G. M. Alink, and I. M. C. M. Rietjens, “Biphasic modulation of cell proliferation by quercetin at concentrations physiologically relevant in humans,” Cancer Letters, vol. 200, no. 1, pp. 41–47, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. W. Wätjen, G. Michels, B. Steffan et al., “Low concentrations of flavonoids are protective in rat H4IIE cells whereas high concentrations cause DNA damage and apoptosis,” Journal of Nutrition, vol. 135, no. 3, pp. 525–531, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  33. H. K. Nair, K. V. K. Rao, R. Aalinkeel, S. Mahajan, R. Chawda, and S. A. Schwartz, “Inhibition of prostate cancer cell colony formation by the flavonoid quercetin correlates with modulation of specific regulatory genes,” Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 63–69, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. M. Mouria, A. S. Gukovskaya, Y. Jung et al., “Food-derived polyphenols inhibit pancreatic cancer growth through mitochondrial cytochrome C release and apoptosis,” International Journal of Cancer, vol. 98, no. 5, pp. 761–769, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  35. S. Ramos, M. Alía, L. Bravo, and L. Goya, “Comparative effects of food-derived polyphenols on the viability and apoptosis of a human hepatoma cell line (HepG2),” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 1271–1280, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. M. Russo, R. Palumbo, I. Tedesco et al., “Quercetin and anti-CD95(Fas/Apo1) enhance apoptosis in HPB-ALL cell line,” FEBS Letters, vol. 462, no. 3, pp. 322–328, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. U. Wenzel, A. Herzog, S. Kuntz, and H. Daniel, “Protein expression profiling identifies molecular targets of quercetin as a major dietary flavonoid in human colon cancer cells,” Proteomics, vol. 4, no. 7, pp. 2160–2174, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. I.-K. Wang, S.-Y. Lin-Shiau, and J.-K. Lin, “Induction of apoptosis by apigenin and related flavonoids through cytochrome C release and activation of caspase-9 and caspase-3 in leukaemia HL-60 cells,” European Journal of Cancer, vol. 35, no. 10, pp. 1517–1525, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  39. H. Sharma, S. Sen, and N. Singh, “Molecular pathways in the chemosensitization of cisplatin by quercetin in human head and neck cancer,” Cancer Biology and Therapy, vol. 4, no. 9, pp. 949–955, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  40. L. M. Larocca, L. Teofili, G. Leone et al., “Antiproliferative activity of quercetin on normal bone marrow and leukaemic progenitors,” British Journal of Haematology, vol. 79, no. 4, pp. 562–566, 1991. View at: Google Scholar
  41. P. Miodini, L. Fioravanti, G. Di Fronzo, and V. Cappelletti, “The two phyto-oestrogens genistein and quercetin exert different effects on oestrogen receptor function,” British Journal of Cancer, vol. 80, no. 8, pp. 1150–1155, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  42. G. Scambia, F. O. Ranelletti, P. B. Panici et al., “Quercetin induces type-II estrogen-binding sites in estrogen-receptor-negative (MDA-MB231) and estrogen-receptor-positive (MCF-7) human breast-cancer cell lines,” International Journal of Cancer, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 462–466, 1993. View at: Google Scholar

Copyright © 2010 A. Demiroglu-Zergeroglu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1107 Views | 484 Downloads | 12 Citations
 PDF  Download Citation  Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder