Cytogenetic effects in mixed culture of blood cells from patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia with blood lymphocytes of healthy individuals

1Pilinska, MA
2Shemetun, OV
Talan, OA
Dibska, OB
Kravchenko, SM
Sholoiko, VV
1National Research Center for Radiation Medicine of the NAMS of Ukraine, Kyiv
2The National Research Centre for Radiation Medicine of the NAMS of Ukraine, Kyiv
Dopov. Nac. akad. nauk Ukr. 2020, 7:86-93
https://doi.org/10.15407/dopovidi2020.07.086
Section: Biology
Language: Ukrainian
Abstract: 

Using our own experimental model system to study the bystander response phenomenon in somatic human cells (co-culturing peripheral blood lymphocytes of donors of different gender, which makes it possible to distinguish cells-inductors and bystander cells by the presence or absence of male sex chromosome Y), we studied the features of the interaction between malignant and normal human cells. To carry out the research, two observation groups were formed. The comparison group included 7 conditionally healthy volunteers with an uncomplicated anamnesis (5 female, two male) who denied conscious contact with ionizing radiation and other mutagenic factors. The group of cancer patients included 7 persons (5 male, two female) with a diagnosis of primary B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) before the start of specific therapy. It was found that co-cultivation of blood cells from CLL patients (cells-inductors) with intact peripheral blood lymphocytes of healthy individuals (bystander cells) leads to an increase in the frequency of chromosomal aberrations in normal cells (1.52 ± 0.30 and 3.31 ± 0.50 per 100 metaphases, respectively, p < 0.001), which confirms the development of the direct tumor-induced bystander effect (TIBE).

Keywords: chromosome aberration, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, mixed culture of human peripheral blood lymphocytes, tumor-induced bystander effect
References: 

1. Verma, N. & Tiku, A. B. (2017). Significance and nature of bystander responses induced by various agents. Mutat. Res., 773, pp. 104-121. https://doi.org/10.1016 / j.mrrev.2017.05.003
2. Burdak-Rothkamm, S. & Rothkamm, K. (2018). Radiation-induced bystander and systemic effects serve as a unifying model system for genotoxic stress responses. Mutat. Res., 778, pp. 13-22. https://doi.org/10.1016 / j.mrrev.2018.08.001
3. Krzywon, A. & Widel, M. (2019). Bystander Me45 melanoma cells increase damaging effect in uvc irradiated cells. Photochem. Photobiol., 95, No. 4, pp. 1019-1028. https://doi.org/10.1111 / php.13080
4. Desai, S., Kobayashi, A., Konishi, T., Oikawa, M. & Pandey, B. N. (2014). Damaging and protective bystander cross-talk between human lung cancer and normal cells after proton microbeam irradiation. Mutat. Res., 763-764, pp. 39-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2014.03.004
5. Ghosh, S., Ghosh, A. & Krishna, M. (2015). Role of ATM in bystander signaling between human monocytes and lung adenocarcinoma cells. Mutat. Res., 794, pp. 39-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrgentox.2015.10.003
6. Wang, R., Zhou, T., Liu, W. & Zuo, L. (2018). Molecular mechanism of bystander effects and related abscopal / cohort effects in cancer therapy. Oncotarget, 9, No. 26, pp. 18637-18647. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.24746
7. Batson, S. A., Breazzano, M. P., Milam, R. W., Shinohara, E., Johnson, D. B. & Daniels, A. B. (2017). Rationale for harnessing the abscopal effect as potential treatment for metastatic uveal melanoma. Int. Ophthalmol. Clin., 57, pp. 41-48. https://doi.org/10.1097/IIO.0000000000000152
8. Kurinny, D. A., Rushkovsky, S. R., Demchenko, O. M., Sholayko, V. V. & Pilinska, M. A. (2020). Evaluation of the interaction between malignant and normal human peripheral blood lymphocytes during their jointseparation cultivation. Cytol. Gen., 54, No. 2, pp. 45-50 (in Ukrainian).
9. Zakharov, A. F., Beniush, V. A., Kuleshov, N. P. & Baranovskaya, L. I. (1982). Human chromosomes: Atlas. Moscow: Meditsina (in Russian).
10. Shemetun, O. V. & Pilinskaya, M. A. (2019). Radiation-induced witness effect - modeling, manifestations, mechanisms of development, persistence, oncological risks (literature review). Problems of Radiation Medicine and Radiobiology, Iss. 24, pp. 65-92 (in Ukrainian). https://doi.org/10.33145/2304-8336-2019-24-65-92
11. Atramentova, L. A. (2014). Design and statistics (biological research). Kharkiv: NTMT (in Russian).
12. Talan, O. O. (2012). Cytogenetic indices for spontaneous and radiation-induced somatic chromosomal mutagenesis in persons of different ages. (Extended abstract of candidate thesis). National Research Center for Radiation Medicine of the NAMS of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine (in Ukrainian).
13. Sladkova, E. A., Skorkina, M. Yu. & Shamray, E. A. (2018). Features of mitogenic response of peripheral blood lymphocytes in patients with lymphocytic leukemia. Journal of Medical and Biological Research, 6, No. 2, pp. 165-173 (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.17238 / issn 2542-1298. 2018.6.2.165
14. Kanagaraj, K., Rajan, V., Pandey, B. N., Thayalan, K. & Venkatachalam, P. (2019). Primary and secondary bystander effect and genomic instability in cells exposed to high and low linear energy transfer radiations. Int. J. Radiat. Biol., 95, No. 12, pp. 1648-1658. https://doi.org/10.1080/09553002.2019.1665208