Comparison of protective effects of nicotinamide mononucleotide and nicotinamide riboside on DNA damage induced by cisplatin in HeLa cells
© 2024 The Authors..
Background: Previous studies have shown that the nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+) precursors, nicotinamide mononucleotide (NMN) and nicotinamide riboside (NR), protect against endogenously or exogenously induced DNA damage. However, whether the two compounds have the same or different efficacy against DNA damage is not clear. In the current study, we systematically compared the effects of NMN and NR on cisplatin-induced DNA damage in HeLa cells.
Methods: To evaluate the protective effects of NMN or NR, HeLa cells were pretreated with different doses of NMN or NR followed with 10 μM of cisplatin treatment. Cell viability was examined by Trypan blue staining assay. For observing the DNA damage repair process, HeLa cells were treated with 10 μM of cisplatin for 12 h, followed with 10 mM NMN or NR treatment for another 8, 16, 24, or 32 h, DNA damage levels were assessed for each time point by immunofluorescent staining against phosphor-H2AX (γH2AX) and alkaline comet assay. The effects of NMN and NR on intracellular NAD+ and reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels were also determined.
Results: NMN and NR treatment alone did not have any significant effects on cell viability, however, both can protect HeLa cells from cisplatin-induced decrease of cell viability with similar efficacy in a dose-dependent manner. On the other hand, while both can reduce the DNA damage levels in cisplatin-treated cells, NR exhibited better protective effect. However, both appeared to boost the DNA damage repair process with similar efficacy. NMN or NR treatment alone could increase cellular NAD+ levels, and both can reverse cisplatin-induced decrease of NAD+ levels. Finally, while neither NMN nor NR affected cellular ROS levels, both inhibited cisplatin-induced increase of ROS with no significant difference between them.
Conclusion: NR have a better protective effect against cisplatin-induced DNA damage than NMN.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2024 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2024 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:37 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Biochemistry and biophysics reports - 37(2024) vom: 25. Feb., Seite 101655 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Qiu, Shuting [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Cisplatin |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Revised 10.02.2024 published: Electronic-eCollection Citation Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1016/j.bbrep.2024.101655 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM368225356 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM368225356 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20240210233357.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 240209s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.bbrep.2024.101655 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1287.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM368225356 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)38333051 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Qiu, Shuting |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Comparison of protective effects of nicotinamide mononucleotide and nicotinamide riboside on DNA damage induced by cisplatin in HeLa cells |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2024 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 10.02.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Electronic-eCollection | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a © 2024 The Authors. | ||
| 520 | |a Background: Previous studies have shown that the nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+) precursors, nicotinamide mononucleotide (NMN) and nicotinamide riboside (NR), protect against endogenously or exogenously induced DNA damage. However, whether the two compounds have the same or different efficacy against DNA damage is not clear. In the current study, we systematically compared the effects of NMN and NR on cisplatin-induced DNA damage in HeLa cells | ||
| 520 | |a Methods: To evaluate the protective effects of NMN or NR, HeLa cells were pretreated with different doses of NMN or NR followed with 10 μM of cisplatin treatment. Cell viability was examined by Trypan blue staining assay. For observing the DNA damage repair process, HeLa cells were treated with 10 μM of cisplatin for 12 h, followed with 10 mM NMN or NR treatment for another 8, 16, 24, or 32 h, DNA damage levels were assessed for each time point by immunofluorescent staining against phosphor-H2AX (γH2AX) and alkaline comet assay. The effects of NMN and NR on intracellular NAD+ and reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels were also determined | ||
| 520 | |a Results: NMN and NR treatment alone did not have any significant effects on cell viability, however, both can protect HeLa cells from cisplatin-induced decrease of cell viability with similar efficacy in a dose-dependent manner. On the other hand, while both can reduce the DNA damage levels in cisplatin-treated cells, NR exhibited better protective effect. However, both appeared to boost the DNA damage repair process with similar efficacy. NMN or NR treatment alone could increase cellular NAD+ levels, and both can reverse cisplatin-induced decrease of NAD+ levels. Finally, while neither NMN nor NR affected cellular ROS levels, both inhibited cisplatin-induced increase of ROS with no significant difference between them | ||
| 520 | |a Conclusion: NR have a better protective effect against cisplatin-induced DNA damage than NMN | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Cisplatin | |
| 650 | 4 | |a DNA damage | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Nicotinamide mononucleotide | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Nicotinamide riboside | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Reactive oxygen species | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Shao, Shihan |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Zhang, Yunheng |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Zhang, Yingying |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Yin, Jie |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Hong, Yu |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Yang, Jun |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Tan, Xiaohua |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Di, Chunhong |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Biochemistry and biophysics reports |d 2015 |g 37(2024) vom: 25. Feb., Seite 101655 |w (DE-627)NLM251624714 |x 2405-5808 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:37 |g year:2024 |g day:25 |g month:02 |g pages:101655 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrep.2024.101655 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 37 |j 2024 |b 25 |c 02 |h 101655 | ||