Different patterns of apoptosis of HL‐60 cells induced by cycloheximide and camptothecin

Abstract

Cells of the human promyelocytic HL-60 line, when treated with a variety of antitumor agents in the presence of the protein synthesis inhibitor cycloheximide (CHX), or with CHX alone, rapidly undergo apoptosis (“active cell death”). It is presumed, therefore, that such cells are “primed” to apoptosis in that no new protein synthesis is required for induction of their death. We have studied apoptosis of HL-60 cells triggered by the DNA topoisomerase I inhibitor camptothecin (CAM) in the absence and presence of CHX and apoptosis induced by CHX alone. Two different flcw cytometric methods were used, each allowing us to relate the apoptosis-associated DNA degradation to the cell cycle position. Apoptosis induced by CAM was limited to S phase cells, e.g., at a CAM concentration of 0.15 μM, nearly 90% of the S phase cells underwent apoptosis after 4 h. In contrast, apoptosis triggered by CHX was indiscriminate, affecting all phases of the cycle: ∼40% of the cells from each phase the cycle underwent apoptosis at 5 μM CHX concentration. When CAM and CHX were added together, the pattern of apoptosis resembled that of cycloheximide alone, namely, cells in all phases of the cycle in similar proportion were affected. Thus, CHX, while itself inducing apoptosis of a fraction of cells, protected the S phase cells against apoptosis triggered by CAM. Because CHX (5 μM) did not significantly affect the rate of cell progression through S phase, the observed protective effect was most likely directly related to inhibition of protein synthesis, rather than to its possible indirect effect on DNA replication. Furthermore, whereas apoptosis (DNA degradation) triggered by CAM was prevented by the serine protease inhibitor N-tosyl-L-lysylchloromethyl ketone (TLCK), this process was actually potentiated by this inhibitor when induced by CHX. The present data indicate differences in mechanism of apoptosis triggered by CAM (and perhaps other antitumor drugs) as compared with CHX. Apoptosis caused by CHX may be unique in that it may not involve new protein synthesis. These data are compatible with the assumption that the loss of a hypothetical, rapidly turning over suppressor of apoptosis may be the trigger of apoptosis of HL-60 cells treated with CHX, whereas de novo protein synthesis is required when apoptosis is triggered by other agents.