Advertisement

Factors Influencing the Oxygen Consumption and Radiation Response of Cultured Mammalian Cells

  • John E. Biaglow
  • Marie E. Varnes
  • Birgit Jacobson
  • Cameron J. Koch
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 159)

Abstract

There are published data (Gullino, 1975) that suggest that as a tumor increases in size, its QO2 decreases. Measurements on tumor homogenates in vitro and in vivo perfusion studies indicate large variations in oxidative capacity among various types of tumors (Gullino, 1975). However, we have found that human tumor cells in culture and other cultured mammalian cells have similar oxygen utilization rates (cf. Table I). The differences between tumor cell oxygen utilization in vivo and oxygen uptake for log phase cultures (Table I) suggests that metabolic controls or cellular adaptations are operative in vivo. Similar controls may or may not operate or exist in vitro. Therefore we have investigated a number of factors that might influence cellular oxygen consumption in vitro and of the role that altered oxygen consumption plays in the response of cells to radiation in vitro.

Keywords

Oxygen Consumption L929 Cell Plateau Phase Radiation Response Oxygen Utilization 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gullino, P., 1975, In Oxygen Transport to Tissue-II, Advances in Expl. Med. Biol. 75, 521–535.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Constable, T. B., Evans, T. S., 1975, In Oxygen Transport to Tissue-II, Advances in Expl,. Med. Biol. 75, 611–617.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Durand, R. E. and Biaglow, J. E., 1977, Radiation Res. 69, 359–366.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Biaglow, J. E., Schroeder, K. L. and Durand, R. E., 1979, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. and Phys., 5, 1669–1692.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Biaglow, J. E., 1981, J. Chen. Ed., 58, 144–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Biaglow, J. E., Varnes, M. E. and Jacobson, B., 1981, Radiation Res. 87, 434.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Biaglow, J. E., 1980, J. Phar. Therapeutics, 10, 283–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reitzer, L. J., Wice, B. M. and Kennell, K., 1980, J. Biol. Chem. 255, 5616–5626.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kovacevic, Z. and Morris, H. P., 1972, 32, 326–333.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hahn, G. M. and Little, J. B., 1976, Curr. Topics Radiat. Res. 8, 87–139.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koch, C. Jr:, 1979, Advances in Radiation Res. 10, 66–93.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • John E. Biaglow
    • 1
    • 2
  • Marie E. Varnes
    • 1
    • 2
  • Birgit Jacobson
    • 1
    • 2
  • Cameron J. Koch
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Radiology — Division of Radiation BiologyCase Western Reserve UniversityClevelandUSA
  2. 2.The Cross Cancer InstituteEdmonstonCanada

Personalised recommendations