Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-18T11:25:02.552Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Comparison of the Effect of the Carbamate Herbicides, Barban and Chlorpropham, on Mrc-5 and Hela Cells

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2020

J. E. Tate
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, The University of the South, Sewanee, TN37383-1000
J. R. Palisano
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, The University of the South, Sewanee, TN37383-1000
Get access

Extract

Barban and chlorpropham are common carbamate herbicides that disrupt mitosis by destabilizing plant microtubules. Tubulins, protein subunits of microtubules, in plant and animal cells are highly conserved through evolution. Plant and animal cells have been shown to possess similar microtubule structural proteins, microtubule binding proteins, and organizational proteins. These similarities suggest that herbicides targeting plant microtubules might also affect animal microtubules. Previous tubulin immunofluorescence microscopic studies of HeLa cells, a human cervical cancer cell line, have shown that barban is strongly cytoskeletotoxic and chlorpropham is weakly cytoskeletotoxic. Both barban and chlorpropham have been shown to disrupt mitosis and disorganize spindle apparatus formation in numerous types of mammalian cancer cells.

This investigation was undertaken to examine the effect of barban and chlorpropham on MRC-5 cells, a normal human fibroblast cell line, as well as on HeLa cells. A monoclonal antibody to α-tubulin, a microtubule specific protein, was used to probe the formation of spindle apparatuses in dividing cells.

Type
Pathology
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Fosket, D. E. and Morejohn., L.C.Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant. Mol. Biol 43 (1992) 201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Schellenbaum, P. M. et al., Plant J. 32 (1993) 253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Chevrier, V. et al., J. Cell Sci. 101 (1992) 823.Google Scholar
4Hoffman, J. C. and Mullins, J. M.. In Vitro Toxic. 9 (1996) 61.Google Scholar
5Hoffman, J. C.. In Vitro Toxic. 8 (1995) 277.Google Scholar
6Oliver, J. M. et al., Exp. Cell Res. 116 (1978) 229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Zilkah, S., et al., Cancer Res. 41 (1982) 1879.Google Scholar
8 This research was supported in part by grants from the University of the South and from the Appalachian College Association.Google Scholar