|
KMID : 0371319660080120687
|
|
Journal of the Korean Surgical Society
1966 Volume.8 No. 12 p.687 ~ p.696
|
|
|
The Effect of Promoting Tissue Factor(s) from Malignant Tumor Tissues on Normal Tissue Growth
|
|
秦柄鎬/Chin, Byong Ho
秦永燮/Chin, Young Sup
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
Murphy,^41) in 1934, proposed the hypothesis that neoplasia may represent a disturbance of equilibrium between growth stimulating and growth inhibiting substances present in normal tissue. Since then, many workers have carried out experiments on such growth promoting^2,5,8,10,14,23,24,25,26,28,33,35,37,38,473,48,51,60) and growth inhibiting substances^3,6,7,22,24,30,31,45,55) extracted from various normal tissues.
Mnay^11,32,34,36,40,43) have also studied the enhancing effect of various tumor extracts on growth of tumor and non-tumorous tissues. Recently, Chin and Im^20) reported that the promoting substance, which is presumably responsible for cancer growth, was markedly increased in tumor tissues, while he inhibiting substance was markedly decreased or lost entirely.
The present work is an attempt to determine the effects of promoting factors from various tumor tissues on the grouwth of normal tissues and to demonstrate differences in enhancing properties of the various tumor tissue factors. For this purpose, we studied for alteration in mitotic activity of liver and kidney of normal mice treated with tumor tissue factors.
Materials and Methods.
Tissue factors were extracted from Ehrlich cancer and N.F (Nakahara-Fukuoka) sarcoma in mice. They were extracted also from human stomach cancer and retroperitoneal liposarcoma surgically resected and confirmed by biopsy. Each tumor tissue was macerated separately in a Waring Blendor and 4 volumes of distilled water were added to each volume of the homogenate. The homogenate was then filtered and the filtrate was centrifuged at 15000 r.p.m. for 40 minutes in an International Centrifuge Model PRI. One volume of 95% ethylalcohol was added to one volume of the supernatant and then it was left overnight and again centrifuged. The final superantant was used as the promoting tissue factor.
Young, healthy mice of approximately the same age, weighing 17-20 gm were selected as experimental animals. Special attention was paid in order to feed them under same nutritional and environmental conditions.
To a group of normal mice, 0.2 ml of the 5% solution of each extracted dry tissue factor was injected intraperitoneally at the same hour daily for 18 consecutive days. Control groups received a corresponding amount of normal saline intraperitoneally. The groups injected daily were sacrificed at the same hour every third day following the initial injection. Four hours before slaughter, colchicine, 0.1 mg/100 gm body weight, was injected intraperitoneally in order to facilitate the mitotic cell counts.
Specimens were taken from a certain part of the liver and kidney, fixed in Carnoy´s solution for 3 hours, treated with alcohol and xylol, embedded in paraffin, cut in sections 5 microns thick, and stained with hematoxylin and eosin. The mitotic cell counts were made in 100 fields on each slide with the help of 43 x objective lens and 10 x ocular.
Results.
Liver mitosis was generally and markedly promoted in all the groups which received daily injections of 10 mg of tumor tissue factors. In the early stages the promoting action was enhanced markedly and reached to a peak at a certain time. In the early stages the promoting action was enhanced markedly and reached to a peak at a certain time. In the later stages, however, it declined gradually and the mitosis count approached to the conrol as the number of days of administration progressed.
Of the various tumor extracts, the NFS and HRS tissue factors extracted from more rapidly growing tumors exhibited a stronger and porlonged promoting action than the EAC and HSC tissue factors.
As in liver, mitosis in kidney was promoted in all the groups injected with tumor extracts; among various umor extracts, the NFS tissue factor exhibited strongest promoting action. Declining of promotion when injected repeatedly was also observed in kidney. In general, however, the promoting effects of the tumor extracts were less pronounced in kidney when compared with liver.
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
|
|
|
|
|
FullTexts / Linksout information
|
|
|
|
|
Listed journal information
|
|
  
|
|