Differences between the Electrical Charge carried by Normal and Homologous Tumour Cells (original) (raw)

Nature volume 177, pages 576–577 (1956) Cite this article

Abstract

DIFFERENCES between the behaviour of normal fibroblasts and sarcoma cells have been observed in tissue culture by Abercrombie and Heaysman1. Normal fibroblasts affect each other's movements by contact inhibition, whereas sarcoma cells do not show inhibition either with respect to each other or to normal fibroblasts. Time-lapse colour films taken with the interference microscope (shown at the Bristol meeting (1955) of the British Association by E. J. Ambrose and M. Abercrombie) have shown that this difference in behaviour is due to differences in the mechanism of contact formation in the two cases, being dependent upon a loss of adhesiveness of the cell surface of the tumour cells. This reduction in the adhesiveness of the tumour cell suggests that the electrical properties of the surface may have altered during the malignant transformation. These properties may be investigated by electrophoretic measurements of cellular mobility. For example, studies of bacteria during growth, in the presence of bacteriostatic agents, have revealed marked changes in the nature of the cell surface, changes which are passed on to the progeny during subsequent growth, either in the presence or the absence of the drug. Thus the growth of Aerobacter aerogenes in the presence of proflavine2 or crystal violet3 gives rise to new populations of cells, which, although biologically indistinguishable from the original strain, have a distinctive electrometric behaviour.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 52 print issues and online access

$199.00 per year

only $3.83 per issue

Buy this article

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Additional access options:

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abercrombie, M., and Heaysman, J. E. M., Exp. Cell Res., 5, 111 (1953); 6, 293 (1954); Nature, 174, 697 (1954).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  2. James, A. M., and Barry, P. J., Biochim. Biophys. Acta, 15, 186 (1954).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  3. Lowick, J. H. B., and James, A. M., Biochim. Biophys. Acta, 17, 424 (1955).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  4. Abramson, H. A., Mayer, L. S., and Goner, H., “_The Electrophoresis of Proteins_”, 44 (Reinhold Pub. Co., 1942).
    Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, N. G., Science, 117, 627 (1953).
    Article ADS CAS Google Scholar
  6. Horning, E. S., and Whittick, J. W., Brit. J. Cancer, 8, 451 (1954).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  7. de Long, R. P., Coman, D. R., and Zeidman, I., Cancer, 3, 718 (1950).
    Article CAS Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Chester Beatty Research Institute, Institute of Cancer Research, Royal Cancer Hospital, Fulham Road, London, S.W.3
    E. J. AMBROSE
  2. Chelsea Polytechnic, Manresa Road, London, S.W.3
    A. M. JAMES & J. H. B. LOWICK

Authors

  1. E. J. AMBROSE
  2. A. M. JAMES
  3. J. H. B. LOWICK

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

AMBROSE, E., JAMES, A. & LOWICK, J. Differences between the Electrical Charge carried by Normal and Homologous Tumour Cells.Nature 177, 576–577 (1956). https://doi.org/10.1038/177576a0

Download citation