A study of comparative protection against lethality of triethylenemelamine, nitrogen mustard, and x-irradiation in mice.

E. Goldenthal,M. V. Nadkarni,P. K. Smith
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3570791
1959-05-01
Radiation Research
Abstract:A comparison was made of the protective action of cysteine, cysteamine, and sodium nitrite against the lethality in mice by x irradiation, nitrogen mustard, or triethylenemelamine. 8triking differences were revealed in the degree of protection obtained by the preadministration of the compounds. All compounds afforded some protection against the lethal effects of x irradiation. Substantial protection against the lethality of HN2 was obtained with cysteine, and some protection with cysteamine. None of the compounds gave measurable protection against TEM. Chemical interaction of HN2 or TEM with cystcine or cysteamine in vitro was demonstrated. The reaction of HN2 with cysteinc or cysteamine was instantaneous, whereas, that between TEM and cysteine or cysteamine required several hours. lt is suggested that the difference in reactivity may explain the differences in the degree of protection afforded by the sulfhydryl-containing compcunds. The in vitto reaction product of TEM with cysteine was isolated and purified. The probable structure of the reaction product is suggested. This compound was shown to be inert with respect to toxicity as well as carcinostatic effects on leukemia-l2l0. A threefold increase in the urinary excretion occurred more » when cysteine was preadministered to mice as compared to HN2 alone. A compound corresponding to the Rf of the reaction prodiict appearcd in this urine. The suggestion is made that the mechanism of cysteine protection is through direet chemical inactivation of HN2. (auth) « less
What problem does this paper attempt to address?