Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-15T01:57:43.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Stathmokinetic Agents

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

L. Gedda  and
G. Cardinali
L. Gedda
Affiliation:
Istituto di Genetica Medica dell'Università di Roma
G. Cardinali
Affiliation:
Istituto di Genetica Medica dell'Università di Roma

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Stathmokinetic agents are a class of antimitotic agents which possess the ability of arresting cell division at the metaphase stage.

They are also called spindle poisons because they act by inactivating or distructing the mitotic spindle. Some new discovered stathmokinetic compounds, like vinblastine and vincristine, are effective anti-tumour agents. The mechanism of action of spindle poisons is briefly discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Acta geneticae medicae et gemellologiae: twin research , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , January 1968 , pp. 185 - 192
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Twin Studies 1968

References

Astaldi, G. (1955). Azione antimitotica di alcuni antibiotici. Atti I Simposio sugli Antimitotici, 271–287.Google Scholar
Bayer, A. (1961). Note on the behaviour of spindle fibres at mitosis. Chromosoma, 12: 64–71.Google Scholar
Bêlâr, K. (1929). Beiträge zue Kausalanalyse der Mitose. II Untersuchungen an den Spermatocyten von Chrthippus (Stenobothrus) lineatus Panz. Arch. Entwicklungsmech., 118: 359.Google Scholar
Chaffee, and Mazia, , cit. by Sauaia H. and Mazia D.Google Scholar
Dustin, P. jr. (1947). Some new aspects of mitotic poisoning. Nature, 159: 794–97.Google Scholar
Dustin, P. (1949). Mitotic Poisoning at Metaphase and -SH proteins. Exp. Cell Res. Suppl., I: 153–155.Google Scholar
Dustin, P. (1963). New aspects of the pharmacology of antimitotic agents. Pharm., 15: 449–480.Google Scholar
Gaulden, M. E., Carlson, J. G. (1951). Cytologicai effects of colchicine on the grasshopper neuroblast in vitro with special reference to the origin of the spindle. Exp. Cell Res., 2: 416–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gompel, C. (1952). Sur l'inactivation du fuseau chez la souris par les substances thioloprives. Rev. Belge Path., 22: 85–92.Google Scholar
Östergren, G. et al. (1960). An interpretation of transport phenomena at mitosis. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci., 90: 381–408.Google Scholar
Paget, G. E., Walpole, A. L. (1958). Some cytological effects of griseofulvin. Mature, 182: 1320–1321.Google Scholar
Ris, H. (1949). The anaphase movement of chromosomes in the spermatocytes of Grasshopper. Biol. Bull., 96: 90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sauaia, H., Mazia, D. (1961). Action of colchicine on the mitotic apparatus. Path. Biol., 9: 473–476.Google Scholar
Sentein, P. (1957). Action antimototique de l'Ethylmercurithiosalicylate de sodium. Acta Anat., 30: 787–801.Google Scholar
Stahelin, H., Cerletti, A. (1964). Experimentelle Ergebnisse mit den Podophyllum-Cytostatica SP-I and SP-G. Schweiz. Med. Wschr., 94: 1490–1502.Google Scholar