Differential effects of complete and second-stage tumour promoters in normal but not transformed human and mouse keratinocytes

The complete tumour promoter phorbol, 12-myristate, 13-acetate (PMA) induces terminal differentiation in the majority of normal cultured human and mouse keratinocytes but a subpopulation exists which is resistant to this effect (PMAR). We have compared with PMA the effects of mezerein (Mez) and phorbol, 12-retinoate, 13-acetate (PRA) on the ability of normal and transformed human and mouse keratinocytes to terminally differentiate in an attempt to elucidate why the latter two compounds are inefficient complete tumour promoters but are effective as second-stage promoters when given after PMA in the two-stage promotion regimen. Both PMA and Mez increased cornified envelope formation in a similar way in normal and transformed keratinocyte cultures inducing a 20- to 25-fold increase over the solvent controls in normal keratinocytes but only a 2-fold increase in line SCC-27 (a cell line derived from a human squamous cell carcinoma). However, while quantitative dose response studies of the effect of phorbol esters on colony forming ability revealed a proportion of normal human and mouse keratinocytes which were resistant to PMA, no normal keratinocytes were resistant to Mez or PRA. In contrast, cell lines derived from papillomas and squamous cell carcinomas showed a resistant fraction of similar size with all three compounds. Furthermore, when Mez or PRA were mixed with PMA the survival of line SCC-27 was the same as when the cultures were treated with the compounds individually indicating that the keratinocytes which were resistant to PRA or Mez were also the PMAR subpopulation. A non-tumorigenic subclone of line SCC-12 (clone F.2), previously shown to possess all known properties of transformed keratinocytes except defective terminal differentiation in suspension culture responded to PMA and Mez in a similar way to normal keratinocytes, suggesting that resistance of the PMAR subpopulation to second-stage promoters requires the expression of a defect in the keratinocyte terminal differentiation programme.