Fluoxetine is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor that is a commonly used drug for the treatment of depression and obsessive-compulsive disorders. Despite the positive effects of this drug, it seems to be associated with various side effects. Genotoxicity or DNA damage is an important side effect of some kinds of drugs. To date, the genotoxicity and cytotoxicity of fluoxetine are partially unknown. In the present study, some oxidative stress methods were used, such as ROS, MDA and GSH evaluation methods in HepG2 cells treated with fluoxetine (1–10 µM). A comet assay was used to evaluate the genotoxic effects of fluoxetine, and flow cytometry was used for apoptosis detection in these hepatic cells. Our data have shown that fluoxetine increased MDA and intracellular concentration of ROS significantly (P < 0.001), while the amount of GSH was reduced significantly (P < 0.001). Our results also indicated that fluoxetine increased the DNA damage of HepG2 cells. The tail percentage of DNA for control cells was 4%, but this percentage was 19%, 28% and 32% for 1, 5 and 10 µM of fluoxetine concentration, respectively (P < 0.01 and P < 0.001). The flow cytometry results have also shown increases in early and late apoptosis for fluoxetine (13.31% and 9.54%, respectively). In conclusion, the present study has shown that fluoxetine is able to induce oxidative stress-dependent DNA damage. Anyway, more studies are needed to accurately explore the molecular and cellular aspects of fluoxetine.
Citation: Somayeh Boshtam, Mohammad Shokrzadeh, Nasrin Ghassemi-Barghi. Fluoxetine induces oxidative stress-dependent DNA damage in human hepatoma cells[J]. AIMS Medical Science, 2023, 10(1): 69-79. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2023007
[1] | Chun He, James C.L. Chow . Gold nanoparticle DNA damage in radiotherapy: A Monte Carlo study. AIMS Bioengineering, 2016, 3(3): 352-361. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2016.3.352 |
[2] | Dewmini Mututantri-Bastiyange, James C. L. Chow . Imaging dose of cone-beam computed tomography in nanoparticle-enhanced image-guided radiotherapy: A Monte Carlo phantom study. AIMS Bioengineering, 2020, 7(1): 1-11. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2020001 |
[3] | Megha Sharma, James C. L. Chow . Skin dose enhancement from the application of skin-care creams using FF and FFF photon beams in radiotherapy: A Monte Carlo phantom evaluation. AIMS Bioengineering, 2020, 7(2): 82-90. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2020008 |
[4] | Abdulmajeed Alsufyani . Performance comparison of deep learning models for MRI-based brain tumor detection. AIMS Bioengineering, 2025, 12(1): 1-21. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2025001 |
[5] | José Luis Calvo-Guirado, Marta Belén Cabo-Pastor, Félix de Carlos-Villafranca, Nuria García-Carrillo, Manuel Fernández-Domínguez, Francisco Martínez Martínez . Micro-CT evaluation of bone grow concept of an implant with microstructured backtaper crestally and sub-crestally placed. Preliminary study in New Zealand rabbits tibia at one month. AIMS Bioengineering, 2023, 10(4): 406-420. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2023024 |
[6] | N. Supraja, T.N.V.K.V. Prasad, M. Soundariya, R. Babujanarthanam . Synthesis, characterization and dose dependent antimicrobial and anti-cancerous activity of phycogenic silver nanoparticles against human hepatic carcinoma (HepG2) cell line. AIMS Bioengineering, 2016, 3(4): 425-440. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2016.4.425 |
[7] | Sarbaz H. A. Khoshnaw, Azhi Sabir Mohammed . Computational simulations of the effects of social distancing interventions on the COVID-19 pandemic. AIMS Bioengineering, 2022, 9(3): 239-251. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2022016 |
[8] | Kristen K. Comfort . The rise of nanotoxicology: A successful collaboration between engineering and biology. AIMS Bioengineering, 2016, 3(3): 230-244. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2016.3.230 |
[9] | Xiang-Xiang Guan, Xiao-Juan Zhu, Zhao-Hui Deng, Yu-Rong Zeng, Jie-Ru Liu, Jiang-Hua Li . The association between nicotinamide N-methyltransferase gene polymorphisms and primary hypertension in Chinese Han Population. AIMS Bioengineering, 2021, 8(2): 130-139. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2021012 |
[10] | Jose Luis Calvo-Guirado, Nuria García Carrillo, Félix de Carlos-Villafranca, Miguel Angel Garces-Villala, Lanka Mahesh, Juan Carlos Ibanez, Francisco Martinez-Martinez . A micro-CT evaluation of bone density around two different types of surfaces on one-piece fixo implants with early loading-an experimental study in dogs at 3 months. AIMS Bioengineering, 2022, 9(4): 383-399. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2022028 |
Fluoxetine is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor that is a commonly used drug for the treatment of depression and obsessive-compulsive disorders. Despite the positive effects of this drug, it seems to be associated with various side effects. Genotoxicity or DNA damage is an important side effect of some kinds of drugs. To date, the genotoxicity and cytotoxicity of fluoxetine are partially unknown. In the present study, some oxidative stress methods were used, such as ROS, MDA and GSH evaluation methods in HepG2 cells treated with fluoxetine (1–10 µM). A comet assay was used to evaluate the genotoxic effects of fluoxetine, and flow cytometry was used for apoptosis detection in these hepatic cells. Our data have shown that fluoxetine increased MDA and intracellular concentration of ROS significantly (P < 0.001), while the amount of GSH was reduced significantly (P < 0.001). Our results also indicated that fluoxetine increased the DNA damage of HepG2 cells. The tail percentage of DNA for control cells was 4%, but this percentage was 19%, 28% and 32% for 1, 5 and 10 µM of fluoxetine concentration, respectively (P < 0.01 and P < 0.001). The flow cytometry results have also shown increases in early and late apoptosis for fluoxetine (13.31% and 9.54%, respectively). In conclusion, the present study has shown that fluoxetine is able to induce oxidative stress-dependent DNA damage. Anyway, more studies are needed to accurately explore the molecular and cellular aspects of fluoxetine.
We consider a singular no-sign obstacle problem of the type
{div(xa1∇u)=xa1f(x)χ{u≠0}in B+1,u=0on B1∩{x1=0}, | (1.1) |
where a>1, χD is the characteristic function of D, B1⊂Rn is the unit ball and B+1=B1∩{x1>0}. The equation is considered in the weak form,
∫B+1xa1∇u∇φdx=∫B+1xa1f(x)φχ{u≠0}dx, |
for all φ∈W1,20(B+1). This problem, when the non-negativity assumption u≥0 is imposed, is already studied in [9]. The above no-sign problem, as a general semilinear PDE with non-monotone r.h.s., introduces certain difficulties and to some extent some challenges. To explain this we shall give a very short review of the existing results and methods for similar type of problems (see also the book [6] and Caffarelli's review of the classical obstacle problem [2]). The general methodology of approaching such problems lies in using the so-called ACF-monotonicity formula (see [8]) or alternatively using John Andersson's dichotomy (see [1] or [3]). Although there are still some chances that both these methods will work for our problem above, we shall introduce a third method here which relies on a softer version of a monotonicity formula (which has a wider applicability) in combination with some elaborated analysis. We refer to this as a Weiss-type monotonicity formula, see (2.1) below.
For clarity of exposition we shall introduce some notations and definitions here that are used frequently in the paper. Throughout this paper, Rn will be equipped with the Euclidean inner product x⋅y and the induced norm |x|, Br(x0) will denote the open n-dimensional ball of center x0, radius r with the boundary ∂Br(x0). In addition, Br=Br(0) and ∂Br=∂Br(0). Rn+ stands for half space {x∈Rn:x1>0} as well as B+r=Br∩Rn+. Moreover, in the text we use the n-dimensional Hausdorff measure Hn. For a multi-index μ=(μ1,⋯,μn)∈Zn+, we denote the partial derivative with ∂μu=∂μ1x1⋯∂μnxnu and |μ|1=μ1+⋯+μn.
For a domain Ω⊂Rn+ and 1≤p<∞, we use the notation Lp(Ω) and Wm,p(Ω) as the standard spaces. However, we need some new notation for the weighted spaces
Lp(Ω;xθ1):={u:∫Ωxθ1|u(x)|pdx<∞}, |
where θ∈R. For m∈N, we define the weighted Sobolev space Wm,p(Ω;xθ1) as the closure of C∞(¯Ω) with the following norm,
‖u‖Wm,p(Ω;xθ1):=‖u‖Lp(Ω;xθ1)+‖x1Du‖Lp(Ω;xθ1)+⋯+‖xm1Dmu‖Lp(Ω;xθ1). |
It is noteworthy that for θ=0, we have Lp(Ω;1)=Lp(Ω) but Wm,p(Ω;1)⊋Wm,p(Ω). Generally, the trace operator has no sense for θ>−1, while functions in W1,p(Ω;xθ1) have zero traces on {x1=0} for θ≤−1. (Theorem 6 in [7]).
We consider u∈W1,p(B+1,xθ1) for some θ<−n and n<p to be a weak solution of (1.1). This condition provides the continuity of x(θ+n)/p1u up to the boundary according to Sobolev embedding Theorem 3.1 in [5]. First, we prove the following a priori regularity result.
Proposition 1.1. (Appendix A) Let u∈W1,p(B+1,xθ1) be a solution of (1.1) for some θ<−n, n<p and f∈L∞(B+1). Then for each max{0,1+θ+np}<β<1 there exists C=C(β,n,a) such that for r≤1/2,
supB+r(x0)|xβ−11u|≤Cr2β, |
for all x0∈{x1=0}.
In Appendix A we will prove this proposition. Our main result in this paper concerns the optimal growth rate of solution u of (1.1) at touching free boundary points, which is stated in the following theorem.
Theorem 1.2. Suppose u∈W1,p(B+1,xθ1) is a solution of (1.1) for some θ<−n, n<p and x0∈∂{u=0}∩{x1=0}∩B+1/4. Moreover, if f∈Cα(¯B+1) for some α∈(0,1), then
|u(x)|≤Cx21((|x−x0|+x1x1)(n+a+4)/2+1), |
for a universal constant C=C(a,n,[f]0,α).
Our main tool in proving optimal decay for solutions from the free boundary points is Weiss-monotonicity formula, combined with some elaborated techniques. We define the balanced energy functional
Φx0(r,u)=r−n−2−a∫B+r(x0)(xa1|∇u|2+2xa1f(x0)u)dx−2r−n−3−a∫∂Br(x0)∩Rn+xa1u2dHn−1. | (2.1) |
Considering the scaling ur,x0=ur(x)=u(rx+x0)r2, Φx0(r,u)=Φ0(1,ur). In what follows we prove almost-monotonicity of the energy.
Lemma 2.1 (Almost-Monotonicity Formula). Let u solve (1.1) and be as in Proposition 1.1 and assume that ∇u(x0)=0 for some x0∈{x1=0} and f∈Cα(¯B+1) for some α∈(0,1). Then u satisfies, for r≤r0 such that B+r0(x0)⊆B+1,
ddrΦx0(r,u)≥2r∫∂B1∩Rn+xa1(∂rur)2dHn−1−Crα+β−2, |
where C depends only on ‖f‖Cα(¯B+1) and the constant C(β,n,a) in Proposition 1.1.
Proof. Let ur(x):=u(rx+x0)r2, then
=12ddrΦx0(r,u)=12ddr[∫B+1(xa1|∇ur|2+2xa1f(x0)ur)dx−2∫∂B1∩Rn+xa1u2rdHn−1]=12[∫B+1(2xa1∇ur⋅∇∂rur+2xa1f(x0)∂rur)dx−4∫∂B1∩Rn+xa1ur∂rurdHn−1]=∫B+1div(xa1∂rur∇ur)−∂rurdiv(xa1∇ur)+xa1f(x0)∂rurdx−2∫∂B1∩Rn+xa1ur∂rurdHn−1=∫B+1(f(x0)−f(rx+x0)χ{ur≠0})xa1∂rurdx+∫∂B+1xa1∂rur∇ur⋅νdHn−1−2∫∂B1∩Rn+xa1ur∂rurdHn−1=∫B+1(f(x0)−f(rx+x0)χ{ur≠0})xa1∂rurdx+r∫∂B1∩Rn+xa1(∂rur)2dHn−1=∫B+1(f(x0)−f(rx+x0))χ{ur≠0}xa1∂rurdx+f(x0)∫B+1∩{ur=0}xa1∂rurdx+r∫∂B1∩Rn+xa1(∂rur)2dHn−1. |
Note that the second integral
∫B+1∩{ur=0}xa1∂rurdx=0 |
as |{ur=0∧∇ur≠0}|=0 and ∂rur=0 on {ur=0∧∇ur=0}. Since |∂rur|≤Crβ−2 we infer that
∫B+1(f(x0)−f(rx+x0))χ{ur≠0}xa1∂rurdx≥−Crα+β−2 |
and conclude that
12ddrΦx0(r,u)≥r∫∂B1∩Rn+xa1(∂rur)2dHn−1−Crα+β−2. |
Definition 2.2. Let HP2 stand for the class of all two-homogeneous functions P∈W1,2(B+1;xa−21) satisfying div(xa1∇P)=0 in Rn+ with boundary condition P=0 on x1=0. We also define the operator Π(v,r,x0) to be the projection of vr,x0 onto HP2 with respect to the inner product
⟨vw⟩=∫∂B1∩n+xa1vwdHn−1. |
We will use the following extension of [10,Lemma 4.1].
Lemma 2.3. Assume that div(xa1∇w)=0 in B+1 with boundary condition w=0 on x1=0, and w(0)=|∇w(0)|=0. Then
∫B+1xa1|∇w|2dx−2∫∂B1∩Rn+xa1w2dHn−1≥0, |
and equality implies that w∈HP2, i.e., it is homogeneous of degree two.
Proof. We define an extension of the Almgren frequency,
r↦N(w,r):=r∫B+rxa1|∇w|2dx∫∂B+rxa1w2dHn−1, |
12N′(w,r)N(w,r)=∫∂B+rxa1(∂νw)2dHn−1∫∂B+rxa1w∂νwdHn−1−∫∂B+rxa1w∂νwdHn−1∫∂B+rxa1w2dHn−1≥0. |
Moreover, if N(w,r)=κ for ρ<r<σ, it implies that w is homogeneous of degree κ in Bσ∖Bρ.
Now supposing towards a contradiction that N(w,s)<2 for some s∈(0,1], and defining wr(x):=w(rx)‖w(rx)‖L2(∂B+1,xb1), we infer from N(w,s)<2 that ∇wr is bounded in L2(B+1;xa1) and so ∇wrm⇀∇w0 weakly in L2(B+1;xa1) and wrm→w0 strongly in L2(∂B+1;xa1) as a sequence rm→0. Consequently, w0 satisfies div(xa1∇w0)=0 in B+1, w0(0)=|∇w0(0)|=0 and w0=0 on x1=0 as well as ‖w0‖L2(∂B+1;xa1)=1. Furthermore, for all r∈(0,1) we have
N(w0,r)=limrm→0N(wrm,r)=limrm→0N(w,rrm)=N(w,0+), |
and so w0 must be a homogeneous function of degree κ:=N(w,0+)<2. Note that for every multi-index μ∈{0}×Zn−1+, the higher order partial derivative ζ=∂μw0 satisfies the equation div(xa1∇ζ)=0 in Rn+. From the integrability and homogeneity we infer that ∂μw0≡0 for κ−|μ|1<−n2, otherwise
∫B+1|∂μw0|2dx=(∫10r2(κ−|μ|1)+n−1dr)∫∂B1∩Rn+|∂μw0|2dHn−1 |
can not be bounded. Thus x′↦w0(x1,x′) is a polynomial, and we can write w0(x1,x′)=xκ1p(x′x1). Consider the multi-index μ such that |μ|1=degp, so ∂μw0=xκ−|μ|11∂μp is a solution of div(xa1∇ζ)=0 in Rn+. Therefore, ∂μw0∈W1,2(B+1;xθ1) for −1<θ according to Proposition A.1, which implies that 2(κ−|μ|1)+θ>−1. So, degp<κ+θ+12.
Substituting w0(x)=xκ−11(αx1+ℓ⋅x′) for κ>1 in the equation and comparing with w0(0)=|∇w0(0)|=0 we arrive at the only nonzero possible case being κ+a=2, which contradicts a>1. The case κ<1 leads to degp=0 and w0(x)=αxκ1, which implies κ+a=1 and a contradiction to a>1.
Proposition 3.1. Let f∈Cα(¯B+1) and u be solution of (1.1) satisfying the condition in Proposition 1.1. Then the function
r↦r−n−3−a∫∂B+r(x0)xa1u2(x)dHn−1 |
is bounded on (0,1/8), uniformly in x0∈∂{u=0}∩{x1=0}∩B1/8.
Proof. Let us divide the proof into steps.
Step 1 We claim that there exists a constant C1<∞ such that for all x0∈∂{u=0}∩{x1=0}∩B1/8 and r≤1/8,
f(x0)∫B+1xa1ux0,r(x)dx≥−C1, |
where ux0,r:=u(rx+x0)r2. To prove this we observe that w:=ux0,r satisfies
div(xa1∇w)=xa1fr(x):=xa1f(x0+rx)χ{ux0,r≠0},in B+1. |
Moreover, for ϕ(ρ):=ρ−n−a+1∫∂B+ρxa1w(x)dHn−1 we have
ϕ′(ρ)=∫∂B+1xa1∇w(ρx)⋅xdHn−1=ρ−n−a+1∫B+ρdiv(xa1∇w(x))dx=ρ−n−a+1∫B+ρxa1fr(x)dx. |
If f(x0)≥18α[f]0,α then fr≥0 for r≤1/8. Therefore ϕ is increasing and ϕ(ρ)≥ϕ(0)=0 (recall that w(0)=0). Similarly, if f(x0)≤−18α[f]0,α, we obtain that ϕ(ρ)≤0. Therefore the claim is true for C1=0 in these cases.
In the case |f(x0)|≤18α[f]0,α, then |fr(x)|≤28α[f]0,α and then
|ϕ′(ρ)|≤21−3α[f]0,αρ−n−a+1∫B+ρxa1dx≤21−3α[f]0,αρ. |
So, |ϕ(ρ)|≤2−3α[f]0,αρ2 and
|f(x0)∫B+1xa1ux0,r(x)dx|=|f(x0)∫10ρn+a−1ϕ(ρ)dρ|≤2−6α[f]20,αn+a+2=:C1. |
Step 2 We claim that there exists a constant C2<∞ such that
distL2(∂B1∩Rn+;xa1)(ux0,r,HP2)≤C2, |
for every x0∈∂{u=0}∩{x1=0}∩B1/8, r≤1/8. Suppose towards a contradiction that this is not true, then there exists a sequence um, xm→ˉx and rm→0 such that
Mm=‖umxm,rm−Π(um,rm,xm)‖L2(∂B1∩Rn+;xa1)→∞,m→∞. |
Let um:=umxm,rm and pm=Π(um,rm,xm) and wm=um−pmMm. Then, since um(0)=|∇um(0)|=0 and by the monotonicity formula and the result of previous step, we find that
∫B+1xa1|∇wm|2dx−2∫∂B+1xa1w2mdHn−1=1M2m[Φxm(rm)−2∫B+1f(xm)xa1umdx]+1M2m∫∂B+1xa1(pm∇pm⋅ν−2um∇pm⋅ν−2p2m+4umpm)dHn−1≤1M2m(Φxm(rm)+2C1)≤1M2m(Φxm(12)+2C1)→0,m→∞. | (3.1) |
Passing to a subsequence such that ∇wm⇀∇w in L2(B+1;xa1) as m→∞, the compact embedding on the boundary implies that ‖w‖L2(∂B1∩Rn+;xa1)=1, and
∫B+1xa1|∇w|2dx≤2∫∂B1xa1w2dHn−1 | (3.2) |
and that
∫∂B1wpdHn−1=0,∀p∈HP2. | (3.3) |
Since div(xa1∇wm)=x1Mmf(xm+r⋅)χ{um≠0}, it follows that div(xa1∇w)=0 in B+1. Moreover, we obtain from Lp-theory that wm→w in C1,αloc(B+1) for each α∈(0,1) as m→∞. Consequently w(0)=|∇w(0)|=0. Thus we can apply Lemma 2.3 and obtain from (3.2) that w is homogeneous of degree 2, contradicting (3.3) and ‖w‖L2(∂B1)=1. This proves the claim.
Step 3 We will show that there exists constant C2 such that for all x0∈∂{u=0}∩{x1=0} satisfying
lim infr→0+|B+r(x0)∩{u=0}||B+r|=0, | (3.4) |
we have
Φx0(0+)−∫B+1xa1f(x0)ux0,rdx≥−C2rα|f(x0)|. |
In order to see this, we can observe that
∫B+1xa1f(x0)ux0,r(x)dx=f(x0)∫10∫10∂s[∫∂B+ρ(sx1)aux0,r(sx)dHn−1(x)]dsdρ=f(x0)∫10ρ∫10∫∂B+ρ(sx1)a∇ux0,r(sx)⋅νdHn−1dsdρ=f(x0)∫10ρ∫10s∫B+ρdiv((sx1)a∇ux0,r(sx))dxdsdρ=f(x0)∫10ρ∫10s∫B+ρ(sx1)af(rsx)χΩx0,r(sx)dxdsdρ=f(x0)2∫10ρ1+a+n∫10s1+a∫B+1xa1dxdsdρ+f(x0)∫10ρ1+a+n∫10s1+a∫B+1xa1(f(rsρx)−f(x0))dxdsdρ≤f(x0)2(n+a+2)(a+2)∫B+1xb1dx+C2rα|f(x0)|. |
Now by condition (3.4), consider a sequence rm→0 such that |B+rm(x0)∩{v=0}||B+rm|→0 and assume that ∇(ux0,rm−px0,rm)⇀∇w in L2(B+1;xa1) as m→∞. Observe now div(xa1w)=f(x0) in B+1 and by similar calculation as above we will have
∫B+1xa1f(x0)wdx=f(x0)2(n+a+2)(a+2)∫B+1xa1dx. |
On the other hand,
Φx0(0+)=limm→∞Φx0(rm)≥∫B+1(xa1|∇w|2+2f(x0)xa1w)dx−2∫∂B+1xa1w2dHn−1=∫B+1(−wdiv(xa1∇w)+2f(x0)xa1w)dx=∫B+1xa1f(x0)wdx=f(x0)2(n+a+2)(a+2)∫B+1xa1dx. |
Step 4 In this step, we prove the proposition for the points satisfying condition (3.4). For these points, we have
12∂r[∫∂B+1xa1u2x0,rdHn−1]=∫∂B+1xa1ux0,r∂rux0,rdHn−1=1r∫∂B+1xa1ux0,r(∇ux0,r⋅x−2ux0,r)dHn−1=1r∫B+1(xa1|∇ux0,r|2+ux0,rdiv(xa1∇ux0,r))dx−2r∫∂B+1xa1u2x0,rdHn−1=1r(Φx0(r)−2∫B+1f(x0)xa1ux0,r(x)dx+∫B+1xa1f(rx)ux0,r(x)dx)=1r(Φx0(r)−∫B+1f(x0)xa1ux0,rdx)+1r(∫B+1(f(rx)−f(x0))xa1ux0,r(x)dx)≥1r(Φx0(0+)−∫B+1f(x0)xa1ux0,rdx)−Crα+β−2−C3rα+β−2≥−C2rα−1−Crα+β−2−C3rα+β−2 |
Thus r↦∂r[∫∂B+1xa1u2x0,rdHn−1] is integrable and we obtain uniform boundedness of ∫∂B+1xa1u2x0,rdHn−1=r−n−3−b∫∂Br(x0)+xa1u2dHn−1 for all points with property (3.4). It follows that the boundedness holds uniformly on the closure of those points x0.
Step 5 We now consider the case
lim infr→0+|B+r(x0)∩{u=0}||B+r|>0. |
Let us assume towards a contradiction that there are sequences um, rm and xm such that and Mm=‖uxm,rm‖L2(∂B+1)→+∞ as m→∞. Setting wm=umxm,rmMm we obtain, as in Step 2, that a subsequence of wm converges weakly in W1,2(B+1;xa−21) to a function w, with ‖w‖L2(∂B+1;xa1)=1, w(0)=|∇w(0)|=0, div(xa1∇w)=0 and
∫B+1xa1|∇w|2dx≤2∫∂B+1xa1w2dHn−1. |
According to Lemma 2.3, w∈HP2. In addition we now know that
∫B+1χ{w=0}≥lim suprm→0+∫B+1χ{ux0,rm=0}>0. |
This however contradicts the analyticity of w inside B+1, knowing that ‖w‖L2(∂B1;xa1)=1.
Now we are ready to prove the main result of the article.
Proof of Theorem 1.2. From Theorem 8.17 in [4], we know that if div(b(x)∇w)=g such that 1≤b(x)≤5a, then there exists a universal constant C=C(a,n) such that
‖w‖L∞(BR/2)≤C(a,n)(R−n/2‖w‖L2(BR)+R2‖g‖L∞(BR)). |
Now for x0∈∂{u=0}∩{x1=0}∩B+1/8 and an arbitrary point y∈∂B+r(x0), we apply the above estimate for R=2δ/3, w=(δ/3)au and equation div(b(x)∇w)=xa1fχ{u≠0}, where δ=y1 and b(x)=xa1(δ/3)a. Note that 1≤b(x)≤5a in B2δ/3(y) and
|u(y)|≤C(a,n)((2δ/3)−n/2‖u‖L2(B2δ/3(y))+(2δ/3)25a‖f‖L∞(B2δ/3(y))). |
According to Proposition 3.1,
‖u‖2L2(B2δ/3(y))≤(3δ)a∫B2δ/3(y)xa1|u|2dx≤(3δ)a∫Br+2δ/3(x0)xa1|u|2dx≤C(3δ)a(r+2δ/3)n+a+4. |
Hence,
|u(y)|≤C(δ−(n+a)/2(r+δ)(n+a+4)/2+δ2)≤Cy21((r+y1y1)(n+a+4)/2+1). |
From this theorem it follows that solutions have quadratic growth inside cones.
Corollary 3.2. Suppose u is a solution of (1.1) satisfying the condition in Proposition 1.1 and x0∈∂{u=0}∩{x1=0}∩B+1/8. Then, for every constant τ>0,
supBr(x0)∩C|u|≤C((1τ+1)n+a+42+1)r2, |
where C:={x:x1≥τ|x−x0|}.
This paper was prepared while M. Fotouhi was visiting KTH Royal Institute of Technology. A. Minne was supported by the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation. H. Shahgholian was supported by Swedish Research Council.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Let u be a solution of (1.1) for f∈L∞(B+1). We are going to show a priori regularity for solutions to (1.1). Consider the operator La,cu:=x21Δu+ax1∂1u−cu. The following proposition is the regularity result related to this operator which has been proven by Krylov [5,Theorem 2.7,Theorem 2.8].
Proposition A.1. i) For any a∈R,p>1 and θ∈R there exists a constant c0>0 such that for any c≥c0 the operator La,c is a bounded one-to-one operator from W2,p(Rn+;xθ1) onto Lp(Rn+;xθ1) and its inverse is also bounded, in particular for any u∈W2,p(Rn+;xθ1)
‖u‖W2,p(Rn+;xθ1)≤C‖La,cu‖Lp(Rn+;xθ1), |
where C is independent of u and c.
ii) The statement in i) is valid for the operator La,0 when −1<θ<a−2 and a>1 or either a−2<θ<−1 and a<1.
Now we can deduce a priori regularity result for u as follows.
Proof of Proposition 1.1. Notice that xβ−11u∈C(¯B+1) due to Sobolev embedding Theorem 3.1 in [5]. Then if the statement of proposition fails, there exists a sequence uj of solutions (1.1), xj∈{x1=0} and rj→0 such that
supB+r(xj)|xβ−11uj|≤jr1+β/2,∀r≥rj,supB+rj(xj)|xβ−11uj|=jr1+β/2j. |
In particular, the function ˜uj(x)=uj(xj+rjx)jr1+β/2j, satisfies
supB+R|xβ−11˜uj|≤R1+β/2,for 1≤R≤1rj, | (A.1) |
and with equality for R=1, along with
La,c0˜uj=r1−β/2jjf(xj+rjx)−c0˜uj, | (A.2) |
where c0 is defined in Proposition A.1. According to (A.1), the right hand side of (A.2) is uniformly bounded in Lp(B+R;xθ1) for p(β−1)−1<θ≤−1. From here and Proposition A.1 we conclude that {˜uj} is bounded in W2,p(B+R;xθ1) for some θ≤−1 and there is a convergent subsequence, tending to a function u0 with properties
supB+R|xβ−11u0|≤R1+β/2,∀R≥1,supB+1|xβ−11u0|=1,div(xa1∇u0)=0, | (A.3) |
as well as the condition θ≤−1 insures that the trace operator is well defined and u0 is zero on {x1=0}. The Liouville type theorem in [9,Lemma 20]) implies that
|D2u0(x0)|≤CR2supB+R(x0)|u0|≤C(R+|x0|)2−β/2R2→0. |
Therefore, u0 is a linear function, which contradicts (A.3).
[1] |
Gheysarzadeh A, Sadeghifard N, Afraidooni L, et al. (2018) Serum-based microRNA biomarkers for major depression: MiR-16, miR-135a, and miR-1202. J Res Med Sci 23: 69. https://doi.org/10.4103/jrms.JRMS_879_17 ![]() |
[2] |
Alboni S, Van Dijk RM, Poggini S, et al. (2017) Fluoxetine effects on molecular, cellular and behavioral endophenotypes of depression are driven by the living environment. Mol Psychiatry 22: 552-561. https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2015.142 ![]() |
[3] |
Trivedi MH, Rush AJ, Wisniewski SR, et al. (2006) Evaluation of outcomes with citalopram for depression using measurement-based care in STAR*D: implications for clinical practice. Am J Psychiatry 163: 28-40. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.163.1.28 ![]() |
[4] |
Kirsch I, Deacon BJ, Huedo-Medina TB, et al. (2008) Initial severity and antidepressant benefits: a meta-analysis of data submitted to the Food and Drug Administration. PLoS Med 5: e45. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050045 ![]() |
[5] | Hughes S, Foster RG, Peirson SN, et al. (2016) Inhibitory effects of fluoxetine on photosensitive retinal ganglion cells. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 57: 4660. |
[6] |
Kaur G, Invally M, Sanzagiri R, et al. (2015) Evaluation of the antidepressant activity of Moringa oleifera alone and in combination with fluoxetine. J Ayurveda Integr Med 6: 273-279. https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-9476.172384 ![]() |
[7] |
Sandanapitchai V, Ramasamy S, Pichai E (2016) Prospective study to evaluate the efficacy of fluoxetine in comparison with amitriptyline in patients with depression. Int J Basic Clin Pharmacol 5: 2552-2555. https://doi.org/10.18203/2319-2003.ijbcp20164122 ![]() |
[8] |
Gheysarzadeh A, Yazdanparast R (2015) STAT5 reactivation by catechin modulates H2O2-induced apoptosis through miR-182/FOXO1 pathway in SK-N-MC cells. Cell Biochem Biophys 71: 649-656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12013-014-0244-6 ![]() |
[9] |
Mohammadi M, Yazdanparast R (2011) Modulation of H2O2-induced mitogen-activated protein kinases activation and cell death in SK-N-MC cells by EUK134, a salen derivative. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 108: 378-384. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-7843.2010.00664.x ![]() |
[10] | Sies H (2000) What is oxidative stress?. Oxidative stress and vascular disease. Boston: Springer 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4649-8_1 |
[11] |
Ji C, Rouzer CA, Marnett LJ, et al. (1998) Induction of cell cycle arrest by the endogenous product of lipid peroxidation, malondialdehyde. Carcinogenesis 19: 1275-1283. https://doi.org/10.1093/carcin/19.7.1275 ![]() |
[12] |
Alarifi S, Ali D, Alkahtani S, et al. (2014) Iron oxide nanoparticles induce oxidative stress, DNA damage, and caspase activation in the human breast cancer cell line. Biol Trace Elem Res 159: 416-424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-014-9972-0 ![]() |
[13] |
Gheysarzadeh A, Yazdanparast R (2012) Inhibition of H2O2-induced cell death through FOXO1 modulation by EUK-172 in SK-N-MC cells. Eur J Pharmacol 697: 47-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejphar.2012.09.036 ![]() |
[14] |
Ghassemi-Barghi N, Varshosaz J, Etebari M, et al. (2016) Role of recombinant human erythropoietin loading chitosan-tripolyphosphate nanoparticles in busulfan-induced genotoxicity: analysis of DNA fragmentation via comet assay in cultured HepG2 cells. Toxicol In Vitro 36: 46-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tiv.2016.07.001 ![]() |
[15] |
Maleki F, Sadeghifard N, Hosseini HM, et al. (2019) Growth-inhibitory effects of TGFαL3-SEB chimeric protein on colon cancer cell line. Biomed Pharmacother 110: 190-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2018.11.025 ![]() |
[16] |
Zheng Y, Chang X, Huang Y, et al. (2023) The application of antidepressant drugs in cancer treatment. Biomed Pharmacother 157: 113985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2022.113985 ![]() |
[17] |
Szegezdi E, Logue SE, Gorman AM, et al. (2006) Mediators of endoplasmic reticulum stress-induced apoptosis. EMBO Rep 7: 880-885. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7400779 ![]() |
[18] |
Rasheva VI, Domingos PM (2009) Cellular responses to endoplasmic reticulum stress and apoptosis. Apoptosis 14: 996-1007. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10495-009-0341-y ![]() |
[19] |
Carson DA, Ribeiro JM (1993) Apoptosis and disease. Lancet 341: 1251-1254. https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736(93)91154-E ![]() |
[20] |
Birben E, Sahiner UM, Sackesen C, et al. (2012) Oxidative stress and antioxidant defense. World Allergy Organ J 5: 9-19. https://doi.org/10.1097/WOX.0b013e3182439613 ![]() |
[21] |
Laborde E (2010) Glutathione transferases as mediators of signaling pathways involved in cell proliferation and cell death. Cell Death Differ 17: 1373-1380. https://doi.org/10.1038/cdd.2010.80 ![]() |
[22] |
Lima CF, Fernandes-Ferreira M, Pereira-Wilson C (2006) Phenolic compounds protect HepG2 cells from oxidative damage: relevance of glutathione levels. Life Sci 79: 2056-2068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lfs.2006.06.042 ![]() |
[23] |
Zlatković J, Todorović N, Tomanović N, et al. (2014) Chronic administration of fluoxetine or clozapine induces oxidative stress in rat liver: a histopathological study. Eur J Pharm Sci 59: 20-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2014.04.010 ![]() |
[24] |
Kotan VO, Sarandol E, Kirhan E, et al. (2011) Effects of long-term antidepressant treatment on oxidative status in major depressive disorder: a 24-week follow-up study. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 35: 1284-1290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnpbp.2011.03.021 ![]() |
[25] |
Novío S, Núñez MJ, Amigo G, et al. (2011) Effects of fluoxetine on the oxidative status of peripheral blood leucocytes of restraint-stressed mice. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 109: 365-371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-7843.2011.00736.x ![]() |
[26] |
Zafir A, Banu N (2007) Antioxidant potential of fluoxetine in comparison to Curcuma longa in restraint-stressed rats. Eur J Pharmacol 572: 23-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejphar.2007.05.062 ![]() |
[27] |
Bowie M, Pilie P, Wulfkuhle J, et al. (2015) Fluoxetine induces cytotoxic endoplasmic reticulum stress and autophagy in triple negative breast cancer. World J Clin Oncol 6: 299-311. https://doi.org/10.5306/wjco.v6.i6.299 ![]() |
[28] |
Ma J, Yang YR, Chen W, et al. (2016) Fluoxetine synergizes with temozolomide to induce the CHOP-dependent endoplasmic reticulum stress-related apoptosis pathway in glioma cells. Oncol Rep 36: 676-684. https://doi.org/10.3892/or.2016.4860 ![]() |
[29] |
Dicks N, Gutierrez K, Michalak M, et al. (2015) Endoplasmic reticulum stress, genome damage, and cancer. Front Oncol 5: 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2015.00011 ![]() |
[30] |
Corcoran CA, Luo X, He Q, et al. (2005) Genotoxic and endoplasmic reticulum stresses differentially regulate TRB3 expression. Cancer Biol Ther 4: 1063-1067. https://doi.org/10.4161/cbt.4.10.2205 ![]() |