original paper
THE SIMILIA PRINCIPLE AS A THERAPEUTIC
STRATEGY: A RESEARCH PROGRAM
ON STIMULATION OF SELF-DEFENSE
IN DISORDERED MAMMALIAN CELLS
Roeland Van Wijk, PhD and Fred AC Wiegant, PhD
Roeland Van Wijk and Fred AC Wiegant are from the
Department of Molecular Cell Biology, Faculty of Biology,
Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
The similia principle is considered to be the essence of homeopa-
thy. This article describes a research program for study of the similia
principle in cultured mammalian cells. This systematic program with
its rather simple research model was set up ultimately to contribute to
the design of studies of the similia principle with more complex organ-
isms such as humans. With respect to application of the similia prin-
ciple, the concepts of self-defense and self-recovery are central. At the
cellular level, self-defense and recovery largely depend on the avail-
ability of proteins with a cell-protective function, most notably, stress
or heat shock proteins.
To study the similia principle, we use four lines of research to
examine the processes of self-defense. First, stimulation of self-defense
in disturbed and disordered cells is studied by using low doses of an
agent homologous or identical to the disturbing agent. The second line
of research deals with the specificity of this stimulation: Is cellular self-
defense after exposure to toxicant A also effectively stimulated in an
analogous or heterologous way by low doses of other toxicants such as
B or C? The third line of research involves the duration of low-dose sen-
sitivity of disordered cells for homologous stimulations, in particular,
the desensitization of cells toward these homologous stimulations. The
fourth line of research deals with whether—according to the similia
principle—the state of desensitization can be overruled by heterologous
condition(s) that induce an analogous pattern of protector proteins
(ie, a pattern closely resembling the damage-induced pattern) and
thus effectively stimulate cellular defense and recovery. (Alternative
Therapies in Health and Medicine. 1997;3(2):33-38)
Reprint requests: Innovision Communications, 101 Columbia, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656. Tel, (800)
899-1712 or (714) 362-2050 (ext 532); fax, (714) 362-2022; e-mail, ivcReprint@aol.com.
The Similia Principle as a Therapeutic Strategy
he essence of homeopathy is the stimulation of bio-
T logical defense and recovery mechanisms by the use
of compounds according to the similia principle.
The similia principle suggests that any state of dis-
turbance that is not corrected spontaneously (and
leads to a state of “disease”) can be corrected by minute doses of
compounds that at a higher dose can produce effects closely
resembling the symptoms of the disease being treated or by
minute amounts of the compounds that actually caused the dis-
ease.
When cells are damaged, a mechanism is switched on to
withstand the disturbing effects and to stimulate recovery.
Increased understanding of such a mechanism would strengthen
the foundation of the similia principle.1,2 The basis of this mecha-
nism that regulates the transition between life and death has
been the subject of much research for many decades. As a tenta-
tive approach to characterizing the essence of the living state, it
was proposed that life is a process of being an “organizing enti-
ty,” which means an open system that (re)structures and
(re)organizes itself. Defense and recovery are biological phenom-
ena that encompass the way in which components of the system
are temporally, spatially, and hierarchically rearranged. To study
the similia principle, one must understand how to intervene in,
adjust, or stimulate these recovery processes. This approach
requires quantitative experimentation and evaluation methods
(eg, mathematical modeling) and thus requires parameters to
study the damage-induced recovery mechanisms experimentally.
This article describes the phases of a research program to study
the similia principle in cultured mammalian cells.
Understanding of the mechanisms of cellular protection
and recovery from damage in non–lethally injured cells at the
molecular level has increased greatly in recent years. These
processes appear to be largely dependent on the availability of
proteins with a cell-protective function, most notably stress or
heat shock proteins.3-5 When working with cells as a model sys-
tem, it is crucial to determine what actually occurs in cases of
disorder and especially the way the defense and recovery mecha-
nisms are regulated to prevent further infliction of injury or cell
ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES, MARCH 1997, VOL. 3, NO. 2 33
death. This article thus focuses on the research strategies for Major stress protein families and their functions
determining which cellular components play a role in defense
and on the integration of this information. The chosen research Hsp Stress protein Functions in cell metabolism
strategy is on complex systems, which requires the analysis of family and cellular stress defense
nonlinear interactions in a network. The task of discovering the
hsp100 hsp100 Heat and ethanol tolerance
nature of the defense process during interventions according to
the similia principle is the next topic of research. Next, the pos- hsp90 hsp90 (hsp84) Stabilization of proteins;
tulated, precise kinetic and interactive behavior of defense pro- maintenance of the inactive
teins must be tested and it must be shown that the results of the protein form during trans-
port
various experiments, when fitted into a quantitative model, are
in accord with the observed changes. Essential for cell viability

DAMAGE AND DEFENSE hsp70 grp94 (grp95) Role in protein folding?

Proteotoxicity hsp70 (hsp73/hsc70) Molecular chaperone;
The so-called stress response, which started as a molecular required for protein assem-
curiosity in fruit flies in the early 1960s, now constitutes an bly, protein translocation,
active area of research in molecular cell biology.3 The heat shock secretion and import into
organelles
proteins, one of the most highly conserved group of proteins
characterized so far, are implicated as being essential compo- hsp68(hsp72/hspi70) (Thermo)tolerance
nents in a number of diverse biological processes, in particular
cellular protection. Following the nomenclature first used for Promotes survival in extreme
temperatures
fruit flies, the various heat shock proteins in animal cells are
named on the basis of their mode of induction and apparent grp78 (BiP) Maturation of proteins for
molecular mass. Hence their designation as hsp70 or grp78, for excretion protein transloca-
example, refers to heat shock proteins of 70 kD and glucose-reg- tion in mitochondria
ulated proteins of 78 kD, respectively. A survey of these proteins hsp60 hsp60 Molecular chaperone that
is presented in the Table. facilitates folding of
Earlier work was perplexing in that many different agents monomeric proteins and
were able to lead to similar changes in gene expression. assembly of oligomeric pro-
tein complexes; mainly in
However, in the past 15 years, a variety of observations have pro- mitochondrial matrix
vided support for the so-called abnormal protein hypothesis sug-
gested to explain the induction of the heat shock response.6 This small hsps hsp32 Metabolism of haem
aspect of toxicity at the level of proteins has been termed pro- (haem oxygenase)
hsp27 Contributes to thermotoler-
teotoxicity.7 When cells have been exposed to heat shock or to ance and cytoskeletal stabi-
toxic substances such as cadmium and arsenite, or to oxidative lization
stresses, many proteins exhibit deleterious changes in structure.
These changes then interfere with the functional interactive ubiquitin Protein denuration
capabilities of these proteins. The risk is also high that these
Adapted from Parsell and Lindquist4 (1993)
abnormal protein molecules aggregate not only with other dam-
aged proteins but also with still functional proteinaceous cellular
structures. The damage at the level of proteins lies at the basis of
cellular damage and eventually cellular death. of stress proteins, collectively called chaperones, ensure that
polypeptides fold and assemble properly in the cell. The stress
Stress Proteins in Cell Protection proteins are also named according to their function. Examples
To understand cellular recovery, one must study the mecha- include chaperone proteins (which form complexes with proteina-
nisms that are activated when proteins are damaged and deter- ceous and other, more intricate, cellular structures in order to
mine how the cell copes with these damaged, life-threatening prevent premature or deleterious interactions between pro-
molecules. teins), binding proteins (which form complexes with receptor pro-
Some work on in vitro refolding of a small number of pro- teins to regulate their activity, ie, a receptor function), or
teins led to the long-lasting impression that folding of newly syn- protector proteins (which have crucial functions in the mechanism
thesized polypeptides is an intrinsic feature of their primary of cell defense and recovery). In this respect, the protector pro-
structure, independent of other factors. However, the relatively teins seem crucial in many ways in the normal functioning of
high protein concentration in the cytosol gives rise to misfolding proteins under adverse conditions and in the refolding of struc-
followed by aggregation. To deal with this kind of problem, a set turally damaged proteins.4

34 ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES, MARCH 1997, VOL. 3, NO. 2 The Similia Principle as a Therapeutic Strategy
Pattern of Protector Proteins is Damage Specific
A variety of different protector proteins have been found.
Interestingly, the pattern of protector proteins that is induced
appears to be damage specific.8-10 Under different deleterious
conditions, qualitatively different patterns of protector proteins
seem to be induced. Although an explanation for such a complex
regulation is lacking, the patterns do suggest some differentia-
tion in the induction of the type of damage-induced protection
mechanisms.
Because these protector proteins are essential to survive
threatening conditions and because their induction occurs at
concentrations of various toxic compounds that are not yet
lethal for the cells, the damage-specific pattern of induction may
be considered as the cellular equivalent of the homeopathic rem-
edy picture.
The Problem of Regulation
of Availability of Protector Proteins
A simple model for the regulation of protector proteins in
defense after cell damage is depicted in Figure 1. The quantity of
free protector proteins available in the cell decreases after cell
damage. As long as these protector proteins are available, dam-
age is reduced to a minimum. However, when a shortage of pro-
tector proteins arises in the case of an overload of damage, the
abnormal protein molecules can complex with other cell struc-
tures. Cell damage and death can then be avoided only by pro-
duction of increasing amounts of new protector proteins. The
Proteotoxicity Compensation cycle
HSF (inactive)
Pool of free
HSPs
Stress
Protector protein
HSF (active)
Denatured
DNA
protein
HSPmRNA
HSP
FIGURE 1 Basic processes of damage and defense at the cellular
level. Proteotoxicity is illustrated as a change in protein conforma-
tion. Protector proteins interact with these abnormal proteins.
After depletion of the pool of free HSPs, supplementation of these
protector proteins occurs by way of the compensation cycle.
The Similia Principle as a Therapeutic Strategy
replenishment of these protector proteins starts with activation
of associated protector protein gene promoters on the cell’s
DNA. This highly specific activation occurs by binding of specif-
ic DNA-binding factors, called heat shock transcription factors
(HSFs), on these DNA sites.11 The binding of the HSF to the pro-
moter on the cell’s DNA is the signal that triggers transfer of
information from DNA into messenger RNA (mRNA), leading
eventually to synthesis of new protector proteins. Whether or
not these DNA-binding factors interact with the DNA depends
on the existing quantity of protector proteins in the cell. The
genome is specifically activated to trigger this synthesis of addi-
tional protector proteins only when the quantity of protector
proteins falls below a certain threshold. Normally, at least one
type of protective protein, hsp70, and a DNA-binding factor,
HSF, form a complex that provides the basis for this regulation.
If protector proteins are required to neutralize abnormal pro-
teins, this complex then dissociates, releasing HSF, which then
binds to the promoters and induces production of mRNA, with
the ensuing synthesis of new protector proteins. When sufficient
new protector proteins have been produced, that is, when the
level of these proteins is raised above the threshold value, hsp70
will again form a complex with HSF molecules, uncoupling the
HSF from DNA, with a concomitant halt in production of
mRNA. In terms of systems theory, one might say that this is the
autoregulation loop that forms the basis of damage-induced
recovery processes.
Mathematical Modeling as a Future Step
in Understanding the Regulation of Defense
Defense and recovery are not simple and singular phenom-
ena but are determined by the kinetic parameters of the autoreg-
ulation loop as illustrated in Figure 2. Insight into the
effectiveness of this loop for cellular defense can therefore be
obtained only from studies involving the parameters mentioned
in this mathematical model. This mathematical model of defense
and recovery processes has only recently started with the devel-
opment of a model of hsp70 regulation in the cell.12 So far, five
main blocks, each describing one or more processes involved in
the functions of hsp70 and its synthesis, have been developed.1,12
These blocks constitute the basic structure of a mathematical
model for the regulation of hsp70 in cells. The major processes
included in the model so far are (1) denaturation of proteins
after an increase in temperature and the binding of hsp70 to
denatured or nascent proteins; (2) interaction of hsp70 with HSF
and the activation of HSF not bound to hsp70; (3) interaction of
activated HSF with a specific HSF binding sequence (heat shock
element, HSE) on DNA; (4) the relationship between HSE and
transcriptionally active HSF and the level of hsp70mRNA active-
ly engaged in synthesis of hsp70; and (5) translation of viable
hsp70mRNA into its protein.
In the model constructed so far, the output of this regula-
tion is the level of free, that is, unbound, hsp70 in the cell. Future
steps in developing this mathematical model concern the inclu-
sion of lethality in order to predict stress-dependent survival and
ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES, MARCH 1997, VOL. 3, NO. 2 35

2.0 A According to homeopathic insights, recovery can be stimu-
Relative synthesis of hsp70
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 2 4 6
Time (hours)
60 B into increased synthesis of protector proteins and increased sur-
Relative survival (%)
40
20
0
C x X X-x
FIGURE 2 Schematic presentation of the effect of a low dose of a
homologous stressor on the synthesis of hsp70 (A) and on devel-
opment of tolerance (B). When the stress condition is followed
by a low dose of the same stressor, an enhancement of hsp70 syn-
thesis (filled triangles) and of tolerance development is observed
in comparison with the effect of the stress condition alone (open
circles). A low dose of the stressor does not influence the control
cells (open triangles). C=control, x=low-dose stressor, X=stres-
sor, X-x=stressor followed by low-dose stressor.
changes in cellular sensitivity to stressors.
To sum up, the integrity of the cellular systems, their
defense and recovery, depends not only on the available protec-
tive proteins but also on the speed of activation of the total res-
cue mechanism. Future developments in this research are
directed at the damage dependency and differentiation of the
mentioned production process. A quantitative experimental
analysis and a mathematical evaluation are considered essential
for this study and for understanding any interventions in this
production process, particularly interventions according to the
similia principle.
36 ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES, MARCH 1997, VOL. 3, NO. 2
SIMILIA PRINCIPLE
lated by all kinds of substances, provided that they are applied in
a specific way. Of all substances, the one most suitable for stimu-
lation of recovery is the one that can produce the artificial situa-
tion of disorder that most closely resembles the disordered state.
In other words, this concept hinges on the resemblance between
symptoms of the disturbed system and the symptoms caused by
the applied substance in a healthy system.
Application of Low Doses
of Homologous Damaging Conditions
The similia principle in its most elementary form can easily
be tested at the cellular level by determination of the extent to
which recovery is stimulated by a small dose of a substance that
8
in the first instance—at a higher dose—is responsible for dereg-
ulating the system or leading to sickness. The relevant question
for this overview is whether this stimulation will be translated
vival of cells.
This hypothesis, representing homologous sensitization,
has been studied by a step-down heating protocol in which the
initial treatment with high heat is immediately followed by a sec-
ond treatment at lower doses. When these step-down heating
conditions were used, an enhanced synthesis of protector pro-
teins was indeed seen.13-15 Other studies show an enhanced occur-
rence of thermotolerance when mild step-down heatings were
used.16
The next relevant question is whether this response is a gen-
eral occurrence and can thus also be observed after stressor con-
ditions other than heat shocks. To this end, a damage-inducing
treatment of cells with arsenite or cadmium was followed by low
doses of arsenite or cadmium, respectively. When this step-down
treatment with arsenite or cadmium was used, cells exhibited an
enhanced synthesis of various protector proteins and develop-
ment of tolerance.17,18 The lower doses had no effect on synthesis
of protector proteins or development of tolerance in cells that
were not pretreated (ie, healthy cells).
Figure 2 shows, schematically, the transient induction of
hsp70. The synthesis of this protein is further enhanced when a
low stressor dose is applied during the so-called posttreatment
period. The level of tolerance that is achieved is also higher when
the low dose is applied after treatment as compared to cells that
received a pretreatment only.
The Specificity of the Low-Dose Effect
With respect to the specificity of the defense-enhancing
effect of low doses of an analogous stressor, some recent studies
examined induction of protector proteins in sensitized cells by
low doses of analogous but potentially damaging conditions. So
far, experiments have examined the effects of pretreatments
given with either a heat shock, sodium arsenite, or cadmium
chloride. After these pretreatments, the cultures were exposed to
low doses of heat, arsenite, or cadmium or to control conditions.
The Similia Principle as a Therapeutic Strategy
The stimulating effect on the synthesis of various protector pro-
teins was then studied. This application of either heat shock,
arsenite, or cadmium at subliminal conditions to already disor-
dered cells early in their recovery yielded a different degree of
synthesis of protector proteins. Only incubation of damaged
cells with low doses of homologous conditions resulted in this
extra synthesis of protector proteins.1 Additionally, the degree of
stimulation by low doses of stressors depended on the degree of
similarity between the two stressors (Figure 3): The more similar
the induced pattern of protector proteins by two stressors, the
larger the stimulatory action. These observations confirm the
specificity of the low-dose effect and are now extended by incor-
poration of a broader range of stress conditions in the experi-
mental protocol.
Specific Desensitization
A particular aspect of the cellular response to stressors is
that the cells show a biphasic change in their sensitivity to a
stressor. An initially enhanced sensitivity (sensitization) toward
a second application of the same stressor is followed by a
reduced sensitivity (desensitization or tolerance). This phenome-
non is represented schematically in Figure 4. This biphasic
change in sensitivity is observed after heat treatments and after
treatments with cadmium 18 or arsenite. 19 In particular, the
change in sensitivity can be seen after the period of stressor-
induced synthesis of protector proteins. This state of refractori-
2.0
Relative synthesis of hsp70
1.0
0 ondary stressor is severely inhibited in cadmium-pretreated
After 0 as cd 0 as cd
Before As Cd
FIGURE 3 Schematic presentation of the specificity in stimula-
tion of HSP synthesis by low doses of stressors. A high dose
induces a certain level of HSPs, which is further enhanced when
subsequently incubated with a low dose of the same stressor, but
not with a low dose of stressor conditions that were not similar.
A low dose exerts no effects on the level of hsp70 found in con-
trol conditions (black bars).
The Similia Principle as a Therapeutic Strategy
6 6
HSP inducibility (arbitrary units)
5 5
LD50 (arbitrary units)
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time (hours)
FIGURE 4 Schematic presentation of the change in sensitivity
(filled squares) and HSP inducibility (open squares) at various
times after stressor application. Closed circles=control level.
ness (or tolerance) is also seen in the induction of synthesis of
protector proteins by a second heat shock20-22 and by fractionated
arsenite17,23 or cadmium treatments.18 The consequence of this
temporal refractoriness is that homologous sensitization is only
transient. These observations led to the conclusion that low
doses of homologous substances are effective only during the
early period of recovery. The next questions in the research pro-
gram are whether this desensitization later in cellular recovery is
a stressor-specific phenomenon and to what extent a heterolo-
gous reinduction remains possible.
Heterologous Reinduction
Recently, the specificity of desensitization of protector pro-
tein induction was tested with heat shock, sodium arsenite, and
cadmium chloride used as primary and secondary inducers of
protector proteins.23 The data suggest that the degree, but not
the pattern, of reinduction of protector proteins is influenced by
the type of stressor used in the pretreatments. Thus, stimulation
of synthesis of protector proteins after cadmium as the sec-
cells, whereas reinductions after arsenite and heat shock are
specifically inhibited in cells pretreated with arsenite and heat
shock, respectively.
In summary, homologous sensitization is transient, and
homologous desensitization develops specifically. Apparently, a
common denominator regulates the coordinate expression of a
group of protector proteins. Heterologous reinduction can still
occur but, in that case, the pattern of protector proteins induced
by the secondarily applied stressor shows a stressor specificity
that is dependent only on the second treatment and is indepen-
dent of any pretreatment.
ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES, MARCH 1997, VOL. 3, NO. 2 37
Future Research Aimed
at Further Understanding of the Similia Principle
The possible implication of the results mentioned so far is
that the increased production of protector proteins at a later
time after an injury, that is, during the period of homologous tol-
erance, occurs only after application of a heterologous damaging
compound. When we consider the pattern of synthesized protec-
tor proteins as the molecular symptoms of recovery, the speci-
ficity of the similia principle reveals itself in the degree of
relatedness between the effects of the disturbing compound on
the pattern of synthesis of these protector proteins. We must
search for analogous damaging conditions that induce patterns
of protector proteins similar to those generated by the primary
stressor without being identical to this primary stressor. For this
step, different compounds must be tested at the cellular level.
Another possibility is to look for conditions that induce the
whole range of protector proteins, such as, for instance, the use
of a mixture of stressors in low doses (Figure 5). Then, as a result
of a concerted action, the synthesis of all protector proteins will
be enhanced by an overruling or circumvention of the lack of
induction of some protector proteins due to stressor specificity.
In fact, from this perspective, nature seems to use fever (low
hyperthermic temperatures) to provide organisms with a means
of stimulating protection and recovery mechanisms after dam-
age, as suggested by preliminary data.1
Significance of Fundamental Studies
Studies on the similia principle at the cellular level are with-
out doubt significant for our understanding of the stimulation of
recovery processes at the cellular level. It is apparent that the
regulation of recovery can be stimulated in a specific way by
Stimulating
Damage conditions z Biophys. 1992;31:323-332.
y z1
x 16. Van Wijk R, Ovelgönne JH, de Koning E, Jaarsveld Van Rijn I, Wiegant FAC. Mild step-
z2 z1-3
X x y z3
Time (hours)
FIGURE 5 Stimulation of recovery of damaged cells by three
types of treatment. Upon damage by stressor X, a specific pattern
of HSPs (indicated by the solid bars) is observed. In the time after
damage, the cells show a differential sensitivity in time toward
these treatments. These treatments include a homologous condi-
tion (isopathy, X followed by x); a singular heterologous but simi-
lar condition (X followed by y), and a composite of heterologous
conditions (X followed by z1 through z3).
38 ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES, MARCH 1997, VOL. 3, NO. 2
application of low doses of damaging conditions. The selection
of condition can be based on the molecular symptoms of the cel-
lular defense process. In this respect, the application of low
doses according to the similia principle warrants further study.
It should now also be easier to understand the role of these
cellular recovery processes in an organ’s functionality after expo-
sure of an intact organism to stressful conditions. Therefore, the
similia principle can be expected to manifest itself as a general
biological phenomenon. This offers exciting opportunities for
developing new avenues for therapeutic interventions in bio-
medicine.
Acknowledgments
C A van der Mast, PhD, is gratefully acknowledged for critical reading of the manuscript. This work
was supported by the HomInt organization, Karlsruhe, Germany.
References
1. Van Wijk R, Wiegant FAC. Cultured Mammalian Cells in Homeopathy Research: The Similia
Principle in Self-recovery. Utrecht, the Netherlands: Utrecht University, 1994:1-230.
2. Van Wijk R, Ooms H, Wiegant FAC, et al. A molecular basis for understanding the ben-
efits from subharmful doses of toxicants: an experimental approach to the concept of
hormesis and the homeopathic similia law. Environ Management Health. 1994;5:13-25.
3. Nover L. Heat Shock Response. Boca Raton, Fla: CRC Press; 1991:1-499.
4. Parsell DA, Lindquist S. Heat shock proteins and stress tolerance. In: Morimoto RI,
Tissières A, Georgopoulos C, eds. The Biology of Heat Shock Proteins and Molecular
Chaperones. New York, NY: CSHL Press; 1994:457-494.
5. Welch WJ. How cells respond to stress. Sci Am. May 1993:34-41.
6. Georgopoulos C, Welch WJ. Role of the major heat shock proteins as molecular chap-
erones. Annu Rev Cell Biol. 1993;9:601-634.
7. Hightower LE. Heat shock, stress proteins, chaperones and proteotoxicity. Cell.
1991;66:191-197.
8. Sanders BM. Stress proteins in aquatic organisms: an environmental perspective. Crit
Rev Toxicol. 1993;23:49-75.
9. Wiegant FAC, Souren JEM, Van Rijn J, Van Wijk R. Stressor-specific induction of heat
shock proteins in rat hepatoma cells. Toxicology. 1994;94:143-159.
10. Ovelgönne JH, Bitorina M, Van Wijk R. Stressor-specific activation of heat shock genes
in H35 rat hepatoma cells. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1995;135:100-109.
11. Morimoto RI. Cells in stress: transcriptional activation of heat shock genes. Science.
1993;259:1409-1410.
12. Peper A, Grimbergen CA, Spaan JAE, Souren JEM, Van Wijk R. A mathematical model
of the hsp70 regulation in the cell. J Cell Biochem. 1995;19B[suppl]:202.
13. Schamhart DHJ, Zoutewelle G, van Aken H, Van Wijk R. Effects on the expression of
heat shock proteins by step-down heating and hypothermia in rat hepatoma cells with
a different degree of heat sensitivity. Int J Hyperthermia. 1992;8:701-716.
14. Delpino A, Gentile FP, Di Modugno F, Benassi M, Mileo AM, Mattei E.
Thermosensitization, heat shock protein synthesis and development of thermotoler-
ance in M-14 human tumor cells subjected to step-down heating. Radiat Environ
15. Ovelgönne JH, Van Wijk R. Modulation of hsp68 gene expression after heat shock in
thermosensitized and thermotolerant cells is not solely regulated by binding of HSF to
HSE. Int J Hyperthermia. 1995;11:719-732.
down heating causes increased transcription levels of hsp68 and hsp84 mRNA and
enhances thermotolerance development in Reuber H35 hepatoma cells. Int J
Hyperthermia. 1994;10:115-125.
17. Ovelgönne JH, Wiegant FAC, Souren IEM, Van Rijn I, Van Wijk R. Enhancement of the
stress response by low concentrations of arsenite in arsenite-pretreated H35 hepatoma
cells. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1995;132:146-155.
18. Wiegant FAC, Van Rijn I, Van Wijk R. Enhancement of the stress response by minute
amounts of cadmium in sensitized Reuber H35 hepatoma cells. Toxicology. (in press).
19. Wiegant FAC, Souren IEM, Van Rijn I, Van Wijk R. Arsenite-induced sensitization and
self-tolerance of Reuber H35 hepatoma cells. Cell Biol Toxicol. 1993; 9:49-59.
20. Laszlo A. The relationship of heat-shock proteins, thermotolerance, and protein syn-
thesis. Exp Cell Res. 1988;178:401-414.
21. Li GC, Mak JY. Re-induction of HSP70 synthesis: an assay for thermotolerance. Int J
Hyperthermia. 1989;5:389-403.
22. Tuijl MIM, Cluistra S, van der Kruijssen CMM, Van Wijk R. Heat-induced unrespon-
siveness of heat shock gene expression is regulated at the transcriptional level. Int J
Hyperthermia. 1993;9:125-136.
23. Wiegant FAC, Spieker N, Van der Mast CA, Van Wijk R. Is heat shock protein re-induc-
tion during tolerance related to the stressor-specific induction of heat shock proteins? J
Cell Physiol. 1996;169:364-372.
The Similia Principle as a Therapeutic Strategy