Dose validation of PhIP hair level as a biomarker of heterocyclic aromatic amines exposure: a feeding study

Marchand, Loı̈c Le; Yonemori, Kim; White, Kami; Franke, Adrian A.; Wilkens, Lynne R.; Turesky, Robert J.

doi:10.1093/carcin/bgw049

Cited by 19 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Markers related to the intake of high-intensity cooked meat have been investigated also in human hair, providing an average of the exposure over a period of several months [143–150]. Analysis of hair samples showing dose-response, a known dependence on melanin levels and independence of hair dying, and CYP1A2 phenotype, has been shown for measurement of PhIP after fried beef intake for 3–4 weeks [143–145]. The lack of dependence on metabolism is in accordance with findings showing that CYP1A2 phenotype over a 20-fold activity span is a poor predictor of HAA metabolite excretion in urine [150].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomarkers of meat and seafood intake: an extensive literature review

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Meat, including fish and shellfish, represents a valuable constituent of most balanced diets. Consumption of different types of meat and fish has been associated with both beneficial and adverse health effects. While white meats and fish are generally associated with positive health outcomes, red and especially processed meats have been associated with colorectal cancer and other diseases. The contribution of these foods to the development or prevention of chronic diseases is still not fully elucidated. One of the main problems is the difficulty in properly evaluating meat intake, as the existing self-reporting tools for dietary assessment may be imprecise and therefore affected by systematic and random errors. Dietary biomarkers measured in biological fluids have been proposed as possible objective measurements of the actual intake of specific foods and as a support for classical assessment methods. Good biomarkers for meat intake should reflect total dietary intake of meat, independent of source or processing and should be able to differentiate meat consumption from that of other protein-rich foods; alternatively, meat intake biomarkers should be specific to each of the different meat sources (e.g., red vs. white; fish, bird, or mammal) and/or cooking methods. In this paper, we present a systematic investigation of the scientific literature while providing a comprehensive overview of the possible biomarker(s) for the intake of different types of meat, including fish and shellfish, and processed and heated meats according to published guidelines for biomarker reviews (BFIrev). The most promising biomarkers are further validated for their usefulness for dietary assessment by published validation criteria.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomarkers of meat and seafood intake: an extensive literature review

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…PhIP measured in the hair represents an integrated exposure over a time period of weeks to months and has been shown to be relatively constant over time. Feeding studies with well-done red meat have shown a very good correlation between ingested dose and PhIP hair level [ 37 , 38 ]. However, this hair biomarker has not been found to be predictor of DNA damage in circulating lymphocytes [ 39 ].…”

Section: Discovery Of Haas and Their Carcinogenicitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of heterocyclic aromatic amines in colorectal cancer: the evidence from epidemiologic studies

Marchand

2021

Genes and Environ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since Dr. Sugimura’s discovery of heterocyclic aromatic amines (HAA) in broiled fish, many epidemiological studies have been conducted to investigate their role in human cancers, often focusing on colorectal cancer. The difficulty in measuring HAA exposure from meat and fish intake in these studies has resulted in inconsistent findings. Because studying individuals who may be particularly susceptible to the carcinogenic effects of HAA might facilitate the demonstration of a link with cancer, multiple studies have focused on individuals with the high activity phenotype for CYP1A2 and/or NAT2, the two main metabolic enzymes involved in the bioactivation of HAA. These investigations have also yielded inconsistent results. Two recent large pooled analyses of colorectal cancer studies have helped clarify the overall evidence. One was conducted in whites and reported no interaction of red meat intake and NAT2 genotype on risk in Whites. The other was conducted in Japanese and African Americans, two populations with high rates of the disease and a prevalence of the at-risk rapid NAT2 phenotype 10- and 2-fold greater than in whites, respectively. In those groups, a significant interaction was found, with the association of red meat with colorectal cancer being strongest among individuals with the rapid NAT2 phenotype, intermediate among those with the intermediate phenotype and not significant among those with the slow NAT2 phenotype. Recent research on biomarkers has focused on PhIP hair content, as a marker of exposure to HAA, and on DNA adducts using new sensitive quantitative methods, as markers of early biological effects. These advances, when brought to bear, may contribute greatly to the further elucidation of the carcinogenicity of HAA in humans.

show abstract

“…Currently, the available scientific evidence provides imperfect measurements of amounts of meat and meat-related compounds consumed (Alaejos and Afonso, 2011). Since there is a lack of valid biomarkers for meat-related exposures (Klurfeld, 2015;Gibis, 2016;Le Marchand et al, 2016), dietary intake estimates in the United States are primarily obtained via the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), which is based on each subject's self-reported, retrospective account of food and beverage consumption in the recent 24 h. Self-reported food recalls are widely acknowledged for their limitations (Oostindjer et al, 2014;Archer et al, 2015). As noted by Nicklas and colleagues (2015), "All traditional dietary analyses in epidemiology share one strong but incorrect assumption: that exposures, such as foods or nutrients, were measured with great accuracy."…”

Section: Assessing Meat Intake and Related Health Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%