Short-Term Biomarkers of Tumor Promotion in Mouse Skin Treated with Petroleum Middle Distillates,

Walborg, Earl F.; DiGiovanni, John; Conti, Claudio J.; Slaga, Thomas J.; Freeman, James J.; Steup, David R.; Skisak, Christopher M.

doi:10.1006/toxs.1998.2534

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are several fundamental differences between these two stages (and the agents that trigger these processes) [ 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 ]. An initiating agent is also a “complete carcinogen”, since either repeated exposure in small dosage or a single large exposure to such agents lead to carcinogenesis, whereas a promoting agent is not carcinogenic alone.…”

Section: Multi-step Process Of Cancermentioning

confidence: 99%

DNA Damage, Mutagenesis and Cancer

Basu

2018

IJMS

361

212

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A large number of chemicals and several physical agents, such as UV light and γ-radiation, have been associated with the etiology of human cancer. Generation of DNA damage (also known as DNA adducts or lesions) induced by these agents is an important first step in the process of carcinogenesis. Evolutionary processes gave rise to DNA repair tools that are efficient in repairing damaged DNA; yet replication of damaged DNA may take place prior to repair, particularly when they are induced at a high frequency. Damaged DNA replication may lead to gene mutations, which in turn may give rise to altered proteins. Mutations in an oncogene, a tumor-suppressor gene, or a gene that controls the cell cycle can generate a clonal cell population with a distinct advantage in proliferation. Many such events, broadly divided into the stages of initiation, promotion, and progression, which may occur over a long period of time and transpire in the context of chronic exposure to carcinogens, can lead to the induction of human cancer. This is exemplified in the long-term use of tobacco being responsible for an increased risk of lung cancer. This mini-review attempts to summarize this wide area that centers on DNA damage as it relates to the development of human cancer.

show abstract

Section: Multi-step Process Of Cancermentioning

confidence: 99%

DNA Damage, Mutagenesis and Cancer

Basu

2018

IJMS

361

212

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Exposure of mouse skin to organic peroxides: subchronic effects related to carcinogenic potential

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Screening of newly synthesized organic peroxides for tumor initiating/promoting activity would be greatly facilitated if predictive methodologies could be developed using topical exposures shorter than those required for definitive tumor assessment in mouse skin models. Nine organic peroxides [benzoyl peroxide (BZP), di-t-butyl peroxide (DTBP), t-butyl peroxybenzoate (TBPB), p-t-butyl isopropylbenzene hydroperoxide (TBIBHP), cumene hydroperoxide (CHP), dicetyl peroxydicarbonate (DPD), dicumyl peroxide (DCP), methyl ethyl ketone peroxide (MEKP) and O,O-t-butyl-O-(2-ethylhexyl) monoperoxycarbonate (TBEC)] were evaluated for their ability to increase biomarkers of tumor promotion in mouse skin, i.e. sustained epidermal hyperplasia, dermal inflammation and oxidative DNA damage. Evaluations were performed using SENCAR mice exposed topically for 4 weeks. The organic peroxides varied in their effects on these biomarkers. BZP, TBPB and TBIBHP exhibited significant increases in all three biomarkers associated with tumor promoting activity, CHP produced increases only in sustained epidermal hyperplasia and dermal inflammation, MEKP and DCP produced increases only in sustained epidermal hyperplasia and TBEC produced an increase only in dermal inflammation. DTBP and DPD had no effect on the three parameters studied. TBPB and TBIBHP were selected for further examination of their ability to produce mutations in codons 12, 13 and 61 of the c-Ha-ras protooncogene, i.e. those mutations known to be involved in the initiation of mouse skin tumors, because they were the only peroxides to exhibit significant positive results in all assays except the Ha-ras mutation following 4 weeks of exposure. Evaluations were performed using SENCAR mice dosed topically for 8 or 12 weeks in a complete carcinogenesis protocol or 16 weeks in an initiation/promotion protocol using 7,12-dimethylbenz[a]anthracene, urethane, benzo[a]pyrene and N-methyl-N'-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine as positive controls. Neither TBPB nor TBIBHP produced detectable mutations in the c-Ha-ras protooncogene, indicating that they are not likely to possess tumor initiating or complete carcinogenic activity.

show abstract

Short-Term In Vitro and In Vivo Analyses for Assessing the Tumor-Promoting Potentials of Cigarette Smoke Condensates

Curtin

Hanausek

Wałaszek

et al. 2004

Toxicological Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies found that repeated application of smoke condensate from tobacco-burning reference cigarettes to chemically initiated SENCAR mouse skin promoted the development of tumors in a statistically significant and dose-dependent manner, while condensate from prototype cigarettes that primarily heat tobacco promoted statistically fewer tumors. Based on the recognized correlation between sustained, potentiated epidermal hyperplasia and tumor promotion, we conducted tests to examine the utility of selected short-term analyses for discriminating between condensates exhibiting significantly different promotion activities. In vitro analyses assessing the potential for inducing cytotoxicity (ATP bioluminescence) or free radical production (cytochrome c reduction, salicylate trapping) demonstrated significant reductions when comparing condensate collected from prototype cigarettes to reference condensate. Short-term in vivo analyses conducted within the context of a mouse skin, tumor-promotion protocol (i.e., comparative measures of epidermal thickness, proliferative index, myeloperoxidase activity, leukocyte invasion, mutation of Ha-ras, and formation of modified DNA bases) provided similar results. Reference condensate induced statistically significant and dose-dependent increases (relative to vehicle control) for nearly all indices examined, while prototype condensate possessed a significantly reduced potential for inducing changes that we regarded as consistent with sustained epidermal hyperplasia and/or inflammation. Collectively, these data support the contention that selected short-term analyses associated with sustained hyperplasia and/or inflammation are capable of discriminating between smoke condensates with dissimilar tumor-promotion potentials. Moreover, our results suggest that comparative measures of proliferative index and myeloperoxidase activity, both possessing favorable correlation coefficients relative to tumor formation (i.e., > or = 0.95 after 8 or 12 weeks of promotion), may constitute reasonable end points for further investigation.

show abstract

Short-Term Biomarkers of Tumor Promotion in Mouse Skin Treated with Petroleum Middle Distillates,

Cited by 3 publications

References 31 publications

DNA Damage, Mutagenesis and Cancer

DNA Damage, Mutagenesis and Cancer

Exposure of mouse skin to organic peroxides: subchronic effects related to carcinogenic potential

Short-Term In Vitro and In Vivo Analyses for Assessing the Tumor-Promoting Potentials of Cigarette Smoke Condensates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About