4.7 Review

Consumption of Red/Processed Meat and Colorectal Carcinoma: Possible Mechanisms Underlying the Significant Association

Journal

CRITICAL REVIEWS IN FOOD SCIENCE AND NUTRITION
Volume 56, Issue 4, Pages 614-634

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10408398.2014.972498

Keywords

Dietary patterns; red/processed meat; intestinal carcinogenesis; morphogenetic pathways; haem; nitrosyl-haem; N-nitroso compounds; fat peroxidation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Epidemiology and experimental studies provide an overwhelming support of the notion that diets high in red or processed meat accompany an elevated risk of developing pre-neoplastic colorectal adenoma and frank colorectal carcinoma (CRC). The underlying mechanisms are disputed; thus several hypotheses have been proposed. A large body of reports converges, however, on haem and nitrosyl haem as major contributors to the CRC development, presumably acting through various mechanisms. Apart from a potentially higher intestinal mutagenic load among consumers on a diet rich in red/processed meat, other mechanisms involving subtle interference with colorectal stem/progenitor cell survival or maturation are likewise at play. From an overarching perspective, suggested candidate mechanisms for red/processed meat-induced CRC appear as three partly overlapping tenets: (i) increased N-nitrosation/oxidative load leading to DNA adducts and lipid peroxidation in the intestinal epithelium, (ii) proliferative stimulation of the epithelium through haem or food-derived metabolites that either act directly or subsequent to conversion, and (iii) higher inflammatory response, which may trigger a wide cascade of pro-malignant processes. In this review, we summarize and discuss major findings of the area in the context of potentially pertinent mechanisms underlying the above-mentioned association between consumption of red/processed meat and increased risk of developing CRC.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available