4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

Further studies with a cell immortalization assay to investigate the mutation signature of aristolochic acid in human p53 sequences

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2006.02.017

Keywords

mutational spectra; aristolochic acid nephropathy; carcinogen; senescence

Funding

  1. Worldwide Cancer Research [06-0010] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To test hypotheses on the origins of p53 mutations in human tumors, novel strategies are needed for generating mutation spectra experimentally. To this end we developed an assay employing Hupki (Human p53 knock-in) mouse embryonic fibroblasts (HUFs). Here we examine p53 mutations induced by aristolochic acid I (AAI)), the carcinogen probably responsible for Chinese herbal nephropathy. Six immortalized cultures (cell lines) from 18 HUF primary cultures exposed at passage 1 for 48 h to 50 mu M AAI harbored p53 mutations in the human DNA binding domain sequence of the Hupki p53 tumor suppressor gene. The most frequently observed mutation was A to T transversion, corroborating our previous mutation study with AAI, and consistent with the presence of persistent AAI-adenine adducts found both in DNA of exposed patients and in DNA of AAI-exposed HUF cells. One of the mutations was identical in position (codon 139) and base change (A to T on the non-transcribed strand) to the single p53 mutation that has thus far been characterized in a urothelial tumor of a nephropathy patient with documented AAI exposure. Of the seven p53 mutations identified thus far in > 60 HUF cell lines that immortalized spontaneously (no carcinogen treatment), none were A:T to T:A transversions. In addition, no A to T substitutions were identified among the previously reported set of 18 mutations in HUF cell lines derived from B(a)P treatment in which transversions at G:C base pairs predominated. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.v. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available