4.5 Article

Expression of epigenetic modifiers is not significantly altered by exposure to secondhand smoke

期刊

LUNG CANCER
卷 90, 期 3, 页码 598-603

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2015.10.023

关键词

DNA methyltransferases (DNMTs); Epigenome; Histone deacetylases (HDACs); Lung cancer; Methyl-CpG binding domain proteins (MBDs); Nonsmokers

资金

  1. American Cancer Society [RSG-11-083-01-CNE]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Secondhand smoke (SHS) is a major risk factor for lung cancer in nonsmokers. DNA damage-derived mutagenicity is a well-established mechanism of SHS-carcinogenicity; however very little is known about the impact of SHS exposure on the epigenome. Materials and methods: We have investigated whether exposure to SHS can modulate the expression of key epigenetic regulators responsible for the establishment and/or maintenance of DNA methylation and histone modification patterns in vivo. We have sub-chronically exposed mice to a mutagenic but non-tumorigenic dose of SHS, and subsequently determined the expression levels of major epigenetic modifiers in the lungs of SHS-exposed mice, immediately after termination of exposure and following 7-month recovery in clean air. Results and conclusion: Quantification of the expression of genes encoding DNA methyltransferases (Dnmt1, Dnmt3a, Dnmt3b and Dnmt3l), methyl binding domain proteins (Mecp2, Mbd2 and Mbd3) and histone deacetylases (Hdac1 and Hdac2) by quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction analysis showed modest but not statistically significant differences in the relative transcription of these key epigenetic regulators between SHS-exposed mice and age-matched controls. The non-significant changes in the expression of main epigenetic modifiers in SHS-exposed mice imply that SHS may predominantly induce genotoxic effects, particularly at non-tumorigenic doses, whereas epigenetic effects may only be secondary and manifest en route to tumor formation. (c) 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据