4.7 Review

Mouse models for unraveling the importance of diet in colon cancer prevention

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUTRITIONAL BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 21, 期 2, 页码 77-88

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jnutbio.2009.09.014

关键词

Colorectal; Cancer; Diet; APC; Sulforaphane; Mouse

资金

  1. Intramural NIH HHS [Z99 CA999999] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Diet and genetics are both considered important risk determinants for colorectal cancer, a leading cause of death worldwide. Several genetically engineered mouse models have been created, including the Apc(Min) mouse, to aid in the identification of key cancer related processes and to assist with the characterization of environmental factors, including the diet, which influence risk. Current research using these models provides evidence that several bioactive food components can inhibit genetically predisposed colorectal cancer, while others increase risk. Specifically, calorie restriction or increased exposure to n-3 fatty acids, sulforaphane, chafuroside, curcumin and dibenzoylmethane were reported protective. Total fat, calories and all-trans retinoic acid are associated with an increased risk. Unraveling the importance of specific dietary components in these models is complicated by the basal diet used, the quantity of test components provided and interactions among food components. Newer models are increasingly available to evaluate fundamental cellular processes, including DNA mismatch repair, immune function and inflammation as markers for colon cancer risk. Unfortunately, these models have been used infrequently to examine the influence of specific dietary components. The enhanced use of these models can shed mechanistic insights about the involvement of specific bioactive food and components and energy as determinants of colon cancer risk. However, the use of available mouse models to exactly represent processes important to human gastrointestinal cancers will remain a continued scientific challenge. Published by Elsevier Inc.

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

4.7
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