4.2 Review

CYP2A6 polymorphisms and risk for tobacco-related cancers

期刊

PHARMACOGENOMICS
卷 9, 期 11, 页码 1737-1752

出版社

FUTURE MEDICINE LTD
DOI: 10.2217/14622416.9.11.1737

关键词

cancer; CYP2A6; esophagus; head; lung; neck; nitrosamines; polymorphism; tobacco

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tobacco consumption is the main identifiable risk to cancer, contributing to the majority of tumors in upper aerodigestive tissues. The psychoactive compound responsible for tobacco addiction, nicotine and the potent carcinogens present at high concentrations either in cigarette mainstream smoke or in smokeless tobacco products, 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-butanone (NNK) and N-nitrosonornicotine (NNN) can be metabolized by CYP2A6. CYP2A6 is expressed in many aerodigestive tissues with high interindividual variability. The CYP2A6 gene is highly polymorphic and CYP2A6 alleles coding for enzymes with altered expression or metabolic capacity produce alterations in nicotine metabolism in vivo and seem to influence smoking behavior. These polymorphisms may change the rate of NNK and NNN activation and, therefore, may influence cancer risk associated with tobacco consumption. However, to date only a few and inconclusive studies have addressed the risk that a given CYP2A6 polymorphism presents for the development of tobacco-related tumors. Most, but not all, show a reduced risk associated with alleles that result in decreased enzyme activity. The overlapping substrate specificity and tissue expression between CYP2A6 and the highly similar CYP2A13 may add to the conflicting results observed. The intricate regulation of CYP2A6 and the variation of structurally different chemical compounds capable of inhibiting CYP2A enzymes also add to the complexity. Finally, the interaction between polymorphisms of genes that code for CYP2A6, C`YP2A13 and other potent carcinogen-metabolizing CYP enzymes may help to determine individuals that are at higher risk of developing tumors associated with tobacco consumption.

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

4.2
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