4.5 Article

DNA Adduct Formation of 2-Amino-9H-pyrido[2,3-b]indole and 2-Amino-3,4-dimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoline in Mouse Liver and Extrahepatic Tissues During a Subchronic Feeding Study

期刊

TOXICOLOGICAL SCIENCES
卷 133, 期 2, 页码 248-258

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kft077

关键词

tobacco smoke; carcinogens; DNA adducts; heterocyclic aromatic amines

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health [R01 CA134700]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tobacco smoking is a risk factor for cancers of the liver and gastrointestinal (GI) tract, but the causal agents responsible for these cancers are uncertain. 2-Amino-9H-pyrido[2,3-b]indole (AC) is an abundant heterocyclic aromatic amine present in tobacco smoke. AC is a liver carcinogen and both a transgene mutagen and inducer of aberrant crypt foci in the colon of mice. We hypothesize that AC may contribute to DNA damage and tumorigenesis in these organs of smokers. The potential of AC to induce DNA adduct formation in liver, organs of the GI tract, lung, and urinary bladder, which are target organs of cancer in smokers, was examined using the C57BL/6 mouse as an animal model. AC (400 or 800 ppm) and 2-amino-3,4-dimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoline (MeIQ) (300 ppm), a liver and colon carcinogen in C57BL/6 mice, were given in the diet for up to 12 weeks. Liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry was employed to measure DNA adducts. The major DNA adducts of both carcinogens were identified as deoxyguanosine-C8 adducts. The levels of formation of AC- and MeIQ-DNA adducts were similar in liver and extrahepatic tissues when adjusted for dose. The highest levels of adducts occurred in liver, followed by urinary bladder, and then in cecum and colon; lower DNA adduct levels were formed in the lung and pancreas following 12 weeks of feeding. The high levels of AC adduct formed in liver, GI tract, and bladder of C57BL/6 mice reinforce the notion that AC may contribute to DNA damage and cancer of these organs in smokers.

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