4.5 Article

Effects of the Tobacco Carcinogens N'-Nitrosonornicotine and Dibenzo[a,l]pyrene Individually and in Combination on DNA Damage in Human Oral Leukoplakia and on Mutagenicity and Mutation Profiles in lacl Mouse Tongue

期刊

CHEMICAL RESEARCH IN TOXICOLOGY
卷 32, 期 9, 页码 1893-1899

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.9b00257

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [CA173465]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In previous studies, we showed that the topical application of dibenzo[a,l]pyrene (DB[a,l]P), also known as dibenzo[def,p]chrysene, to the oral cavity of mice induced oral squamous cell carcinoma. We also showed that dA and dG adducts likely account for most of the mutagenic activity of DB[a,l]P in the oral tissues in vivo. Here we report for the first time that the oral treatment of lacI mice with a combination of tobacco smoke carcinogens, DB[a,l]P and N'-nitrosonornicotine (NNN), induces a higher fraction of mutations than expected from a simple sum of their induced individual mutation fractions, and a change in the mutational profile compared with that expected from the sum of the individual agents. The mutational profile of the combination of agents resembled that of the P53 gene in human head and neck cancers more than that of either of the individual agents, in that the percentage of the major class of mutations (GC > AT transitions) is similar to that seen in the P53 gene. A preliminary study was performed to understand the origin of the unexpected mutagenesis observations by measuring specific DNA adducts produced by both NNN and DB[a,l]P in human oral leukoplakia cells. No significant differences in the expected and observed major adduct levels from either agent were observed between individual or combined treatments, suggesting that additional adducts are important in mutagenesis induced by the mixture. Taken together, the above observations support the use of this animal model not only to investigate tobacco smoke-induced oral cancer but also to study chemoprevention.

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