4.8 Article

Chemopreventive properties of black raspberries in N-nitrosomethylbenzylamine-induced rat esophageal tumorigenesis:: Down-regulation of cyclooxygenase-2, inducible nitric oxide synthase, and c-Jun

期刊

CANCER RESEARCH
卷 66, 期 5, 页码 2853-2859

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-3279

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA103180, R01 CA96130, R01 CA103180-03, R01 CA103180, R01 CA096130] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Our laboratory has used a rodent model of human esophageal squamous cell carcinoma to identify putative chemopreventive agents for this disease and to determine their mechanisms of action. In the present study, we treated F344 rats with the esophageal carcinogen, N-nitrosomethylbenzylamine (NMBA), thrice per week for 5 weeks. Beginning I week later, they were fed a synthetic diet containing 5% black raspberries (BRB) for the duration of the bioassay (25 weeks). Rats were sacrificed at weeks 9, 15, and 25. Esophageal tissues were collected, and tumor data were recorded. The expression and enzymatic activities of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) and inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) as well as the expression of c-Jun in the esophagi, were evaluated to investigate the mechanism(s) by which black raspberries modulate tumorigenesis. At week 25, BRB inhibited tumor multiplicity, the standard end point in this tumor model, from 3.78 +/- 0.41 tumors per rat in NMBA-treated animals to 2.23 +/- 0.21 tumors per rat in animals treated with NMBA plus BRB (P < 0.005). BRB reduced mRNA and protein expression levels of COX-2, iNOS, and c-Jun as well as the level of prostaglandin E-2 in preneoplastic lesions of the esophagus at week 25. The berries inhibited mRNA expression of iNOS and c-Jun, but not COX-2, in papillomatous lesions of the esophagus. Prostaglandin E-2 and total nitrite levels were also decreased by BRB in papillomas. These results suggest a novel tumor suppressive role of BRB through inhibition of COX-2, iNOS, and c-Jun.

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

4.8
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