4.4 Article

Dietary Carcinogen 2-Amino-1-Methyl-6-Phenylimidazo-[4,5-b]Pyridine-Induced Prostate Carcinogenesis in CYP1A-Humanized Mice

期刊

CANCER PREVENTION RESEARCH
卷 5, 期 7, 页码 963-972

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-12-0023

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. U.S. NIH [RO1 CA120915, RO1 CA120915-S2, RO1 CA122474, RO1 CA133021]
  2. National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Support grant [CA72720]
  3. National Institute of Environmental Health Center [ES05022]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To develop a relevant mouse model for prostate cancer prevention research, we administered a dietary carcinogen, 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b] pyridine (PhIP), to CYP1A-humanized mice. In comparison with mouse C gamma p1a2, human CYP1A2 preferentially activates PhIP to a proximate carcinogen. Following a single oral dose of PhIP (200 mg/kg body weight), we observed inflammation, atrophy of acini, low-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN; after 20 weeks), and high-grade PIN (HgPIN; after 30 to 50 weeks) in dorsolateral, ventral, and coagulating anterior prostate glands of these mice. These lesions were androgen receptor positive and featured the loss of expression of the basal cell marker p63 and the tumor suppressor PTEN. Similar to human prostate carcinogenesis, glutathione S-transferase P1 (GSTP1) expression was lost or partially lost in HgPIN. E-Cadherin expression was also lost in HgPIN. The expression of DNA methyltransferase 1 was elevated, possibly to enhance promoter hypermethylation for the silencing of GSTP1 and E-cadherin. Prostate carcinogenesis was promoted by a high-fat stress diet, resulting in HgPIN that developed earlier and in advanced lesions displayed features consistent with carcinoma in situ. This dietary carcinogen-induced prostate cancer model, recapitulating important features of early human prostate carcinogenesis, constitutes a new experimental system for prostate cancer research. Cancer Prev Res; 5(7); 963-72. (C) 2012 AACR.

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

4.4
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