4.6 Review

Current understanding of the mechanism of benzene-induced leukemia in humans: implications for risk assessment

期刊

CARCINOGENESIS
卷 33, 期 2, 页码 240-252

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/carcin/bgr297

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EP09H000461]
  2. National Institutes of Health [P42ES004705]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Benzene causes acute myeloid leukemia and probably other hematological malignancies. As benzene also causes hematotoxicity even in workers exposed to levels below the US permissible occupational exposure limit of 1 part per million, further assessment of the health risks associated with its exposure, particularly at low levels, is needed. Here, we describe the probable mechanism by which benzene induces leukemia involving the targeting of critical genes and pathways through the induction of genetic, chromosomal or epigenetic abnormalities and genomic instability, in a hematopoietic stem cell (HSC); stromal cell dysregulation; apoptosis of HSCs and stromal cells and altered proliferation and differentiation of HSCs. These effects modulated by benzene-induced oxidative stress, aryl hydrocarbon receptor dysregulation and reduced immunosurveillance, lead to the generation of leukemic stem cells and subsequent clonal evolution to leukemia. A mode of action (MOA) approach to the risk assessment of benzene was recently proposed. This approach is limited, however, by the challenges of defining a simple stochastic MOA of benzene-induced leukemogenesis and of identifying relevant and quantifiable parameters associated with potential key events. An alternative risk assessment approach is the application of toxicogenomics and systems biology in human populations, animals and in vitro models of the HSC stem cell niche, exposed to a range of levels of benzene. These approaches will inform our understanding of the mechanisms of benzene toxicity and identify additional biomarkers of exposure, early effect and susceptibility useful for risk assessment.

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

4.6
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