4.6 Article

Dietary heme induces acute oxidative stress, but delayed cytotoxicity and compensatory hyperproliferation in mouse colon

期刊

CARCINOGENESIS
卷 34, 期 7, 页码 1628-1635

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/carcin/bgt084

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Program Council of TIFN [A-1001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Red meat consumption is associated with an increased colon cancer risk. Heme, present in red meat, injures the colon surface epithelium by generating cytotoxic and oxidative stress. Recently, we found that this surface injury is compensated by hyperproliferation and hyperplasia of crypt cells, which was induced by a changed surface to crypt signaling. It is unknown whether this changed signaling is caused by cytotoxic stress and/or oxidative stress, as these processes were never studied separately. The aim of this study was to determine the possible differential effects of dietary heme on these luminal stressors and their impact on the colonic mucosa after 2, 4, 7 and 14 days of heme feeding. Mice received a purified, humanized, control diet or the diet supplemented with 0.2 mol heme/g. Oxidative and cytotoxic stress were measured in fecal water. Proliferation was determined by Ki67-immunohistochemistry and mucosal responses by whole-genome transcriptomics. After heme ingestion, there was an acute increase in reactive oxygen species (ROS) leading to increased levels of lipid peroxidation products. Mucosal gene expression showed an acute antioxidant response, but no change in cell turnover. After day 4, cytotoxicity of the colonic contents was increased and this coincided with differential signaling and hyperproliferation, indicating that cytotoxicity was the causal factor. Simultaneously, several oncogenes were activated, whereas the tumor suppressor p53 was inhibited. In conclusion, luminal cytotoxicity, but not ROS, caused differential surface to crypt signaling resulting in mucosal hyperproliferation and the differential expression of oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes.

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