4.2 Article

Lifespan Kras mutation levels in lung and liver of B6C3F1 mice

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL AND MOLECULAR MUTAGENESIS
卷 59, 期 8, 页码 715-721

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/em.22198

关键词

carcinogenesis; spontaneous; quantification; oncogene mutation; cancer-driver mutation; ACB-PCR

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Somatic mutations accumulate in the human genome and are correlated with increased cancer incidence as humans age. The standard model for studying the carcinogenic effects of exposures for human risk assessment is the rodent 2-year carcinogenicity assay. However, there is little information regarding the effect of age on cancer-driver gene mutations in these models. The mutant fraction (MF) of Kras codon 12 GGT to GAT and GGT to GTT mutations, oncogenic mutations orthologous between humans and rodents, was quantified over the lifespan of B6C3F1 mice. MFs were measured in lung and liver tissue, organs that frequently develop tumors following carcinogenic exposures. The MFs were evaluated at 4, 6, 8, 12, 21, and 85 weeks, with the 12-week and 21-week time points being coincident with the conclusion of 28-day and 90-day exposure durations used in short-term toxicity testing. The highly sensitive and quantitative Allele-specific Competitive Blocker PCR (ACB-PCR) assay was used to quantify the number of mutant Kras codon 12 alleles. The mouse lung showed a slight, but significant trend increase in the Kras codon 12 GAT mutation over the 85-week period. The trend with age can be equally well-fit by several non-linear functions, but not by a linear function. In contrast, the liver GAT mutation did not increase, and the GTT mutation did not increase for either organ. Even with the slight increase in the lung GAT MFs, our results indicate that the future use of Kras mutation as a biomarker of carcinogenic effect will not be confounded by animal age. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 59:715-721, 2018. Published 2018. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

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

4.2
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