Literature DB >> 11018745

Biological indicators of genotoxic risk and metabolic polymorphisms.

S Pavanello1, E Clonfero.   

Abstract

International scientific publications on the influence of metabolic genotypes on biological indicators of genotoxic risk in environmental or occupational exposure are reviewed. Biomarkers of exposure (substance or its metabolites in biological fluids, urinary mutagenicity, protein and DNA adducts) and of effects (chromosome aberrations (CAs), sister chromatid exchanges (SCEs), micronuclei (Mn), COMET assay, HPRT mutants) have been evaluated according to different genotypes (or phenotypes) of several activating/detoxifying metabolic activities. In less than half the studies (43 out of 95), the influence of genotype on the examined biological indicator was found, of which four report poorly reliable results (i.e., with scarce biological plausibility, because of the inconsistency of modulated effect with the type of enzymatic activity expressed). As regards urinary metabolites, the excretion of mercapturic acids (MA) is greater in subjects with high GST activity, that of 1-pyrenol and other PAH metabolites turns out to be significantly influenced by genotypes CYP1A1 or GSTM1 null, and that of exposure indicators to aromatic amines (AA) (acetylated and non-acetylated metabolites) is modulated by NAT2. In benzene exposure, preliminary results suggest an increase in urinary t, t-muconic acid (t,t-MA) in subjects with some genotypes. On urinary mutagenicity of PAH-exposed subjects, the effects of genotype GSTM1 null, alone or combined with NAT2 slow are reported. When DNA adduct levels are clearly increased in PAH-exposed group (18 out of 22), 7 out of 18 studies report the influence of GSTM1 null on this biomarker, and of the five studies which also examined genotype CYP1A1, four report the influence of genotype CYP1A1, alone or in combination with GSTM1 null. A total of 25 out of 41 publications (61%) evaluating the influence of metabolic polymorphisms on biomarkers of effect (cytogenetic markers, COMET assay, HPRT mutants) do not record any increase in the indicator due to exposure to the genotoxic agents studied, confirming the scarce sensitivity of these indicators (mainly HPRT mutants, Mn, COMET assay) for assessing environmental or occupational exposure to genotoxic substances. Concluding, in determining urinary metabolites for monitoring exposure to genotoxic substances, there is sufficient evidence that genetically-based metabolic polymorphisms must be taken into account in the future. The unfavourable association for the activating/detoxifying metabolism of PAH is also confirmed as a risk factor due to the formation of PAH-DNA adducts. The clearly protective role played by GSTT1 on DEB (and/or related compound)-induced sister chromatid exchanges (SCEs) should be noted. The modulating effects of genotypes on protein adduct levels in environmental and occupational exposure have not yet been documented, and most studies on the influence of genotype on biological indicators of early genotoxic effects report negative results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11018745     DOI: 10.1016/s1383-5742(00)00051-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mutat Res        ISSN: 0027-5107            Impact factor:   2.433


  20 in total

Review 1.  Glutathione S-transferase T1 (GSTT1) gene polymorphism and gastric cancer susceptibility: a meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies.

Authors:  Bo Chen; Lei Cao; Yong Zhou; Ping Yang; Hong-Wei Wan; Gui-Qing Jia; Liu Liu; Xiao-Ting Wu
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2009-12-04       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 2.  The effect of CYP1A1 and CYP1A2 polymorphisms on gastric cancer risk among different ethnicities: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Huiping Xue; Yan Lu; Zeyun Xue; Bing Lin; Jinxian Chen; Feng Tang; Gang Huang
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2014-01-19

3.  Vitamin C levels in blood are influenced by polymorphisms in glutathione S-transferases.

Authors:  Alexandra Horska; Csilla Mislanova; Stefano Bonassi; Marcello Ceppi; Katarina Volkovova; Maria Dusinska
Journal:  Eur J Nutr       Date:  2010-12-09       Impact factor: 5.614

4.  Assessment of individual susceptibility to baseline DNA and cytogenetic damage in a healthy Turkish population: evaluation with lifestyle factors.

Authors:  Ela Kadioglu; Neslihan Aygun Kocabas; Gonca Cakmak Demircigil; Erdem Coskun; Eren Ozcagli; Emre Durmaz; Bensu Karahalil; Sema Burgaz; Semra Sardas
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2012-08-20

5.  GSTT1, GSTM1 and CYP2E1 genetic polymorphisms in gastric cancer and chronic gastritis in a Brazilian population.

Authors:  Jucimara Colombo; Andréa Regina Baptista Rossit; Alaor Caetano; Aldenis Albaneze Borim; Durval Wornrath; Ana Elizabete Silva
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2004-05-01       Impact factor: 5.742

6.  Genetic polymorphism of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 1A1, CYP1A2, and CYP2E1 genes modulate susceptibility to gastric cancer in patients with Helicobacter pylori infection.

Authors:  Ujjala Ghoshal; Shweta Tripathi; Sushil Kumar; Balraj Mittal; Dipti Chourasia; Niraj Kumari; Narendra Krishnani; Uday C Ghoshal
Journal:  Gastric Cancer       Date:  2013-05-19       Impact factor: 7.370

7.  Dietary benzo(a)pyrene and fetal growth: effect modification by vitamin C intake and glutathione S-transferase P1 polymorphism.

Authors:  Talita Duarte-Salles; Michelle A Mendez; Eva Morales; Mariona Bustamante; Agueda Rodríguez-Vicente; Manolis Kogevinas; Jordi Sunyer
Journal:  Environ Int       Date:  2012-05-05       Impact factor: 9.621

8.  Cytogenetic evaluation and the association with polymorphisms of the CPY1A1 and NR1I3 genes in individuals exposed to BTEX.

Authors:  João Carlos Fraga da Rosa; Marilu Fiegenbaum; Ane Lise Soledar; Matheus Souza Claus; Antonio Daniel de Souza Nunes; Valesca Veiga Cardoso
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2012-11-10       Impact factor: 2.513

9.  PAH-DNA adducts, cigarette smoking, GST polymorphisms, and breast cancer risk.

Authors:  Kathleen M McCarty; Regina M Santella; Susan E Steck; Rebecca J Cleveland; Jiyoung Ahn; Christine B Ambrosone; Kari North; Sharon K Sagiv; Sybil M Eng; Susan L Teitelbaum; Alfred I Neugut; Marilie D Gammon
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2008-12-10       Impact factor: 9.031

Review 10.  Nanoparticles: Weighing the Pros and Cons from an Eco-genotoxicological Perspective.

Authors:  Preeyaporn Koedrith; Md Mujibur Rahman; Yu Jin Jang; Dong Yeop Shin; Young Rok Seo
Journal:  J Cancer Prev       Date:  2021-06-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.