Literature DB >> 12612183

Food mutagens.

Radoslav Goldman1, Peter G Shields.   

Abstract

Several lines of evidence indicate that diet and dietary behaviors can contribute to human cancer risk. One way that this occurs is through the ingestion of food mutagens. Sporadic cancers result from a gene-environment interactions where the environment includes endogenous and exogenous exposures. In this article, we define environment as dietary exposures in the context of gene-environment interactions. Food mutagens cause different types of DNA damage: nucleotide alterations and gross chromosomal aberrations. Most mutagens begin their action at the DNA level by forming carcinogen-DNA adducts, which result from the covalent binding of a carcinogen or part of a carcinogen to a nucleotide. However the effect of food mutagens in carcinogenesis can be modified by heritable traits, namely, low-penetrant genes that affect mutagen exposure of DNA through metabolic activation and detoxification or cellular responses to DNA damage through DNA repair mechanisms or cell death. There are some clearly identified (e.g., aflatoxin) and suspected (e.g., N-nitrosamines, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or heterocyclic amines) food mutagens. The target organs for these agents are numerous, but there is target-organ specificity for each. Mutagenesis however is not the only pathway that links dietary exposures and cancers. There is growing evidence that epigenetic factors, including changes in the DNA methylation pattern, are causing cancer and can be modified by dietary components. Also DNA damage may be indirect by triggering oxidative DNA damage. When considering the human diet, it should be recognized that foods contain both mutagens and components that decrease cancer risk such as antioxidants. Thus nutritionally related cancers ultimately develop from an imbalance of carcinogenesis and anticarcinogenesis. The best way to assess nutritional risks is through biomarkers, but there is no single biomarker that has been sufficiently validated. Although panels of biomarkers would be the most appropriate, their use as a reflection of target-organ risk remains to be determined. Also even when new biomarkers are developed, their application in target organs is problematic because tissues are not readily available. For now most biomarkers are used in surrogate tissues (e.g., blood, urine, oral cavity cells) that presumably reflect biological effects in target organs. This article reviews the role of food mutagens in mutagenesis and carcinogenesis and how their effects are modified by heritable traits and discusses how to identify and evaluate the effects of food mutagens.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12612183     DOI: 10.1093/jn/133.3.965S

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nutr        ISSN: 0022-3166            Impact factor:   4.798


  22 in total

1.  The sociobiologic integrative model (SBIM): enhancing the integration of sociobehavioral, environmental, and biomolecular knowledge in urban health and disparities research.

Authors:  M Chris Gibbons; Malcolm Brock; Anthony J Alberg; Thomas Glass; Thomas A LaVeist; Stephen Baylin; David Levine; C Earl Fox
Journal:  J Urban Health       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 3.671

Review 2.  Direct reversal of DNA alkylation damage.

Authors:  Yukiko Mishina; Erica M Duguid; Chuan He
Journal:  Chem Rev       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 60.622

Review 3.  Oxidative dealkylation DNA repair mediated by the mononuclear non-heme iron AlkB proteins.

Authors:  Yukiko Mishina; Chuan He
Journal:  J Inorg Biochem       Date:  2006-02-15       Impact factor: 4.155

4.  Differential induction of CYP1A1 and CYP1B1 by benzo[a]pyrene in oral squamous cell carcinoma cell lines and by tobacco smoking in oral mucosa.

Authors:  Angela C Chi; Kathryn Appleton; Joel B Henriod; Joe W Krayer; Nicole M Marlow; Dipankar Bandyopadhyay; Ryan C Sigmon; David T Kurtz
Journal:  Oral Oncol       Date:  2009-07-02       Impact factor: 5.337

5.  Comparison of the use of mussels and semipermeable membrane devices for monitoring and assessment of accumulation of mutagenic pollutants in marine environment in combination with a novel microbiological mutagenicity assay.

Authors:  Ewa Cheć; Beata Podgórska; Grzegorz Wegrzyn
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2007-06-12       Impact factor: 2.513

6.  TP53 genetic alterations in Arab breast cancer patients: Novel mutations, pattern and distribution.

Authors:  Abeer J Al-Qasem; Mohamed Toulimat; Abdelmoneim M Eldali; Asma Tulbah; Nujoud Al-Yousef; Sooad K Al-Daihan; Nada Al-Tassan; Taher Al-Tweigeri; Abdelilah Aboussekhra
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2011-01-18       Impact factor: 2.967

7.  Cooking methods and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in high-risk areas of Iran.

Authors:  Roya Hakami; Arash Etemadi; Farin Kamangar; Akram Pourshams; Javad Mohtadinia; Mehdi Saberi Firoozi; Nicholas Birkett; Paolo Boffetta; Sanford M Dawsey; Reza Malekzadeh
Journal:  Nutr Cancer       Date:  2013-09-13       Impact factor: 2.900

8.  N-7-Alkyl-2'-Deoxyguanosine as surrogate biomarkers for N-nitrosamine exposure in human lung.

Authors:  Natarajan Ganesan; Shunji Kato; Elise D Bowman; Peter G Shields
Journal:  Int J Canc Prev       Date:  2007

9.  Transitions at CpG dinucleotides, geographic clustering of TP53 mutations and food availability patterns in colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Fabio Verginelli; Faraz Bishehsari; Francesco Napolitano; Mahboobeh Mahdavinia; Alessandro Cama; Reza Malekzadeh; Gennaro Miele; Giancarlo Raiconi; Roberto Tagliaferri; Renato Mariani-Costantini
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-08-31       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Nitrosamine exposure exacerbates high fat diet-mediated type 2 diabetes mellitus, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, and neurodegeneration with cognitive impairment.

Authors:  Suzanne M de la Monte; Ming Tong; Margot Lawton; Lisa Longato
Journal:  Mol Neurodegener       Date:  2009-12-24       Impact factor: 14.195

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.