Literature DB >> 16135536

Do dose response thresholds exist for genotoxic alkylating agents?

G J S Jenkins1, S H Doak, G E Johnson, E Quick, E M Waters, J M Parry.   

Abstract

The demonstration and acceptance of dose response thresholds for genotoxins may have substantial implications for the setting of safe exposure levels. Here we test the hypothesis that direct-acting DNA reactive agents may exhibit thresholded dose responses. We examine the potential mechanisms involved in such thresholded responses, particularly in relation to those of alkylating agents. As alkylating agents are representative model DNA reactive compounds with well characterized activities and DNA targets, they could help shed light on the general mechanisms involved in thresholded dose responses for genotoxins. Presently, thresholds have mainly been described for agents with non-DNA targets. We pay particular attention here to the contribution of DNA repair to genotoxic thresholds. A review of the literature shows that limited threshold data for alkylating agents are currently available, but the contribution of DNA repair in thresholded dose responses is suggested by several studies. The existence of genotoxic thresholds for alkylating agents methylmethanesulfonate is also supported here by data from our laboratory. Overall, it is clear that different endpoints induced by the same alkylator, can possess different dose response characteristics. This may have an impact on the setting of safe exposure levels for such agents. The limited information available concerning the dose response relationships of alkylators can nevertheless lead to the design of experiments to investigate the mechanisms that may be involved in threshold responses. Through using paired alkylators inducing different lesions, repaired by different pathways, insights into the processes involved in genotoxic thresholds may be elucidated. Furthermore, as alkyl-guanine-DNA transferase, base excision repair and mismatch repair appear to contribute to genotoxic thresholds for alkylators, cells deficient in these repair processes may possess altered dose responses compared with wild-type cells and this approach may help understand the contribution of these repair pathways to the production of thresholds for genotoxic effects in general. Finally, genotoxic thresholds are currently being described for acute exposures to single agents in vitro, however, dose response data for chronic exposures to complex mixtures are, as yet, a long way off.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16135536     DOI: 10.1093/mutage/gei054

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mutagenesis        ISSN: 0267-8357            Impact factor:   3.000


  19 in total

1.  Pro-oxidant induced DNA damage in human lymphoblastoid cells: homeostatic mechanisms of genotoxic tolerance.

Authors:  Anna L Seager; Ume-Kulsoom Shah; Jane M Mikhail; Bryant C Nelson; Bryce J Marquis; Shareen H Doak; George E Johnson; Sioned M Griffiths; Paul L Carmichael; Sharon J Scott; Andrew D Scott; Gareth J S Jenkins
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2012-04-26       Impact factor: 4.849

2.  A perspective on the scientific, philosophical, and policy dimensions of hormesis.

Authors:  George R Hoffmann
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2009-01-19       Impact factor: 2.658

Review 3.  Improving the safety of whole blood-derived transfusion products with a riboflavin-based pathogen reduction technology.

Authors:  Susan Yonemura; Suzann Doane; Shawn Keil; Raymond Goodrich; Heather Pidcoke; Marcia Cardoso
Journal:  Blood Transfus       Date:  2017-05-11       Impact factor: 3.443

4.  Defining EMS and ENU dose-response relationships using the Pig-a mutation assay in rats.

Authors:  Krista L Dobo; Ronald D Fiedler; William C Gunther; Catherine J Thiffeault; Zoryana Cammerer; Stephanie L Coffing; Thomas Shutsky; Maik Schuler
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  2011-06-24       Impact factor: 2.433

Review 5.  The endogenous exposome.

Authors:  Jun Nakamura; Esra Mutlu; Vyom Sharma; Leonard Collins; Wanda Bodnar; Rui Yu; Yongquan Lai; Benjamin Moeller; Kun Lu; James Swenberg
Journal:  DNA Repair (Amst)       Date:  2014-04-24

Review 6.  Mode of action-based risk assessment of genotoxic carcinogens.

Authors:  Andrea Hartwig; Michael Arand; Bernd Epe; Sabine Guth; Gunnar Jahnke; Alfonso Lampen; Hans-Jörg Martus; Bernhard Monien; Ivonne M C M Rietjens; Simone Schmitz-Spanke; Gerlinde Schriever-Schwemmer; Pablo Steinberg; Gerhard Eisenbrand
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2020-06-15       Impact factor: 5.153

7.  Developing Structure-Activity Relationships for N-Nitrosamine Activity.

Authors:  Kevin P Cross; David J Ponting
Journal:  Comput Toxicol       Date:  2021-09-08

Review 8.  Contributions of DNA repair and damage response pathways to the non-linear genotoxic responses of alkylating agents.

Authors:  Joanna Klapacz; Lynn H Pottenger; Bevin P Engelward; Christopher D Heinen; George E Johnson; Rebecca A Clewell; Paul L Carmichael; Yeyejide Adeleye; Melvin E Andersen
Journal:  Mutat Res Rev Mutat Res       Date:  2015-12-02       Impact factor: 5.657

9.  Novel 3-nitro-1H-1,2,4-triazole-based compounds as potential anti-Chagasic drugs: in vivo studies.

Authors:  Maria V Papadopoulou; William D Bloomer; Howard S Rosenzweig; Rachel Ashworth; Shane R Wilkinson; Marcel Kaiser; Grasiella Andriani; Ana Rodriguez
Journal:  Future Med Chem       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 3.808

10.  The vanishing zero revisited: thresholds in the age of genomics.

Authors:  Helmut Zarbl; Michael A Gallo; James Glick; Ka Yee Yeung; Paul Vouros
Journal:  Chem Biol Interact       Date:  2010-01-28       Impact factor: 5.192

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.