Literature DB >> 17070881

Differences in gene expression profiles in the liver between carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic isomers of compounds given to rats in a 28-day repeat-dose toxicity study.

Koji Nakayama1, Yukiko Kawano, Yuuki Kawakami, Norichika Moriwaki, Masaru Sekijima, Masanori Otsuka, Yoshikuni Yakabe, Hideki Miyaura, Koichi Saito, Kayo Sumida, Tomoyuki Shirai.   

Abstract

Some compounds have structural isomers of which one is apparently carcinogenic, and the other not. Because of the similarity of their chemical structures, comparisons of their effects can allow gene expression elicited in response to the basic skeletons of the isomers to be disregarded. We compared the gene expression profiles of male Fischer 344 rats administered by daily oral gavage up to 28 days using an in-house oligo microarray. 2-Acetylaminofluorene (2-AAF), 2,4-diaminotoluene (2,4-DAT), 2-nitropropane (2-NP), and 2-nitro-p-phenylenediamine (2-NpP) are hepatocarcinogenic. However, their isomers, 4-acetylaminofluorene (4-AAF), 2,6-diaminotoluene (2,6-DAT), 1-nitropropane (1-NP), and 4-nitro-o-phenylenediamine (4-NoP), are non-hepatocarcinogenic. Because of the limited carcinogenicity of 2-NpP, we attempted to perform two-parametric comparison analyses with (1) a set of 4 isomers: 2-AAF, 2,4-DAT, 2-NP, and 2-NpP as "carcinogenic", and 4-AAF, 2,6-DAT, 1-NP, and 4-NoP as "non-carcinogenic"; and (2) a set of 3 isomers: 2-AAF, 2,4-DAT, and 2-NP, as "carcinogenic", and 4-AAF, 2,6-DAT, and 1-NP as "non-carcinogenic". After ratio filtering and Welch's approximate t-test analysis, 54 and 28 genes were selected from comparisons between the sets of 3 and 4 isomers, respectively, for day 28 data. Using hierarchical clustering analysis with the 54 or 28 genes, 2-AAF, 2,4-DAT, and 2-NP clustered into a "carcinogenic" branch. 2-NpP was in the same cluster as 4-NoP and 4-AAF. This clustering corresponded to the previous finding that 2-NpP is not carcinogenic in male Fischer 344 rats, which indicates that comparing the differences in gene expression elicited by different isomers is an effective method of developing a prediction system for carcinogenicity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17070881     DOI: 10.1016/j.taap.2006.09.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Toxicol Appl Pharmacol        ISSN: 0041-008X            Impact factor:   4.219


  14 in total

1.  Predictive modeling of chemical hazard by integrating numerical descriptors of chemical structures and short-term toxicity assay data.

Authors:  Ivan Rusyn; Alexander Sedykh; Yen Low; Kathryn Z Guyton; Alexander Tropsha
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2012-03-02       Impact factor: 4.849

Review 2.  Toxicogenomic profiling of chemically exposed humans in risk assessment.

Authors:  Cliona M McHale; Luoping Zhang; Alan E Hubbard; Martyn T Smith
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  2010-04-09       Impact factor: 2.433

Review 3.  Genetic toxicology in the 21st century: reflections and future directions.

Authors:  Brinda Mahadevan; Ronald D Snyder; Michael D Waters; R Daniel Benz; Raymond A Kemper; Raymond R Tice; Ann M Richard
Journal:  Environ Mol Mutagen       Date:  2011-04-28       Impact factor: 3.216

4.  Testing an aflatoxin B1 gene signature in rat archival tissues.

Authors:  B Alex Merrick; Scott S Auerbach; Patricia S Stockton; Julie F Foley; David E Malarkey; Robert C Sills; Richard D Irwin; Raymond R Tice
Journal:  Chem Res Toxicol       Date:  2012-05-04       Impact factor: 3.739

5.  Toxicogenomic biomarkers for liver toxicity.

Authors:  Naoki Kiyosawa; Yosuke Ando; Sunao Manabe; Takashi Yamoto
Journal:  J Toxicol Pathol       Date:  2009-04-06       Impact factor: 1.628

6.  Epigenetic factors in cancer risk: effect of chemical carcinogens on global DNA methylation pattern in human TK6 cells.

Authors:  Ali M Tabish; Katrien Poels; Peter Hoet; Lode Godderis
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-04-11       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Discrimination of carcinogens by hepatic transcript profiling in rats following 28-day administration.

Authors:  Hiroshi Matsumoto; Yoshikuni Yakabe; Koichi Saito; Kayo Sumida; Masaru Sekijima; Koji Nakayama; Hideki Miyaura; Fumiyo Saito; Masanori Otsuka; Tomoyuki Shirai
Journal:  Cancer Inform       Date:  2009-11-13

8.  Biological networks for predicting chemical hepatocarcinogenicity using gene expression data from treated mice and relevance across human and rat species.

Authors:  Reuben Thomas; Russell S Thomas; Scott S Auerbach; Christopher J Portier
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-05-30       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Coincidence between transcriptome analyses on different microarray platforms using a parametric framework.

Authors:  Tomokazu Konishi; Fumikazu Konishi; Shigeru Takasaki; Kohei Inoue; Koji Nakayama; Akihiko Konagaya
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2008-10-29       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Testing chemical carcinogenicity by using a transcriptomics HepaRG-based model?

Authors:  T Y Doktorova; Reha Yildirimman; Liesbeth Ceelen; Mireia Vilardell; Tamara Vanhaecke; Mathieu Vinken; Gamze Ates; Anja Heymans; Hans Gmuender; Roque Bort; Raffaella Corvi; Pascal Phrakonkham; Ruoya Li; Nicolas Mouchet; Christophe Chesne; Joost van Delft; Jos Kleinjans; Jose Castell; Ralf Herwig; Vera Rogiers
Journal:  EXCLI J       Date:  2014-05-28       Impact factor: 4.068

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.