Literature DB >> 1821372

Are genotoxic carcinogens more potent than nongenotoxic carcinogens?

S Parodi1, D Malacarne, P Romano, M Taningher.   

Abstract

In this report we have raised the question whether genotoxic carcinogens are more potent than nongenotoxic carcinogens when studied in long-term carcinogenicity assays in rodents. To build a large database of compounds for which both carcinogenicity and genotoxicity had been investigated, we have used a database produced by Gold and co-workers for carcinogenic potency data (975 chemicals) and a database produced by Würgler for genotoxicity data (2834 chemicals). Considering compounds positive or negative in at least three short-term tests and in at least 75% of available tests, we could define 67 genotoxic carcinogens and 46 nongenotoxic carcinogens. Carcinogenic potency of genotoxic carcinogens was about 50 times higher than carcinogenic potency of nongenotoxic carcinogens. Our results are different from the results of Tennant et al.; their database (24 genotoxic carcinogens and 12 nongenotoxic carcinogens compatible with our definition) seems to suggest that there is practically no difference in potency between genotoxic and nongenotoxic carcinogens. The two databases have only four compounds in common and are also different in terms of number of elements for different chemical classes. Nitrosocompounds, nitrogen mustards, hydrazine derivatives, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are not represented in the database of Tennant. The overall impression from our analysis is that the usefulness of short-term tests of genotoxicity could be significantly better than what has been suggested by the previous work of Tennant et al. because these tests tend to detect, at least for many important chemical classes, the most potent carcinogens. This consideration may not be valid for certain classes of chemicals.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1821372      PMCID: PMC1568421          DOI: 10.1289/ehp.9195199

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Health Perspect        ISSN: 0091-6765            Impact factor:   9.031


  11 in total

1.  Correlations between bioassay dose-level, mutagenicity to Salmonella, chemical structure and sites of carcinogenesis among 226 chemicals evaluated for carcinogenicity by the U.S. NTP.

Authors:  L P Brown; J Ashby
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1990-05       Impact factor: 2.433

2.  Prediction of chemical carcinogenicity in rodents from in vitro genetic toxicity assays.

Authors:  R W Tennant; B H Margolin; M D Shelby; E Zeiger; J K Haseman; J Spalding; W Caspary; M Resnick; S Stasiewicz; B Anderson
Journal:  Science       Date:  1987-05-22       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 3.  Detection of carcinogens as mutagens in the Salmonella/microsome test: assay of 300 chemicals: discussion.

Authors:  J McCann; B N Ames
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1976-03       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 4.  Differences in rat liver enzyme-altered foci produced by chlorinated aliphatics and phenobarbital.

Authors:  D L Story; E F Meierhenry; C A Tyson; H A Milman
Journal:  Toxicol Ind Health       Date:  1986-12       Impact factor: 2.273

5.  Prevalence of genotoxic chemicals among animal and human carcinogens evaluated in the IARC Monograph Series.

Authors:  H Bartsch; C Malaveille
Journal:  Cell Biol Toxicol       Date:  1989-06       Impact factor: 6.691

Review 6.  Mutagenic and carcinogenic potency indices and their correlation.

Authors:  S Parodi; M Taningher; P Romano; S Grilli; L Santi
Journal:  Teratog Carcinog Mutagen       Date:  1990

7.  Summary of carcinogenic potency and positivity for 492 rodent carcinogens in the carcinogenic potency database.

Authors:  L S Gold; T H Slone; L Bernstein
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1989-02       Impact factor: 9.031

8.  Second chronological supplement to the Carcinogenic Potency Database: standardized results of animal bioassays published through December 1984 and by the National Toxicology Program through May 1986.

Authors:  L S Gold; T H Slone; G M Backman; R Magaw; M Da Costa; P Lopipero; M Blumenthal; B N Ames
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1987-10       Impact factor: 9.031

9.  Interspecies extrapolation in carcinogenesis: prediction between rats and mice.

Authors:  L S Gold; L Bernstein; R Magaw; T H Slone
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1989-05       Impact factor: 9.031

10.  A carcinogenic potency database of the standardized results of animal bioassays.

Authors:  L S Gold; C B Sawyer; R Magaw; G M Backman; M de Veciana; R Levinson; N K Hooper; W R Havender; L Bernstein; R Peto
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1984-12       Impact factor: 9.031

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.