Literature DB >> 19631282

Mechanisms of non-genotoxic carcinogens and importance of a weight of evidence approach.

Lya G Hernández1, Harry van Steeg, Mirjam Luijten, Jan van Benthem.   

Abstract

It is well established that cancer is a multi-step process which involves initiation, promotion and progression. Chemical carcinogens can alter any of these processes to induce their carcinogenic effects. The presence of multiple mutations in critical genes is a distinctive feature of cancer cells and supports the contention that cancer arises through the accumulation of irreversible DNA damage. In the majority of instances, chemical carcinogens, directly or after xenobiotic metabolism, induce DNA damage and act in a 'genotoxic' manner. There is, however, a group of carcinogens that induce cancer via non-genotoxic mechanisms. Non-genotoxic carcinogens have been shown to act as tumor promoters (1,4-dichlorobenzene), endocrine-modifiers (17beta-estradiol), receptor-mediators (2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin), immunosuppressants (cyclosporine) or inducers of tissue-specific toxicity and inflammatory responses (metals such as arsenic and beryllium). The diversity of modes of action of non-genotoxic carcinogens, the tissue and species specificity, and the absence of genotoxicity makes predicting their carcinogenic potential extremely challenging. In order to better understand the mechanisms of known human non-genotoxic carcinogens and to illustrate the importance of a weight of evidence approach when evaluating their carcinogenic potential, we will (1) evaluate the proportion of non-genotoxic carcinogens among known, probable and possible human carcinogens classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), (2) estimate the risk of exposure of human non-genotoxic carcinogens through margin of exposure (MOE) evaluation, and (3) discuss potential alternative methods for their detection. Our analysis demonstrated that human non-genotoxic carcinogens were present in 12% (45/371) of IARC's Groups 1, 2A and 2B carcinogens and that a potential hazard was associated with 27% (12/45) of them. Consequently, it is suggested that for all genotoxic chemicals, the mode of action is investigated for hazard and risk evaluation. Further, if negative genotoxic compounds have putative non-genotoxic modes of action, appropriate risk measures should be implemented.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19631282     DOI: 10.1016/j.mrrev.2009.07.002

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


  49 in total

1.  Transcriptional output in a prospective design conditionally on follow-up and exposure: the multistage model of cancer.

Authors:  Eiliv Lund; Sandra Plancade
Journal:  Int J Mol Epidemiol Genet       Date:  2012-05-10

Review 2.  How accurate is in vitro prediction of carcinogenicity?

Authors:  Richard Maurice Walmsley; Nicholas Billinton
Journal:  Br J Pharmacol       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 8.739

Review 3.  The role of microRNAs in metal carcinogen-induced cell malignant transformation and tumorigenesis.

Authors:  Brock Humphries; Zhishan Wang; Chengfeng Yang
Journal:  Food Chem Toxicol       Date:  2016-02-20       Impact factor: 6.023

4.  Expression of the miR-190 family is increased under DDT exposure in vivo and in vitro.

Authors:  Tatiana S Kalinina; Vladislav V Kononchuk; Vladimir Y Ovchinnikov; Mikhail D Chanyshev; Lyudmila F Gulyaeva
Journal:  Mol Biol Rep       Date:  2018-11-12       Impact factor: 2.316

Review 5.  The effect of environmental chemicals on the tumor microenvironment.

Authors:  Stephanie C Casey; Monica Vaccari; Fahd Al-Mulla; Rabeah Al-Temaimi; Amedeo Amedei; Mary Helen Barcellos-Hoff; Dustin G Brown; Marion Chapellier; Joseph Christopher; Colleen S Curran; Stefano Forte; Roslida A Hamid; Petr Heneberg; Daniel C Koch; P K Krishnakumar; Ezio Laconi; Veronique Maguer-Satta; Fabio Marongiu; Lorenzo Memeo; Chiara Mondello; Jayadev Raju; Jesse Roman; Rabindra Roy; Elizabeth P Ryan; Sandra Ryeom; Hosni K Salem; A Ivana Scovassi; Neetu Singh; Laura Soucek; Louis Vermeulen; Jonathan R Whitfield; Jordan Woodrick; Annamaria Colacci; William H Bisson; Dean W Felsher
Journal:  Carcinogenesis       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 4.944

6.  Reversal and prevention of arsenic-induced human bronchial epithelial cell malignant transformation by microRNA-200b.

Authors:  Zhishan Wang; Yong Zhao; Eric Smith; Gregory J Goodall; Paul A Drew; Thomas Brabletz; Chengfeng Yang
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2011-02-02       Impact factor: 4.849

Review 7.  Challenges in evaluating cancer as a clinical outcome in postapproval studies of drug safety.

Authors:  Simone P Pinheiro; Donna R Rivera; David J Graham; Andrew N Freedman; Jacqueline M Major; Lynne Penberthy; Mark Levenson; Marie C Bradley; Hui-Lee Wong; Rita Ouellet-Hellstrom
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  2016-08-31       Impact factor: 3.797

8.  Rethinking carcinogenesis: The detached pericyte hypothesis.

Authors:  Stuart G Baker
Journal:  Med Hypotheses       Date:  2020-06-30       Impact factor: 1.538

Review 9.  Calorie restriction and cancer prevention: metabolic and molecular mechanisms.

Authors:  Valter D Longo; Luigi Fontana
Journal:  Trends Pharmacol Sci       Date:  2010-01-25       Impact factor: 14.819

10.  Human contamination by persistent toxic substances: the rationale to improve exposure assessment.

Authors:  Miquel Porta
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2014-08-30       Impact factor: 4.223

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.