Andrew R Collins1, Amaya Azqueta, Sabine A S Langie. 1. Department of Nutrition, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Oslo, Blindern, PB 1046, 0316, Oslo, Norway. a.r.collins@medisin.uio.no
Abstract
BACKGROUND: DNA repair is an essential cellular function, which, by removing DNA damage before it can cause mutations, contributes crucially to the prevention of cancer. Interest in the influence of micronutrients on DNA repair activity is prompted by the possibility that the protective effects of fruits and vegetables might thus be explained. Two approaches to measuring repair-monitoring cellular removal of DNA damage and incubating cell extract with specifically damaged DNA in an in vitro assay-have been applied in cell culture, whole animal studies, and human trials. In addition, there are numerous investigations at the level of expression of DNA repair-related genes. RESULTS: Depending on the pathway studied and the phytochemical or food tested, there are varied reports of stimulation, inhibition or no effect on DNA repair. The clearest findings are from human supplementation trials in which lymphocytes are assessed for their repair capacity ex vivo. Studying cellular repair of strand breaks is complicated by the fact that lymphocytes appear to repair them very slowly. Applying the in vitro repair assay to human lymphocytes has revealed stimulatory effects on repair of oxidised bases by various micronutrients or a fruit- and vegetable-rich diet, while other studies have failed to demonstrate effects. CONCLUSIONS: Despite varied results from different studies, it seems clear that micronutrients can influence DNA repair, usually but not always enhancing activity. Different modes of DNA repair are likely to be subject to different regulatory mechanisms. Measures of gene expression tend to be a poor guide to repair activity, and there is no substitute for phenotypic assays.
BACKGROUND: DNA repair is an essential cellular function, which, by removing DNA damage before it can cause mutations, contributes crucially to the prevention of cancer. Interest in the influence of micronutrients on DNA repair activity is prompted by the possibility that the protective effects of fruits and vegetables might thus be explained. Two approaches to measuring repair-monitoring cellular removal of DNA damage and incubating cell extract with specifically damaged DNA in an in vitro assay-have been applied in cell culture, whole animal studies, and human trials. In addition, there are numerous investigations at the level of expression of DNA repair-related genes. RESULTS: Depending on the pathway studied and the phytochemical or food tested, there are varied reports of stimulation, inhibition or no effect on DNA repair. The clearest findings are from human supplementation trials in which lymphocytes are assessed for their repair capacity ex vivo. Studying cellular repair of strand breaks is complicated by the fact that lymphocytes appear to repair them very slowly. Applying the in vitro repair assay to human lymphocytes has revealed stimulatory effects on repair of oxidised bases by various micronutrients or a fruit- and vegetable-rich diet, while other studies have failed to demonstrate effects. CONCLUSIONS: Despite varied results from different studies, it seems clear that micronutrients can influence DNA repair, usually but not always enhancing activity. Different modes of DNA repair are likely to be subject to different regulatory mechanisms. Measures of gene expression tend to be a poor guide to repair activity, and there is no substitute for phenotypic assays.
Authors: Sabine A S Langie; Ad M Knaapen; Karen J J Brauers; Damien van Berlo; Frederik-Jan van Schooten; Roger W L Godschalk Journal: Mutagenesis Date: 2006-03-23 Impact factor: 3.000
Authors: Sabine A S Langie; Lonneke C Wilms; Satu Hämäläinen; Jos C S Kleinjans; Roger W L Godschalk; Frederik J van Schooten Journal: Br J Nutr Date: 2009-11-02 Impact factor: 3.718
Authors: Deborah L Croteau; Nadja C de Souza-Pinto; Charlotte Harboe; Guido Keijzers; Yongqing Zhang; Kevin Becker; Shan Sheng; Vilhelm A Bohr Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2010-09-16 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Siv K Bøhn; Mari C Myhrstad; Magne Thoresen; Marit Holden; Anette Karlsen; Siv Haugen Tunheim; Iris Erlund; Mette Svendsen; Ingebjørg Seljeflot; Jan O Moskaug; Asim K Duttaroy; Petter Laake; Harald Arnesen; Serena Tonstad; Andrew Collins; Christan A Drevon; Rune Blomhoff Journal: BMC Med Date: 2010-09-16 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Sabine A S Langie; Gudrun Koppen; Daniel Desaulniers; Fahd Al-Mulla; Rabeah Al-Temaimi; Amedeo Amedei; Amaya Azqueta; William H Bisson; Dustin G Brown; Gunnar Brunborg; Amelia K Charles; Tao Chen; Annamaria Colacci; Firouz Darroudi; Stefano Forte; Laetitia Gonzalez; Roslida A Hamid; Lisbeth E Knudsen; Luc Leyns; Adela Lopez de Cerain Salsamendi; Lorenzo Memeo; Chiara Mondello; Carmel Mothersill; Ann-Karin Olsen; Sofia Pavanello; Jayadev Raju; Emilio Rojas; Rabindra Roy; Elizabeth P Ryan; Patricia Ostrosky-Wegman; Hosni K Salem; A Ivana Scovassi; Neetu Singh; Monica Vaccari; Frederik J Van Schooten; Mahara Valverde; Jordan Woodrick; Luoping Zhang; Nik van Larebeke; Micheline Kirsch-Volders; Andrew R Collins Journal: Carcinogenesis Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 4.944
Authors: Gundula Behrens; Thomas Gredner; Christian Stock; Michael F Leitzmann; Hermann Brenner; Ute Mons Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2018-09-03 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Olivier J Switzeny; Elisabeth Müllner; Karl-Heinz Wagner; Helmut Brath; Eva Aumüller; Alexander G Haslberger Journal: Clin Epigenetics Date: 2012-10-01 Impact factor: 6.551