Literature DB >> 2387009

Dose-response relationship and low dose extrapolation in chemical carcinogenesis.

W K Lutz1.   

Abstract

Data supporting various dose-response relationships in chemical carcinogenesis are summarized. General principles are derived to explain the relationships between exposure dose, DNA adduct level, induction of genetic changes, and tumor incidence. Some mechanistic aspects of epigenetic carcinogens (stimulation of cell division and maldifferentiation) are analyzed in a similar way. In a homogeneous population, non-linearities are frequent. They are due to phenomena of induction or saturation of enzymatic activities and to the multi-step nature of carcinogenesis: if a carcinogen accelerates more than one step, the superposition of the dose-response curves for the individual steps can result in an exponential relationship. A fourth power of the dose was the maximum seen in animals (formaldehyde). At the lowest dose levels, a proportionality between dose and tumor induction is postulated independent of the mechanism of action if the carcinogen accelerates the endogenous process responsible for spontaneous tumor formation. Low-dose thresholds are expected only for situations where the carcinogen acts in a way that has no endogenous counterpart. Epidemiological studies in humans show linear dose-response curves in all but two investigations. The difference from the strongly nonlinear slopes seen in animal studies could be due to the heterogeneity of the human population: if the individual sensitivity to a carcinogen is governed by a large number of genetic and life-style factors, the non-linearities will tend to cancel each other out and the dose-response curve becomes 'quasi-linear'.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2387009     DOI: 10.1093/carcin/11.8.1243

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Carcinogenesis        ISSN: 0143-3334            Impact factor:   4.944


  8 in total

Review 1.  Causes of genome instability: the effect of low dose chemical exposures in modern society.

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

Review 2.  Carcinogenicity of ambient air pollution: use of biomarkers, lessons learnt and future directions.

Authors:  Christiana A Demetriou; Paolo Vineis
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 2.895

3.  Role of blood flow in protection against penetration of carcinogens into normal and healing rat gastric mucosa.

Authors:  H Sørbye; J Westby; K Ovrebø; S Kvinnsland; K Svanes
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 4.  Linear low-dose extrapolation for noncancer heath effects is the exception, not the rule.

Authors:  Lorenz R Rhomberg; Julie E Goodman; Lynne T Haber; Michael Dourson; Melvin E Andersen; James E Klaunig; Bette Meek; Paul S Price; Roger O McClellan; Samuel M Cohen
Journal:  Crit Rev Toxicol       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 5.635

Review 5.  Topics in cancer risk assessment.

Authors:  S S Olin; D A Neumann; J A Foran; G J Scarano
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 9.031

Review 6.  Molecular signaling network motifs provide a mechanistic basis for cellular threshold responses.

Authors:  Qiang Zhang; Sudin Bhattacharya; Rory B Conolly; Harvey J Clewell; Norbert E Kaminski; Melvin E Andersen
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2014-08-12       Impact factor: 9.031

7.  State-of-the-science workshop report: issues and approaches in low-dose-response extrapolation for environmental health risk assessment.

Authors:  Ronald H White; Ila Cote; Lauren Zeise; Mary Fox; Francesca Dominici; Thomas A Burke; Paul D White; Dale B Hattis; Jonathan M Samet
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2008-09-19       Impact factor: 9.031

8.  Assessing the cancer risk from environmental PCBs.

Authors:  V J Cogliano
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 9.031

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.