Literature DB >> 9539020

The traditional toxicologic paradigm is correct: dose influences mechanism.

J I Goodman1.   

Abstract

Dose influences mechanism; and over a wide range of doses, one can envision that mechanism will change with changing dose. This basic concept in toxicology is juxtaposed with the biologic importance of maintaining normal DNA methylation status to provide the focus of this paper. The idea that altered DNA methylation plays a variety of roles in carcinogenesis is compatible with three key features of this multistage process: clonal selection of abnormal cells in a progressive fashion, the reversibility of tumor promotion, and the multiplicity of tumor phenotypes. A relatively low capacity to maintain normal methylation status appears to explain, in part, the high propensity of the B6C3F1 mouse to develop liver tumors. This observation supports the view that a mouse liver tumor response is not an appropriate end point for human risk assessment. Additionally, it is suggested that altered DNA methylation can be viewed as a secondary mechanism underlying carcinogenesis. The knowledge that a chemical is acting by a mode of action involving a secondary mechanism can be used to support a safety factor or multiplicity of exposure approach to risk assessment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9539020      PMCID: PMC1533292          DOI: 10.1289/ehp.98106s1285

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


  40 in total

1.  Comparison of effect of tumor promoter treatments on DNA methylation status and gene expression in B6C3F1 and C57BL/6 mouse liver and in B6C3F1 mouse liver tumors.

Authors:  J L Counts; R M McClain; J I Goodman
Journal:  Mol Carcinog       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 4.784

2.  Workshop overview. National Toxicology Program Studies: principles of dose selection and applications to mechanistic based risk assessment.

Authors:  J R Bucher; C J Portier; J I Goodman; E M Faustman; G W Lucier
Journal:  Fundam Appl Toxicol       Date:  1996-05

3.  What is there that is not poison? A study of the Third Defense by Paracelsus.

Authors:  W B Deichmann; D Henschler; B Holmstedt; G Keil
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  1986-04       Impact factor: 5.153

Review 4.  The inheritance of epigenetic defects.

Authors:  R Holliday
Journal:  Science       Date:  1987-10-09       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 5.  Role of increased DNA replication in the carcinogenic risk of nonmutagenic chemical carcinogens.

Authors:  M L Cunningham
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 2.433

6.  Inhibition of DNA methylation by chemical carcinogens in vitro.

Authors:  V L Wilson; P A Jones
Journal:  Cell       Date:  1983-01       Impact factor: 41.582

7.  Alteration of enzymatic methylation of DNA cytosines by chemical carcinogens: a mechanism involved in the initiation of carcinogenesis.

Authors:  T L Boehm; D Drahovsky
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1983-09       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  The clonal evolution of tumor cell populations.

Authors:  P C Nowell
Journal:  Science       Date:  1976-10-01       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 9.  Phenobarbital mechanistic data and risk assessment: enzyme induction, enhanced cell proliferation, and tumor promotion.

Authors:  J Whysner; P M Ross; G M Williams
Journal:  Pharmacol Ther       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 12.310

10.  Morphological classification of mouse liver tumors based on biological characteristics.

Authors:  F F Becker
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  1982-10       Impact factor: 12.701

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Goodbye to the bioassay.

Authors:  Jay I Goodman
Journal:  Toxicol Res (Camb)       Date:  2018-02-06       Impact factor: 3.524

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.