Literature DB >> 9748532

Dose-response relationships in chemical carcinogenesis: superposition of different mechanisms of action, resulting in linear-nonlinear curves, practical thresholds, J-shapes.

W K Lutz1.   

Abstract

The shape of a carcinogen dose-cancer incidence curve is discussed as the result of a superposition of dose-response relationships for various effects of the carcinogen on the process of carcinogenesis. Effects include direct DNA damage, e.g., by covalent binding, indirect DNA damage, e.g., by increased formation of reactive oxygen species or interaction with DNA replication or chromosome integrity. The 'fixation' of a DNA adduct as a heritable mutation depends on its pro-mutagenic potency and on the rates of DNA repair and DNA replication. Endogenous and unavoidable DNA damage is responsible for a background rate of the process of mutagenesis and carcinogenesis and forms the basis of spontaneous cancer incidence. For DNA-reactive carcinogens, linearity of the dose response at the low-dose end is expected. With increasing dose, saturation of DNA repair can introduce a sublinearity (example: dimethylnitrosamine). Stimulation of cell division as a result of high-dose toxicity and regenerative proliferation also results in a sublinear deviation from low-dose linearity. If the DNA-damaging potency of the carcinogen is low in comparison with the high-dose effects, the linear part of the low dose-cancer incidence curve might be hidden within the background variability. Under such conditions, 'practical thresholds' could be discussed (formaldehyde). If a carcinogen increases the rate of cell division or the level of oxidative stress at high dose but has an antimitogenic or antioxidative effect at low dose, a J-shaped (or: U-shaped) curve with a decrease of the spontaneous tumor incidence at low dose could result (caffeic acid; TCDD). This phenomenon has been observed even under conditions of a genotoxic contribution (ionizing radiation; diesel exhaust particles). For a mechanism-based assessment of a low-dose cancer risk, information on the various modes of action and modulations should be available over the full dose range, and models should be refined to incorporate the respective information. Copyright 1998 Elsevier Science B.V.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9748532     DOI: 10.1016/s0027-5107(98)00128-6

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


  6 in total

1.  Toxicological responses of earthworm (Eisenia fetida) exposed to metal-contaminated soils.

Authors:  Kai Zheng; ZhengTao Liu; YaJie Li; YiBin Cui; Mei Li
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2013-04-16       Impact factor: 4.223

2.  The importance of exposure rate on odds ratios by cigarette smoking and alcohol consumption for esophageal adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma in the Barrett's Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Consortium.

Authors:  Jay H Lubin; Michael B Cook; Nirmala Pandeya; Thomas L Vaughan; Christian C Abnet; Carol Giffen; Penelope M Webb; Liam J Murray; Alan G Casson; Harvey A Risch; Weimin Ye; Farin Kamangar; Leslie Bernstein; Linda Sharp; Olof Nyrén; Marilie D Gammon; Douglas A Corley; Anna H Wu; Linda M Brown; Wong-Ho Chow; Mary H Ward; Neal D Freedman; David C Whiteman
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol       Date:  2012-04-13       Impact factor: 2.984

3.  A pooled analysis of smoking and colorectal cancer: timing of exposure and interactions with environmental factors.

Authors:  Jian Gong; Carolyn Hutter; John A Baron; Sonja Berndt; Bette Caan; Peter T Campbell; Graham Casey; Andrew T Chan; Michelle Cotterchio; Charles S Fuchs; Steven Gallinger; Edward Giovannucci; Tabitha Harrison; Richard Hayes; Li Hsu; Shuo Jiao; Yi Lin; Noralane M Lindor; Polly Newcomb; Bethann Pflugeisen; Amanda I Phipps; Thomas Rohan; Robert Schoen; Daniela Seminara; Martha L Slattery; Deanna Stelling; Fridtjof Thomas; Greg Warnick; Emily White; John Potter; Ulrike Peters
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2012-09-20       Impact factor: 4.254

4.  Total exposure and exposure rate effects for alcohol and smoking and risk of head and neck cancer: a pooled analysis of case-control studies.

Authors:  Jay H Lubin; Mark Purdue; Karl Kelsey; Zuo-Feng Zhang; Debbie Winn; Qingyi Wei; Renato Talamini; Neonilia Szeszenia-Dabrowska; Erich M Sturgis; Elaine Smith; Oxana Shangina; Stephen M Schwartz; Peter Rudnai; Jose Eluf Neto; Joshua Muscat; Hal Morgenstern; Ana Menezes; Elena Matos; Ioan Nicolae Mates; Jolanta Lissowska; Fabio Levi; Philip Lazarus; Carlo La Vecchia; Sergio Koifman; Rolando Herrero; Silvia Franceschi; Victor Wünsch-Filho; Leticia Fernandez; Eleonora Fabianova; Alexander W Daudt; Luigino Dal Maso; Maria Paula Curado; Chu Chen; Xavier Castellsague; Paul Brennan; Paolo Boffetta; Mia Hashibe; Richard B Hayes
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2009-09-10       Impact factor: 4.897

5.  Misunderstandings in the misconception on the use of pack-years in analysis of smoking.

Authors:  J H Lubin; N E Caporaso
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2013-02-28       Impact factor: 7.640

6.  Deviation from additivity in mixture toxicity: relevance of nonlinear dose-response relationships and cell line differences in genotoxicity assays with combinations of chemical mutagens and gamma-radiation.

Authors:  Werner K Lutz; Spyros Vamvakas; Annette Kopp-Schneider; Josef Schlatter; Helga Stopper
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 9.031

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.