Mechanisms of carcinogenesis: chemical exposure and molecular changes

Anthocyanin-Rich Grape Extract Blocks Breast Cell DNA Damage

Anthocyanins, belonging to the flavonoid family of phytochemicals, have received attention as agents that may have potential in preventing chronic diseases such as cardiovascular diseases and certain cancers. In the present study, an anthocyanin-rich extract from Concord grapes [referred to as Concord grape extract (CGE)] and the anthocyanin delphinidin were evaluated for their capacity to inhibit DNA adduct formation due to the environmental carcinogen benzo[a]pyrene (BP) in MCF-10F cells, a noncancerous, immortalized human breast epithelial cell line. CGE at 10 and 20 microg/mL and delphinidin at 0.6 microM concentrations significantly inhibited BP-DNA adduct formation. This was associated with a significant increase in activities of the phase II detoxification enzymes glutathione S-transferase and NAD(P)H:quinone reductase 1. In addition, these grape components also suppressed reactive oxygen species (ROS) formation, but did not induce antioxidant response element-dependent transcription. Taken together, these data suggest that CGE and a component grape anthocyanin have breast cancer chemopreventive potential due in part to their capacity to block carcinogen-DNA adduct formation, modulate activities of carcinogen-metabolizing enzymes, and suppress ROS in these noncancerous human breast cells.

Carcinogen exposure and epigenetic silencing in bladder cancer

Tobacco smoking, certain occupational exposures, and exposure to inorganic arsenic in drinking water have been associated with the occurrence of bladder cancer. However, in these tumors the exposure-associated pattern of somatic alterations in genes in the causal pathway for disease has been poorly characterized. Animal and in vitro studies have suggested that arsenic, tobacco carcinogens, and other exposures may act through epigenetic mechanisms. We, therefore, examined, in a population-based study of human bladder cancer (n = 351), the relationship between epigenetic silencing of the tumor-suppressor genes, p16(INK4A), RASSF1A, PRSS3, and the four SFRP genes and exposure to both tobacco and arsenic in bladder cancer. Promotor methylation silencing of each of these genes occurred in approximately 30-50% of bladder cancers. Epigenetic silencing of RASSF1A and PRSS3 and any of the SFRP genes were each significantly associated with advanced tumor stage (P < 0.001, P < 0.04, and P < 0.005, respectively). Arsenic exposure, measured as toenail arsenic, was associated with RASSF1A (P < 0.02) and PRSS3 (P < 0.1) but not p16(INK4A) or SFRP promotor methylation, in models adjusted for stage and other risk factors. Cigarette smoking was associated with a greater than twofold increased risk of promotor methylation of the p16(INK4A) gene, with greater risk seen in patients with exposures more recent to disease diagnosis, and smoking was also significantly associated with any SFRP gene methylation (P < 0.01). These results from human bladder tumors, add to the body of animal and in vitro evidence that suggests bladder carcinogens play a crucial role in the induction of important epigenetic alterations.

On the role of the peroxisome in cell differentiation and carcinogenesis

This article reviews the currently available data on the role of peroxisomal function in relation to the processes of cell differentiation and carcinogenesis. In regard to tumourigenesis, both genotoxic and non-genotoxic processes have been considered, and the peroxisomal relationships with these phenomena and with differentiation are described at the level of organelle characteristics, enzyme contents, and the involvement of retinoids, steroid hormones, oxygen free radicals, growth factors, apoptosis, omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and the cellular signalling networks. Overall these data serve to illustrate the unique and distinctive role of the peroxisome in differentiation and carcinogenesis, and point to the advantages of considering the peroxisomal involvement in the holistic context of the differentiation dedifferentiation continuum rather than the narrower focus of non-genotoxic carcinogenesis. The review also outlines the potential for medical benefit arising from a fuller understanding of these peroxisomal affiliations.

Causal thinking, biomarkers, and mechanisms of carcinogenesis

The use of biomarkers is increasing both in acute and chronic disease epidemiology, but the rationale for their introduction is not always firmly established (e.g., when and how their use is scientifically justifiable and cost effective). The use of biomarkers should be considered within the context of causal models in epidemiology, and of the intertwining of causation and pathogenesis. Unlike infectious diseases, for cancer and cardiovascular disease external "necessary" causes have not been identified. Thus, the classification of cancer and other chronic diseases cannot be based on unequivocal criteria such as the "etiologic" classification of infectious diseases. As far as morphology is concerned, "neoplasia" and "anaplasia" are attributes of cancer that cannot be defined in a straightforward way. Tissue pathologies are minimal and difficult to differentiate from normal tissue in some cancers but are obvious in others. From a mechanistic point of view, unless molecular biology discovers specific mechanistic steps in carcinogenesis, which indicate the existence of "necessary" events in carcinogenesis, we cannot adopt an unequivocal definition of cancer. The potential contribution of biomarkers to the elucidation of the pathogenetic process should be considered in the light of such uncertainties. There is a range of indications for biomarkers, from the use of very specific measurements aimed at single molecules, to measurements indicating cumulative exposure to agents with the same mechanism of action. The potential uses of markers in chronic disease epidemiology include (1) exposure assessment in cases in which traditional epidemiologic tools are insufficient (particularly for low doses and low risks); (2) multiple exposures or mixtures, in which the aim is to disentangle the etiologic role of single agents; (3) estimation of the total burden of exposure to chemicals having the same mechanistic target; (4) investigation of pathogenetic mechanisms, and (5) study of individual susceptibility (e.g., metabolic polymorphism, DNA repair).

Historical origins of current concepts of carcinogenesis

The first attempts to understand the causes of cancer were based on generalizations of what might now be termed a "holistic" nature, and hereditary influences were recognized at an early stage; these views survive principally through a supposed positive connection between psychological factors such as stress and diminished ability to combat the progressive development of tumors through some form of immunologically mediated rejection of potentially cancerous cells. While evidence for immunosurveillance is generally accepted, it is now widely regarded as almost wholly confined to instances where tumor viruses are involved as causative agents. The earliest theorists drew an analogy between the processes of carcinogenesis and of evolution; the cancer cells acquired the ability to outstrip their normal counterparts in their capacity for proliferation. This was even before evolution had been interpreted as involving a continuous succession of mutations. Evidence was already to hand before the end of the 18th century that exogenous agents, notably soot, a product of the "industrial revolution," could cause skin cancer. Somewhat over 100 years later, another industrial innovation, the manufacture of synthetic dyestuffs, implicated specific chemical compounds that could act systemically to cause bladder cancer. Meanwhile, the 19th century saw the establishment of the fundamentals of modern medical science; of particular relevance to cancer was the demonstration that it involved abnormalities in the process of cell division. The commencement of the 20th century was marked by a rediscovery of the concept of mutation; and it was proposed that cancer originated through uncontrolled division of somatically mutated cells. At around this time, two further important exogenous causative agents were discovered: X-rays and tumor viruses. In the late 1920s, x-radiation became the first established exogenous cause of mutagenesis. The discoverer of this phenomenon, H. J. Muller, suggested that while mutation in a single cell was the primary causative mechanism in carcinogenesis, its generally observed logarithmic increase in incidence with age reflected a "multihit" process, and that multiple successive mutations were required in the progeny of the original mutants. He also recognized that the rate of proliferation of potentially cancerous cells would markedly influence the probability of their subsequent mutation. These considerations are essentially the foundation of the generally accepted view of carcinogenesis that now seems unlikely to be superseded. However, this acceptance did not come about unopposed. The analogy between carcinogenesis and evolution was disliked by many biologists because it embodied the concept that cancer was an inevitable consequence of our evolutionary origins.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)