Transcriptomic analyses of livers from mice exposed to 1,4-dioxane for up to 90 days to assess potential mode(s) of action underlying liver tumor development

An integrated assessment of the 1,4-dioxane cancer mode of action and threshold response in rodents

1,4-Dioxane is an environmental contaminant that has been shown to cause cancer in rodents after chronic high dose exposures. We reviewed and integrated information from recently published studies to update our understanding of the cancer mode of action of 1,4-dioxane. Tumor development in rodents from exposure to high doses of 1,4-dioxane is preceded by pre-neoplastic events including increased hepatic genomic signaling activity related to mitogenesis, elevation of Cyp2E1 activity and oxidative stress leading to genotoxicity and cytotoxicity. These events are followed by regenerative repair and proliferation and eventual development of tumors. Importantly, these events occur at doses that exceed the metabolic clearance of absorbed 1,4-dioxane in rats and mice resulting in elevated systemic levels of parent 1,4-dioxane. Consistent with previous reviews, we found no evidence of direct mutagenicity from exposure to 1,4-dioxane. We also found no evidence of CAR/PXR, AhR or PPARα activation resulting from exposure to 1,4-dioxane. This integrated assessment supports a cancer mode of action that is dependent on exceeding the metabolic clearance of absorbed 1,4-dioxane, direct mitogenesis, elevation of Cyp2E1 activity and oxidative stress leading to genotoxicity and cytotoxicity followed by sustained proliferation driven by regenerative repair and progression of heritable lesions to tumor development.

Mechanistic Considerations in 1,4-Dioxane Cancer Risk Assessment

The risk assessment of many carcinogens involves extrapolation across large exposure differences between the dose levels used in animal studies and the much lower human exposures. This is true for 1,4-dioxane which has a consistent liver carcinogenic effect in both genders of rats and mice. These data have been applied to risk assessment assuming a linear low dose extrapolation in some cases but non-linear or threshold models have been used in others. This choice hinges on our understanding of the 1,4-dioxane cancer mechanism. While 1,4-dioxane is not genotoxic in standard test batteries and has non-linear toxicokinetics, the mechanism for its carcinogenic effect remains unknown and is an active area of research. This review summarizes the possible modes of action for this chemical, data gaps and application to risk assessment. We find that the cytotoxicity/hyperplasia and metabolic saturation hypotheses do not explain the carcinogenic response and do not take into account 1,4-dioxane's induction of its own metabolism, leading to less likelihood for saturation during chronic exposure. There is evidence for other mechanisms, especially oxidative stress associated with the induction of CYP2E1 and in vivo genotoxicity that is not seen in vitro. The dose response for these effects needs further exploration compared to the time course and dose response for 1,4-dioxane-induced carcinogenesis. An additional consideration is the manner in which these 1,4-dioxane effects may augment naturally occurring and disease-related processes that contribute to the increasing rate of human liver cancer. These factors add to the rationale for using a non-threshold linear approach for extrapolating to low dose for this carcinogen, which is consistent with the default for carcinogens which do not have a clearly defined mode of action.

Food-Borne Chemical Carcinogens and the Evidence for Human Cancer Risk

Commonly consumed foods and beverages can contain chemicals with reported carcinogenic activity in rodent models. Moreover, exposures to some of these substances have been associated with increased cancer risks in humans. Food-borne carcinogens span a range of chemical classes and can arise from natural or anthropogenic sources, as well as form endogenously. Important considerations include the mechanism(s) of action (MoA), their relevance to human biology, and the level of exposure in diet. The MoAs of carcinogens have been classified as either DNA-reactive (genotoxic), involving covalent reaction with nuclear DNA, or epigenetic, involving molecular and cellular effects other than DNA reactivity. Carcinogens are generally present in food at low levels, resulting in low daily intakes, although there are some exceptions. Carcinogens of the DNA-reactive type produce effects at lower dosages than epigenetic carcinogens. Several food-related DNA-reactive carcinogens, including aflatoxins, aristolochic acid, benzene, benzo[a]pyrene and ethylene oxide, are recognized by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as causes of human cancer. Of the epigenetic type, the only carcinogen considered to be associated with increased cancer in humans, although not from low-level food exposure, is dioxin (TCDD). Thus, DNA-reactive carcinogens in food represent a much greater risk than epigenetic carcinogens.

Oxidative stress and genotoxicity in 1,4-dioxane liver toxicity as evidenced in a mouse model of glutathione deficiency

1,4-Dioxane (DX) is a synthetic chemical used as a stabilizer for industrial solvents. Recent occurrence data show widespread and significant contamination of drinking water with DX in the US. DX is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a group 2B carcinogen with the primary target organ being the liver in animal studies. Despite the exposure and cancer risk, US EPA has not established a drinking water Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for DX and a wide range of drinking water targets have been established across the US and by Health Canada. The DX carcinogenic mechanism remains unknown; this information gap contributes to the varied approaches to its regulation. Our recent mice study indicated alterations in oxidative stress response accompanying DNA damage as an early change by high dose DX (5000 ppm) in drinking water. Herein, we report a follow-up study, in which we used glutathione (GSH)-deficient glutamate-cysteine ligase modifier subunit (Gclm)-null mice to investigate the role of redox homeostasis in DX-induced liver cytotoxicity and genotoxicity. Gclm-null and wild-type mice were exposed to DX for one week (1000 mg/kg/day by oral gavage) or three months (5000 ppm in drinking water). Subchronic exposure of high dose DX caused mild liver cytotoxicity. DX induced assorted molecular changes in the liver including: (i) a compensatory nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2 (NRF2) anti-oxidative response at the early stage (one week), (ii) progressive CYP2E1 induction, (iii) development of oxidative stress, as evidenced by persistent NRF2 induction, oxidation of GSH pool, and accumulation of the lipid peroxidation by-product 4-hydroxynonenal, and (iv) elevations in oxidative DNA damage and DNA repair response. These DX-elicited changes were exaggerated in GSH-deficient mice. Collectively, the current study provides additional evidence linking redox dysregulation to DX liver genotoxicity, implying oxidative stress as a candidate mechanism of DX liver carcinogenicity.