Implications for genetic toxicology of the chromosomal breakage syndromes
- PMID: 2011140
- DOI: 10.1016/0027-5107(91)90018-j
Implications for genetic toxicology of the chromosomal breakage syndromes
Abstract
The activation of oncogenes and our knowledge of the chromosome breakage syndromes show that both intragenic mutations and chromosomal aberrations are important in carcinogenesis. Each suggests that an agent could produce genetic changes in a tissue without producing cancer there, if the types of genetic change do not match: chromosomal aberrations may be irrelevant in the mammary epithelium but be very significant in the bone marrow, and vice versa. This has vital implications for genetic toxicology: (1) both gene mutations and chromosomal aberrations should be measured, and (2) carcinogens may be mutagenic in tissues in which they are not carcinogenic. One might therefore expect in vivo assays for mutagenicity to correlate rather well with cancer bioassays; unfortunately, the bioassays themselves seem faulty. If cancer bioassays are valid, they would be reproducible. If bioassays are reproducible, they would be internally consistent. The information supplied by Tennant et al. (1987) for their validation of in vitro assays gives data from both sexes in rats and mice for 70 chemicals. When the data are analyzed site-by-site, positive results were not replicated in the other sex or in the other species much of the time: in half the cases the other sex does not give the same result; in two-thirds of the cases the other species does not give the same result. There are 3 potential explanations for these differing results: (1) genuine sex-specific carcinogens are common, (2) genuine species-specific carcinogens are common, or (3) the bioassay does not replicate well, i.e., is erratic. The third possibility best explains the data. The apparent inability of short-term in vitro tests to discriminate well between carcinogens and non-carcinogens may be more a reflection of the cancer bioassays that were used to determine which chemicals were carcinogenic than any defect in the assays. In this situation in vivo assays can scarcely be expected to do better even if they are better.
Similar articles
-
Mouse-specific carcinogens: an assessment of hazard and significance for validation of short-term carcinogenicity bioassays in transgenic mice.Hum Exp Toxicol. 1998 Apr;17(4):193-205. doi: 10.1177/096032719801700401. Hum Exp Toxicol. 1998. PMID: 9617631 Review.
-
The results of assays in Drosophila as indicators of exposure to carcinogens.IARC Sci Publ. 1999;(146):427-70. IARC Sci Publ. 1999. PMID: 10353398 Review.
-
Are tumor incidence rates from chronic bioassays telling us what we need to know about carcinogens?Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2005 Mar;41(2):128-33. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2004.11.001. Epub 2004 Dec 19. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2005. PMID: 15698536
-
Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens II. Further analysis of mammalian cell results, relative predictivity and tumour profiles.Mutat Res. 2006 Sep 19;608(1):29-42. doi: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2006.04.017. Mutat Res. 2006. PMID: 16769241
-
Deployment of short-term assays for the detection of carcinogens; genetic and molecular considerations.Mutat Res. 1986 Nov;168(3):327-42. doi: 10.1016/0165-1110(86)90025-4. Mutat Res. 1986. PMID: 3540645 Review.
Cited by
-
Recombination and its roles in DNA repair, cellular immortalization and cancer.Age (Omaha). 1999 Apr;22(2):71-88. doi: 10.1007/s11357-999-0009-0. Age (Omaha). 1999. PMID: 23604399 Free PMC article.
-
DNA repair capacity in healthy medical students during and after exam stress.J Behav Med. 2000 Dec;23(6):531-44. doi: 10.1023/a:1005503502992. J Behav Med. 2000. PMID: 11199086
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources