Cancer is a deadly yet diverse condition featuring the emergence of cell subtypes that escape normal restraints on proliferation, forming cellular masses possessing unstable genomes and aggressive tendencies to invade local tissue or metastasise to remote sites. Since the accumulation of mutations in critical genes typically underpins these harmful capabilities, modern toxicology devotes much effort to identifying chemicals that cause mutations. Particular attention focusses on the mechanisms whereby bioactivation-dependent carcinogens form DNA-reactive metabolites that generate abnormal bases within the genome. Such ‘DNA adducts’ are central to chemical carcinogenesis since they can either generate mutations during processing by DNA polymerases, trigger apoptosis or undergo enzymatic repair. DNA adducts are also useful biomarkers of carcinogen exposure in humans and animals. These concepts are reinforced by studying the toxicology of known human carcinogens (e.g. vinyl chloride, asbestos and aristolochic acid) as well as chemicals with a still unclear role in human cancer (e.g. acrylamide).
Acrylamide Ames test Angiogenesis Asbestos Aristolochic acid Biomarkers Cancer hallmarks Cancer testing Carcinogenesis DNA adducts DNA repair Genotoxicity Mutagenesis Vinyl chloride
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Colditz GA, Wei EK. Preventability of cancer: the relative contributions of biologic and social and physical environmental determinants of cancer mortality. Ann Rev Public Health. 2012;33:137–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dart H et al. Eight ways to prevent cancer: a framework for effective prevention messages for the public. Cancer Causes Control. 2012;23:601–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doerge DR et al. DNA adducts derived from administration of acrylamide and glycidamide to mice and rats. Mutat Res. 2005;580:131–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doll R, Peto R. The causes of cancer: quantitative estimates of avoidable risks of cancer in the United States today. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1981;66:1191–308.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Friedberg EC et al. DNA repair and mutagenesis. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: ASM Press; 2006.Google Scholar
Govindan R et al. Genomic landscape of non-small cell lung cancer in smokers and never-smokers. Cell. 2013;150:1121–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grollman AP. Aristolochic acid nephropathy: harbinger of a global iatrogenic disease. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2013;54:1–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh R, Farmer PB. Liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry: the future of DNA adduct detection. Carcinogenesis. 2006;27:178–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone MP et al. Chemistry and structural biology of DNA damage and biological consequences. Chem Biodivers. 2011;8:1571–615.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss BS. The ‘A rule’ of mutagen specificity: a consequence of DNA polymerase bypass of non-instructional lesions? BioEssays. 1991;13:79–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swenberg JA et al. Endogenous versus exogenous DNA adducts: their role in carcinogenesis, epidemiology, and risk assessment. Toxicol Sci. 2011;120 Suppl 1:S130–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanparys P et al. Application of in vitro cell transformation assays in regulatory toxicology for pharmaceuticals, chemicals, food products and cosmetics. Mutat Res. 2012;744:111–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar