A Human Renal Epithelial Multistep Model of in vitro Carcinogenesis

  • A. Haugen
  • L. Maehle
  • D. Ryberg
  • I. L. Hansteen
Part of the Experimental Biology and Medicine book series (EBAM, volume 25)


Experimental in vitro models to transform human cells should provide clues to the mechanisms of development of human tumors and could identify agents that might cause human cancer. Studies of neoplastic transformation in epithelial cells are critical to an understanding of human cancer since more than 80% of human cancers are of epithelial origin. Human cells are highly resistant to changes in the mechanisms that limit their in vitro life span (1,2). Thus, there are few reports describing carcinogen-induced neoplastic transformation of epithelial cells (3,4). In vitro models of multistep transformation provide the opportunity to study cells at different stages of the transformation process. Studies strongly suggest that neoplastic transformation, both in vivo and in vitro, is a multistep process involving events of initiation, promotion and progression (5). Cellular immortality is considered to be one of the first phenotypic changes in this process and can be induced in primary cells by chemical carcinogens or by oncogene transfection. The conversion to the malignant stage is the second critical step. At least some of these stages may involve dominantly-acting genes. There is also evidence that loss or inactivation of several tumor suppressor genes is required for the the initation or progression of certain tumors.


Renal Cell Carcinoma Neoplastic Transformation Athymic Nude Mouse Nickel Compound Cellular Immortality 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    J. A. DiPaolo, J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 70,3 (1983).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    C.C. Harris Cancer Res. 47,1 (1987).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    J.S. Rhim, G. Jay et al. Science 227,1250 (1985).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    J.S. Rhim, J. Fujita et al. Science 232,338 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. Farber and R. Cameron Cancer Res. 31,125 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    G. Tveito, I. L. Hansteen et al. Cancer Res. 49, 1829 (1989).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Haugen, D. Ryberg, et al. Int. J. Cancer 45,572 (1990).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. K. McLaughlin and L. M. Schuman. In: A. M. Lilienfeld (ed.), Rev. Cancer Epidemiol. Vol. 2, 170–210, Elsevier/North-Holland, New York (1983.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    B. Zbar, H. Branch and M. Linehan Nature 327, 721 (1987).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. L. Bos. Mutat. Res. 195, 255 (1988).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. Doll, J. D. Mathews and L. G. Morgan. Br. J.Med. 34, 102 (1977).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    P. Hinds, C. Finlay and A. J. Levine. J. Virol. 63,739 (1989).PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Haugen
    • 1
  • L. Maehle
    • 1
  • D. Ryberg
    • 1
  • I. L. Hansteen
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of ToxicologyNational Institute of Occupational HealthNorway
  2. 2.Department of Occupational MedicineTelemark HospitalPorsgrunnNorway

Personalised recommendations