DNA Fragmentation: Its Predictivity as a Short Term Test

  • Silvio Parodi
  • Maurizio Taningher
  • Leonardo Santi
Part of the NATO Advanced Study Institutes Series book series (NSSA, volume 52)


In order to assess the carcinogenic risk it is important not only to know qualitatively if a chemical is a carcinogen, but also to have an idea of its carcinogenic potency. Unfortunately, the epidemiological data almost never allow for a correlation between tumour frequency and dose of a carcinogen. Perhaps the only exception is the carcinogenic effect of ionizing radiations. Because of this general deficiency in the epidemiological data, it is impossible to know if carcinogenic potencies in humans and carcinogenic potencies in small rodents are quantitatively correlated. A quantitative correspondence of scales could exist, even if obviously the latency time of tumours is much longer in humans than in small rodents. Qualitatively, all the compounds found to be carcinogenic in humans were also found to be carcinogenic in small rodents, except for the arsenic derivatives37. On this basis, and on the generic biological basis that carcinogenicity in small rodents is the closest thing to carcinogenicity in humans, carcinogenicity data in small rodents are considered the most relevant for human risk assessment, especially when epidemiological data are not available. For these reasons, the results obtained in the short term tests are always compared with carcinogenicity in small rodents.


Aromatic Amine Carcinogenic Risk Small Rodent Short Term Test Hydrazine Derivative 
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.
    National Cancer Institute, “Survey of compounds which have been tested for carcinogenic activity,” Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. (1972–73).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ibidem (1978).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    International Agency for Research on Cancer, “Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans,” vols.1–24, IARC, Lyon (1972–80).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    C. M. Goodall, W. Lijinsky and L. Tomatis, Tumorigenicity of N–nitrosohexamethyleneimine, Cancer Res., 28: 1217–1220 (1968).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. M. Bonser, D. B. Clayson, J. W. Jull and L. N. Pirah, The carcinogenic activity of 2–naphthylamine, Br. J. Cancer, 10: 533–538 (1956).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    National Cancer Institute, Bioassay of aniline hydrochloride for possible carcinogenicity, Natl. Cancer Inst. Carcinog. Tech. Rep. Ser., 130: 1–55 (1978).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. H. Cardy, Carcinogenicity and chronic toxicity of 2,4–toluenediamine in F344 rats, J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 62: 1107–1114 (1979).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. M. Ward, S. F. Stinson, J. F. Hardisty, B. Y. Cockrell and D. W. Hayden, Neoplasms and pigmentation of thyroid glandsin F344 rats exposed to 2,4–diaminoanisole sulfate, a hair dye component, J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 62: 1067–1073 (1979).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. P. Evarts and C. A. Brown, 2,4—Diaminoanisole sulfate: early effect on thyroid gland morphology and late effect on glandular tissue of Fisher 344 rats, J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 65: 197–204 (1980).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. P. Griswold Jr., A. E. Casey, E. K. Weisburger and J. H. Weisburger, The carcinogenicity of multiple intragastric doses of aromatic and heterocyclic nitro or amino derivatives in young female Sprague–Dawley rats, Cancer Res., 28: 924–933 (1968).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. Steinhoff, Cancerogene Wirkung von 4,4’–Diamino–diphenylather bei Ratten, Naturwissenschaften, 64: 394 (1977).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, National Toxicology Program, “Bioassay of 4,4’–oxydianiline for possible carcinogenicity,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, DHHS Publication No. (NIH) 80–1761.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    H. Zeller, H. Birnstel, K. O. Freisberg, P. Kirsch and K. H. Hempel, Chronic toxicity of auramine, Naturwissenschaften, 60: 523–524 (1973).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Umeda, Experimental study of xanthene dyes as carcinogenic agents, Gann, 47: 51–78 (1956).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    B. Toth, Sinthetic and naturally occurring hydrazines as possible cancer causative agents, Cancer Res., 35: 3693–3697 (1975).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    G. L. Laqueur and H. Matsumoto, Neoplasms in female Fisher rats following intraperitoneal injection of methylazoxymethanol, J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 37: 217–225 (1966).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    S. D. Vesselinovitch, A. P. Kyriazis, N. Mihailovich and K. V. N. Rao, Conditions modifying development of tumours in mice at various sites by benzo(a)pyrene, Cancer Res., 35: 2948–2953 (1975).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, “Registry of toxic effects of chemical substances,” R. J. Lewis (Ed.), U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. (1978).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    S. Parodi, M. Taningher, P. Russo, M. Pala, M. Tamaro and C. Monti–Bragadin, DNA–damaging activity in vivo and bacterial mutagenicity of sixteen aromatic amines and azo—derivatives, as related quantitatively to their carcinogenicity, Carcinogenesis, in press.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    S. Parodi, S. De Flora, M. Cavanna, A. Pino, L. Robbiano, C. Bennicelli and G. Brambilla, DNA–damaging activity in vivo and bacterial mutagenicity of sixteen hydrazine derivatives as related quantitatively to their carcinogenicity, Cancer Res., 41: 1469–1482 (1981).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    G. L. Petzold and J. A. Swenberg, Detection of DNA damage induced in vivo following exposure of rats to carcinogens, Cancer Res., 38: 1589–1594 (1978).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    S. Parodi, M. Taningher, M. Pala, G. Brambilla and M. Cavanna, Detection by alkaline elution of rat liver DNA damage induced by simultaneous subacute administration of nitrite and aminopyrine, J. Toxicol. Environm. Health, 6: 167–174 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    M. Schawarz, J. Hummel, K. E. Appel, R. Rickart and W. Kunz, DNA damage induced in vivo evaluated with a non–radioactive alkaline elution technique, Cancer Letters, 6: 221–226 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    G. Brambilla, M. Cavanna, A. Pino and L. Robbiano, Ouantitative correlation among DNA damaging potency of six N–nitrosocompounds and their potency in inducing tumor growth and bacterial mutations, Carcinogenesis, 2: 425–429 (1981).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    S. Parodi, M. Taningher, L. Santi, M. Cavanna, L. Sciabà, A. Maura and G. Brambilla, A practical procedure for testing DNA damage in vivo, proposed for a pre–screening of chemical carcinogens, Mutation Res., 54: 39–46 (1978).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    C. Bolognesi, C. F. Cesarone and L. Santi, Evaluation of DNA damage by alkaline elution technique after in vivo treatment with aromatic amines, Carcinogenesis, 2: 265–268 (1981).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    S. Parodi, M. Taningher, P. Boero and L. Santi, Quantitative correlations amongst alkaline DNA fragmentation, DNA covalent binding, mutagenicity in the Ames’ test and carcinogenicity, for twenty–one different compounds, Mutation Res., in press.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    G. Brambilla, M. Cavanna, S. Parodi, L. Sciabà, A. Pino and L. Robbiano, DNA damage in liver, colon, stomach, lung and kidney of BALE/c mice treated with 1,2–dimethylhydrazine, Int. J. Cancer, 22: 174–180 (1978).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    M. Cavanna, S. Parodi, M. Taningher, C. Bolognesi, L. Sciabà and G. Brambilla, DNA fragmentation in some organs of rats and mice treated with cycasin, Br. J. Cancer, 39: 383–390 (1979).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    J. McCann, E. Choi, E. Yamasaki and B. N. Ames, Detection of carcinogens as mutagens in the Salmonella/microsome test: Assay of 300 chemicals, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 72: 5135–5139 (1975).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    T. Kawachi, T. Komatsu, T. Kada, M. Ishidate, M. Sasaki, T. Sugiyama and Y. Tazima, Results of recent studies on the relevance of various short—term screening tests in Japan, in: “The predictive value of short—term screening test in carcinogenicity evaluation,” G. M. Williams, R. Kroes, H. W. Waaijers and K. W. van de Poll (Eds.), Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp.253–257 (1980).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    R. Painter and R. Howard, A comparison of the HeLa DNA synthesis inhibition test and the Ames’ test for screening of mutagenic carcinogens, Mutation Res., 54: 113–115 (1978).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    S. De Flora, Study of 106 organic and inorganic compounds in the Salmonella/microsome test, Carcinogenesis, 2: 283–298 (1981).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    W. K. Lutz, In vivo covalent binding of organic chemicals to DNA as a quantitative indicator in the process of chemical carcinogenesis, Mutation Res., 65:289–356 (1979).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    G. M. Williams, C. Bordet, P. A. Cerutti, R. P. Fuchs, J. Laval, S.–H. Lu, S. Parodi, A.E. Pegg and M.F. Rajewsky, DNA damage and repair in mammalian cells, in: “Long–term and short–term screening assays for carcinogens: a critical appraisal,” IARC Monographs on the evaluation of the carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans, Supplement 2, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, pp. 201–226 (1980).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    G. W. Snedecor and W. G. Cochran, “Statistical methods,” The Iowa State University Press, Ames (1967).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    L. Tomatis, C. Agthe, H. Bartsch, J. Huff, R. Montesano, R. Saracci, E. Walker and J. Wilbourn, Evaluation of the carcinogenicity of chemicals: A review of the Monograph Program of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, Cancer Res., 38: 877–885 (1978).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    M. M. Coombs, C. Dixon and A. M. Kissonerghis, Evaluation of the mutagenicity of compounds of known carcinogenicity belonging to the benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene, and cyclopenta(a)phenanthrene series, using Ames test, Cancer Res., 36: 4525–4529 (1976).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    M. Meselson and K. Russell, Comparison of carcinogenic and muta–genic potency, in: “Origins of Human Cancer,” H. H. Hiatt, J. D. Watson and J. A. Winsten (Eds.), Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Book C, pp. 1473–1481 (1977).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    H. Bartsch, C. Malaveille, B. Tierney, P. L. Grover and P. Sims, The association of bacterial mutagenicity of hydrocar–bon–derived “bay–region” dihydrodiols with the Iball indices for carcinogenicity and with the extents of DNA–binding on mouse skin of the parent hydrocarbons, Chem–Biol. Interact., 26: 185–196 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    H. R. Glatt, H. Schwind, F. Zajdela, A. Croisy, P. C. Jacquignon and F. Oesch, Mutagenicity of 43 structurally related heterocyclic compounds and its relationship to their carcinogenicity, Mutation Res., 66: 307–328 (1979).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    H. Bartsch, C. Malaveille, A.–M. Camus, G. Martel–Planche, G. Brun, A. Hautefeuille, N. Sabadie, A. Barbin, T. Kuroki, C. Drevon, C. Piccoli and R. Montesano, Validation and comparative studies on 180 chemicals with S. typhimurium strains and V79 chinese hamster cells in the presence of various metabolizing systems, Mutation Res., 76: 1–50 (1980).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    D. Clive, K. O. Johnson, J. F. S. Spector, A. G. Batson and M. M. M. Brown, Validation and characterization of the L5178Y/ TK+/– mouse lymphoma mutagen assay system, Mutation Res., 59: 61–108 (1979).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    K. W. Kohn, L. C. Erickson, R. A. G. Ewig and C. A. Friedman, Fractination of DNA from mammalian cells by alkaline elution, Biochemistry, 15: 4629–4637 (1976).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    G. Brambilla, M. Cavanna, P. Carlo, R. Finollo, L. Sciabà, S. Parodi and C. Bolognesi, DNA damage and repair induced by diazoacetyl derivatives of amino acids with different mechanism of cytotoxicity. Correlations with mutagenicity and carcinogenicity, J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol., 94: 383–390 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Silvio Parodi
    • 1
  • Maurizio Taningher
    • 1
  • Leonardo Santi
    • 1
  1. 1.Istituto Scientifico per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori and Department of OncologyUniversity of GenoaGenoaItaly

Personalised recommendations