Advertisement

The Use of Enzyme-Altered Foci for Risk Assessment of Hepatocarcinogens

  • M. Schwarz
  • D. Pearson
  • A. Buchmann
  • W. Kunz

Abstract

Chemically-induced hepatocarcinogenesis is characterized by the sequential appearance of phenotypically altered cell populations which can be identified by changes in the expression of a variety of markers such as canalicular adenosine triphosphatase (ATPase), γ-glutamyl transpeptidase, glucose-6-phosphatase and others (for review see Peraino et al., 1983). There is increasing evidence to suggest that at least some of these early enzyme-altered foci are precursor lesions which are causally related to the malignant transformation. This is substantiated by the sequential appearance of enzyme-altered foci and liver tumors and by the observation that neoplastic nodules and hepatocellular carcinoma show enzyme-patterns similar to those seen in preneoplastic foci (Fried- rich-Freksa et al., 1969; Goldfarb and Pugh, 1981; Bannasch et al., 1986). Moreover, strong quantitative relationships between the total volume of enzyme-altered tissue in liver and the subsequent development of liver tumors have been established (Emmelot and Scherer, 1980; Kunz et al., 1983, 1985). Enzyme-altered foci are monoclonal in origin (Rabes et al., 1982; Williams et al., 1983) and show a growth advantage over the surrounding normal hepatocytes (Rabes et al., 1979). The analysis of multiple marker enzymes within individual foci points towards a marked heterogeneity of phenotypes which is also reflected by differences in the proliferation rates of the foci (Buchmann et al., 1987; Peraino et al., 1984). The analysis of number and size of enzyme altered foci in liver can yield quantitative data on the effects of hepatocarcinogens at low, relevant dose levels. Moreover, these data inherit information on mechanistic aspects of carcinogenesis which may be of importance for the improvement of risk assessment of carcinogens and tumor promoting agents in liver.

Keywords

Liver Tumor Epoxide Hydrolase Volumetric Fraction Carcinogenic Process Sequential Appearance 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bannasch, P., Enzmann, H., and Zerban, H., 1986, Preneoplastic lesions as indicators of the carcinogenic risk caused by chemicals, in “Cancer Risks; strategies for elimination”, P. Bannasch (ed.) Springer Verlag 47–64.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buchmann, A., Schwarz, M., Schmitt, R., Wolf, C.R., Oesch, F., and Kunz, W., 1987, Development of cytochrome P-450 altered preneoplastic and neoplastic lesions during nitrosamine-induced hepatocarcinogenesis in the rat, Cancer Res, 47: 2911–2918.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Campbell, H.A., Yuan-Ding Xu, Hanigan, M.H., and Pitot, H.C., 1986, Application of quantitative stereology to the evaluation of phenotypically heterogenous enzyme-altered foci in the rat liver, J. Natl. Cancer Inst, 76: 751–767.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Druckrey, H., 1967, Quantitative aspects in chemical carcinogenesis, U.I.C.C. Monographs, 7: 60–78.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Emmelot, P. and Scherer, E., 1980, The first relevant cell stages in rat liver carcinogenesis: a quantitative approach, Biochim. Biophys. Acta, 605: 247–304.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Estadella, M.D., Pujol, M.J., and Domingo, J., 1984, Enzyme pattern and growth rate of liver preneoplastic clones during carcinogenesis by diethylnitrosamine, Oncology 41: 276–279.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Friedrich-Freksa, H., Gissner, W., and Btrner, P., 1969, Histochemische Untersuchungen der Cancerogenese in der Rattenleber nach Dauergabe von Ditthylnitrosamin, Z. Krebsforsch 72: 226–239.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goldfarb, S. and Pugh, T.D., 1981, Enzyme histochemical phenotypes in primary hepatocellular carcinomas, Cancer Res, 41: 2092–2095.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kunz, H.W., Tennekes, H.A., Port, R.E., Schwarz, M., Lorke, D., and Schaude, G., 1983, Quantitative aspects of chemical carcinogenesis and tumor promotion in liver, Environ. Health Perspect, 50: 113–122.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kunz, H.W., Schwarz, M., Tennekes, H.A., Port, R., and Appel, K.E., 1985, Mechanism and dose-time response characteristics of carcinogenic and tumor promoting xenobiotics in liver, in “Tumorpromotoren, Erkennung, Wirkungsmechanismen und Bedeutung’, K.E. Appel and A.G. Hildebrandt (eds), MMV Medizin Verlag M§nchen, BGA-Schriften 6, pp. 76–94.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moolgavkar, S.H., 1983, Model of human carcinogenesis: action of environmental agents, Environm. Health Perspect, 50: 285–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moolgavkar, S.H., 1986, Carcinogenesis modeling: From Molecular Biology to Epidemioly, Ann. Rev. Public Health, 7: 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Peraino, C., Richards, W.L., and Stevens, F.J., 1983, Multistage Hepatocarcinogenesis, in:“Mechanisms of Tumor Promotion”, Vol. 1, T.J. Slaga (ed.), CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Peraino, C., Staffeldt, E.F., Carnes, B.Y., Ludemann, V.A., Blomquist, J.A., and Vesselinovictch, S.D., 1984, Characterisation of histochemically detectable altered hepatocyte foci and their relationship to hepatic tumorigenesis in rats treated once with diethylnitrosamine or benzo(a)pyrene one day after birth, Cancer Res, 44: 3340–3347.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Peto, R., Gray, R., Brastom, P., and Grasso, P., 1984, Nitrosamine carcinogenesis in 5120 rodents: chronic administration of sixteen different concentrations of NDEA, NDMA, NPYR, and NPIP, in the water of 4440 inbred rats, with parallel studies on NDEA alone of the effect of age of starting (3, 6 or 20 weeks) and the species (rats, mice, hamsters), IARC Monography Series, 57: 627–665.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Preussmann, R., Habs, M., Habs, H., and Schmthl, D., 1982, Carcinogenicity of N-nitrosodiethanolamine in rats at five different dose levels, Cancer Res, 42: 5167–5171.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pugh, T.D. and Goldfarb, S., 1978, Quantitative histochemical and autoradiographic studies of hepatocarcinogenesis in rats fed 2-actylaminofluorene followed by phenobarbital, Cancer Res, 38: 4450–4457.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rabes, H.M. and Szymkowiak, R., 1979, Cell kinetics of hepatocytes during the preneoplastic period of diethylnitrosamine-induced liver carcinogenesis, Cancer Res, 39: 1298–1304.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rabes, H.M., B§cher, T., Hartmann, A., Linke, I., and D§nnwald, M., 1982, Clonal growth of carcinogen-induced enzyme deficient preneoplastic cell population in mouse liver, Cancer Res, 42: 3220–3227.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schwarz, M., Pearson, D., Port, R., and Kunz, W., 1984, Promoting effect of 4-dimethylaminoazobenzene on enzyme altered foci induced in rat liver by N-nitrosodiethanolamine, Carcinogenesis, 5: 725–730.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Williams, E.D., Wareham, K.A., and Howell, S., 1983, Direct evidence for the single cell origin of mouse liver cell tumours, Br. J. Cancer, 47: 723–726.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Schwarz
    • 1
  • D. Pearson
    • 1
  • A. Buchmann
    • 1
  • W. Kunz
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut of BiochemistryGerman Cancer Research CenterHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations