Advertisement

Development and Application of New Methodologies Applicable to Research on Complex Environmental Mixtures

  • P. H. M. Lohman
  • E. W. Vogel
  • B. Morolli
  • A. A. v. Zeeland
  • H. Vrieling
Part of the Environmental Science Research book series (ESRH, volume 39)

Abstract

Although the induction of cancer in man and in experimental animals by exposure to ionizing radiation or chemicals has been known for a long time, major insights into the mechanisms that underlie naturally occurring and induced cancers began to emerge only since the early 1970s. There is now persuasive evidence which documents that (i) many carcinogens are mutagens; (ii) most forms of cancer are due, at least in part, to changes (mutations) in the DNA (genetic material) contained in cells; and (iii) such genetic changes play a pivotal role in the initiation of cancer at the cellular level. A wide variety of test systems developed during the last 20 years—ranging from bacteria and mammalian cells including human cells in culture to whole mammals—is now available to examine the “mutagenic potential” of different chemicals, but they are only suitable for a qualitative determination of the level of cancer risk resulting from exposure of man to such agents. Agents that are capable of damaging the DNA are called “genotoxic” and a general characteristic of these is their electrophilic reactivity towards DNA and other cellular macromolecules. Interaction of chemicals with DNA has been considered as the initial step in the formation of cancer and hereditary effects in mammals, in spite of the (often spectacularly efficient) DNA repair processes in the individual cells of the organism (Fig. 1).

Keywords

Genotoxic Agent HPRT Gene Ethyl Methane Sulphonate Recessive Lethal Methyl Methane Sulphonate 
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.
    Ames, B.N. (1989) Chemicals, cancers, causalities, and cautions. Chemi Tech, pp. 590–598.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cathcart, R., E. Schwiers, R.L. Saul, and B.N. Ames (1984) Thymine glycol and thymidine glycol in human and rat urine: A possible assay for oxidative DNA damage. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., USA 81:5633–5637.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cerami, A. (1986) Aging of proteins and nucleic acids: What is the role of glucose? Trends in Biochem. Sci. 11:311–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Crine, P., and W.G. Verly (1976) A study of DNA spontaneous degradation. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 442:50–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gossen, J.A., W.J.F. de Leeuw, C.H.T. Tan, E.C. Zwarthoff, F. Berends, P.H.M. Lohman, F. Berends, D.L. Knook, and J. Vijg (1989) Efficient rescue of integrated shuttle vectors from transgenic mice: A model for studying mutations in vivo. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., USA 86:7971–7975.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jeffreys, A.J., V. Wilson, and S.L. Thein (1985) Individual-specific “fingerprints” of human DNA. Nature 314:67–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lindahl, T., and B. Nyberg (1972) Rate of depurination of native deoxyribonucleic acid. Biochemistry 11:3610–3618.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lindahl, T., and O. Karlstrom (1973) Heat-induced depyrimidination of deoxyribonucleic acid in neutral solution. Biochemistry 12:5151–5154.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lindahl, T., and B. Nyberg (1974) Heat-induced deamination of cytosine residues in deoxyribonucleic acid. Biochemistry 13:3405–3410.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lohman, P.H.M., R.A. Baan, A.M.J. Fichtinger-Schepman, M.A. Muysken-Schoen, M.J. Lansbergen, and F. Berends (1985) Molecular dosimetry of genotoxic damage: Biochemical and immunochemical methods to detect DNA-damage in vitro and in vivo. TIPS-FEST Supplement, pp. 1–7, Elsevier.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Richard, A.M., J.R. Rabinowitz, and M.D. Waters (1990) Strategies for the use of computational SAR methods in assessing genotoxicity. Mutat. Res. 221:181–196.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Richter, C, J.-W. Park, and B.N. Ames (1988) Normal oxidative damage to mitochondrial and nuclear DNA is extensive. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., USA 85:6465–6467.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rosenkranz, H.S., CS. Mitchell, and G. Klopman (1985) Artificial intelligence and Bayesian decision theory in the prediction of chemical carcinogens. Mutat. Res. 150:1–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rosenkranz, H.S., M.R. Frierson, and G. Klopman (1986) Use of structure-activity relationships in predicting carcinogenesis. In Long-term and Short-term Assays for Carcinogens: A Critical Appraisal, R. Montesano et al., eds. IARC Scientific Publication No. 83, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France, pp. 497–577.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rydberg, B., and T. Lindahl (1982) Non-enzymatic methylation of DNA by intracellular methyl group donor S-adenosyl-L-methionine is a potentially mutagenic reaction. EMBO J. 1:211–216.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Saiki, R.K., S. Scharf, F. Faloona, K.B. Mullis, G.T. Horn, H.A. Ehrlich, and N. Arnheim (1985) Enzymatic amplification of X-globin genomic sequences and restriction site analysis for diagnosis of sickle cell anaemia. Science 230:1350–1354.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Saul, R.L., and B.N. Ames (1985) Background levels of DNA damage in the population. In Mechanisms of DNA Damage and Repair, M. Simic, L. Grossman, and A. Upton, eds. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 529–536.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Saul, R.L., P. Gee, and B.N. Ames (1987) Free radicals, DNA damage, and aging. In Modern Biological Theories of Aging, H.R. Warner, R.N. Butler, R.L. Sprott, and E.L. Schneider, eds. Raven Press, New York, pp. 113–130.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shigenaga, M.K., C.J. Gimeno, and B.N. Ames (1989) Urinary 8-hydroxy-2T-deoxyguanosine as a biological marker of in vivo oxidative DNA damage. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., USA 86:9697–9701.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Uitterlinden, A.G., E. Slagboom, D.L. Knook, and J. Vijg (1989) Two-dimensional DNA fingerprinting of human individuals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., USA 86:2742–2746.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vogel, E.W. (1989) Nucleophilic selectivity of carcinogens as a determinant of enhanced mutation response in excision repair-defective strains in Drosophila: Effects of 30 carcinogens. Carcinogenesis 10:2093–2106.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vrieling, H., M.L. van Rooijen, N.A. Groen, M.Z. Zdzienicka, J.W.I.M. Simons, P.H.M. Lohman, and A.A. v. Zeeland (1989) DNA strand specificity for UV-induced mutations in mammalian cells. Molec. and Cell. Biol. 9:1277–1283.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Waters, M.D., H.F. Stack, J.R. Rabinowitz, and N.E. Garrett (1988) Genetic activity profiles and pattern recognition in test battery selection. Mutat. Res. 205:119–138.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zijlstra, J.A., and E.W. Vogel (1988) The ratio of induced recessive lethals to ring-X loss has prognostic value in terms of functionality of chemical mutagens in Drosophila melanogaster. Mutat. Res. 201:27–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. H. M. Lohman
    • 1
  • E. W. Vogel
    • 1
  • B. Morolli
    • 1
  • A. A. v. Zeeland
    • 1
  • H. Vrieling
    • 1
  1. 1.MGC-Department of Radiation Genetics and Chemical MutagenesisUniversity of LeidenLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations