Evaluation of DNA Binding In Vivo for Low-Dose Extrapolation in Chemical Carcinogenesis

  • Werner K. Lutz
  • P. Buss
  • A. Baertsch
  • M. Caviezel
Part of the Environmental Science Research book series (ESRH, volume 39)


The exposure of the human population to unavoidable carcinogens is in a dose range which would not give rise to a significant increase of the tumor incidence in a standard bioassay for carcinogenicity with laboratory animals. This lack of sensitivity of the bioassay is largely due to the limitations in the number of animals used and the variability of the tumor incidence both in control and treated groups (5). Therefore, in order to estimate the “virtually safe” dose which should not lead to more than one additional tumor in one million people exposed, four to five orders of magnitude must be spanned with extrapolations.


Tumor Incidence Tumor Induction Lower Dose Level High Performance Liquid Chromato High Performance Liquid Chromato 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Beland, F.A., N.F. Fullerton, T. Kinouchi, and M.C. Poirier, (1988) DNA adduct formation during continuous feeding of 2-acetyl-aminofluorene at multiple concentrations. IARC Sci. Publ. 89:175–180.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Belinsky, S.A., CM. White, T.R. Devereux, J.A. Swenberg, and M.W. Anderson (1987) Cell selective alkylation of DNA in rat lung following low dose exposure to the tobacco specific carcinogen 4-(N-methyl-N -nitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone. Cancer Res. 47:1143–1148.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berger, M.R., D. Schmaehl, and H. Zerban (1987) Combination experiments with very low doses of three genotoxic N-nitrosamines with similar organotropic carcinogenicity in rats. Carcinogenesis 8:1635–1643.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boucheron, J. A., F.C. Richardson, P.H. Morgan, and J. A. Swenberg (1987) Molecular dosimetry of 04-ethyldeoxythymidine in rats continuously exposed to diethylnitrosamine. Cancer Res. 47:1577–1581.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cairns, T. (1979) The ED01 study: Introduction, objectives, and experimental design. In Innovations in Cancer Risk Assessment (ED01 Study). Pathotox Publishers, Park Forest South, IL 60466 USA, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cornfield, J. (1977) Carcinogenic risk assessment. Science 198:693–699.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fearon, E.R., S.R. Hamilton, and B. Vogelstein (1987) Clonal analysis of human colorectal tumors. Science 238:193–197.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heck, H.A., and M. Casanova (1987) Isotope effects and their implications for the covalent binding of inhaled (3H) and (14C) formaldehyde in the rat nasal mucosa. Tox. Appl. Pharm. 89:122–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jackson, CD., C. Weis, and T.E. Shellenberger (1980) Tissue binding of 2-acetylaminofluorene in BALB/c and C57B1/6 mice during chronic oral administration. Chem. Biol. Interact. 32:63–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kuchlbauer, J., W. Romen, and H.G. Neumann (1985) Syncarcinogenic effects on the initiation of rat liver tumors by trans-4-acetylaminostilbene and 2-acetylaminofluorene. Carcinogenesis 6:1337–1342.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lindamood III, C, M.A. Bedell, K.C. Billings, M.C. Dyroff, and J.A. Swenberg (1984) Dose response for DNA alkylation, (3H) thymidine uptake into DNA, and 06-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase activity in hepatocytes of rats and mice continuously exposed to dimethylnitrosamine. Cancer Res. 44:196–200.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lutz, W.K. (1979) In vivo covalent binding of organic chemicals to DNA as a quantitative indicator in the process of chemical carcinogenesis. Mutat. Res. 65:289–356.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lutz, W.K. (1986) Quantitative evaluation of DNA binding data for risk estimation and for classification of direct and indirect carcinogens. J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 112:85–91.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lutz, W.K. (1987) Quantitative evaluation of DNA-binding data in vivo for low-dose extrapolations. Arch. Tox. (Suppl) 11:66–74.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lutz, W.K., and P. Maier (1988) Genotoxic and epigenetic chemical carcinogenesis: One Process, different mechanisms. Trends Pharm. Sci. 9:322–326.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stumpf, R., G.P. Margison, R. Montesano, and A.E. Pegg (1979) Formation and loss of alkylated purines from DNA of hamster liver after administration of dimethylnitrosamine. Cancer Res. 39:50–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Swenberg, J.A., C.S. Barrow, C.J. Boreiko, H.A. Heck, R.J. Levine, K.T. Morgan, and T.B. Starr (1983) Non-linear biological responses to formaldehyde and their implications for carcinogenic risk assessment. Carcinogenesis 4:945–952.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Swenberg, J.A., F.C. Richardson, J.A. Boucheron, F.H. Deal, S.A. Belinsky, M. Charbonneau, and B.G. Short (1987) High to low dose extrapolation: Critical determinants involved in the dose response of carcinogenic substances. Env. Health Persp. 76:57–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vogelstein, B., E.R. Fearon, S.R. Hamilton, S.E. Kern, J.L. Bos, M. Leppert, Y. Nakamura, and R. White (1989) Genetic alterations during colorectal tumorigenesis. Proc. Amer. Assoc. Cancer. Res. 30:634–635.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zeise, L., R. Wilson, and E.A.C. Crouch (1987) Dose-response relationships for carcinogens: A review. Env. Health Persp. 73:259–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Werner K. Lutz
    • 1
  • P. Buss
    • 1
  • A. Baertsch
    • 1
  • M. Caviezel
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of ToxicologySwiss Federal Institute of TechnologySchwerzenbachSwitzerland
  2. 2.University of ZurichSchwerzenbachSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations