Calories, Fat, Fibers, and Cellular Proliferation in Swiss Webster Mice

  • David B. Clayson
  • Eric Lok
  • Eduardo A. Nera
  • Penny Jee
  • Fraser W. Scott
  • Roger Mongeau
  • Walisundera M. N. Ratnayake
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 322)

Abstract

Doll and Peto1 suggested that 35% (range 10–70%) of all human cancers among the U.S. population were associated in some way with diet or nutrition. Despite this alarming statistic, there is very little firm understanding of the factors present in the diet that lead to cancer development. This arises for several reasons. First, the literature on diet and cancer is both vast and self-contradictory. Two committees sponsored by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (U.S. National Research Council2; U.S. National Academy of Sciences3) reached different conclusions about the relative importance of the amount of diet consumed and the level and type of fat in the diet. Second, there has been, until recently, a prudent reluctance to base anti-cancer recommendations for the modification of human diets on well founded and repeated observations in experimental animals. Epidemiologic evidence on the nature of the human diet and the incidence of cancer is often unreliable because of difficulties patients and controls have in recalling what they ate years or decades ago. The value of animal experiments is now being recognized by the massive research program on the beneficial effects of dietary restriction being undertaken by Dr. Hart and his colleagues at the National Center for Toxicological Research.4–9 Third, there has been a reluctance to examine food components for their carcinogenic potential. This has arisen because the only remedial action following discovery of a naturally occurring carcinogen as a component of an important food crop has, until the past few years, been to cease using the food crop, an action that might substantially reduce the human food supply. Biogenetic engineering now provides the opportunity to reduce the levels of undesirable substances naturally occurring in food crops or, if it is used unwisely, to increase this level and thus increase human cancer risk. This problem is far from theoretical. It has recently been shown that background sister chromatid exchanges, a genotoxic event sometimes linked to carcinogenesis, are dependent in primary rat hepatocytes on the diet to which the rats were previously exposed.10 The background rate of sister chromatid exchanges in hepatocytes was lower when a purified diet was fed to the rats than when a commercial chow was used.

Keywords

Mammary Gland Caloric Restriction Label Index Swiss Webster Mouse Wood Cellulose 
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.
    R. Doll and R. Peto, “The Causes of Cancer. Quantitative Estimates of Avoidable Risks of Cancer in the United States today,” Oxford University Press, Oxford (1981).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    U.S. National Research Council, Food and Nutrition Board, “Toward Healthful Diets,” National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. (1980).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    U.S. National Academy of Sciences, “Diet, Nutrition and Cancer,” Committee on Diet, Nutrition and Cancer, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. (1982).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M.G. Kolta, R. Holson, P.H. Duffy, and R.W. Hart, Effect of long-term caloric restriction on brain monoamines in aging male and female Fischer 344 rats, Mech Aging Devolop. 48: 191 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    J.E.A. Leakey, H.C. Cunny, J. Bazare, F.J. Webb, R.J. Feuers, P.H. Duffy, and R.W. Hart, Effects of aging and caloric restriction on hepatic drug metabolizing enzymes in the Fischer 344 rat, I. The cytochrome P450 dependent monooxygenase system, Mech Aging Develop. 48: 145 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    K.D. Nakamura, P.H. Duffy, M-H. Lu, A. Turturro, and R.W. Hart, The effect of dietary restriction on myc protooncogene expression in mice: a preliminary study, Mech Aging Develop. 48: 199 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    W.M. Witt, D. Brand, V.G. Attwood, and O.A. Soave, A nationally supported study on caloric restriction of rodents, Lab Animal. 18: 37 (1989).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    P.H. Duffy, R.J. Feuers, and R.W. Hart, Effect of chronic caloric restriction on the circadian regulation of physiological and behavioral variables in old male B6C3F1 mice, Chronobiol Internat. 7: 291 (1990).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P.H. Duffy, R.J. Feuers, K.D. Nakamura, J. Leakey, and R.W. Hart, Effect of chronic calorie restriction on the synchronization of various physiological measures in old female Fischer 344 rats, Chronobiol Internat. 7: 113 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    P.M. Eckl, T. Alati, and R.L. Jirtle, The effects of a purified diet on sister chromatid exchange frequencies and mitotic activity in adult rat hepatocytes, Carcinogenesis 12: 643 (1991).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    American Institute of Nutrition, Report of the American Institute for Nutrition ad hoc Committee on Standards for Nutritional Studies, J Nutr. 107: 1340 (1977).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    American Institute of Nutrition, Second report of the ad hoc Committee on Standards for Nutritional Studies, J Nutr. 110: 1726 (1980).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    D.B. Clayson, F. Iverson, E. Nera, E. Lok, C. Rogers, C. Rodrigues, D. Page, and K. Karpinski, Histopathological and radioautographical studies on the forestomach of Fischer 344 rats treated with butylated hydroxyanisole and related chemicals, Food Chem Toxicol. 24: 1171 (1986).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    E.A. Nera, F. Iverson, E. Lok, C.L. Armstrong, K. Karpinski, and D.B. Clayson, A carcinogenesis reversibility study of the effects of butylated hydroxyanisole on the forestomach and urinary bladder in male Fischer 344 rats, Toxicology 53: 251 (1988).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    E. Lok, F.W. Scott, R. Mongeau, E.A. Nera, S. Malcolm, and D.B. Clayson, Calorie restriction and cellular proliferation in various tissues of the female Swiss Webster mouse, Cancer Letts. 51: 67 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    E. Lok, E.A. Nera, F. Iverson, F. Scott, Y. So, and D.B. Clayson, Dietary restriction, cell proliferation and carcinogenesis: a preliminary study, Cancer Letts. 38: 249 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    D.B. Clayson and D.L. Arnold, The classification of carcinogens identified in the rodent bioassay as potential risks to humans: what type of substance should be tested next? Mutat Res. 257: 91 (1991).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    D.B. Clayson and D.J. Clegg, Classification of carcinogens: polemics, pedantics or progress, Regulat Toxicol Pharmacol. 14: 147 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    D.B. Clayson, F.W. Scott, R. Mongeau, E.A. Nera, and E. Lok, Dietary and caloric restriction: its effect on cellular proliferation in selected mouse tissues, in: “Biological Effects of Dietary Restriction,” L. Fishbein, ed. ILSI Monograph, Springer Verlag, Berlin, (1991).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    A. Tannenbaum and H. Silverstone, Nutrition and the genesis of tumours, in: “Cancer,” R.W. Raven, ed., Butterworth, London, (1957).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    F.R. White, The relationship between underfeeding and tumor formation, transplantation and growth in rats and mice, Cancer Res. 21: 281 (1961).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    M.H. Ross and G. Bras, Influences of protein under-and ovemutrition on spontaneous tumor prevalence in the rat, J Nutr. 103: 944 (1973).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    K.K. Andreou and P.R. Morgan, Effect of dietary restriction on induced hamster cheek pouch carcinogenesis, Arch Oral Biol. 26: 525 (1981).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    L.R. Jacobs, Effects of dietary fiber on mucosal growth and cell proliferation in the small intestine of the rat: a comparison of oat bran, pectin and guar gum with total fiber derivatives, Amer J Clin Nutr. 37: 954 (1983).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    L.R. Jacobs, Fiber and colon cancer, Gastroenterol Clin N Amer. 17: 747 (1988).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    L.R. Jacobs and J.R. Lupton, Dietary wheat bran lowers colonic pH in rats, J Nutr. 112: 592 (1982).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    J.R. Lupton and L.R. Jacobs, Fiber supplementation results in expanded proliferative zones in rat gastric mucosa Amer J Clin Nutr. 46: 980 (1987).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    B. Reddy, A. Engle, S. Katsifis, B. Simi, H-P. Bartram, P. Perrino, and C. Mayan, Biochemical epidemiology of colon cancer: effects of types of dietary fiber on fecal mutagens, acid, and neutral sterols in healthy subjects, Cancer Res. 49: 4629 (1989).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    K.L. Fritsche and P.V. Johnston, Rapid autoxidation of fish oil in diets without added antioxidants, J Nutr. 118: 425 (1988).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    D. Briggs, E. Lok, E.A. Nera, K. Karpinski, and D.B. Clayson, Short-term effects of butylated hydroxytoluene on the Wistar rat liver, urinary bladder and thyroid gland, Cancer Letts. 46: 31 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    B.N. Ames and L.S. Gold, Too many rodent carcinogens: mitogenesis increases mutagene-sis, Science 249: 970 (1990).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • David B. Clayson
    • 1
  • Eric Lok
    • 1
  • Eduardo A. Nera
    • 1
  • Penny Jee
    • 1
  • Fraser W. Scott
    • 2
  • Roger Mongeau
    • 2
  • Walisundera M. N. Ratnayake
    • 2
  1. 1.Toxicology Research Division, Bureau of Chemical Safety, Food Directorate, Health Protection BranchNational Health and WelfareOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Nutrition Research Division, Bureau of Nutritional Sciences, Food Directorate, Health Protection BranchNational Health and WelfareOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations