Advertisement

Principles of In Vitro Metal Carcinogenesis

  • Max Costa
Protocol
  • 118 Downloads
Part of the Biological Methods book series (BM)

General Introduction

In Part II we discussed, in general terms, the effects of carcinogenic metals upon isolated biochemical systems, bacterial systems, and tissue culture cells. In this chapter we will expand on these principles and consider their application to the screening of potentially carcinogenic metals and their compounds. Before doing this, however, we must consider some of the reasons for these studies, and also what significance these studies may have in assessing the relative risks of human cancer from exposure to the same metal or compound. Chapter 7 contains the specific methodology used in these tests.

The Need for In Vitro Carcinogenic Testing

The occupational and environmental exposure of large populations to potentially carcinogenic metals and their compounds has finally become a recognized problem for industry, government health agencies, and individual citizens. The scientific data that shows certain metals and their compounds cause cancer in humans and...

Keywords

Microsomal Enzyme Morphological Transformation Tissue Culture System Carcinogenic Activity Aryl Hydrocarbon Hydroxylase 
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.

References

Biochemical and Bacterial Tests of Mutagenesis

  1. 1.
    Ames, B. N., P. Sims, and P. L. Grover, Epoxides of carcinogenic polycyclic hydrocarbons are frameshift mutagens. Science 176: 47–49, 1972.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Corbett, T. H., C. Heidelberger, and W. F. Dove, Determination of the mutagenic activity to bacteriophage T4 of carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic compounds. Molecular Pharmacol. 6: 667–679, 1970.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fisher, G. L., C. E. Chrisp, and O. G. Raabe, Physical factors affecting the mutagenicity of fly ash from a coal-fired power plant. Science 204: 879–881, 1979.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Noda, M., T. Takano, and H. Sakurai, Mutagenic activity of selenium compounds. Mutation Res. 66, 175–179, 1979.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McCann, J., and B. N. Ames, Detection of carcinogens as mutagens in the Salmonella/ microsome test: assay of 300 chemicals: discussion.Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 73: 950–954, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McCann,. J., and B. N. Ames, A simple method for detecting environmental carcinogens as mutagens. Ann. New York Acad. Sci. 271: 5–13, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    O’Neill, J. P., and A. W. Hsie, Chemical mutagenesis of mammalian cells can be quantified. Nature 269, 815–817, 1977.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Flessel, C. P., Metals as mutagens, in Inorganic and Nutritional Aspects of Cancer, G. N. Schrauzer, ed., Plenum, NY, 1978.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Auerbach, A. D., and S. R. Wolman, Carcinogen-induced chromosome breakage in Faconi’s anaemia heterozygous cells. Nature 271: 69–71, 1978.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chan, J. Y. H., and F. F. Becker, Decreased fidelity of DNA polymerase activity during N-2-fluorenylacetamide hepatocarcinogenesis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 76: 814–818, 1979.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Agarwal, S. S., D. K. Dube, and L. A. Loeb, On the fidelity of DNA replication. J. Biol. Chem. 254: 101–106, 1979.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hass, B. S., R. B. Webb, and T. B. Gambill, Chemical mutagenesis by benzo[a]pyrene in Escherichia coli in the absence of any activating agents. Mutation Res. 60: 395–399, 1979.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sirover, M. A., D. K. Dube, and L. A. Loeb, On the fidelity of DNA replication. J. Biol. Chem. 254: 107–111, 1979.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Tissue Culture Transformation Tests Using Cell Lines

  1. 1.
    Heidelberger, C, and P. F. Boshell, Chemical oncogenesis in cultures. Gann Monograph on Cancer Research 17: 39–58, 1975.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    DiPaolo, J. A., K. Takano, and N. C. Popescu, Quantitation of chemically induced neoplastic transformation of Balb/3T3 cloned cell lines. Cancer Res. 32: 2686–2695, 1972.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kakunaga, T., A quantitative system for assay of malignant trans formation by chemical carcinogens using a clone derived from Balb/3. Int. J. Cancer 12: 463–473, 1973.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kirkland, D. J., Chemical transformation of Chinese hamster cells. I. A comparison of some properties of transformed cells. Brit. J. Cancer 34: 134–144, 1976.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kirkland, D. J., and S. Venitt, Chemical transformation of Chinese hamster cells. II. Appearance of marker chromosomes in transformed cells. Brit. J. Cancer 34: 145–152, 1976.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Huberman, E., R. Mager, and L. Sachs, Mutagenesis and trans formation of normal cells by chemical carcinogens. Nature 264:360–361, 1976.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tissue Culture Transformation Tests Using Embryonic Cells

  1. 1.
    Huberman, E., and L. Sachs, Cell susceptibility to transformation and cytotoxicity by the carcinogenic hydrocarbon benzo[a]pyrene. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 56: 1123–1129, 1966.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berwald, Y., and L. Sachs, In vitro transformation of normal cells to tumor cells by carcinogenic hydrocarbons. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 35: 641–657, 1965.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    DiPaolo, J. A., R. L. Nelson, and P. J. Donovan, In vitro transformation of Syrian hamster embryo cells by diverse chemical carcinogens. Nature 235: 278–280, 1972.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    DiPaolo, J. A., R. L. Nelson, and P. J. Donovan, Characteristic of primary tumors induced by carcinogenic polycyclic hydrocarbons in Syrian hamsters. J. Natl. Cancer Inst 46: 171–181, 1971.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    DiPaolo, J. A., P. Donovan, and R. Nelson, Quantitative studies of in vitro transformation by chemical carcinogens. J. Natl. Cancer Institute, 42: 867–876, 1969.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Casto, B. C, N. Janosko, and J. A. DiPaolo, Development of a focus assay model for transformation of hamster cells in vitro by chemical carcinogens. Cancer Res. 37: 3508–3515, 1977.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haber, D. A., and W. G. Thilly, Morphological transformation of C3H/10T1/2 cells subcultured at low cell densities. Life Set 2: 1663–1674, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stanbridge, E. J., and J. Wilkinson, Analysis of malignancy in human cells: malignant and transformed phenotypes are under separate genetic control. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 75: 1466–1469, 1978.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Katsuta, H., and T. Takaoka, Chemical carcinogenesis of mammalian epithelial cells in tissue culture. Gann Monogrpah on Cancer Research 17: 59–65, 1975.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kakunaga, T., Neoplastic transformation of human diploid fibroblast cells by chemical carcinogens. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 75: 1334–1338, 1978.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ponten, J., The relationship between in vitro transformation and tumor formation in vivo. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 458: 397–422, 1976.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen, T. T., and C. Heidelberger, Quantitative studies on the malignant transformation of mouse prostate cells by carcinogenic hydrocarbons in vitro. Int. J. Cancer 4: 166–178, 1969.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Montesano, R., C. Drevon, T. Kuroki, L. Saint Vincent, S. Handleman, K. K. Sandford, D. DeFeo, and I. B. Weinstein, Test for malignant transformation of rat liver cells in culture: cytology, growth in soft agar, and production of plasminogen activator. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 59: 1651–1658, 1977.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    DiPaolo, J. A., R. L. Nelson, P. J. Donovan, and C. H. Evans, Host mediated in vivo-in vitro assay for chemical carcinogenesis. Arch. Pathol. 95: 380–385, 1973.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    DiPaolo, J. A., R. L. Nelson, and P. J. Donovan, In vitro transformation of Syrian hamster embryo cells by diverse chemical carcinogens. Nature 235: 278–280, 1972.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Quarles, J. M., M. W. Sega, C. K. Schenley, and R. W. Tennant, Rapid screening for chemical carcinogens: transforming activity of selected nitroso compounds detected in a transplacental host-mediated culture system. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 51: 257–263, 1979.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Casto, B., J. Meyers, and J. A. DiPaolo. Enhancement of viral transformation for evaluation of the carcinogenic or mutagenic potential of inorganic metal salts. Cancer Res. 39: 193–198, 1979.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Tissue Culture Mutagenesis Assays

  1. 1.
    Bouck, N., and G. di Mayorca, Somatic mutation as the basis for malignant transformation of BHK cells by chemical carcinogens. Nature 264: 722–727, 1976.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Peterson, A. R., J. R. Landolph, H. Peterson, and C. Heidelberger, Mutagenesis of Chinese hamster cells is facilitated by thymidine and deoxycytidine. Nature 276: 508–510, 1978.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    O’Neill, J. P., P. A. Brimer, R. Machanoff, G. P. Hirsch, and A. W. Hsie, A quantitative assay of mutation induction at the hypoxanthine-guanine phosphoribosyl transferase locus of Chinese hamster ovary cells (CHO/HGPRT system): development and definition of the system. Mutation Res. 45: 91–101, 1977.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hsie, A. W., P. A. Brimer, T. J. Mitchell, and D. G. Gosslee, The dose-response relationship for ethyl methanesulfonate-induced mutations at the hypoxanthine-guanine phosphoribosyl transferase locus in Chinese hamster ovary cells. Somatic Cell Genetics 1: 247–261, 1975.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Landolph, J. R., and C. Heidelberger, Chemical carcinogens produce mutations to ouabain resistance in transformable C3H/10T1/2C18 mouse fibroblast. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 76: 930–934, 1979.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Humana Press Inc. 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Max Costa
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Texas Medical School at Houston

Personalised recommendations