27.09.2014 Views

The Toxicologist - Society of Toxicology

The Toxicologist - Society of Toxicology

The Toxicologist - Society of Toxicology

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

this study we examined the effects <strong>of</strong> two agents that affect both CB1 and CB2 receptors,<br />

namely WIN 55,212-2 (WIN), an aminoalkylindole derivative, which<br />

mimics the effects <strong>of</strong> conventional cannabinoids, and cannabidiol (CBD), a major<br />

constituent in the plant cannabis sativa. WIN and CBD inhibited colon (SW480<br />

and RKO), pancreatic (L3.6pl) and prostate (LNCaP and PC3) cancer cell proliferation<br />

and growth inhibitory IC50 values for 24 hr were in the range <strong>of</strong> 5.54-5.83<br />

uM for WIN and 9.01-18.54 uM for CBD in these cell lines.Treatment <strong>of</strong> colon<br />

and prostate cancer cell lines for 24 hr with 5-7.5 uM concentrations <strong>of</strong> WIN also<br />

decreased specificity protein (Sp) transcription factors Sp1, Sp3 and Sp4 that are<br />

normally overexpressed in cancer cells and tumors. This was accompanied by decreased<br />

levels <strong>of</strong> Sp-dependent genes associated with cancer cell growth, survival<br />

(survivin) and angiogenesis (VEGF). Colon (SW480), pancreatic (L3.6pl) and<br />

prostate (PC3 and LNCaP) cancer cell proliferation was also inhibited after treatment<br />

with 10-15 uM CBD for 24 hr. CBD-dependent effects on Sp and Sp-dependent<br />

genes and inhibition <strong>of</strong> cell proliferation were observed at similar concentrations<br />

<strong>of</strong> CBD. However, when cells were cotreated with WIN or CBD plus<br />

specific CB1 and CB2 receptor antagonists downregulation <strong>of</strong> Sp transcription factors<br />

was not reversed. Moreover, treatment with thiol antioxidants did not block<br />

the effects <strong>of</strong> CB-dependent repression <strong>of</strong> Sp1, Sp3 or Sp4 and the mechanisms <strong>of</strong><br />

CB-Sp transcription factor interactions are currently being investigated.<br />

141 THE URINARY BLADDER CARCINOGEN PROPOXUR<br />

DOES NOT INDUCE GENOTOXIC EFFECTS IN THE<br />

URINARY BLADDER OF WISTAR MALE RATS.<br />

A. M. Jeffrey 1 , G. M. Williams 1 , M. J. Iatropoulos 1 , J. Duan 1 and G. Schmuck 2 .<br />

1<br />

Pathology, New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY and 2 Bayer Schering<br />

Pharmacology AG, Wuppertal, Germany.<br />

Propoxur (PPX) is a carbamate insecticide which induced bladder cancer in Wistar<br />

rats when fed at 5000 ppm in Altromin 1321 diet (1321). PPX was studied for several<br />

key events related to carcinogenicity in the urinary bladders (UBs) <strong>of</strong> Wistar<br />

rats administered the compound for 28 days at 8000 ppm in Provini Kliba SA 3883<br />

diet (3883), which is similar to the 1321 diet. o-Anisidine HCl (AH) was used as a<br />

genotoxic UB carcinogenic comparator, and trisodium nitrilotriacetate (NTA) as an<br />

epigenetic UB carcinogen comparator. For the untreated control and 3 test substance<br />

groups (PPX, AH, NTA), 4 additional groups were fed 2% ammonium<br />

chloride (AC) in the diet, to acidify the urine since 1321 is reported to increase urinary<br />

pH. AC did acidify the urine, as expected, although the 3883 diet itself did<br />

not increase pH values above 8. In the nucleotide 32P-postlabeling assay (NPL),<br />

AH produced DNA adducts in the UB urothelium (UBU), whereas PPX and NTA<br />

did not. In the alkaline comet assay, AH produced DNA strand breaks (DSBs),<br />

whereas PPX and NTA did not. Assessment <strong>of</strong> UBU cell proliferation as measured<br />

by immunohistochemistry <strong>of</strong> proliferating cell nuclear antigen, revealed that NTA<br />

and NTA plus AC increased the replicating fraction (RF). Also AH plus AC increased<br />

the RF <strong>of</strong> UBU, whereas PPX groups were not significantly different from<br />

controls. Thus, the results reveal no evidence for DNA binding or DSBs in the<br />

UBU by PPX, while confirming UBU DNA damage by AH and showing that<br />

NTA does not damage DNA. Also there was no evidence for stimulation or inhibition<br />

<strong>of</strong> DNA synthesis in the UBU by PPX.<br />

142 OXIDATIVE DNA DAMAGE AND HUMAN<br />

ESOPHAGEAL CANCER RISK IN HUAIAN, CHINA.<br />

L. Xu 1 , L. Tang 1 , X. Wang 2 , Z. Wang 3 , G. Sun 4 , S. Wang 4 , X. Hu 5 and J. S.<br />

Wang 1 . 1 Environmental Health Science, University <strong>of</strong> Georgia, Athens, GA,<br />

2<br />

University <strong>of</strong> Iowa, Iowa City, IA, 3 Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN,<br />

4<br />

Southeast University, Nanjing, China and 5 Chuzhou CDC, Huaian, China.<br />

Oxidative DNA damage plays important role in carcinogenesis and 8-hydroxy-2’-<br />

deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG), the most common oxidative DNA damage biomarker,<br />

has been shown to associate with exposure to many environmental carcinogens and<br />

formation <strong>of</strong> several cancer sites. However, its contributing role to human<br />

esophageal cancer remains unclear. To investigate its potential role in esophageal<br />

carcinogenesis, we conducted a population-based case-control study, with 188<br />

esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) cases and 524 age-, gender-, and residency-matched<br />

healthy controls recruited from Huaian, China, a high risk area <strong>of</strong><br />

ESCC. Levels <strong>of</strong> 8-OHdG in morning urine was determined by solid-phase extraction<br />

coupled with HPLC- electrochemical detection and adjusted by urinary creatinine.<br />

DNA repair gene, hOGG1, is responsible for repairing oxidative DNA damage<br />

and its single nucleotide polymorphism (Ser326Cys) was determined by<br />

PCR/RFLP using DNA extracted from peripheral blood lymphocytes. <strong>The</strong> averaged<br />

urinary 8-OHdG level in case group was 49.56 ± 235.66 μg/mg creatinine<br />

(mean±SD; range: 1.28 – 3210.23 μg/mg creatinine), with a median level <strong>of</strong> 22.04<br />

μg/mg creatinine. <strong>The</strong> averaged urinary 8-OHdG level in the control group was<br />

23.30 ± 47.32 μg/mg creatinine (range: 0.71 – 817.22) with median level <strong>of</strong> 13.71<br />

μg/mg creatinine. Levels <strong>of</strong> 8-OHdG in cases were significantly higher than those<br />

in controls (p

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!