26.12.2012 Views

Toxicology of Industrial Compounds

Toxicology of Industrial Compounds

Toxicology of Industrial Compounds

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.

190 MOLECULAR APPROACHES TO ASSESS CANCER RISKS<br />

‘labile’ adducts formed, for example, during exposure to aromatic amines<br />

(Green et al., 1984; Albrecht and Neumann, 1985) is beyond the scope <strong>of</strong><br />

this paper (for reviews see Farmer, 1991; Skipper and Naylor, 1991).<br />

However, probably the most powerful and valuable approach was<br />

developed by Törnqvist et al. (1986a, b) who showed that adducts with the<br />

N-terminal valine residues <strong>of</strong> haemoglobin could be specifically enriched by<br />

scission in a modified Edman reaction followed by extraction. This<br />

enrichment procedure greatly facilitates sample analysis by GC/MS.<br />

Immunoassays are also being introduced as alternatives to physicochemical<br />

methods for the determination <strong>of</strong> protein adducts (Wraith et al., 1988).<br />

However, as in the case <strong>of</strong> DNA adducts, the biggest impact <strong>of</strong><br />

immunotechnology on the analysis <strong>of</strong> protein adducts will probably be in<br />

the immunoenrichment <strong>of</strong> low levels <strong>of</strong> adducts for analysis by physicochemical<br />

methods.<br />

Determination <strong>of</strong> biological effects<br />

Tumour incidence<br />

The determination <strong>of</strong> target dose is essential for assessing cancer risks<br />

posed by low-level exposures to genotoxic chemicals. The other requisite is<br />

know ledge <strong>of</strong> the human dose-carcinogenic response relationships in the<br />

low-dose range. The lack <strong>of</strong> intrinsic resolving power <strong>of</strong> classical<br />

epidemiological methods (vide supra) prevents effective applications to<br />

detect small carcinogenic effects associated with low exposures to any<br />

particular genotoxic chemical. Furthermore, the detection limits <strong>of</strong> animal<br />

cancer studies fall short <strong>of</strong> ‘acceptable’ risk limits by three to four orders <strong>of</strong><br />

magnitude (Wright, 1991). This poor sensitivity compels the use <strong>of</strong> high<br />

test doses in order to ensure that significant carcinogens do not go<br />

undetected. However, it is generally accepted that high doses <strong>of</strong> chemicals<br />

may induce tumours by non-specific mechanisms, e.g. via tissue injury and<br />

compensatory cell proliferation, that do not operate at low doses (Ames,<br />

1989; Wright, 1991). Many, if not all genotoxic chemicals induce cell<br />

injury at high (thresholded) doses. Clearly, extrapolation <strong>of</strong> such high dose<br />

risk data to the relevant low-dose range may, at the very least, lead to a<br />

gross overestimation <strong>of</strong> risk.<br />

Determination <strong>of</strong> mutagenic potency<br />

In considering the impact that a low-level exposure to a genotoxic<br />

chemical may have on cancer incidence, it is reasonable to suggest that the<br />

mutagenic propensity <strong>of</strong> the chemical, although <strong>of</strong> a low order, would<br />

nevertheless be the overriding risk factor. Thus, it is probable that any

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!