Ellinger-Ziegelbauer Heidrun, Stuart Barry, Wahle Brad, Bomann Werner, Ahr Hans Juergen
Bayer Healthcare AG, Department of Molecular and Genetic Toxicology, Aprather Weg 18a, 42096 Wuppertal, Germany.
Mutat Res. 2005 Aug 4;575(1-2):61-84. doi: 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2005.02.004.
Application of recently developed gene expression techniques using microarrays in toxicological studies (toxicogenomics) facilitate the interpretation of a toxic compound's mode of action and may also allow the prediction of selected toxic effects based on gene expression changes. In order to test this hypothesis, we investigated whether carcinogens at doses known to induce liver tumors in the 2-year rat bioassay deregulate characteristic sets of genes in a short term in vivo study and whether these deregulated genes represent defined biological pathways. Male Wistar rats were dosed with the four nongenotoxic hepatocarcinogens methapyrilene (MPy, 60 mg/kg/day), diethylstilbestrol (DES, 10 mg/kg/day), Wy-14643 (Wy, 60 mg/kg/day), and piperonylbutoxide (PBO, 1200 mg/kg/day). After 1, 3, 7, and 14 days, the livers were taken for histopathological evaluation and for analysis of the gene expression profiles on Affymetrix RG_U34A arrays. The expression profile of the four nongenotoxic carcinogens were compared to the profiles of the four genotoxic carcinogens 2-nitrofluorene (2-NF), dimethylnitrosamine (DMN), 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK), and aflatoxin B1 (AB1) from a similar study reported previously. By using statistical and clustering tools characteristically deregulated genes were extracted and functionally classified. Distinct cellular pathways were affected by the nongenotoxic carcinogens compared to the genotoxic carcinogens which at least partly correlated with the two-stage model of carcinogenesis. Characteristic to genotoxic carcinogens were a DNA damage response and the activation of proliferative and survival signaling. Nongenotoxic carcinogens showed responses to oxidative DNA or protein damage, as well as cell cycle progression and signs of regeneration. Many of the gene alterations found with the nongenotoxic carcinogens imply compound-specific mechanisms. Although neither a single gene nor a single pathway will be sufficient to discriminate the two classes of carcinogens, it became evident that combinations of pathway-associated gene expression profiles may be used to predict a genotoxic or nongenotoxic carcinogenic potential of a compound in short-term studies.
将最近开发的使用微阵列的基因表达技术应用于毒理学研究(毒理基因组学),有助于阐释有毒化合物的作用模式,还可能基于基因表达变化预测特定的毒性效应。为了验证这一假设,我们进行了研究:在一项短期体内研究中,已知在两年期大鼠生物测定中可诱发肝肿瘤的剂量的致癌物是否会在短期内使特定的基因集失调,以及这些失调的基因是否代表特定的生物学途径。给雄性Wistar大鼠分别施用四种非遗传毒性致癌物,即甲吡咯(MPy,60毫克/千克/天)、己烯雌酚(DES,10毫克/千克/天)、Wy-14643(Wy,60毫克/千克/天)和胡椒基丁醚(PBO,1200毫克/千克/天)。在1、3、7和14天后,取出肝脏进行组织病理学评估,并在Affymetrix RG_U34A芯片上分析基因表达谱。将这四种非遗传毒性致癌物的表达谱与先前一项类似研究中四种遗传毒性致癌物2-硝基芴(2-NF)、二甲基亚硝胺(DMN)、4-(甲基亚硝胺基)-1-(3-吡啶基)-1-丁酮(NNK)和黄曲霉毒素B1(AB1)的表达谱进行比较。通过使用统计和聚类工具,提取出特征性失调的基因并进行功能分类。与遗传毒性致癌物相比,非遗传毒性致癌物影响不同的细胞途径,这至少部分与致癌作用的两阶段模型相关。遗传毒性致癌物的特征是DNA损伤反应以及增殖和存活信号的激活。非遗传毒性致癌物表现出对氧化性DNA或蛋白质损伤的反应,以及细胞周期进程和再生迹象。在非遗传毒性致癌物中发现的许多基因改变暗示了化合物特异性机制。尽管单个基因或单个途径都不足以区分这两类致癌物,但很明显,与途径相关的基因表达谱组合可用于在短期研究中预测化合物的遗传毒性或非遗传毒性致癌潜力。