Swenberg James A, Fryar-Tita Elizabeth, Jeong Yo-Chan, Boysen Gunnar, Starr Thomas, Walker Vernon E, Albertini Richard J
Department of Environmental Sciences & Engineering, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, USA.
Chem Res Toxicol. 2008 Jan;21(1):253-65. doi: 10.1021/tx700408t. Epub 2007 Dec 28.
Tremendous advances have been made in the study of biomarkers related to carcinogenesis during the past 20 years. This perspective will briefly review improvements in methodology and instrumentation that have increased our abilities to measure the formation, repair, and consequences of DNA adducts. These biomarkers of exposure, along with surrogates such as protein adducts, have greatly improved our understanding of species differences in metabolism and effects of chemical stability and DNA repair on tissue differences in molecular dose. During this same time frame, improvements in assays for biomarkers of effect have provided better data and an improved understanding of the dose responses for both gene and chromosomal mutations. A framework analysis approach was used to examine the mode of action of genotoxic chemicals and the default assumption that cancer can be expected to be linear at very low doses. This analysis showed that biomarkers of exposure are usually linear at low doses, with the exception being when identical adducts are formed endogenously. Whereas biomarkers of exposure extrapolate down to zero, biomarkers of effect can only be interpolated back to the spontaneous or background number of mutations. The likely explanation for this major difference is that at high exposures, the biology that results in mutagenesis is driven by DNA damage resulting from the chemical exposure. In contrast, at very low exposures, the biology that results in mutagenesis is driven by endogenous DNA damage. The shapes of the dose-response curves for biomarkers of exposure and effect can be very different, with biomarkers of effect better informing quantitative estimates of risk for cancer, a disease that results from multiple mutations. It is also clear, however, that low dose data on mutagenesis are needed for many more chemicals.
在过去20年里,与致癌作用相关的生物标志物研究取得了巨大进展。本综述将简要回顾方法学和仪器设备方面的改进,这些改进提高了我们测量DNA加合物的形成、修复及其后果的能力。这些暴露生物标志物以及诸如蛋白质加合物等替代物,极大地增进了我们对代谢中的物种差异以及化学稳定性和DNA修复对分子剂量组织差异影响的理解。在同一时期,效应生物标志物检测方法的改进提供了更好的数据,并增进了我们对基因和染色体突变剂量反应的理解。采用框架分析方法来研究遗传毒性化学物质的作用模式以及默认假设,即预计癌症在极低剂量下呈线性关系。该分析表明,暴露生物标志物在低剂量下通常呈线性关系,内源性形成相同加合物的情况除外。暴露生物标志物可以外推至零,而效应生物标志物只能内插回自发或背景突变数。造成这一重大差异的可能解释是,在高暴露水平下,导致诱变的生物学过程是由化学暴露引起的DNA损伤驱动的。相比之下,在极低暴露水平下,导致诱变的生物学过程是由内源性DNA损伤驱动的。暴露生物标志物和效应生物标志物的剂量反应曲线形状可能非常不同,效应生物标志物能更好地为癌症风险的定量估计提供信息,癌症是一种由多种突变导致的疾病。然而,同样清楚的是,还需要更多化学物质的低剂量诱变数据。