Singer B
Cancer Invest. 1984;2(3):233-8. doi: 10.3109/07357908409104377.
The original hypothesis that chemical alteration of DNA can ultimately lead to carcinogenesis had been extended to a concept that the presence and persistence (lack of removal) of O6-alkyl G in an organ or cell population is the important requirement for tumorigenesis by alkylating agents. There are, however, many examples given in the text in which the organ specificity does not correlate with the amount of O6-alkyl G, and indeed, in some instances, no tumors result even though it can be shown that the DNA of many organs contains O6-alkyl G and that cell proliferation occurs. In some cases, there are clearly genetic factors. For example, the brain tumor incidence in two mouse strains differ but O6-alkyl G persistence is the same. Differing amounts or repair capability of O6-alkyl G in species, organs, or cells is not sufficient to explain variations in tumor incidence. Consideration must be given to other alkyl derivatives formed by alkylating carcinogens since at least six derivatives can lead to mispairing. Additionally, depurination has profound biological effects and evidence is emerging that bulky carcinogens such as aflatoxin and N-hydroxy-acetylaminofluorene cause rapid depurination (42). The role of phosphotriesters is as yet unknown. In attempting to come to a conclusion concerning the mode of tumor initiation by alkylating agents, we must not ignore the differences between alkyl groups. Dr. Pegg's paper focuses mainly on methylation, while my arguments stress ethylation. When the number of O6-methylguanines greatly exceeds that of O-methyl-pyrimidines, the former is more likely to be the initiating event. However, ethylation is generally more carcinogenic than methylation, if one considers that much less total alkylation is necessary for tumor development. The O-ethylpyrimidines produced by N-nitroso ethylating agents are more numerous than the O6-ethylguanines and they appear to be more persistent; that is, poorly repaired. Table 3 in Dr. Pegg's paper gives strong support to the potential initiation efficiency of the O4-ethylthymine and perhaps even to the idea that some yet-unidentified event is responsible for the carcinogenicity of diethylnitrosamine.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
最初认为DNA的化学改变最终可导致致癌作用的假说,已扩展为一种概念,即某一器官或细胞群体中O6-烷基鸟嘌呤的存在和持续存在(缺乏清除)是烷基化剂致瘤的重要条件。然而,文中给出了许多例子,其中器官特异性与O6-烷基鸟嘌呤的量并不相关,实际上,在某些情况下,即使可以证明许多器官的DNA含有O6-烷基鸟嘌呤且细胞发生增殖,也不会产生肿瘤。在某些情况下,显然存在遗传因素。例如,两种小鼠品系的脑肿瘤发生率不同,但O6-烷基鸟嘌呤的持续存在情况相同。物种、器官或细胞中O6-烷基鸟嘌呤的量或修复能力不同,不足以解释肿瘤发生率的差异。必须考虑由烷基化致癌物形成的其他烷基衍生物,因为至少有六种衍生物可导致错配。此外,脱嘌呤具有深远的生物学效应,并且越来越多的证据表明,黄曲霉毒素和N-羟基-乙酰氨基芴等大分子致癌物会导致快速脱嘌呤(42)。磷酸三酯的作用尚不清楚。在试图就烷基化剂引发肿瘤的方式得出结论时,我们绝不能忽视烷基之间的差异。佩格博士的论文主要关注甲基化,而我的观点强调乙基化。当O6-甲基鸟嘌呤的数量大大超过O-甲基嘧啶的数量时,前者更有可能是引发事件。然而,如果考虑到肿瘤发生所需的总烷基化量要少得多,那么乙基化通常比甲基化更具致癌性。N-亚硝基乙基化剂产生的O-乙基嘧啶比O6-乙基鸟嘌呤更多,而且它们似乎更持久;也就是说,修复能力差。佩格博士论文中的表3有力地支持了O4-乙基胸腺嘧啶的潜在引发效率,甚至可能支持这样一种观点,即某些尚未确定的事件是二乙基亚硝胺致癌性的原因。(摘要截选至400字)