![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||||
Copyright © The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved Polyamines stimulate the formation of mutagenic 1,N2-propanodeoxyguanosine adducts from acetaldehyde Section on Molecular Neurobiology, Laboratory of Neurogenetics, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, NIH, 5625 Fishers Lane, Room 3S32, MSC 9412, Bethesda, MD 20952-9412, USA 1Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Bldg 227, Room A243, MS 8311 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8311, USA 2Department of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering, University of Maryland Baltimore Country, Balitmore, MD 22777, USA *To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel: +1 301 496 7920; Fax: +1 301 480 2839; Email: pjbrooks/at/mail.nih.gov Present address: Raghu G. Nath, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, 3800 Reservoir Road NW, Washington, DC 20057, USA Received April 18, 2005; Revised May 28, 2005; Accepted May 28, 2005. The online version of this article has been published under an open access model. Users are entitled to use, reproduce, disseminate, or display the open access version of this article for non-commercial purposes provided that: the original authorship is properly and fully attributed; the Journal and Oxford University Press are attributed as the original place of publication with the correct citation details given; if an article is subsequently reproduced or disseminated not in its entirety but only in part or as a derivative work this must be clearly indicated. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions/at/oupjournals.org This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Abstract Alcoholic beverage consumption is associated with an increased risk of upper gastrointestinal cancer. Acetaldehyde (AA), the first metabolite of ethanol, is a suspected human carcinogen, but the molecular mechanisms underlying AA carcinogenicity are unclear. In this work, we tested the hypothesis that polyamines could facilitate the formation of mutagenic α-methyl-γ-hydroxy-1,N2-propano-2′-deoxyguanosine (Cr-PdG) adducts from biologically relevant AA concentrations. We found that Cr-PdG adducts could be formed by reacting deoxyguanosine with μM concentrations of AA in the presence of spermidine, but not with either AA or spermidine alone. The identities of the Cr-PdG adducts were confirmed by both liquid and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Using a novel isotope-dilution liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry assay, we found that in the presence of 5 mM spermidine, AA concentrations of 100 μM and above resulted in the formation of Cr-PdG in genomic DNA. These AA levels are within the range that occurs in human saliva after alcoholic beverage consumption. We also showed that spermidine directly reacts with AA to generate crotonaldehyde (CrA), most likely via an enamine aldol condensation mechanism. We propose that AA derived from ethanol metabolism is converted to CrA by polyamines in dividing cells, forming Cr-PdG adducts, which may be responsible for the carcinogenicity of alcoholic beverage consumption. INTRODUCTION Alcoholic beverage consumption is strongly associated with an increased risk of certain types of cancers, especially cancers of the upper gastrointestinal tract (1). According to the 11th Report on Carcinogens, alcoholic beverage consumption is classified as a known human carcinogen (2). While the mechanisms underlying the effect of alcoholic beverage consumption on cancer risk are not completely understood, it is likely that acetaldehyde (AA), the first metabolite of alcohol, plays an important role. AA is a mutagen (3), a carcinogen in animal models (4), and causes chromosomal damage, including sister-chromatid exchanges (SCEs) and chromosomal aberrations (CAs) (5). AA is currently classified as a suspected human carcinogen (2). AA is formed from ethanol by the action of alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH), and subsequently converted to acetate by aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH) (6). Variants of human ADH or ALDH genes that are associated with increased AA levels after ethanol consumption are protective against the development of alcoholism (7). However, these same alleles increase the risk of developing gastrointestinal cancer as a result of alcoholic beverage consumption (8,9). While cellular ADHs represent an important source of AA, AA can also be formed in the human oral cavity by the action of microorganisms, including yeasts and bacteria (10,11). Owing in large part to microbial AA production, AA concentrations in human saliva have been measured to be 100 μM under laboratory conditions, and by extrapolation may be as high as 450 μM (10). Importantly, genetic variants of ALDH2 and ADH1C that are associated with an increased risk of cancer are also associated with increased salivary AA levels after alcohol consumption (12,13). The molecular mechanisms underlying the genotoxic and carcinogenic effects of AA are not yet fully understood. In DNA, AA has been shown to react with 2′-deoxyguanosine (dG) to form N2-ethyl-2′-deoxyguanosine (N2-EtdG) (14). Vaca et al. (15,16) detected elevated levels of this adduct in animal models of alcohol exposure and in white blood cells of human alcoholics. However, this adduct does not appear to have significant mutagenic properties in mammalian cells (17,18), although it is mutagenic when bypassed by a bacterial DNA polymerase (19). Moreover, while some other biological effects of this adduct have been reported (20), it is not clear how this specific adduct could be responsible for the cytogenetic abnormalities (increased SCE and CA formation) (5) that have been observed following AA exposure. More recent studies have shown that several additional adducts can be formed from AA and DNA. Notable among these are a propano-dG adduct, α-methyl-γ-hydroxy-1,N2-propano-2′-deoxyguanosine (21,22) (Cr-PdG), which results from the interaction of crotonaldehyde (CrA) with dG or DNA. CrA is an environmental pollutant, and this adduct is believed to be responsible for its mutagenic and genotoxic effects (23,24). The Cr-PdG adducts are also endogenous lesions (25), apparently derived from lipid peroxidation (26). Other cyclic-dG adducts can exist in either of two forms, ring-opened or ring-closed (27,28). In the case of acrolein–PdG adduct, which is most similar to Cr-PdG, a structural NMR study has shown that the ring-closed form predominates in single-stranded DNA, while the ring-opened form is more favorable in the duplex DNA (29). While similar structural analyses have yet to be carried out with the Cr-PdG adduct, the observations that the Cr-PdG adduct can form DNA–DNA interstrand cross-links (ICLs) (30) and DNA–peptide cross-links (31), and that the DNA–peptide cross-links occurred more rapidly in double-stranded versus single-stranded DNA, indicate that this adduct can also undergo ring-opening, and this is likely to be favored in double-stranded DNA. While these properties of the Cr-PdG adduct and its cross-linked derivatives would be consistent with the observed genotoxic effects of AA, the 40 mM concentration of AA used to generate this lesion in vitro (21) is in excess of what would be generated in the human body from ethanol metabolism. Recently, Sako and co-workers (32,33) have, however, shown that histones or the basic amino acids arginine or lysine can facilitate the formation of Cr-PdG from AA and dG or from AA and DNA, although these studies were also carried using a high AA concentration (≈594 mM) (33). These observations prompted us to ask whether polyamines might also affect the reaction of AA with DNA. Similar to histones, polyamines are highly basic molecules. They are present in millimolar concentrations in mammalian cells (34) and concentrated in the nucleus (35). Polyamines have been implicated in a wide variety of cellular functions, including cell growth, differentiation and regulation of nucleic acid synthesis (36) and more recently in protection against oxidative damage (37,38). With regard to genotoxicity, polyamines can influence chemical carcinogenesis (39,40) and the genotoxic effects of ionizing radiation (34,41). Therefore, in the present work, we tested the hypothesis that polyamines could also facilitate the formation of Cr-PdG from AA and dG or from AA and DNA. We found that under physiologically relevant conditions, polyamines stimulate Cr-PdG formation from AA and dG or from AA and DNA by directly reacting with AA to generate CrA. The implications of these results for understanding the mechanisms by which alcoholic beverage consumption increases the risk of cancer development are discussed. MATERIALS AND METHODS 2′-Deoxyguanosine, l-Arginine, shrimp alkaline phosphatase, snake venom phosphodiesterase and pyridine were purchased from Sigma Chemical Co (St Louis, MO). Spermidine trihydrochloride and spermine tetrahydrochloride were from Fluka Chemie GmbH (Buchs, Switzerland). AA and CrA were from Supelco (Bellefonte, PA). AA was purchased in multiple 1 ml glass ampoules, and a fresh ampoule was used for each experiment. 2′-Deoxyguanosine-13C10, 15N5 was purchased from Medical Isotopes (Pelham, NH), nuclease P1 was purchased from Roche Diagnostics Corp (Indianapolis, IN), N,O-bis(trimethylsilyl)trifluororacetamide (BSTFA) containing 1% trimethylcholorosilane and dialysis cassettes were obtained from Pierce Chemicals (Rockford, IL). High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) grade solvents, acetonitrile from Burdick & Jackson (Muskegon, MI) and water from Omnisolv (EMD Chemical Inc., Gibbstown, NJ) were used as received. Biomax5 ultrafiltration membranes (5 kDa molecular mass cutoff) from Millipore (Bedford, MA) were used to filter the digested DNA samples. Pig liver DNA was isolated using high salt method (42). HPLC HPLC analysis was carried out using a Varian HPLC (Prostar, model 210) with a UV-visible detector (Prostar, model 310). A reverse-phase Varian C-18 column (Microsorb 25 × 0.46 cm ID, 5 μm) was used for analytical applications and a Varian C-18 semi-preparative column (Microsorb 25 × 1.0 cm ID, 5 μm) was used for preparative purposes. All analyses were carried out using a water–acetonitrile solvent system (A: 100% water, B: 100% Acetonitrile; 0–25 min: 0–15% B, 25–30 min: 15–70% B, 30–40 min: 70% B, 40–45 min: 70–0% B, 45–60 min: 0% B; Flow rate: 1 ml/min). Analytical injections were performed using an auto sampler (Varian, model 430). In the preparative HPLC, the flow rate was kept at 3.76 ml/min in order to keep the same retention time as in analytical HPLC. The chromatograph was monitored at 254 nm. The Cr-PdG fractions were collected using an automated Varian fraction collector (Prostar, model 701) attached to the preparative HPLC. Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) GC-MS analysis was conducted using a 6890N network GC system with a 5973N Mass Selective Detector (MSD) (Agilent Technologies, Rockville, MD). The column was a J&W Scientific Ultra-2 fused silica capillary, (12.5 m, 0.2 mm ID, 0.33 μm film thickness) purchased from Agilent Technologies. Ultra-high purity helium from Roberts Oxygen Company, Inc. (Rockville, MD) was used as the carrier gas. The carrier gas flow was set at 0.8 ml/min. The temperature at the inlet was maintained at 250°C and the GC-MS interface kept at 280°C. The temperature program of the oven was started at 130°C and held for 2 min followed by a ramp of 8°C/min up to 280°C. The temperature settings of the MSD were 230°C at the ion source and 150°C at the mass filter. The MSD was operated based on electron ionization (EI). The selected-ion monitoring (SIM) mode was applied for the quantification of the adducts using stable isotope-labeled internal standards. The column head pressure was kept at 65 kPa. The samples were lyophilized using a Flexi-Dry MP freeze drier from Kinetics Thermal Systems (Stone Ridge, NY) prior to trimethylsilylation. The lyophilized samples were dissolved in 100 μl of the mixture of BSTFA and pyridine (1:1), and trimethylsilylated at room temperature for 3 h in a closed vial. An aliquot of 3 μl of the derivatized sample was injected into the injection port of the gas chromatograph using an auto sampler (Agilent Technologies, 7683 series injector). The inlet was adjusted to make a split mode injection with 10:1 split ratio. For the detection of CrA, the column flow was reduced to 0.6 ml/min and the temperature program was started at 60°C with 2 min of holding followed by a ramp of 15°C/min up to 280°C. These samples were injected without derivatization. Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) LC-MS analysis was carried out using an Agilent Technologies 1100B Series system. The details of the system and methods are described elsewhere (43). AA reactions with dG In the reactions shown in Figure 1
The dependence of Cr-PdG adduct formation on AA or spermidine concentration was analyzed by LC-MS. For AA dependence, the spermidine concentration was kept at 5 mM and the AA concentration varied from 25 to 500 μM (Figure 3a
AA reactions with DNA In the reaction of AA with DNA, 200 μg of DNA in 0.1 M phosphate buffer (pH 7.0) was allowed to react with 25 μM–4 mM AA in the presence or absence of 5 mM spermidine. Reactions were carried out in tightly capped tubes for 36 h at 37°C. The DNA was dialyzed against 0.5 M NaCl for 24 h, and then precipitated using cold ethanol. For the mass spectrometric analysis, 50 μg of modified DNA was dissolved in a mixture of 50 μl Tris–HCl (10 mM, pH 7.5) and 1.25 μl of 1 M sodium acetate containing 45 mM ZnCl2. An aliquot of 3 U of nuclease P1, 0.002 U of SVPD and 16 U of alkaline phosphatase were added and incubated at 37°C overnight. Aliquots of isotopically labeled Cr-PdG and N2-EtdG adducts were added to the digestion mixture as internal standards. Digested DNA samples were filtered through an Amicon filter (5 kDa MWCO) and injected into the LC-MS. The concentration curves shown in Figures 3
RESULTS To determine whether polyamines could facilitate the formation of Cr-PdG, dG was incubated with AA, polyamine, or both in the presence of neutral phosphate buffer. Treatment of dG with AA alone (Figure 1a To confirm the identity of the peaks resulting from the reaction of AA, dG and spermidine as Cr-PdG adducts, we analyzed the Cr-PdG adducts prepared by directly reacting dG with CrA. The synthetic Cr-PdG adducts derived from the CrA reaction showed the same elution properties as those from the AA and spermidine reaction (Figure 1d To rigorously confirm their identities, the two adducts resulting from the reaction of AA and polyamine with dG were purified by preparative HPLC and analyzed by GC-MS analysis after trimethylsilylation. Both diastereomers of the Cr-PdG gave identical mass spectra (Figure 2b
For quantification purposes, we synthesized the isotopically labeled Cr-PdG adducts using dG-13C10,15N5 and AA in the presence of arginine. The mass spectrum of the trimethylsilylated Cr-PdG-13C10,15N5 gave the expected corresponding mass spectrum of Cr-PdG with 15 additional mass units for M+• and (M-15)+ ions and 10 additional mass units for ions representing the base moiety (Figure 2c Initial attempts to detect the Cr-PdG adduct formation from dG or DNA incubated with lower concentration of AA and spermidine using GC-MS were unsuccessful, due to the partial instability of the Cr-PdG adduct under GC-MS conditions. While others have used either post labeling (25) or LC-MS analysis of free Cr-PdG base (33), we chose to develop an LC-MS assay for the Cr-PdG adducts. Analysis of synthetic Cr-PdG adducts by LC-MS yielded typical ions at m/z 222, 338 and 360. The ion at m/z 222 represents the base moiety with two additional H atoms (BH2+ ion). The ion at m/z 338 corresponds to the protonated molecular ion (MH+) and the ion at m/z 360 is the sodium adduct ion (MNa+). These types of ions are typical of nucleosides in LC-MS analysis. The corresponding ions from the isotopically labeled standard were at m/z 232, 353 and 375, respectively. No ions corresponding to free dG were observed from the purified adduct preparations, indicating that in contrast to GC-MS, the Cr-PdG adducts are stable under LC-MS conditions. Using LC-MS with isotope dilution, we next assessed the dependence of Cr-PdG lesion formation with dG in response to different, biologically relevant concentrations of AA or spermidine. As shown in Figure 3a We next investigated the effect of varying concentrations of AA on the formation of Cr-PdG adducts in DNA in the presence or absence of 5 mM spermidine. This value was chosen as the high end of the physiological polyamine concentration range (34). The identification and quantification of Cr-PdG adducts were performed using the SIM mode, monitoring the ions m/z 222, 338 and 360. Figure 4a Spermidine reacts directly with AA to form CrA The fact that we observed the same ratio of Cr-PdG diastereomers from combined AA and spermidine treatment as we did from CrA alone (Figure 1
DISCUSSION There is strong evidence to support an important role for AA, the first metabolite of ethanol, in carcinogenesis related to alcoholic beverage consumption. However, the molecular mechanisms underlying this effect are poorly understood. The most commonly studied AA–DNA adduct, N2-ethyl-dG, has not been clearly shown to be mutagenic in mammalian systems. AA has previously been shown to cause the formation of the mutagenic DNA adduct, Cr-PdG, but only at supraphysiological AA concentrations (21,33). Here, we show that polyamines facilitate the formation of the mutagenic Cr-PdG adduct from AA and dG or from AA and DNA. Importantly, this effect was observed at a biologically relevant (34) polyamine concentration, and with AA concentrations overlapping the range that could result in human saliva after ethanol consumption (up to 450 μM) (10). AA concentrations in other gastrointestinal tissues can be even higher; AA levels as high as 2.7 mM have been detected in rodent colon after ethanol exposure (45). The relative amounts of the different Cr-PdG diastereomers formed from reactions with AA and dG can provide information on the mechanism of lesion formation (21,46). Our observation that the ratio of the different diastereomers formed from AA, spermidine and dG was the same as from CrA and dG (Figure 1 Based on the work of Sako et al. (48,49), the most likely molecular mechanism of CrA formation from AA involves the formation of an imine intermediate, by the reaction between the amino group of the polyamine and the carbonyl group of AA. This imine intermediate also exists in an enamine tautomeric form. These two forms can undergo charge polarization followed by an aldol type condensation reaction and the elimination of two molecules of amine to ultimately form CrA (Figure 6
Polyamines are essential for cell growth, and polyamine synthesis is tightly related to cellular proliferation, with the highest levels being found in rapidly dividing cells (36). Ethanol and AA increase cell proliferation in gastrointestinal mucosa (50), and AA specifically has been shown to increase mucosal levels of ornithine decarboxylase, the rate limiting enzyme for polyamine synthesis (51). Based on our observations, this effect of AA would also make the cells more susceptible to Cr-PdG formation from AA. Lipid peroxidation has been considered as the main source for the formation of intracellular CrA. While it has been shown that Cr-PdG can be formed in vitro by treating dG with a lipid peroxide-generating mixture (26), this does not necessarily mean that the only mechanism for in vivo formation of the lesion is lipid peroxidation. Polyamines are abundant in cells, and AA is produced in cells during threonine catabolism (52). Also, small amounts of AA may be produced as a byproduct of repair of ethylation damage to DNA (53). Therefore, our observation that AA is converted to CrA in the presence of polyamines provides another potential source for the formation of Cr-PdG lesions and for endogenous CrA. It has been shown that oligonucleotides containing Cr-PdG can cross-link to peptides, and that this reaction is more rapid in double-stranded than single-stranded DNA (31). DNA–peptide cross-links can be considered as models for DNA–protein cross-links (DPCLs). The Cr-PdG adduct can also react with guanine on the opposite strand of DNA to form a DNA ICL (22,30). These observations indicate that the Cr-PdG adduct can exist in a ring-opened form, and could therefore form DPCLs or ICLs in vivo. AA has been shown to form DPCLs in vitro (54), and these lesions are mechanistically consistent with the observed increases in SCEs observed in mammalian cells after AA treatment (55). The formation of DNA ICLs is also mechanistically consistent with increased CA observed after AA in cultured mammalian cells and in lymphocytes from human alcoholics (56). Moreover, the extent of AA induced CAs were dramatically elevated in cells from a patient with Fanconi's anemia (57), which are known to be highly sensitive to CA formation when exposed to compounds that form DNA ICLs (58). Based on these considerations, the Cr-PdG adducts appear to be good candidates for mediating the effects of AA on alcoholic beverage related cancer. If this is the case, it follows that in addition to genetic variation in ADH and ALDH genes, polymorphisms in the genes encoding DNA repair proteins that repair Cr-PdG adducts and their derivatives (DPCLs and ICLs) would also affect susceptibility to cancer from alcoholic beverage consumption. The observation (57) that cells from a Fanconi's anemia patient are susceptible to CA formation after AA exposure would suggest that investigating the role of sequence variation in the Fanconi genes, including BRCA2 (59), on alcoholic beverage related carcinogenesis might be a fruitful line of research. Acknowledgments The authors thank Katie Krone for isolating the genomic DNA used in this work, Katie Krone and Cheryl Marietta for helpful comments on the manuscript, and Cheryl Marietta for preliminary experiments. The authors also thank two anonymous reviewers for several helpful comments. Certain commercial equipment or materials are identified in this paper in order to specify adequately the experimental procedure. Such identification neither does it imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology nor does imply that the materials or equipment identified are necessarily the best available for the purpose. Funding to pay the Open Access publication charges for this article was provided by NIAAA. Conflict of interest statement. None declared. REFERENCES 1. Poschl G., Seitz H.K. Alcohol and cancer. Alcohol Alcohol. 2004;39:155–165. [PubMed] 2. http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s007alco.pdf Report on Carcinogens, 11th edn. 2005. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program. 3. Dellarco V.L. A mutagenicity assessment of acetaldehyde. Mutat. Res. 1988;195:1–20. [PubMed] 4. Woutersen R.A., Appelman L.M., Van Garderen-Hoetmer A., Feron V.J. Inhalation toxicity of acetaldehyde in rats. III. Carcinogenicity study. Toxicology. 1986;41:213–231. [PubMed] 5. Obe G., Anderson D. International Commission for Protection against Environmental Mutagens and Carcinogens. ICPEMC Working Paper No. 15/1. Genetic effects of ethanol. Mutat. Res. 1987;186:177–200. [PubMed] 6. Ramchandani V.A., Bosron W.F., Li T.K. Research advances in ethanol metabolism. Pathol. Biol. (Paris). 2001;49:676–682. [PubMed] 7. Chen C.C., Lu R.B., Chen Y.C., Wang M.F., Chang Y.C., Li T.K., Yin S.J. Interaction between the functional polymorphisms of the alcohol-metabolism genes in protection against alcoholism. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 1999;65:795–807. [PubMed] 8. Yokoyama A., Muramatsu T., Ohmori T., Yokoyama T., Okuyama K., Takahashi H., Hasegawa Y., Higuchi S., Maruyama K., Shirakura K., Ishii H. Alcohol-related cancers and aldehyde dehydrogenase-2 in Japanese alcoholics. Carcinogenesis. 1998;19:1383–1387. [PubMed] 9. Yokoyama A., Omori T. Genetic polymorphisms of alcohol and aldehyde dehydrogenases and risk for esophageal and head and neck cancers. Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol. 2003;33:111–121. [PubMed] 10. Homann N., Jousimies-Somer H., Jokelainen K., Heine R., Salaspuro M. High acetaldehyde levels in saliva after ethanol consumption: methodological aspects and pathogenetic implications. Carcinogenesis. 1997;18:1739–1743. [PubMed] 11. Salaspuro M.P. Acetaldehyde, microbes, and cancer of the digestive tract. Crit. Rev. Clin. Lab. Sci. 2003;40:183–208. [PubMed] 12. Vakevainen S., Tillonen J., Agarwal D.P., Srivastava N., Salaspuro M. High salivary acetaldehyde after a moderate dose of alcohol in ALDH2-deficient subjects: strong evidence for the local carcinogenic action of acetaldehyde. Alcohol Clin. Exp. Res. 2000;24:873–877. [PubMed] 13. Visapaa J.P., Gotte K., Benesova M., Li J., Homann N., Conradt C., Inoue H., Tisch M., Horrmann K., Vakevainen S., et al. Increased cancer risk in heavy drinkers with the alcohol dehydrogenase 1C*1 allele, possibly due to salivary acetaldehyde. Gut. 2004;53:871–876. [PubMed] 14. Vaca C.E., Fang J.L., Schweda E.K. Studies of the reaction of acetaldehyde with deoxynucleosides. Chem. Biol. Interact. 1995;98:51–67. [PubMed] 15. Fang J.L., Vaca C.E. Development of a 32P-postlabelling method for the analysis of adducts arising through the reaction of acetaldehyde with 2′-deoxyguanosine-3′-monophosphate and DNA. Carcinogenesis. 1995;16:2177–2185. [PubMed] 16. Fang J.L., Vaca C.E. Detection of DNA adducts of acetaldehyde in peripheral white blood cells of alcohol abusers. Carcinogenesis. 1997;18:627–632. [PubMed] 17. Matsuda T., Terashima I., Matsumoto Y., Yabushita H., Matsui S., Shibutani S. Effective utilization of N2-ethyl-2′-deoxyguanosine triphosphate during DNA synthesis catalyzed by mammalian replicative DNA polymerases. Biochemistry. 1999;38:929–935. [PubMed] 18. Perrino F.W., Blans P., Harvey S., Gelhaus S.L., McGrath C., Akman S.A., Jenkins G.S., LaCourse W.R., Fishbein J.C. The N2-ethylguanine and the O6-ethyl- and O6-methylguanine lesions in DNA: contrasting responses from the ‘bypass’ DNA polymerase eta and the replicative DNA polymerase alpha. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2003;16:1616–1623. [PubMed] 19. Terashima I., Matsuda T., Fang T.W., Suzuki N., Kobayashi J., Kohda K., Shibutani S. Miscoding potential of the N2-ethyl-2′-deoxyguanosine DNA adduct by the exonuclease-free Klenow fragment of Escherichia coli DNA polymerase I. Biochemistry. 2001;40:4106–4114. [PubMed] 20. Antony S., Theruvathu J.A., Brooks P.J., Lesher D.T., Redinbo M., Pommier Y. Enhancement of camptothecin-induced topoisomerase I cleavage complexes by the acetaldehyde adduct N2-ethyl-2′-deoxyguanosine. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32:5685–5692. [PubMed] 21. Wang M., McIntee E.J., Cheng G., Shi Y., Villalta P.W., Hecht S.S. Identification of DNA adducts of acetaldehyde. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2000;13:1149–1157. [PubMed] 22. Lao Y., Hecht S.S. Synthesis and properties of an acetaldehyde-derived oligonucleotide interstrand cross-link. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2005;18:711–721. [PubMed] 23. Fernandes P.H., Kanuri M., Nechev L.V., Harris T.M., Lloyd R.S. Mammalian cell mutagenesis of the DNA adducts of vinyl chloride and crotonaldehyde. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 2005;45:455–459. [PubMed] 24. Eder E., Schuler D., Budiawan IARC Sci. Publ. 1999. Cancer risk assessment for crotonaldehyde and 2-hexenal: an approach; pp. 219–232. 25. Nath R.G., Chung F.L. Detection of exocyclic 1,N2-propanodeoxyguanosine adducts as common DNA lesions in rodents and humans. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 1994;91:7491–7495. [PubMed] 26. Pan J., Chung F.L. Formation of cyclic deoxyguanosine adducts from omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids under oxidative conditions. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2002;15:367–372. [PubMed] 27. Mao H., Schnetz-Boutaud N.C., Weisenseel J.P., Marnett L.J., Stone M.P. Duplex DNA catalyzes the chemical rearrangement of a malondialdehyde deoxyguanosine adduct. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 1999;96:6615–6620. [PubMed] 28. Hu W., Feng Z., Eveleigh J., Iyer G., Pan J., Amin S., Chung F.L., Tang M.S. The major lipid peroxidation product, trans-4-hydroxy-2-nonenal, preferentially forms DNA adducts at codon 249 of human p53 gene, a unique mutational hotspot in hepatocellular carcinoma. Carcinogenesis. 2002;23:1781–1789. [PubMed] 29. de los Santos C., Zaliznyak T., Johnson F. NMR characterization of a DNA duplex containing the major acrolein-derived deoxyguanosine adduct gamma -OH-1,-N2-propano-2′-deoxyguanosine. J. Biol. Chem. 2001;276:9077–9082. [PubMed] 30. Kozekov I.D., Nechev L.V., Moseley M.S., Harris C.M., Rizzo C.J., Stone M.P., Harris T.M. DNA interchain cross-links formed by acrolein and crotonaldehyde. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003;125:50–61. [PubMed] 31. Kurtz A.J., Lloyd R.S. 1,N2-deoxyguanosine adducts of acrolein, crotonaldehyde, and trans-4-hydroxynonenal cross-link to peptides via Schiff base linkage. J. Biol. Chem. 2003;278:5970–5976. [PubMed] 32. Sako M., Inagaki S., Esaka Y., Deyashiki Y. Histones accelerate the cyclic 1,N2-propanoguanine adduct-formation of DNA by the primary metabolite of alcohol and carcinogenic crotonaldehyde. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2003;13:3497–3498. [PubMed] 33. Inagaki S., Esaka Y., Goto M., Deyashiki Y., Sako M. LC-MS study on the formation of cyclic 1,N2-propano guanine adduct in the reactions of DNA with acetaldehyde in the presence of histone. Biol. Pharm. Bull. 2004;27:273–276. [PubMed] 34. Chiu S., Oleinick N.L. Radioprotection of cellular chromatin by the polyamines spermine and putrescine: preferential action against formation of DNA–protein crosslinks. Radiat. Res. 1998;149:543–549. [PubMed] 35. Sarhan S., Seiler N. On the subcellular localization of the polyamines. Biol. Chem. Hoppe-Seyler. 1989;370:1279–1284. [PubMed] 36. Tabor C.W., Tabor H. Polyamines. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 1984;53:749–790. [PubMed] 37. Ha H.C., Sirisoma N.S., Kuppusamy P., Zweier J.L., Woster P.M., Casero R.A., Jr The natural polyamine spermine functions directly as a free radical scavenger. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 1998;95:11140–11145. [PubMed] 38. Chattopadhyay M.K., Tabor C.W., Tabor H. Polyamines protect Escherichia coli cells from the toxic effect of oxygen. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2003;100:2261–2265. [PubMed] 39. Gerner E.W., Meyskens F.L., Jr Polyamines and cancer: old molecules, new understanding. Nature Rev. Cancer. 2004;4:781–792. [PubMed] 40. Wallon U.M., O'Brien T.G. Polyamines modulate carcinogen-induced mutagenesis in vivo. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 2005;45:62–69. [PubMed] 41. Newton G.L., Aguilera J.A., Ward J.F., Fahey R.C. Polyamine-induced compaction and aggregation of DNA—a major factor in radioprotection of chromatin under physiological conditions. Radiat. Res. 1996;145:776–780. [PubMed] 42. Jaruga P., Theruvathu J., Dizdaroglu M., Brooks P.J. Complete release of (5′S)-8,5′-cyclo-2′-deoxyadenosine from dinucleotides, oligodeoxynucleotides and DNA, and direct comparison of its levels in cellular DNA with other oxidatively induced DNA lesions. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32:e87. [PubMed] 43. Jaruga P., Birincioglu M., Rodriguez H., Dizdaroglu M. Mass spectrometric assays for the tandem lesion 8,5′-cyclo-2′-deoxyguanosine in mammalian DNA. Biochemistry. 2002;41:3703–3711. [PubMed] 44. Chung F.L., Zhang L. Deoxyguanosine adducts of tert-4-hydroxy-2-nonenal as markers of endogenous DNA lesions. Methods Enzymol. 2002;353:523–536. [PubMed] 45. Visapaa J.P., Jokelainen K., Nosova T., Salaspuro M. Inhibition of intracolonic acetaldehyde production and alcoholic fermentation in rats by ciprofloxacin. Alcohol Clin. Exp. Res. 1998;22:1161–1164. [PubMed] 46. Nechev L.V., Kozekov I., Harris C.M., Harris T.M. Stereospecific synthesis of oligonucleotides containing crotonaldehyde adducts of deoxyguanosine. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2001;14:1506–1512. [PubMed] 47. Tuma D.J., Hoffman T., Sorrell M.F. The chemistry of acetaldehyde–protein adducts. Alcohol Alcohol. 1991;1(Suppl.):271–276. 48. Sako M., Yaekura I. A convenient preparative method for the 1,N2-cyclic adducts of guanine nucleosides and nucleotides with crotonaldehyde. Tetrahedron. 2002;58:8413–8416. 49. Sako M., Yaekura I., Deyashiki Y. Smooth and selective formation of the cyclic 1,N2-propano adducts in the reactions of guanine nucleosides and nucleotides with acetaldehyde. Tetrahedron Lett. 2002;43:6701–6703. 50. Simanowski U.A., Stickel F., Maier H., Gartner U., Seitz H.K. Effect of alcohol on gastrointestinal cell regeneration as a possible mechanism in alcohol-associated carcinogenesis. Alcohol. 1995;12:111–115. [PubMed] 51. Seitz H.K., Simanowski U.A., Garzon F.T., Rideout J.M., Peters T.J., Koch A., Berger M.R., Einecke H., Maiwald M. Possible role of acetaldehyde in ethanol-related rectal cocarcinogenesis in the rat. Gastroenterology. 1990;98:406–413. [PubMed] 52. Ogawa H., Gomi T., Fujioka M. Serine hydroxymethyltransferase and threonine aldolase: are they identical? Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 2000;32:289–301. [PubMed] 53. Duncan T., Trewick S.C., Koivisto P., Bates P.A., Lindahl T., Sedgwick B. Reversal of DNA alkylation damage by two human dioxygenases. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2002;99:16660–16665. [PubMed] 54. Kuykendall J.R., Bogdanffy M.S. Reaction kinetics of DNA-histone crosslinking by vinyl acetate and acetaldehyde. Carcinogenesis. 1992;13:2095–2100. [PubMed] 55. Hengstler J.G., Bogdanffy M.S., Bolt H.M., Oesch F. Challenging dogma: thresholds for genotoxic carcinogens? The case of vinyl acetate. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 2003;43:485–520. [PubMed] 56. Obe G., Gobel D., Engeln H., Herha J., Natarajan A.T. Chromosomal aberrations in peripheral lymphocytes of alcoholics. Mutat. Res. 1980;73:377–386. [PubMed] 57. Obe G., Natarajan A.T., Meyers M., Hertog A.D. Induction of chromosomal aberrations in peripheral lymphocytes of human blood in vitro, and of SCEs in bone-marrow cells of mice in vivo by ethanol and its metabolite acetaldehyde. Mutat. Res. 1979;68:291–294. [PubMed] 58. Wang X., D'Andrea A.D. The interplay of Fanconi anemia proteins in the DNA damage response. DNA Repair (Amst.). 2004;3:1063–1069. [PubMed] 59. Howlett N.G., Taniguchi T., Olson S., Cox B., Waisfisz Q., De Die-Smulders C., Persky N., Grompe M., Joenje H., Pals G., et al. Biallelic inactivation of BRCA2 in Fanconi anemia. Science. 2002;297:606–609. [PubMed] |
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||||
Alcohol Alcohol. 2004 May-Jun; 39(3):155-65.
[Alcohol Alcohol. 2004]Mutat Res. 1988 Jan; 195(1):1-20.
[Mutat Res. 1988]Toxicology. 1986 Oct; 41(2):213-31.
[Toxicology. 1986]Mutat Res. 1987 Nov; 186(3):177-200.
[Mutat Res. 1987]Pathol Biol (Paris). 2001 Nov; 49(9):676-82.
[Pathol Biol (Paris). 2001]Am J Hum Genet. 1999 Sep; 65(3):795-807.
[Am J Hum Genet. 1999]Carcinogenesis. 1998 Aug; 19(8):1383-7.
[Carcinogenesis. 1998]Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2003 Mar; 33(3):111-21.
[Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2003]Carcinogenesis. 1997 Sep; 18(9):1739-43.
[Carcinogenesis. 1997]Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci. 2003 Apr; 40(2):183-208.
[Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci. 2003]Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2000 Jun; 24(6):873-7.
[Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2000]Gut. 2004 Jun; 53(6):871-6.
[Gut. 2004]Chem Biol Interact. 1995 Oct 20; 98(1):51-67.
[Chem Biol Interact. 1995]Carcinogenesis. 1995 Sep; 16(9):2177-85.
[Carcinogenesis. 1995]Carcinogenesis. 1997 Apr; 18(4):627-32.
[Carcinogenesis. 1997]Biochemistry. 1999 Jan 19; 38(3):929-35.
[Biochemistry. 1999]Chem Res Toxicol. 2003 Dec; 16(12):1616-23.
[Chem Res Toxicol. 2003]Chem Res Toxicol. 2000 Nov; 13(11):1149-57.
[Chem Res Toxicol. 2000]Chem Res Toxicol. 2005 Apr; 18(4):711-21.
[Chem Res Toxicol. 2005]Environ Mol Mutagen. 2005 Jun; 45(5):455-9.
[Environ Mol Mutagen. 2005]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994 Aug 2; 91(16):7491-5.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994]Chem Res Toxicol. 2002 Mar; 15(3):367-72.
[Chem Res Toxicol. 2002]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Jun 8; 96(12):6615-20.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999]Carcinogenesis. 2002 Nov; 23(11):1781-9.
[Carcinogenesis. 2002]J Biol Chem. 2001 Mar 23; 276(12):9077-82.
[J Biol Chem. 2001]J Am Chem Soc. 2003 Jan 8; 125(1):50-61.
[J Am Chem Soc. 2003]J Biol Chem. 2003 Feb 21; 278(8):5970-6.
[J Biol Chem. 2003]Chem Res Toxicol. 2000 Nov; 13(11):1149-57.
[Chem Res Toxicol. 2000]Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2003 Oct 20; 13(20):3497-8.
[Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2003]Biol Pharm Bull. 2004 Mar; 27(3):273-6.
[Biol Pharm Bull. 2004]Radiat Res. 1998 Jun; 149(6):543-9.
[Radiat Res. 1998]Biol Chem Hoppe Seyler. 1989 Dec; 370(12):1279-84.
[Biol Chem Hoppe Seyler. 1989]Nucleic Acids Res. 2004; 32(11):e87.
[Nucleic Acids Res. 2004]Biochemistry. 2002 Mar 19; 41(11):3703-11.
[Biochemistry. 2002]Chem Res Toxicol. 2000 Nov; 13(11):1149-57.
[Chem Res Toxicol. 2000]Biol Pharm Bull. 2004 Mar; 27(3):273-6.
[Biol Pharm Bull. 2004]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994 Aug 2; 91(16):7491-5.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994]Methods Enzymol. 2002; 353():523-36.
[Methods Enzymol. 2002]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994 Aug 2; 91(16):7491-5.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994]Biol Pharm Bull. 2004 Mar; 27(3):273-6.
[Biol Pharm Bull. 2004]Radiat Res. 1998 Jun; 149(6):543-9.
[Radiat Res. 1998]Chem Res Toxicol. 2000 Nov; 13(11):1149-57.
[Chem Res Toxicol. 2000]Biol Pharm Bull. 2004 Mar; 27(3):273-6.
[Biol Pharm Bull. 2004]Radiat Res. 1998 Jun; 149(6):543-9.
[Radiat Res. 1998]Carcinogenesis. 1997 Sep; 18(9):1739-43.
[Carcinogenesis. 1997]Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 1998 Aug; 22(5):1161-4.
[Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 1998]Chem Res Toxicol. 2000 Nov; 13(11):1149-57.
[Chem Res Toxicol. 2000]Chem Res Toxicol. 2001 Nov; 14(11):1506-12.
[Chem Res Toxicol. 2001]Annu Rev Biochem. 1984; 53():749-90.
[Annu Rev Biochem. 1984]Alcohol. 1995 Mar-Apr; 12(2):111-5.
[Alcohol. 1995]Gastroenterology. 1990 Feb; 98(2):406-13.
[Gastroenterology. 1990]Chem Res Toxicol. 2002 Mar; 15(3):367-72.
[Chem Res Toxicol. 2002]Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2000 Mar; 32(3):289-301.
[Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2000]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Dec 24; 99(26):16660-5.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002]J Biol Chem. 2003 Feb 21; 278(8):5970-6.
[J Biol Chem. 2003]Chem Res Toxicol. 2005 Apr; 18(4):711-21.
[Chem Res Toxicol. 2005]J Am Chem Soc. 2003 Jan 8; 125(1):50-61.
[J Am Chem Soc. 2003]Carcinogenesis. 1992 Nov; 13(11):2095-100.
[Carcinogenesis. 1992]Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2003; 43():485-520.
[Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2003]Mutat Res. 1979 Nov; 68(3):291-4.
[Mutat Res. 1979]Science. 2002 Jul 26; 297(5581):606-9.
[Science. 2002]