QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Goldman, R. Articles by Shields, P. G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Goldman, R. Articles by Shields, P. G.

---

Supplement: Biomarkers of Nutritional Exposure and Nutritional Status

Food Mutagens¹

Lombardi Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, D.C.

² To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: pgs2{at}georgetown.edu.

Several lines of evidence indicate that diet and dietary behaviors can contribute to human cancer risk. One way that this occurs is through the ingestion of food mutagens. Sporadic cancers result from a gene-environment interactions where the environment includes endogenous and exogenous exposures. In this article, we define environment as dietary exposures in the context of gene-environment interactions. Food mutagens cause different types of DNA damage: nucleotide alterations and gross chromosomal aberrations. Most mutagens begin their action at the DNA level by forming carcinogen-DNA adducts, which result from the covalent binding of a carcinogen or part of a carcinogen to a nucleotide. However the effect of food mutagens in carcinogenesis can be modified by heritable traits, namely, low-penetrant genes that affect mutagen exposure of DNA through metabolic activation and detoxification or cellular responses to DNA damage through DNA repair mechanisms or cell death. There are some clearly identified (e.g., aflatoxin) and suspected (e.g., N-nitrosamines, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or heterocyclic amines) food mutagens. The target organs for these agents are numerous, but there is target-organ specificity for each. Mutagenesis however is not the only pathway that links dietary exposures and cancers. There is growing evidence that epigenetic factors, including changes in the DNA methylation pattern, are causing cancer and can be modified by dietary components. Also DNA damage may be indirect by triggering oxidative DNA damage. When considering the human diet, it should be recognized that foods contain both mutagens and components that decrease cancer risk such as antioxidants. Thus nutritionally related cancers ultimately develop from an imbalance of carcinogenesis and anticarcinogenesis. The best way to assess nutritional risks is through biomarkers, but there is no single biomarker that has been sufficiently validated. Although panels of biomarkers would be the most appropriate, their use as a reflection of target-organ risk remains to be determined. Also even when new biomarkers are developed, their application in target organs is problematic because tissues are not readily available. For now most biomarkers are used in surrogate tissues (e.g., blood, urine, oral cavity cells) that presumably reflect biological effects in target organs. This article reviews the role of food mutagens in mutagenesis and carcinogenesis and how their effects are modified by heritable traits and discusses how to identify and evaluate the effects of food mutagens.

KEY WORDS: • biomarkers • diet assessment • epidemiology • mutagens • nutrition

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Margaret Pratt, A. P. Reddy, J. D. Hendricks, C. Pereira, T. W. Kensler, and G. S. Bailey The importance of carcinogen dose in chemoprevention studies: quantitative interrelationships between, dibenzo[a,l]pyrene dose, chlorophyllin dose, target organ DNA adduct biomarkers and final tumor outcome Carcinogenesis, March 1, 2007; 28(3): 611 - 624. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. K. Niture, C. S. Velu, Q. R. Smith, G.J. Bhat, and K. S. Srivenugopal Increased expression of the MGMT repair protein mediated by cysteine prodrugs and chemopreventative natural products in human lymphocytes and tumor cell lines Carcinogenesis, February 1, 2007; 28(2): 378 - 389. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Shen, M. B. Terry, M. D. Gammon, M. M. Gaudet, S. L. Teitelbaum, S. M. Eng, S. K. Sagiv, A. I. Neugut, and R. M. Santella MGMT genotype modulates the associations between cigarette smoking, dietary antioxidants and breast cancer risk Carcinogenesis, December 1, 2005; 26(12): 2131 - 2137. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. M Battershill The Multiple Chemicals and Actions Model of carcinogenesis. A possible new approach to developing prevention strategies for environmental carcinogenesis Human and Experimental Toxicology, November 1, 2005; 24(11): 547 - 558. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. L. Pool-Zobel, V. Selvaraju, J. Sauer, T. Kautenburger, J. Kiefer, K. K. Richter, M. Soom, and S. Wolfl Butyrate may enhance toxicological defence in primary, adenoma and tumor human colon cells by favourably modulating expression of glutathione S-transferases genes, an approach in nutrigenomics Carcinogenesis, June 1, 2005; 26(6): 1064 - 1076. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. S. De Buck, P. Augustijns, and C. P. Muller Specific Antibody Modulates Absorptive Transport and Metabolic Activation of Benzo[a]pyrene across Caco-2 Monolayers J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., May 1, 2005; 313(2): 640 - 646. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. A. Murtaugh, C. Sweeney, K.-n. Ma, B. J. Caan, and M. L. Slattery The CYP1A1 Genotype May Alter the Association of Meat Consumption Patterns and Preparation with the Risk of Colorectal Cancer in Men and Women J. Nutr., February 1, 2005; 135(2): 179 - 186. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. Potischman and J. L. Freudenheim Biomarkers of Nutritional Exposure and Nutritional Status: An Overview J. Nutr., March 1, 2003; 133(3): 873S - 874. [Full Text] [PDF]