Cancer Research Prevention Award Metabolism
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bedard, L. L.
Right arrow Articles by Massey, T. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bedard, L. L.
Right arrow Articles by Massey, T. E.
[Cancer Research 65, 1265-1270, February 15, 2005]
© 2005 American Association for Cancer Research

Molecular Biology, Pathobiology and Genetics

Susceptibility to Aflatoxin B1-Induced Carcinogenesis Correlates with Tissue-Specific Differences in DNA Repair Activity in Mouse and in Rat

Leanne L. Bedard1, Manlio Alessi2, Scott Davey3 and Thomas E. Massey1

Departments of 1 Pharmacology and Toxicology, 2 Chemistry and 3 Cancer Research Laboratories, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

Requests for reprints: Thomas E. Massey, Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6. Phone: 613-533-6115; Fax: 613-533-6412; E-mail: masseyt{at}post.queensu.ca.


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
To investigate the mechanisms responsible for species- and tissue-specific differences in susceptibility to aflatoxin B1 (AFB1)–induced carcinogenesis, DNA repair activities of nuclear extracts from whole mouse lung and liver and rat liver were compared, and the ability of in vivo treatment of mice with AFB1 to alter repair of AFB1-DNA damage was determined. Plasmid DNA containing AFB1-N7-guanine or AFB1-formamidopyrimidine adducts were used as substrates for the in vitro determination of DNA repair synthesis activity, detected as incorporation of radiolabeled nucleotides. Liver extracts from CD-1 mice repaired AFB1-N7-guanine and AFB1-formamidopyrimidine adducts 5- and 30-fold more effectively than did mouse lung, and ~6- and 4-fold more effectively than did liver extracts from Sprague-Dawley rats. The susceptibility of mouse lung and rat liver to AFB1-induced carcinogenesis correlated with lower DNA repair activity of these tissues relative to mouse liver. Lung extracts prepared from mice treated with a single tumorigenic dose of 50 mg/kg AFB1 i.p. and euthanized 2 hours post-dosing showed minimal incision and repair synthesis activities relative to extracts from vehicle-treated mice. Conversely, repair activity towards AFB1-N7-guanine damage was ~3.5-fold higher in liver of AFB1-treated mice relative to control. This is the first study to show that in vivo treatment with AFB1 can lead to a tissue-specific induction in DNA repair. The results suggest that lower DNA repair activity, sensitivity of mouse lung to inhibition by AFB1, and selective induction of repair in liver contribute to the susceptibility of mice to AFB1-induced lung tumorigenesis relative to hepatocarcinogenesis.

Key Words: Aflatoxin B1 • DNA repair • hepatocarcinogenesis • pulmonary carcinogenesis • susceptibility


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) is a member of a family of difuranocoumarins produced by Aspergillus flavus and related fungi (1). AFB1 is the most hepatotoxic and carcinogenic of the aflatoxins, and is an established risk factor for hepatocarcinogenesis in humans (2). The lung can also be a target of AFB1, following dietary or inhalational exposure (3–6). AFB1 is biotransformed by cytochromes P450 (7), lipoxygenase (8, 9), and prostaglandin H synthase (8, 9) to the highly reactive AFB1-8,9-exo-epoxide, which binds preferentially to the N7 position of guanine (Gua) residues in DNA, forming AFB1-N7-Gua (10, 11). AFB1-N7-Gua can hydrolyze spontaneously to the more chemically stable and biologically persistent formamidopyrimidine adduct (AFB1-FAPY; ref. 12). Both AFB1-N7-Gua and AFB1-FAPY adducts result in mostly G to T transversions at the site of the lesion and cause some mutations 5' to the lesion (13), consistent with the principal mutation in human and rodent liver (14, 15) and lung tumors (9) attributed to AFB1 exposure.

Susceptibility to the toxic and carcinogenic effects of AFB1 varies markedly between species (16). The rat, duck, and trout are highly susceptible to AFB1-induced hepatocarcinogenesis, whereas the monkey, mouse, and hamster are relatively resistant (1). Although mice are resistant to AFB1-induced hepatocarcinogenesis, they are susceptible to pulmonary tumorigenesis (9, 17). Mechanisms underlying tissue- and species-related differences in susceptibility to the carcinogenic effects of AFB1 are not well established, however, evidence has accumulated supporting the importance of biotransformation. The difference in AFB1 hepatocarcinogenicity between rats and mice has been attributed to the expression of an {alpha}-class glutathione-S-transferase in mouse liver capable of efficient enzymatic conjugation of AFB1-exo-epoxide with glutathione (18, 19).

Although bioactivation and consequent DNA damage are critical determinants of chemical mutagenicity, the maintenance of genetic integrity depends on the ability to repair damaged DNA. The importance of nucleotide excision repair (NER) in the removal of AFB1-induced DNA damage is well established (20–22). Although more than 40 proteins are involved in NER, the process consists of two main steps: (a) the incision reaction, including damage recognition, asymmetric incision of the lesion-containing DNA strand on both sides of the lesion, and excision of the damaged oligonucleotide; and (b) gap filling by DNA polymerization and ligation (23). The process of NER has been reproduced in a biochemical assay in vitro (24, 25), in which repair activity of cell-free nuclear protein extracts prepared from either whole tissue or cell lines is measured by the extent of DNA repair synthesis in damaged plasmid DNA, detected as incorporation of radiolabeled nucleotides. In vitro assessment of NER on naked plasmid DNA resembles genomic repair in vivo (25), and defective repair activity has been observed in extracts from repair-deficient xeroderma pigmentosum cells (26, 27).

In the present study, we investigated whether the DNA repair activity of extracts from mouse lung and liver and rat liver toward plasmid DNA with a known number of AFB1-N7-Gua or AFB1-FAPY adducts correlated with species- and tissue-specific susceptibility to AFB1-induced carcinogenesis. We also investigated whether in vivo treatment of mice and rats with a tumorigenic dose of AFB1 had any effect on in vitro repair activity.


   Materials and Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Animal Treatments
Male Sprague-Dawley rats (345-355 g, Charles River Canada, Inc., St. Constant, PQ, Canada) and female CD-1 mice (25-30 g, Charles River) were housed with a 12-hour light/dark cycle and provided food and water ad libitum. These strains of rats and mice were chosen because previous demonstration of interspecies differences in susceptibility to AFB1 was conducted in them, and they have been used for mechanistic studies (18, 19). Mice were treated with vehicle (50 µL DMSO, i.p.) or with 50 mg/kg AFB1 (Sigma Corp., St. Louis, MO; 50 µL in DMSO, i.p.), a dose that has been shown to result in pronounced pulmonary tumorigenesis, but not hepatocarcinogenicity, in the AC3F1 mouse (17). In an independent experiment, mice were treated with 0.25 mg/kg AFB1 (50 µL in DMSO, i.p.) and rats were treated with vehicle (300 µL DMSO, i.p.), or 0.25 mg/kg AFB1 (300 µL in DMSO, i.p.), a dose that does not produce overt hepatotoxicity but is sufficient to cause neoplastic liver changes in rats if given daily for 2 weeks (28). Two hours following AFB1 administration, when covalent binding to DNA is maximal (19, 29, 30), mice and rats were killed by cervical dislocation or decapitation, respectively. Lungs and livers were perfused with 10 mmol/L Tris and 1 mmol/L EDTA (pH 7.9), excised, finely chopped, snap-frozen, and stored at –80°C until required for extract preparation.

Cell-Free Whole Tissue Nuclear Protein Extract Preparation
Nuclear protein extracts from ~1.5 to 1.8 g of tissue were prepared from the livers of individual rats or mice and from the lungs of pooled groups of four mice each. Tissue pieces frozen in liquid nitrogen were pulverized to a fine powder with a mortar and pestle. Cell-free tissue nuclear protein extracts active in DNA repair synthesis were prepared as described (24, 26) with the following modifications: (a) hypotonic lysis of tissue was done for 30 minutes under gentle rotation; (b) dialysis was done against three changes of 200 mL (per Slide-A-Lyzer cassette, Pierce Biotechnology Inc., Rockford, IL) of buffer for 18 hours, and changed after 1 and 5 hours of dialysis. Protein content of extracts was determined by the method of Lowry et al. (31). Extracts from mouse lung and liver and rat liver typically contained 11, 28, and 20 mg protein, respectively. Extracts were snap-frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at –80°C.

Preparation and Analysis of AFB1-Adducted DNA
AFB1-8,9-exo-epoxide was prepared by oxidation of AFB1 by dimethyldioxirane (32), recrystallized from 1:2 (v/v) acetone/dichloromethane, characterized by 1H-nuclear magnetic resonance (400 MHz, Brüker Instruments), stored under nitrogen at –20°C, and dissolved in anhydrous acetone prior to use. AFB1-N7-Gua- and AFB1-FAPY-adducted calf thymus DNA (sodium salt, Sigma) were prepared as described (33) and acid hydrolysates of the adducted DNA subjected to isocratic reversed phase high-performance liquid chromatography (LCDB18 C18 column, 250 x 4.6 mm, Supelco, St. Louis, MO) as previously described (34). AFB1-DNA adducts were detected at 365 nm using a Waters Lambda-Max LC spectrophotometer (Model 481).

A 3875 bp plasmid derived from pBluescript (Stratagene, La Jolla, CA) was grown in E. coli XL-1 Blue in LB broth and isolated using a Qiagen Plasmid Giga Kit (Qiagen, Valencia, CA). AFB1-N7-Gua and AFB1-FAPY adducted plasmid DNA were prepared as described (35) with a minor change; AFB1-adducted plasmid DNA was purified by sodium acetate/isopropanol precipitation.

Immunoprecipitation of Proliferating Cell Nuclear Antigen in Mouse Liver Nuclear Protein Extracts
Mouse liver nuclear protein extract (2.5 mg) was precleared with protein G Sepharose beads (Amersham Biosciences Corp., Piscataway, NJ) for 1 hour at 4°C prior to immunoprecipitation. Precleared extracts were incubated overnight at 4°C either in the presence or absence of 7 µg of {alpha}-human proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) mouse monoclonal antibody (PC10; Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc., Santa Cruz, CA), followed by incubation with protein G Sepharose beads for 5 hours at 4°C. Supernatants were retrieved and stored at –80°C for evaluation of repair activity. Supernatants and proteins recovered from beads were subjected to SDS-PAGE and immunoblotting was achieved according to the manufacturer's recommendations.

In vitro Repair Reactions
Repair Synthesis Assay. The repair synthesis assay (24, 36) was done in a total volume of 50 µL containing either 400 ng of AFB1-adducted plasmid DNA or undamaged DNA, 40 mmol/L HEPES-KOH (pH 7.8), 0.5 mmol/L DTT, 4.0 µmol/L dTTP, 20 µmol/L of each dGTP, dCTP and dATP, 23 mmol/L phosphocreatine, 18 µg bovine serum albumin (nuclease-free, Sigma), 2.5 µg creatine phosphokinase, 2.0 mmol/L ATP, 5.0 mmol/L MgCl2, 0.4 mmol/L EDTA, 100 mmol/L KCl, 120 µg tissue protein extract and 2.0 µCi [{alpha}32P] dTTP (Amersham). Samples were incubated for 3 hours at 30°C. Repair reaction was terminated by adjusting the concentration of EDTA to 20 mmol/L. Following treatment with 7.0 mg/mL RNase (37°C for 10 minutes) and with 350 µg/mL proteinase K (with 0.5% SDS at 65°C for 30 minutes), plasmid DNA was purified by extraction with phenol/chloroform/isoamyl alcohol (25:24:1; v/v/v), isopropanol precipitated, washed in 70% ethanol, dried and linearized with 1 unit of EcoR1 (New England Biolabs, Beverly, MA). The restriction digestion was terminated by addition of DNA gel loading solution (0.02% bromophenol blue, 6.0 mmol/L EDTA, 6.0% glycerol). Electrophoresis was done through a 1% agarose gel with 0.5 µg/mL ethidium bromide and with 40 mmol/L Tris base/40 mmol/L acetic acid/1 mmol/L EDTA as the tank buffer. Repair synthesis assay was done in duplicate for each nuclear protein extract.

Incision Assay. The incision assay was done using either 400 ng of UV irradiated plasmid DNA or undamaged DNA as previously described (36, 37). In the incision reaction, repair synthesis is prevented by limiting the nucleotide pool and by inhibiting DNA polymerase activity in protein extracts with aphidicolin. Incisions are then quantitatively detected by [{alpha}32P]dTTP incorporation catalyzed by the Klenow fragment of E. coli DNA polymerase I at nicked sites in plasmids purified from incision reactions. The incision assay was modified as follows: (a) following the incision reaction, extracted DNA was redissolved in TE buffer [10 mmol/L Tris, 1 mmol/L EDTA (pH 7.9)] by incubation at 30°C for 15 minutes, (b) the repair synthesis step catalyzed by E. coli DNA polymerase I large fragment (New England Biolabs) was done at 37°C for 10 minutes using 20 µmol/L of each dGTP, dCTP, and dATP, 4.0 µmol/L dTTP, and 2.0 µCi [{alpha}32P]dTTP. Incision assay was done in duplicate for each nuclear protein extract.

Quantification of Repair and Data Analysis. Normalization for plasmid DNA recovery was done by densitometry of a photograph of the gel (ChemImager 4000, Alpha Innotech Corporation, San Leandro, CA). Incorporation of [{alpha}32P]dTTP was determined by phosphor imaging (Molecular Dynamics, Piscataway, NJ) of the dried gel. Statistically significant differences in repair activity between tissue type or treatment groups and type of adduct were determined by two-way repeated measures ANOVA followed by Bonferroni correction method (GraphPad Prism 4 software). Homogeneity of variance was verified by Cochran's test prior to conducting the ANOVA. P < 0.05 was considered significant in all cases.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
Preparation and Characterization of AFB1-Adducted Plasmid DNA Substrate for Repair. AFB1-8,9-exo-epoxide was recovered as a solid product with a ratio of 25:1 exo/endo as determined by 1H-nuclear magnetic resonance using the integration for H8 of the AFB1-8,9-epoxide (38). Upon the reaction of AFB1-exo-epoxide with calf thymus DNA, AFB1-N7-Gua represented 98% of formed adducts, and two forms of AFB1-FAPY were identified (~1% AFB1-FAPY major, <1% AFB1-FAPY minor; ref. 12). Treatment of AFB1-adducted DNA with sodium hydroxide resulted in the complete conversion of AFB1-N7-Gua to AFB1-FAPY major (96%) and AFB1-FAPY minor (4%). AFB1-DNA adduct formation was dependent on the concentration of AFB1-8,9-exo-epoxide with both calf thymus and plasmid DNA (data not shown), and using this relationship, substrates with 10 or 100 adducts per plasmid of either AFB1-N7-Gua or AFB1-FAPY adducts were prepared. These DNA substrates were found to be stable under the experimental conditions used for the repair synthesis assay (see above). No nicks or relaxation of the adducted plasmids were observed by gel electrophoresis of the DNA substrates after incubation at 30°C for 3 hours. During the 3-hour incubation of AFB1-N7-Gua-adducted plasmid, 3.0% AFB1-N7-Gua was converted to AFB1-FAPY major and 2.0% AFB1-N7-Gua was released from DNA, presumably forming apurinic sites. No increase in the amount of AFB1-diol was observed, indicating that hydrolysis of AFB1-N7-Gua was negligible under these experimental conditions. The AFB1-FAPY-adducted substrate initially consisted of 96% AFB1-FAPY major and 4% AFB1-FAPY minor and was unchanged by incubation for 3 hours at 30°C.

DNA Repair Synthesis Assay Validation for AFB1-Adducted DNA Substrates. Although repair synthesis was detectable in undamaged DNA, activity was higher towards AFB1-N7-Gua-adducted substrate with 10 adducts per plasmid for all tissues (Table 1). In contrast to mouse and rat liver, mouse lung could not catalyze repair synthesis of AFB1-N7-Gua at 100 adducts per plasmid; therefore, AFB1-N7-Gua-adducted substrate with 10 adducts per plasmid was used for all other determinations.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1. Dependence of in vitro DNA repair synthesis activity of nuclear protein extracts (120 µg) isolated from mouse liver, mouse lung, and rat liver on the number of AFB1-N7-Gua adducts on plasmid DNA

 
Repair of AFB1-N7-Gua and AFB1-FAPY was decreased by 29% to 100% in mouse liver nuclear protein extracts immunodepleted for PCNA, consistent with NER being the major pathway of AFB1-induced DNA damage (20–22). The effectiveness of immunodepletion was confirmed by immunoblotting (n = 2; Fig. 1). Repair activity of mouse liver extracts was nondetectable (<0.3 amol [{alpha}32P]dTTP incorporated per microgram of DNA) in the absence of ATP and was decreased by 72% when creatine phosphokinase was omitted (n = 1, data not shown).



View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 1. Immunoblot of PCNA (32 kDa) protein expression in mouse liver nuclear protein extracts. Lane 1, mouse liver nuclear protein extract (70 µg protein); lane 2, immunoprecipitation of PCNA in protein extract (arrow); bands at 47 and 25 kDa represent the heavy and light chains of the {alpha}-PCNA antibody; lane 3, no protein retrieved from protein G Sepharose beads in the absence of {alpha}-PCNA antibody; lane 4, supernatant of immunoprecipitation (note the depletion of PCNA from extract); lane 5, supernatant from extract treated with protein G Sepharose beads in absence of PCNA antibody (note the presence of PCNA). Samples in lanes 4 and 5 were used in the repair assay.

 
Repair of AFB1 DNA Damage by Mouse Lung and Liver and Rat Liver Nuclear Protein Extracts. Damage-specific repair activity was nondetectable with <80 µg of mouse lung nuclear protein extract. Due to the low yield and concentration of protein extracted from mouse lung, it was not possible to include more than 120 µg of protein per sample. To compare the repair activity between tissue extracts, the amount of protein was adjusted to 120 µg for all experiments. Mouse liver exhibited ~5- and 30-fold greater repair activity towards AFB1-N7-Gua and AFB1-FAPY, respectively, than did lung (Fig. 2). Furthermore, mouse liver repair activities were ~6- and 4-fold higher than those of rat liver towards AFB1-N7-Gua and AFB1-FAPY (Fig. 2). Mouse liver and lung exhibited greater repair activity towards AFB1-N7-Gua than towards AFB1-FAPY.



View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 2. In vitro DNA repair synthesis of AFB1-N7-Gua and AFB1-FAPY DNA damage (10 adducts per plasmid) by nuclear protein extracts (120 µg) isolated from mouse liver, mouse lung, and rat liver. Results are presented as the mean ± SD. Radioisotope incorporation into undamaged DNA has been subtracted from damage-specific incorporation. *, statistically different from mouse liver for the same type of adduct; {blacklozenge}, statistically different from AFB1-N7-Gua for the same tissue type (P < 0.05).

 
Effect of in vivo Treatment of Mice with 50 mg/kg AFB1 on Repair Synthesis and Incision Activities in Liver and Lung. Repair synthesis activity towards AFB1-N7-Gua was inhibited by 85% in mouse lung following in vivo treatment with 50 mg/kg AFB1 2 hours prior to tissue harvesting (Fig. 3A). AFB1-N7-Gua damage-specific incision activity was lower than that measured towards undamaged DNA, presumably due to the inhibition of the Klenow fragment by AFB1-DNA adducts (refs. 39–41 and data not shown). We therefore determined the incision activity of mouse lung extracts using UV-damaged plasmid DNA as a substrate. Lung extracts from vehicle-treated mice showed UV damage–specific incision activity of 4,130 ± 1,980 amol [{alpha}32P]dTTP incorporated per microgram of DNA, incising UV damage ~77-fold more actively than lung extracts from AFB1-treated mice (53.7 ± 93.0 amol [{alpha}32P]dTTP incorporated per microgram of DNA; n = 3, P < 0.05). Lung extracts from vehicle-treated mice showed UV-damage repair synthesis activity of 3,940 ± 2,000 amol [{alpha}32P]dTTP incorporated per microgram of DNA, whereas repair synthesis activity towards UV damage was inhibited by 82% in lung extracts from AFB1-treated mice (706 ± 1,220 amol [{alpha}32P]dTTP incorporated microgram of DNA; n = 3, P < 0.05). In contrast, repair activity towards AFB1-N7-Gua was ~3.5-fold higher in liver extracts from AFB1-treated mice compared with control, but was nondetectable towards AFB1-FAPY (Fig. 3B).



View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 3. Effects of in vivo AFB1 treatment on in vitro DNA repair synthesis activity of mouse lung and liver nuclear extracts towards AFB1-induced DNA damage (10 adducts per plasmid). Lung and liver protein extracts (115 µg) were prepared from mice treated either with 50 mg/kg AFB1 i.p. or vehicle (50 µL DMSO). Results are presented as the mean ± SD, and radioisotope incorporation into undamaged DNA has been subtracted from damage-specific incorporation. Nondetectable, <0.3 amol [{alpha}32P]dTTP incorporated microgram of DNA; *, statistically significant from control for the same type of adduct (P < 0.05).

 
Effect of In vivo Treatment of Mice and Rats with 0.25 mg/kg AFB1 on Repair Synthesis in Liver. Although the trend seemed to be that in vivo treatment of mice and rats with 0.25 mg/kg AFB1 increased repair synthesis activity towards AFB1-N7-Gua in mouse liver and decreased repair synthesis activity in rat liver (Fig. 4), this effect did not attain statistical significance (P > 0.05).



View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 4. Effect of in vivo AFB1 treatment on in vitro DNA repair synthesis activity of mouse liver and rat liver nuclear extracts towards AFB1-induced DNA damage (10 adducts per plasmid). Liver protein extracts (115 µg) were prepared from mice and rats treated either with 0.25 mg/kg AFB1 i.p. or vehicle (DMSO). Results are presented as the mean ± SD, and radioisotope incorporation into undamaged DNA has been subtracted from damage-specific repair synthesis.

 

   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
Although AFB1 is an established hepatocarcinogen in humans and in several experimental animals, the carcinogenic response to AFB1 varies markedly between species. Detoxification of AFB1-8,9-exo-epoxide via conjugation with glutathione is believed to be a major determinant of species susceptibility to AFB1-induced carcinogenesis (9, 18) . However, the results of this study support that differences in DNA repair are also likely to be important contributing factors to both the tissue- and species-specific susceptibility to AFB1-induced carcinogenesis. Assuming that the ratio of protein involved in DNA repair to total nuclear protein extracted is similar for the two species, we have observed that rat liver has lower DNA repair activity than mouse liver, correlating with the species difference in susceptibility to AFB1-induced hepatocarcinogenesis. Although data for mouse lung are not available, our results are consistent with previous studies which have shown that mouse liver has only 1.2% of the AFB1-DNA adducts measured in rat liver 2 hours following in vivo treatment with 0.25 mg/kg AFB1 (19). We also suggest that the susceptibility of mouse lung relative to liver to AFB1 carcinogenicity is in part attributable to: (a) lung having much lower DNA repair activity than liver, (b) inhibition of repair in lung by AFB1, and (c) induction of repair in liver by AFB1. The inability of mouse lung to catalyze repair of AFB1-N7-Gua at 100 adducts per plasmid might conceivably contribute to the higher susceptibility of mouse lung to AFB1 carcinogenesis relative to liver, and could be due to differential sensitivity of mouse lung DNA polymerases to inhibition by AFB1-DNA adducts. Although in vitro assessment of NER on naked plasmid DNA with 10 adducts per molecule resembles genomic repair in vivo (24–26), this may not hold true for higher numbers of adducts.

Repair activity towards AFB1-N7-Gua was increased in liver, but not in lung, following in vivo treatment with 50 mg/kg AFB1 at a time point (2 hours) when the levels of AFB1-DNA adducts are maximal (29), and when AFB1-N7-Gua represents ~83% of adducts (42). Induction of repair in liver was also AFB1 dose–related because repair activity was not increased by treatment of mice with 0.25 mg/kg AFB1. Until recently, it was commonly accepted that mammalian excision repair occurs constitutively. Furthermore, the existence of the well characterized bacterial SOS response, wherein the DNA repair system requires induction by damage, has not been shown in eukaryotic cells. However, there are reports suggesting that UV irradiation can induce NER in mammalian cells, increasing repair activity (43–45). In particular, nuclear protein extracts from UV-irradiated RKO cells exhibited greater repair activity towards UV damage than extracts prepared from nonirradiated cells (43). Our results support the hypothesis that mammalian NER is inducible, not only in response to UV irradiation, but also following treatment with AFB1, and this may also occur following treatment with other chemical carcinogens. Further investigation is required to elucidate the mechanism by which AFB1 can induce repair activity in mouse liver. In the mouse, in addition to causing DNA damage, AFB1 can modulate repair activity in target tissues, influencing the susceptibility to AFB1-induced carcinogenesis. The effect of AFB1 on repair activity is a novel finding, and may prove to be an important mechanism underlying interspecies differences in susceptibility to other carcinogens.

Incision activity towards UV damage is inhibited in mouse lung following in vivo treatment with AFB1; however, the mechanism of inhibition remains to be elucidated. Based on reports by others (46, 47) of selective inhibition of rat liver RNA polymerase II at 2 hours following in vivo treatment with 3 mg/kg AFB1, and on the results of this study, we hypothesize that repair proteins or other proteins that regulate NER, specifically incision, the rate-limiting step of NER, are inactivated or down-regulated following in vivo administration of AFB1.

The adduct referred to as AFB1-FAPY is actually an equilibrium mixture of two rotameric forms (AFB1-FAPY major and minor) that are separable by chromatography, as observed in this study and as reported by others (12). An experimental method for the exclusive synthesis of either form of AFB1-FAPY adducts on DNA has not been reported and would be complicated by the conversion of AFB1-FAPY minor, whose precise chemical structure remains elusive, to the major form (48). Whether AFB1-FAPY major and AFB1-FAPY minor are repaired with different efficiencies is unknown, so for the purposes of this study, we have considered the repair of AFB1-FAPY to include both rotameric forms.

The differences in chemical structure of AFB1-N7-Gua and AFB1-FAPY cause these adducts to alter the structure of DNA differently (49). AFB1-FAPY is less distortive to DNA architecture than is AFB1-N7-Gua, making AFB1-FAPY relatively resistant to repair (48); this is consistent with the observed persistence of AFB1-FAPY in vivo and with results of the present study, in which nuclear extracts from mouse lung and liver repaired AFB1-FAPY less effectively than AFB1-N7-Gua. Although evidence exists suggesting that enzymatic removal of AFB1-FAPY occurs by NER (50), bacterial FAPY-glycosylase has been shown to efficiently incise AFB1-FAPY lesions in vitro (35, 51). FAPY-glycosylase is expressed in rodent cells (52), but the relevance of this pathway in mammalian repair has not been established. Our observation that the repair of AFB1-FAPY depends on PCNA supports the importance of NER. Interestingly, the differential effect of treatment of mice with 50 mg/kg AFB1 on hepatic repair activity, i.e., induction of repair towards AFB1-N7-Gua versus inhibition of repair towards AFB1-FAPY, suggests that these two adducts may be repaired by different pathways.

In vivo NER can be divided into two pathways: (a) global genome repair (GGR), which is slow and repairs lesions throughout the entire genome, and (b) transcription-coupled repair (TCR), a preferential and highly efficient repair pathway for lesions on the transcribed strand of active genes (53). The enzymatic steps of TCR have not yet been reconstituted in vitro (54), but in vitro NER, as studied in this paper, has characteristics that mimic in vivo GGR (25). Although UV light–induced lesions, platinated DNA and psoralen adducts have been used extensively as substrates for in vitro studies of NER (24, 26), this is the first study to investigate repair activities of nuclear protein extracts using AFB1-N7-Gua- and AFB1-FAPY-adducted DNA as substrates. NER efficiency is strongly dependent on the type of DNA lesion (54), emphasizing the importance of using AFB1-DNA damage as a substrate for repair of relevance to AFB1 toxicity. The determination of repair activity of tissue extracts is often problematic due to contamination by nonspecific nucleases which randomly nick undamaged DNA (36), resulting in high and variable background repair synthesis in undamaged DNA. In the present study, this disadvantage was overcome by small modifications of the procedure for extract preparation and by using a KCl concentration (100 mmol/L) known to minimize the activity of nonspecific nucleases (36). DNA repair synthesis of AFB1-DNA damage by tissue extracts was dependent on the presence of PCNA, ATP, and an ATP regenerating system, consistent with NER being the major repair pathway for AFB1-induced DNA damage (20–22). PCNA is required for the repair synthesis step of NER (55) by binding to dually incised DNA and recruiting polymerases for DNA elongation. Furthermore, evidence for the role of PCNA in the incision and excision steps of NER is mounting but remains controversial (55). Although damage recognition is ATP-independent, ATP is required for the binding of all NER factors that participate in the incision and excision reactions (56).

TCR activity of tissue extracts is not addressed in this study, but mutations in nontranscribed genes or on the nontranscribed strand of active genes (repaired by GGR) are a better predictive marker for carcinogen-induced tumorigenesis than mutations in actively transcribed genes (53). The importance of GGR and a smaller role for TCR in avoiding genomic instability and cancer are exemplified by two inherited defects in NER in humans. Xeroderma pigmentosum patients, deficient in GGR, are much more susceptible to cancer in comparison to Cockayne syndrome patients, who have impaired TCR but normal GGR. TCR is crucial for cell survival and the lower cancer incidence in Cockayne syndrome patients is thought to be due to selective elimination of cells by apoptosis as a result of prolonged transcription blockage (53).

The results of this study show that species- and tissue-related differences in DNA repair activity correlate with susceptibility to AFB1-induced carcinogenesis. Furthermore, in vivo treatment of mice with a tumorigenic dose of AFB1 leads to a tissue-specific change in DNA repair activity that also correlates with susceptibility.


   Acknowledgments
 
Grant support: Canadian Institutes for Health Research (Grant no. MT 10382 to T.E. Massey), and by the National Cancer Institute of Canada operating grant (grant no. 013202 to S. Davey) with funds from the Canadian Cancer Society Terry Fox Run.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

We thank Dr. Bernard Salles (Laboratoire de Pharmacologie et Toxicologie Fondamentales du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Toulouse, France) for his advice on the incision assay.

Received 9/16/04. Revised 11/18/04. Accepted 12/14/04.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Wogan GN. Aflatoxin carcinogenesis. Methods Cancer Res 1973;7:309–44.
  2. Wogan GN. Aflatoxins as risk factors for hepatocellular carcinoma in humans. Cancer Res 1992;52:2114–8s.
  3. Hayes RB, Van Nieuwenhuize JP, Raatgever JW, ten Kate FJW. Aflatoxin exposures in the industrial setting: an epidemiological study of mortality. Food Chem Toxicol 1984;22:39–43.[CrossRef][Medline]
  4. Dvorackova I, Stora C, Ayraud N. Evidence for aflatoxin B1 in two cases of lung cancer in man. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 1981;100:221–4.[CrossRef][Medline]
  5. Dvorackova I, Polster M. Relation between aflatoxin producing aspergilloma and lung carcinoma. Microbiologie-Aliments-Nutrition 1984;2:187–92.
  6. Dvorackova I. Aflatoxin inhalation and alveolar cell carcinoma.Br Med J 1986;1:691.
  7. Guengerich FP. Cytochrome P450 oxidations in the generation of reactive electrophiles: epoxidation and related reactions. Arch Biochem Biophys 2003;409:59–71.[CrossRef][Medline]
  8. Donnelly PJ, Stewart RK, Ali SL, et al. Biotransformation of aflatoxin B1 in human lung. Carcinogenesis 1996;17:2487–94.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Massey TE, Smith GB, Tam AS. Mechanisms of aflatoxin B1 lung tumorigenesis. Exp Lung Res 2000;26:673–83.[CrossRef][Medline]
  10. Essigmann JM, Croy RG, Nadzan AM, et al. Structural identification of the major DNA adduct formed by aflatoxin B1 in vitro. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1977;74:1870–4.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Croy RG, Essigmann JM, Reinhold VN, Wogan GN. Identification of the principal aflatoxin B1-DNA adduct formed in vivo in rat liver. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1978;75:1745–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Hertzog PJ, Smith JR, Garner RC. Characterization of the imidazole ring-opened forms of trans-8,9-dihydro-8,9-dihydro-8-(7-guanyl)9-hydroxy aflatoxin B1. Carcinogenesis 1982;3:723–5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Wang J-S, Groopman J. DNA Damage by Mycotoxins. Mutat Res 1999;424:167–81.[Medline]
  14. Hsu IC, Metcalf RA, Sun T, Welsh JA, Wang NJ, Harris CC. Mutational hotspot in the p53 gene in human hepatocellular carcinomas. Nature 1991;350:427–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
  15. Bressac B, Kew M, Wands J, Ozturk M. Selective G to T mutations of p53 gene in hepatocellular carcinoma from Southern Africa. Nature 1991;350:429–31.[CrossRef][Medline]
  16. Newberne PM, Butler WH. Acute and chronic effects of aflatoxin on the liver of domestic and laboratory animals: a review. Cancer Res 1969;29:236–44.[Free Full Text]
  17. Donnelly PJ, Massey TE. Ki-ras activation in lung cells isolated from AC3F1 (A/J x C3H/HeJ) mice after treatment with aflatoxin B1. Mol Carcinog 1999;26:62–7.[CrossRef][Medline]
  18. Eaton DL, Gallagher EP. Mechanisms of aflatoxin carcinogenesis. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 1994;34:135–72.[CrossRef][Medline]
  19. Monroe DH, Eaton DL. Comparative effects of butylated hydroxyanisole on hepatic in vivo DNA binding and in vitro biotransformation of aflatoxin B1 in the rat and mouse. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 1987;90:401–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  20. Leadon SA, Tyrrell RM, Cerutti PA. Excision repair of aflatoxin B1-DNA adducts in human fibroblasts. Cancer Res 1981;41:5125–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Takahashi Y, Nakatsuru Y, Zhang S, et al. Enhanced spontaneous and aflatoxin-induced liver tumorigenesis in xeroderma pigmentosum group A gene-deficient mice. Carcinogenesis 2002;23:627–33.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Levy DD, Groopman JD, Lim SE, Seidman MM, Kraemer KH. Sequence specificity of aflatoxin B1-induced mutations in a plasmid replicated in xeroderma pigmentosum and DNA repair proficient human cells. Cancer Res 1992;52:5668–73.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Costa RM, Chigancas V, da Silva GR, Carvalho H, Menck CF. The eukaryotic nucleotide excision repair pathway. Biochimie 2003;85:1083–99.[Medline]
  24. Wood RD, Biggerstaff M, Shivji MKK. Detection and measurement of nucleotide excision repair synthesis by mammalian cell extracts in vitro. Methods: A Companion to Methods in Enzymology 1995;7:163–75.
  25. Salles B, Frit P, Provot C, Jaeg JP, Calsou P. In vitro eukaryotic DNA excision repair assays: an overview. Biochimie 1995;77:796–802.[Medline]
  26. Wood RD, Robins P, Lindahl T. Complementation of the xeroderma pigmentosum DNA repair defect in cell-free extracts. Cell 1988;53:97–106.[CrossRef][Medline]
  27. Aboussekhra A, Biggerstaff M, Shivji MK, et al. Mammalian DNA nucleotide excision repair reconstituted with purified protein components. Cell 1995;80:859–68.[CrossRef][Medline]
  28. Kensler TW, Egner PA, Davidson NE, Roebuck BD, Pikul A, Groopman JD. Modulation of aflatoxin metabolism, aflatoxin-N7-guanine formation, and hepatic tumorigenesis in rats fed ethoxyquin: role of induction of glutathione S-transferases. Cancer Res 1986;46:3924–31.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Essigmann JM, Croy RG, Bennett RA, Wogan GN. Metabolic activation of aflatoxin B1: patterns of DNA adduct formation, removal, and excretion in relation to carcinogenesis. Drug Metab Rev 1982;13:581–602.[Medline]
  30. Holeski CJ, Eaton DL, Monroe DH, Bellamy GM. Effects of phenobarbital on the biliary excretion of aflatoxin P1-glucuronide and aflatoxin B1-S-glutathione in the rat. Xenobiotica 1987;17:139–53.[Medline]
  31. Lowry OH, Rosebrough NJ, Farr AL, Randall RJ. Protein measurement with the folin phenol reagent. J Biol Chem 1951;193:265–75.[Free Full Text]
  32. Baertschi SW, Raney KD, Stone MP, Harris TM. Preparation of the 8,9-epoxide of the mycotoxin aflatoxin B1: the ultimate carcinogenic species. J Am Chem Soc 1988;110:7929–31.[CrossRef]
  33. Iyer RS, Coles BF, Raney KD, Thier R, Guengerich FP, Harris TM. DNA adduction by the potent carcinogen aflatoxin B1: mechanistic studies. J Am Chem Soc 1994;116:1603–9.[CrossRef]
  34. Groopman JD, Fowler KW, Busby WF, Wogan GN. Interaction of aflatoxin B2 with rat liver DNA and histones in vivo. Carcinogenesis 1981;2:1371–3.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Oleykowski CA, Mayernik JA, Lim SE, et al. Repair of aflatoxin B1 DNA adducts by the UvrABC endonuclease of Escherichia coli. J Biol Chem 1993;268:7990–8002.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Coudore F, Calsou P, Salles B. DNA repair activity in protein extracts from rat tissues. FEBS Lett 1997;414:581–4.[CrossRef][Medline]
  37. Calsou P, Salles B. Measurement of damage-specific DNA incision by nucleotide excision repair in vitro. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1994;202:788–95.[CrossRef][Medline]
  38. Raney KD, Coles B, Guengerich FP, Harris TM. The endo-8,9-epoxide of aflatoxin B1: a new metabolite. Chem Res Toxicol 1992;5:333–5.[CrossRef][Medline]
  39. Refolo LM, Conley MP, Sambamurti K, Jacobsen JS, Humayun MZ. Sequence context effects in DNA replication blocks induced by aflatoxin B1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1985;82:3096–100.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  40. Jacobsen JS, Refolo LM, Conley MP, Sambamurti K, Humayun MZ. DNA replication-blocking properties of adducts formed by aflatoxin B1-2,3-dichloride and aflatoxin B1-2,3-oxide. Mutat Res 1987;179:89–101.[Medline]
  41. Johnston DS, Stone MP. Replication of a site-specific trans-8,9-dihydro-8-(N7-guanyl)-9-hydroxyaflatoxin B(1) adduct by the exonuclease deficient Klenow fragment of DNA polymerase I. Chem Res Toxicol 2000;13:1158–64.[CrossRef][Medline]
  42. Croy RG, Wogan GN. Temporal patterns of covalent DNA adducts in rat liver after single and multiple doses of aflatoxin B1. Cancer Res 1981;41:197–203.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  43. Smith ML, Chen IT, Zhan Q, O'Connor PM, Fornace AJ. Involvement of the p53 tumor suppressor in repair of u.v.-type DNA damage. Oncogene 1995;10:1053–9.[Medline]
  44. Protic M, Roilides E, Levine AS, Dixon K. Enhancement of DNA repair capacity of mammalian cells by carcinogen treatment. Somat Cell Mol Genet 1988;14:351–7.[CrossRef][Medline]
  45. Germanier M, Defais M, Bohr VA, Larminat F. Transcription-coupled repair is inducible in hamster cells. Nucleic Acids Res 2000;28:4674–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  46. Yu FL, Dowe RJ, Geronimo IH, Bender W. Evidence for an indirect mechanism of aflatoxin B1 inhibition of rat liver nuclear RNA polymerase II activity in vivo. Carcinogenesis 1986;7:253–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  47. Yu FL, Cass M, Rokusek L. Tissue, sex, and animal species specificity of aflatoxin B1 inhibition of nuclear RNA polymerase II activity. Carcinogenesis 1982;3:1005–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  48. Smela ME, Hamm ML, Henderson PT, Harris CM, Harris TM, Essigmann JM. The aflatoxin B(1) formamidopyrimidine adduct plays a major role in causing the types of mutations observed in human hepatocellular carcinoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002;99:6655–60.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  49. Mao H, Deng Z, Wang F, Harris TM, Stone MP. An intercalated and thermally stable FAPY adduct of aflatoxin B1 in a DNA duplex: structural refinement from 1H NMR. Biochemistry 1998;37:4374–87.[CrossRef][Medline]
  50. Alekseyev YO, Hamm ML, Essigmann JM. Aflatoxin B1 formamidopyrimidine adducts are preferentially repaired by the nucleotide excision repair pathway in vivo. Carcinogenesis 2004;25:1045–51.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  51. Chetsanga CJ, Frenette GP. Excision of aflatoxin B1-imidazole ring opened guanine adducts from DNA by formamidopyrimidine-DNA glycosylase. Carcinogenesis 1983;4:997–1000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  52. Margison GP, Pegg AE. Enzymatic release of 7-methylguanine from methylated DNA by rodent liver extracts. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1981;78:861–5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  53. Balajee AS, Bohr VA. Genomic heterogeneity of nucleotide excision repair. Gene 2000;250:15–30.[CrossRef][Medline]
  54. Hanawalt PC, Ford JM, Lloyd DR. Functional characterization of global genomic DNA repair and its implications for cancer. Mutat Res 2003;544:107–14.[CrossRef][Medline]
  55. Tsurimoto T. PCNA, a multifunctional ring on DNA. Biochim Biophys Acta 1998;1443:23–39.[Medline]
  56. Riedl T, Hanaoka F, Egly JM. The comings and goings of nucleotide excision repair factors on damaged DNA. EMBO J 2003;22:5293–303.[CrossRef][Medline]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Mol. Cell. Biol.Home page
Y. Guo, L. L. Breeden, H. Zarbl, B. D. Preston, and D. L. Eaton
Expression of a Human Cytochrome P450 in Yeast Permits Analysis of Pathways for Response to and Repair of Aflatoxin-Induced DNA Damage
Mol. Cell. Biol., July 15, 2005; 25(14): 5823 - 5833.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bedard, L. L.
Right arrow Articles by Massey, T. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bedard, L. L.
Right arrow Articles by Massey, T. E.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online