Cancer Research Meeting Calendar Jordan
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 Email this article to a friend
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 El-Zein, R. A.
Right arrow Articles by Spitz, M. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by El-Zein, R. A.
Right arrow Articles by Spitz, M. R.
[Cancer Research 66, 6449-6456, June 15, 2006]
© 2006 American Association for Cancer Research

Epidemiology and Prevention

Cytokinesis-Blocked Micronucleus Assay as a Novel Biomarker for Lung Cancer Risk

Randa A. El-Zein, Matthew B. Schabath, Carol J. Etzel, Mirtha S. Lopez, Jamey D. Franklin and Margaret R. Spitz

Department of Epidemiology, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas

Requests for reprints: Randa A. El-Zein, Department of Epidemiology, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 1340, P.O. Box 301439, Houston, TX 77030-1439. Phone: 713-745-2539; Fax: 713-792-9568; E-mail: relzein{at}mdanderson.org.


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
In this case-control study, we modified the cytokinesis-block micronucleus (CBMN) assay, an established biomarker for genomic instability, to evaluate susceptibility to the nicotine-derived nitrosamine 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK) by measuring the frequency of NNK-induced chromosomal damage endpoints (micronuclei, nucleoplasmic bridges, and nuclear buds) per 1,000 binucleated lymphocytes. Spontaneous and NNK-induced chromosomal damage were significantly higher in lung cancer patients compared with controls. Forty-seven percent of cases (versus 12% of controls) had ≥4 spontaneous micronuclei, 66% of cases (and no controls) had ≥4 spontaneous nucleoplasmic bridges, and 25% of cases (versus 5% of controls) had ≥1 spontaneous nuclear bud (P < 0.001). Similarly, 40% of cases (versus 6% of the controls) had ≥5 NNK-induced micronuclei, 89% of cases (and no controls) had ≥6 induced nucleoplasmic bridges, and 23% of cases (versus 2% of controls) had ≥2 induced nuclear buds (P < 0.001). When analyzed on a continuous scale, spontaneous micronuclei, nucleoplasmic bridges, and nuclear buds were associated with 2-, 29-, and 6-fold increases in cancer risk, respectively. Similarly, NNK-induced risks were 2.3-, 45.5-, and 10-fold, respectively. We evaluated the use of CBMN assay to predict cancer risk based on the numbers of micronuclei, nucleoplasmic bridges, and nuclear buds defined by percentile cut points in controls. Probabilities of being a cancer patient were 96%, 98%, and 100% when using the 95th percentiles of spontaneous and NNK-induced micronuclei, nucleoplasmic bridges, and nuclear buds, respectively. Our study indicates that the CBMN assay is extremely sensitive to NNK-induced genetic damage and may serve as a strong predictor of lung cancer risk. (Cancer Res 2006; 66(12): 6449-56)


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality in the United States, and there is an urgent need to improve outcome by identifying and validating markers to predict risk and allow early diagnosis (1). A crucial early event in carcinogenesis is the induction of the genomic instability phenotype, which enables an initiated cell to evolve into a cancer cell by achieving a greater proliferative capacity (2). It is well known that cancer results from an accumulation of multiple genetic changes that can be mediated through chromosomal changes and that have the potential to be cytogenetically detectable (3). It has been hypothesized that the level of genetic damage in peripheral blood lymphocytes reflects the amount of damage in the precursor cells that lead to the carcinogenic process in target tissues (4). Evidence that cytogenetic biomarkers are positively correlated with cancer risk has been strongly validated in recent results from both cohort and nested case-control studies showing that chromosome aberrations are a marker of cancer risk (5–9), reflecting both the genotoxic effects of carcinogens and individual cancer susceptibility.

The cytokinesis-block micronucleus (CBMN) assay in human lymphocytes is one of the most commonly used methods for measuring DNA damage because it is relatively easier to score micronuclei than chromosome aberrations (2). Micronuclei originate from chromosome fragments or whole chromosomes that fail to engage with the mitotic spindle and therefore lag behind when the cell divides. Compared with other cytogenetic assays, quantification of micronuclei confers several advantages, including speed and ease of analysis, no requirement for metaphase cells, and reliable identification of cells that have completed only one nuclear division. This prevents confounding effects caused by differences in cell division kinetics because expression of micronuclei, nucleoplasmic bridges, or nuclear buds is dependent on completion of nuclear division (10). Because cells are blocked in the binucleated stage, it is also possible to measure nucleoplasmic bridges originating from asymmetrical chromosome rearrangements and/or telomere end fusions (11, 12). Nucleoplasmic bridges occur when the centromeres of dicentric chromosomes or chromatids are pulled to the opposite poles of the cell at anaphase. In the CBMN assay, binucleated cells with nucleoplasmic bridges are easily observed because cytokinesis is inhibited, preventing breakage of the anaphase bridges from which nucleoplasmic bridges are derived; thus, the nuclear membrane forms around the nucleoplasmic bridge. Both micronuclei and nucleoplasmic bridges occur in cells exposed to DNA-breaking agents (13, 14). In addition to micronuclei and nucleoplasmic bridges, the CBMN assay allows for the detection of nuclear buds, which represent a mechanism by which cells remove amplified DNA and are therefore considered a marker of possible gene amplification [reviewed by Fenech (14)]. The CBMN test is gradually replacing the analysis of chromosome aberrations in lymphocytes because micronuclei, nucleoplasmic bridges, and nuclear buds are easy to recognize and score and the results can be obtained in a shorter time (15).

More than 80% of lung cancers are attributed to tobacco exposure. However, because only a fraction of long-term smokers (~15%) will develop lung cancer in their lifetime (16), it is proposed that genetic factors play a role in individual susceptibility. An individual's DNA repair capacity may play a significant role in modifying risk for cancer. The tobacco-specific nitrosamine 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK) is a strong pulmonary carcinogen and a potent inducer of lung adenocarcinoma, now the leading lung cancer subtype in the United States (17). Studies on the metabolism of NNK have shown that it induces cross-links in DNA; interacts with DNA, forming different types of adducts; and increases the frequency of chromosome aberrations (18, 19). Hecht (20) reported that DNA adducts derived from NNK are present at a higher level in lung tissues from lung cancer patients than controls, and metabolites of NNK are found in the urine of people who use tobacco products or are exposed to environmental tobacco smoke. The repair kinetics for NNK-induced genetic damage has not been clearly elucidated but may involve several DNA repair pathways, including base excision and nucleotide excision repair pathways (21). In the current study, we used the CBMN assay to measure NNK-induced micronucleus, nucleoplasmic bridge, and nuclear bud frequencies and conducted a pilot proof-of-principle case-control study to evaluate whether NNK-induced damage was associated with lung cancer risk.


   Materials and Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Study population. Cases and controls for this analysis were accrued from an ongoing molecular epidemiologic study on susceptibility markers for lung cancer. Cases (n =139) were consecutive patients with newly diagnosed, previously untreated, histologically confirmed lung cancer patients. All cases were recruited from The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, with no age, gender, ethnicity, tumor histology, or disease stage restrictions. Healthy controls (n = 130) were recruited from the Kelsey-Seybold Clinics, Houston's largest private multispecialty physician group. Controls were matched to the cases on age (±5 years), gender, ethnicity, and smoking status (current and former). Data related to the subjects' medical history, family history of cancer, smoking habits, and occupational history were obtained through an interviewer-administered risk-factor questionnaire and by review of an institutional electronic patient history database. The institutional review boards at both The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center and Kelsey-Seybold Clinics approved this study. After giving informed consent, all study participants donated a 10-mL blood sample, which was drawn into coded heparinized tubes.

Peripheral blood lymphocyte cultures for CBMN test. The CBMN test was done using the cytochalasin B technique described by Fenech and Morley (22) and following recommendations from the International Collaborative Project on Micronucleus Frequency in Human Populations (HUMN Project) to measure micronuclei, nucleoplasmic bridges, and nuclear buds in untreated cells and NNK-treated cells. Duplicate lymphocyte cultures were prepared for each study subject. Each culture contained 2.0 x 106 cells in 5 mL RPMI 1640 supplemented with 100 units/mL penicillin, 100 µg/mL streptomycin, 10% fetal bovine serum, and 2 mmol/L L-glutamine (Life Technologies-Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) and 1% phytohemagglutinin (Remel, Lenexa, KS). For the cultures treated with NNK, 24 hours after initiation, the peripheral blood lymphocytes were centrifuged and the supernatant growth medium was removed and reserved. The peripheral blood lymphocytes were resuspended in 5 mL serum-free RPMI 1640 supplemented with 0.24 mmol/L NNK (a dose previously used by us and others; refs. 23–26; CAS no. 64091-91-4, National Cancer Institute, Midwest Carcinogen Repository, Kansas City, MO; purity, >98%) and incubated at 37°C in the presence of 5% CO2 for 2 hours. Next, the peripheral blood lymphocytes were washed twice with serum-free RPMI 1640, transferred to clean tubes, and reincubated for 48 hours in the reserved supernatant. At 44 hours after initiation, cells were blocked in cytokinesis by adding cytochalasin B (Sigma, St. Louis, MO; final concentration, 4 µg/mL). Similarly, cultures for the determination of spontaneous damage (untreated cells) were handled in the same manner, with the exception of treatment with NNK. The total incubation time for all cultures was 72 hours. After incubation, the cells were fixed in 3:1 methanol/glacial acetic acid, dropped onto clean microscopic slides, air-dried, and stained with Giemsa stain. For each sample, 1,000 binucleated cells were scored blindly using a Nikon (Lewisville, TX) E-400 light optical microscope following the scoring criteria outlined by HUMN Project (2, 22, 27); the numbers of micronuclei, nucleoplasmic bridges, and nuclear buds per 1,000 binucleated cells were recorded. For quality control, 20% of the slides were randomly selected and blindly rescored and the results were compared with the original scoring.

Statistical analysis. All analyses were done using the Intercooled Stata 8.0 statistical software package (Stata Corp., College Station, TX). Pearson's {chi}2 test was used to test for differences between cases and controls in terms of gender, alcohol consumption, and family history of cancer. Student's t test was used to test differences in mean age and average number of cigarettes smoked per day. We used the nonparametric Wilcoxon's rank-sum test (continuous) and the Pearson's {chi}2 test (categorical) to compare the distribution of spontaneous and NNK-induced micronuclei, nucleoplasmic bridges, and nuclear buds between cases and controls. We also constructed dot charts using S-Plus (version 6.2, Insightful Corp., Seattle, WA, 2003) to compare the distribution of spontaneous and NNK-induced micronuclei, nucleoplasmic bridges, and nuclear buds between cases and controls. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated to provide an estimate of the risk of lung cancer associated with the number of spontaneous and NNK-treated micronuclei, nucleoplasmic bridges, and nuclear buds per 1,000 cells. Unconditional multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to control for confounding by age, gender, alcohol consumption, smoking status, and years smoked.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
Demographics and the study population. The demographic characteristics of the 139 cases and 130 controls are summarized in Table 1 . Cases and controls did not differ significantly in terms of gender. However, on average, the cases were 2.5 years younger (mean age ± SE, 58.4 ± 0.41) than the controls (mean age ± SE, 60.9 ± 0.32; P < 0.001). Twenty-four percent of the patients self-reported a family history of cancer in first-degree relatives compared with 22% of the controls (P = 0.780). Cases had, on average, smoked cigarettes for 42.1 years compared with 37.7 years for controls (P < 0.001), but both groups smoked about the same number of cigarettes per day (mean number of cigarettes per day ± SE, 30.2 ± 1.38 for cases and 29.2 ± 1.21 for controls; P = 0.651).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Distribution of selected host characteristics by case-control status

 
Frequencies of cytogenetic endpoints by case-control status. Overall, the lung cancer cases exhibited significantly higher values of all cytogenetic end points than the controls (Table 2 ). The Ps for all Wilcoxon's rank-sum tests were <0.001.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2. Overall spontaneous and NNK-induced frequencies of micronuclei, nucleoplasmic bridges, and nuclear buds per 1,000 binucleated cells by age, gender, and years smoked in lung cancer cases and controls

 
Frequencies of spontaneous cytogenetic endpoints. Data on spontaneous micronucleus, nucleoplasmic bridge, and nuclear bud frequencies by age, gender, and years of smoking are summarized in Table 2. Table 3 shows that ~47% of the cases had ≥4 micronuclei per 1,000 binucleated cells compared with 12% of control subjects and that 40% of the control subjects had 0 or 1 micronucleus compared with only 9% of the cases (P < 0.001). The mean number of spontaneous micronuclei ± SE was significantly higher in the cases (3.41 ± 0.13) than in the control subjects (1.98 ± 0.12; P < 0.001). Similarly, ~66% of the cases had ≥4 nucleoplasmic bridges compared with none of the control subjects, whereas 86% of the controls had 0 or 1 nucleoplasmic bridge compared with none of the cases (P < 0.001). Furthermore, the number of spontaneous nucleoplasmic bridges was significantly higher in the cases (mean ± SE, 4.14 ± 0.10) than in the controls (mean ± SE, 0.57 ± 0.07; P < 0.001). With regard to frequency of nuclear bud distribution, ~95% of the controls exhibited no spontaneous buds compared with 73% of cases. Only 5% of the controls had 1 spontaneous bud compared with 25% of the cases (P < 0.001). Overall, the average number of spontaneous buds was significantly higher in the cases than in the controls (mean ± SE, 0.28 ± 0.04 and 0.05 ± 0.02, respectively; P < 0.001). No substantial differences were detected when the frequencies of micronuclei, nucleoplasmic bridges, and nuclear buds were stratified by gender, age, family history of cancer, number of years smoked, number of cigarettes per day, tumor histology, or disease stage. When the spontaneous micronuclei data were analyzed as a continuous variable, using multivariate logistic regression, there was a 2.06-fold increase in lung cancer risk (95% CI, 1.60-2.65) for each 1-unit increase in micronucleus frequency. Similarly, when spontaneous nucleoplasmic bridges were analyzed as a continuous variable, there was a 29.05-fold increase in lung cancer risk (95% CI, 7.48-112.80) for each 1-unit increase in nucleoplasmic bridges. For the nuclear buds, there was a 6.5-fold increase in lung cancer risk (95% CI, 2.37-18.01) for each 1-unit increase in spontaneous bud frequency (Table 3).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3. Distributions and risk estimates of lung cancer for spontaneous and NNK-induced micronuclei, nucleoplasmic bridges, and nuclear buds

 
Frequencies of NNK-induced cytogenetic endpoints. Data on NNK-induced micronucleus, nucleoplasmic bridge, and nuclear bud frequencies by age, gender, and smoking status are also summarized in Table 2. Table 3 shows that substantially more cases had ≥5 NNK-induced micronuclei per 1,000 binucleated cells than controls (40% versus 6%); conversely, far fewer cases than controls had only 1 or 2 NNK-induced micronuclei (4% versus 49%; P < 0.001; Fig. 1A ). The differences were even more pronounced for spontaneous and NNK-induced nucleoplasmic bridges. The mean number of NNK-induced micronuclei ± SE was significantly higher in cases (4.32 ± 0.10) than in controls (2.62 ± 0.10; P < 0.001). As reported in Table 3, ~89% of the case patients had ≥6 NNK-induced nucleoplasmic bridges compared with none of the control subjects. Conversely, 65% of the control subjects had 0 to 2 NNK-induced nucleoplasmic bridges compared with none of the case patients (P < 0.001; Fig. 1B). The number of NNK-induced nucleoplasmic bridges was also significantly higher in cases (mean ± SE, 8.12 ± 0.19) than in controls (mean ± SE, 2.38 ± 0.09; P < 0.001).


Figure 1
View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. A, frequency of NNK-induced micronuclei by case-control status. Forty percent of the cases had ≥5 micronuclei (MN) versus 6% of the controls. B, frequency of NNK-induced nucleoplasmic bridges by case-control status. Eighty-nine percent of the cases had ≥6 nucleoplasmic bridges (NPBs) versus 0% of the controls. C, frequency of NNK-induced nuclear buds by case-control status. Twenty-three percent of the cases had ≥2 nuclear buds (NBUDs) versus 2% controls.

 
There were no substantial differences when the frequencies of NNK-induced micronuclei and nucleoplasmic bridges were stratified by gender, age, family history of cancer, number of years smoked, number of cigarettes per day, tumor histology, or disease stage. When the NNK-induced micronuclei data were analyzed as a continuous variable, there was a 2.32-fold increase in lung cancer risk (95% CI, 2.32-4.80) for each 1-unit increase in NNK-induced micronuclei. Similarly, NNK-induced nucleoplasmic bridges showed a 45.52-fold increase in lung cancer risk (95% CI, 4.48-422.17) for each 1-unit increase in frequency. With regard to bud distribution, 23% of the cases had ≥2 NNK-induced buds compared with ~2% of controls; 87% of the controls had no NNK-induced buds compared with 35% of the case patients (P < 0.001; Fig. 1C). The number of NNK-induced buds was significantly higher in cases than in controls (mean ± SE, 1.07 ± 0.09 and 0.12 ± 0.03, respectively; P < 0.001). When the nuclear bud frequency was analyzed as a continuous variable, there was a 10.1-fold increase in lung cancer risk (95% CI, 4.67-21.87) for each 1-unit increase in NNK-induced buds. Similar patterns of difference between cases and controls were observed for micronuclei, nucleoplasmic bridges, and nuclear buds within subgroups of subjects stratified by gender, age, family history of cancer, number of years smoked, number of cigarettes per day, tumor histology, and disease stage (Table 3).

To ensure quality control, 20% of the slides were randomly selected for blind rescoring. Agreement between the original data and the rescored data was measured using the Cohen's {kappa} statistical test. A statistically significant value of P < 0.001 was obtained for both spontaneous and NNK-induced variables, indicating that the agreement between the original and the rescored data was not attributable to random chance.

CBMN assay results as a predictor of case-control status. Using the 75 percentile of the controls as a cutoff, the sensitivity of the CMBN assay was 96.4%, 100%, and 100% for the micronuclei, nucleoplasmic bridges, and nuclear buds, respectively. The specificity of the assay was 93.0%, 100%, and 100% for the micronuclei, nucleoplasmic bridges, and nuclear buds, respectively. The probabilities that a study subject was a case based on various cut points for the numbers of micronuclei, nucleoplasmic bridges, and nuclear buds were calculated (Table 4 ). The numbers of micronuclei, nucleoplasmic bridges, and nuclear buds were defined by percentile cut points in the control data. The probability of being a case increased as the percentile cut points increased for high numbers of micronuclei, nucleoplasmic bridges, or nuclear buds. The numbers of spontaneous and NNK-induced micronuclei showed no difference in terms of predictive capacity at the 90th percentile. The numbers of spontaneous and NNK-induced nucleoplasmic bridges showed a slight difference in terms of predictive capacity at the 90th percentile, with the number of induced nucleoplasmic bridges having a better predictive capacity than that of spontaneous nucleoplasmic bridges. The number of NNK-induced nuclear buds showed the highest predictive capacity of the three end points at and above the 85th percentile. On combining all three end points and by using the 75 percentile of the controls as a cutoff, the CBMN assay sensitivity for detecting NNK-induced damage was 96.4%, with 80.8% specificity and 84.3% positive predictive value.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 4. Probability of being a case based on various percentile cut points for the numbers of micronuclei, nucleoplasmic bridges, and nuclear buds in the controls

 

   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
In the current study, we tested the sensitivity of the study subjects' lymphocytes to the tobacco-specific nitrosamine NNK, because it represents an important class of carcinogens known to be associated with the development of lung cancer, particularly adenocarcinoma, which is now the leading lung cancer histologic subtype in the United States, having surpassed squamous cell carcinoma (17). Our results show that cases and controls had differential sensitivity to the genotoxic effects of NNK. The lymphocytes from patients with lung cancer were significantly more sensitive to NNK, with 1.6-, 3.4-, and 8.9-fold increases in micronucleus, nucleoplasmic bridge, and nuclear bud frequencies, respectively, over controls. The results of this analysis also show that NNK-induced cytogenetic damage (expressed in terms of micronucleus, nucleoplasmic bridge, and nuclear bud frequencies) seems to be a highly sensitive predictor of lung cancer status.

Tobacco smoke contains an array of potent carcinogens, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, aromatic amines, and N-nitrosamines. Among the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, benzo[a]pyrene has been the most extensively studied, and our research to date has focused largely on this carcinogen. Benzo[a]pyrene is an effective pulmonary carcinogen, inducing predominantly squamous cell carcinoma on intratracheal instillation into rats and hamsters. Tobacco-specific nitrosamines are found in high concentrations in mainstream smoke (28). The most potent carcinogenic member of this group, as shown in experimental animals, is NNK (29). NNK induces lung adenocarcinoma independent of route of administration and in both susceptible and resistant strains of mice (30). The estimated NNK dose of lifetime smokers (2 packs daily for 40 years) is 1.6 mg NNK/kg body weight (31), close to the lowest dose shown to induce lung tumors in rats (1.8 mg; ref. 32). The total level of NNK in mainstream smoke is 3 to 15 times that of benzo[a]pyrene (33). Gender differences and DNA repair allelic variants have been reported to modulate the effect of NNK-induced genotoxic damage using the conventional chromosome aberration assay (24, 25) or fluorescence in situ hybridization assay using chromosome 1–specific probes in healthy smokers and nonsmoker controls (26). In addition, NNK was shown to be a potent mutagen using both the Ames Salmonella assay and the micronucleus test in Swiss mice (34).

The CBMN assay is a genotoxicity assay that provides simultaneous information on a variety of chromosomal damage endpoints that reflect chromosomal breakage, chromosome rearrangements, and gene amplification. In the current study, the frequencies of micronuclei, nucleoplasmic bridges, and nuclear buds were significantly higher in the lung cancer patients than in controls. Cheng et al. reported similar results after evaluating the micronucleus frequency in 42 patients with lung cancer and 55 controls (35). The significantly higher spontaneous micronuclei levels observed in the cases suggest a higher background level of genetic instability in the cancer patients. The effect of smoking on micronucleus frequency in peripheral blood lymphocytes has not been consistent across studies, which generally have been small and not properly designed to detect the effect of smoking as the main outcome measure (36–38). However, a pooled reanalysis of 24 databases (5,710 subjects, of which 1,409 were current smokers) from the HUMN Project revealed that micronucleus frequency was not influenced by the number of cigarettes smoked per day among subjects occupationally exposed to genotoxic agents, whereas a U-shaped curve was observed for nonexposed smokers, with a significant increase of micronucleus frequency in individuals smoking ≥30 cigarettes per day (frequency ratio, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.35-1.88; ref. 39). Our results showed no significant association between micronucleus frequency and age, gender, or smoking status, which is in agreement with the results reported by Cheng et al. (35). The current study is, to our knowledge, the first to report a significantly higher frequency of spontaneous nucleoplasmic bridges and nuclear buds in a lung cancer case-control study, thus supporting the hypothesis of breakage-fusion-bridge cycle mechanism of hypermutation during carcinogenesis (reviewed in refs. 2, 13). Gisselsson et al. (40) reported that abnormal nuclear morphology (associated with nucleoplasmic bridges, micronuclei, and nuclear buds) is indicative of significant genomic instability within cells and is a common feature of a wide variety of cancers. An increase in the frequency of these chromosomal damage end points in a surrogate tissue, such as peripheral blood lymphocytes, would imply constitutional sensitivity to genetic damage.

Several epidemiologic studies employing a variety of measures of DNA repair capacity have been done to compare cancer patients and healthy control subjects and thereby assess the role of repair capacity in cancer risk (19). Using a variety of in vitro assays, we have shown previously (41–45) that sensitivity to mutagens varies widely between subjects with and without cancer and that this variation translates into interindividual variability in susceptibility to in vitro carcinogenic challenge. The mutagen sensitivity assay measures indirectly an individual's DNA repair capacity from cellular damage remaining after an in vitro mutagenic exposure and subsequent recovery. This assay, developed by Hsu et al. (46), reflects general and nonspecific impairment of the DNA repair machinery and host genomic stability.

Our current study is, to our knowledge, the first to validate the use of the CBMN assay, with NNK as the challenge mutagen, in a case-control study by testing the sensitivity of this genomic instability biomarker as a predictor of lung cancer risk. Table 4 shows the predictive probabilities for being a case based on various cutpoints for the numbers of spontaneous and induced micronuclei, nucleoplasmic bridges, and nuclear buds, alone and in combination, as defined by the frequency distribution in control subjects. The probability of being a case increased as the percentile cutpoints increased for all cytogenetic end points and the highest probabilities were observed when spontaneous and NNK-induced cytogenetic events were combined. The case-control differences were so striking that we considered, but rejected, alternative explanations. All the cases were enrolled at diagnosis and before initiating treatment; the assays were done blindly and in batches. We rescored randomly selected samples and obtained high levels of reliability. Further, the values did not differ according to smoking duration or intensity and especially not disease stage (lessening the likelihood that this is a tumor marker rather than a marker of risk).

This assay has been used to study susceptibility to other mutagenic agents. Scott et al. (47) showed that individuals who developed breast cancer and their relatives were more sensitive than controls to the DNA-damaging effect of ionizing radiation as shown by micronucleus frequency. This sensitivity was observed in 10 of 11 cases of BRACA1 mutation carriers and was indicative of a defect in double-strand break repair (48), thus suggesting that this assay is useful not only as a marker of DNA damage but also as a means of measuring the DNA repair phenotype. Umegaki and Fenech (11) recently validated the use of nucleoplasmic bridges as a biomarker of DNA damage in a human B lymphoblastoid cell line (WIL2-NS). Nucleoplasmic bridge frequency in binucleated cells increased up to 20-fold in the WIL2-NS cells relative to control cells in response to agents known to induce DNA strand breaks; the effects were found to be dose dependent. Crott et al. (49) recently reported that the frequency of nucleoplasmic bridges and nuclear buds correlated significantly and negatively with folic acid concentrations, suggesting that these chromosomal end points may be induced by folic acid deficiency. In addition, Kimura et al. (50) showed a significant effect of methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase C677T polymorphism and folic acid concentration on micronuclei, nucleoplasmic bridges, and nuclear buds in human lymphocytes. Recently, our group reported that polymorphisms in genes involved in folate metabolism were associated with lung cancer risk, an effect that may be modulated by dietary nutrient intake (51). We plan on genotyping all of the study subjects in our current study to determine the effect of genetic polymorphisms in the folate pathway on modulating the frequency of the measured endpoints. In addition, one of the advantages of the CBMN assay is the capability of comprehensively assessing DNA damage through measuring the frequency of apoptosis, necrosis, and number of micronuclei in mononucleated cells. Such variables are available for all the study subjects included in our study and we plan to report our findings as soon as the data analysis is complete.

In summary, our study shows differential sensitivity of peripheral blood lymphocytes from lung cancer patients and healthy controls to NNK-induced genetic damage. The data provide convincing evidence that the CBMN assay is a robust test for detection of this sensitivity and yields results that are a good predictor of lung cancer risk. The simplicity, rapidity, and sensitivity of the CBMN test make it a valuable tool for screening and possibly for prioritizing potential cases for early detection of the disease. This assay seems to give results that yield more accurate predictions than other phenotypic assays also undergoing assessment in this population of lung cancer cases and controls.


   Acknowledgments
 
Grant support: National Cancer Institute grants CA55769, CA98549, CA70907, DMDD17-02-10706, FAMRI, and NIEHS ES07784.

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.

Received 1/26/06. Revised 3/30/06. Accepted 4/18/06.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Hirsch FR, Fischer JR, Niklinski J, Zochbauer-Muller S. Future developments in the treatment of lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2002;38:S81–5.
  2. Fenech M. Chromosomal biomarkers of genomic instability relevant to cancer. Drug Discov Today 2002;7:1128–37.[CrossRef][Medline]
  3. Solomon E, Borrow J, Goddard AD. Chromosome aberrations and cancer. Science 1991;254:1153–60.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Hagmar L, Bonassi S, Stromberg U, et al. Chromosomal aberrations in lymphocytes predict human cancer: a report from the European Study Group on Cytogenetic Biomarkers and Health (ESCH). Cancer Res 1998;58:4117–21.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Liou SH, Lung JC, Chen YH, et al. Increased chromosome-type chromosome aberration frequencies as biomarkers of cancer risk in a blackfoot endemic area. Cancer Res 1999;59:1481–4.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Bonassi S, Hagmar L, Stromberg U, et al. Chromosomal aberrations in lymphocytes predict human cancer independently of exposure to carcinogens. European Study Group on Cytogenetic Biomarkers and Health. Cancer Res 2000;60:1619–25.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Bonassi S, Znaor A, Norppa H, Hagmar L. Chromosomal aberrations and risk of cancer in humans: an epidemiologic perspective. Cytogenet Genome Res 2004;104:376–82.[CrossRef][Medline]
  8. Smerhovsky Z, Landa K, Rossner P, et al. Risk of cancer in an occupationally exposed cohort with increased level of chromosomal aberrations. Environ Health Perspect 2001;109:41–5.[Medline]
  9. Tucker JD, Preston RJ. Chromosome aberrations, micronuclei, aneuploidy, sister chromatid exchanges, and cancer risk assessment. Mutat Res 1996;365:147–59.[CrossRef][Medline]
  10. Fenech M. The in vitro micronucleus technique. Mutat Res 2000;455:81–95.[Medline]
  11. Umegaki K, Fenech M. Cytokinesis-block micronucleus assay in WIL2-NS cells: a sensitive system to detect chromosomal damage induced by reactive oxygen species and activated human neutrophils. Mutagenesis 2000;15:261–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Stewenius Y, Gorunova L, Jonson T, et al. Structural and numerical chromosome changes in colon cancer develop through telomere-mediated anaphase bridges, not through mitotic multipolarity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005;102:5541–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Fenech M, Crott JW. Micronuclei, nucleoplasmic bridges and nuclear buds induced in folic acid deficient human lymphocytes—evidence for breakage-fusion-bridge cycles in the cytokinesis-block micronucleus assay. Mutat Res 2002;504:131–6.[Medline]
  14. Fenech M. Biomarkers of genetic damage for cancer epidemiology. Toxicology 2002;181–2:411–6.[CrossRef]
  15. Serrano-Garcia L, Montero-Montoya R. Micronuclei and chromatid buds are the result of related genotoxic events. Environ Mol Mutagen 2001;38:38–45.[CrossRef][Medline]
  16. Spitz MR, Wei Q, Dong Q, Amos CI, Wu X. Genetic susceptibility to lung cancer: the role of DNA damage and repair. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2003;12:689–98.[Free Full Text]
  17. Thun MJ, Lally CA, Flannery JT, Jr. Cigarette smoking and changes in the histopathology of lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1997;89:1580–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Weitberg AB, Corvese D. Oxygen radicals potentiate the genetic toxicity of tobacco-specific nitrosamines. Clin Genet 1993;43:88–91.[Medline]
  19. Berwick M, Vineis P. Markers of DNA repair and susceptibility to cancer in humans: an epidemiologic review. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:874–97.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Hecht SS. Human urinary carcinogen metabolites: biomarkers for investigating tobacco and cancer. Carcinogenesis 2002;23:907–22.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Cloutier JF, Drouin R, Weinfeld M, O'Connor TR, Castonguay A. Characterization and mapping of DNA damage induced by reactive metabolites of 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK) at nucleotide resolution in human genomic DNA. J Mol Biol 2001;313:539–57.[CrossRef][Medline]
  22. Fenech M, Morley AA. Measurement of micronuclei in lymphocytes. Mutat Res 1985;147:29–36.[CrossRef][Medline]
  23. Abdel-Rahman SZ, El Zein RA. The 399Gln polymorphism in the DNA repair gene XRCC1 modulates the genotoxic response induced in human lymphocytes by the tobacco-specific nitrosamine NNK. Cancer Lett 2000;159:63–71.[CrossRef][Medline]
  24. Hill CE, Affatato AA, Wolfe KJ, et al. Gender differences in genetic damage induced by the tobacco-specific nitrosamine NNK and the influence on the Thr241Met polymorphism in the XRCC3 gene. Environ Mol Mutagen 2005;4:22–9.[CrossRef]
  25. Affatato AA, Wolfe KJ, Lopez MS, Hallberg C, Ammenheuser MM, Abdel-Rahman SZ. Effect of XPD/ERCC2 polymorphisms on chromosome aberration frequencies in smokers and on sensitivity to the mutagenic tobacco-specific nitrosamine NNK. Environ Mol Mutagen 2004;44:65–73.[CrossRef][Medline]
  26. Abdel-Rahman SZ, Salama SA, Au WW, Hamada FA. Role of polymorphic CYP2E1 and CYP2D6 genes in NNK-induced chromosome aberrations in cultured human lymphocytes. Pharmacogenetics 2000;10:239–49.[CrossRef][Medline]
  27. Fenech M, Chang WP, Kirsch-Volders M, Holland N, Bonassi S, Zeiger E. HUMN Project: detailed description of the scoring criteria for the cytokinesis-block micronucleus assay using isolated human lymphocyte cultures. Mutat Res 2003;534:65–75.[Medline]
  28. Brunnemann KD. Determination of nicotine and minor tobacco alkaloids in indoor air by absorption and gas chromatography. IARC Sci Publ 1993;109:275–80.
  29. Spiegelhalder B, Bartsch H. Tobacco-specific nitrosamines. Eur J Cancer Prev 1996;5:33–8.
  30. Hecht SS, Hoffmann D. The relevance of tobacco-specific nitrosamines to human cancer. Cancer Surv 1989;8:273–94.[Medline]
  31. Hecht SS, Hoffmann D. Tobacco-specific nitrosamines, and important group of carcinogens in tobacco and tobacco smoke. Carcinogenesis 1988;9:875–84.[Free Full Text]
  32. Adams JD, O'Mara-Adams KJ, Hoffmann D. Toxic and carcinogenic agents in undiluted mainstream smoke and sidestream smoke of different types of cigarettes. Carcinogenesis 1987;8:729–31.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Hecht SS. Tobacco smoke carcinogens and lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;191:1194–210.
  34. Padma PR, Amonkar AJ, Bhide SV. Mutagenic and cytogenetic studies of N-nitrosonornicotine and 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone. Cancer Lett 1989;46:173–80.[CrossRef][Medline]
  35. Cheng TJ, Christiani DC, Xu X, Wain JC, Wiencke JH, Kelsey KT. Increased micronucleus frequency in lymphocytes from smokers with lung cancer. Mutat Res 1996;349:43–50.[CrossRef][Medline]
  36. Bonassi S, Ugolini D, Kirsh-Volders M, Stromberg U, Vermeulen R, Tucker JD. Human population studies with cytogenetic biomarkers: review of the literature and future prospectives. Environ Mol Mutagen 2005;45:258–70.[CrossRef][Medline]
  37. Fenech M. The cytokinesis-block micronucleus technique and its application to genotoxicity studies in human populations. Environ Health Perspect 1993;101:101–7.
  38. Di Giorgio C, De Meo MP, Laget M, Guiraud H, Botta A, Dumenil G. The micronucleus assay in human lymphocytes: screening for inter-individual variability and application to biomonitoring. Carcinogenesis 1994;15:313–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Bonassi S, Neri M, Lando C, et al. Effect of smoking habit on the frequency of micronuclei in human lymphocytes: results from the Human MicroNucleus project. Mutat Res 2003;543:155–66.[CrossRef][Medline]
  40. Gisselsson D, Bjork J, Hoglund M, et al. Abnormal nuclear shape in solid tumors reflects mitotic instability. Am J Pathol 2001;158:199–206.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  41. El Zein R, Bondy ML, Wang LE, et al. Risk assessment for developing gliomas: a comparison of two cytogenetic approaches. Mutat Res 2001;490:35–44.[Medline]
  42. Wei Q, Gu J, Cheng L, et al. Benzo(a)pyrene diolepoxide-induced chromosomal aberrations and risk of lung cancer. Cancer Res 1996;56:3975–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  43. Spitz MR, Wei Q, Li G, Wu X. Genetic susceptibility to tobacco carcinogenesis. Cancer Invest 1999;17:645–59.[Medline]
  44. Wu X, Lippman SM, Lee JJ. Chromosome instability in lymphocytes: a potential indicator of predisposition to oral premalignant lesions. Cancer Res 2002;62:2813–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  45. Schabath MB, Spitz MR, Grossman HB, et al. Genetic instability in bladder cancer assessed by the comet assay. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:540–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  46. Hsu TC, Johnston DA, Cherry LM, et al. Sensitivity to genotoxic effects of bleomycin in humans: possible relationship to environmental carcinogenesis. Int J Cancer 1989;43:403–9.[Medline]
  47. Scott D, Barber JB, Levine EL, Burrill W, Roberts SA. Radiation-induced micronucleus induction in lymphocytes identifies a high frequency of radiosensitive cases among breast cancer patients: a test for predisposition? Br J Cancer 1998;77:614–20.[Medline]
  48. Rothfuss A, Schutz P, Bochum S, et al. Induced micronucleus frequencies in peripheral lymphocytes as a screening test for carriers of a BRCA1 mutation in breast cancer families. Cancer Res 2000;60:390–4.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  49. Crott JW, Mashiyama ST, Ames BN, Fenech M. The effect of folic acid deficiency and MTHFR C677T polymorphism on chromosome damage in human lymphocytes in vitro. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2001;10:1089–96.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  50. Kimura M, Umegaki K, Higuschi M, Thomas P, Fenech M. Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase C677T polymorphism, folic acid and riboflavin are important determinants of genome stability in cultured human lymphocytes. J Nutr 2004;134:48–56.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  51. Shi Q, Zhang Z, Li G, et al. Polymorphisms of methionine synthase and methionine synthase reductase and risk of lung cancer: a case-control analysis. Pharmacogenet Genomics 2005;15:547–55.[Medline]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 MutagenesisHome page
J. Wu, G. H. Lyons, R. D. Graham, and M. F. Fenech
The effect of selenium, as selenomethionine, on genome stability and cytotoxicity in human lymphocytes measured using the cytokinesis-block micronucleus cytome assay
Mutagenesis, May 1, 2009; 24(3): 225 - 232.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 MutagenesisHome page
B. Benassi-Evans, P. M. Clifton, M. Noakes, J. B. Keogh, and M. Fenech
High protein-high red meat versus high carbohydrate weight loss diets do not differ in effect on genome stability and cell death in lymphocytes of overweight men
Mutagenesis, May 1, 2009; 24(3): 271 - 277.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.Home page
R. A. El-Zein, M. Fenech, M. S. Lopez, M. R. Spitz, and C. J. Etzel
Cytokinesis-Blocked Micronucleus Cytome Assay Biomarkers Identify Lung Cancer Cases Amongst Smokers
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., May 1, 2008; 17(5): 1111 - 1119.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.Home page
B. Benassi, R. LeLeu, T. Bird, P. Clifton, and M. Fenech
Cytokinesis-Block Micronucleus Cytome Assays for the Determination of Genotoxicity and Cytotoxicity of Cecal Water in Rats and Fecal Water in Humans
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., December 1, 2007; 16(12): 2676 - 2680.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 MutagenesisHome page
A. Zijno, F. Saini, and R. Crebelli
Suitability of cryopreserved isolated lymphocytes for the analysis of micronuclei with the cytokinesis-block method
Mutagenesis, September 1, 2007; 22(5): 311 - 315.
[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 Email this article to a friend
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 El-Zein, R. A.
Right arrow Articles by Spitz, M. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by El-Zein, R. A.
Right arrow Articles by Spitz, M. R.

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