PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

J Swenberg

Publications and source records attributed to J Swenberg.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

Ras gene mutations in vinyl chloride-induced liver tumours are carcinogen-specific but vary with cell type and species.

Previous studies have shown that a high proportion (5/6) of human liver angiosarcomas (ASL) associated with exposure to vinyl chloride (VC) contains a GC-->AT mutation at the Ki-ras codon 13. This mutation, however, has not been found in 5 ASL or 2 hepatocellular carcinomas (HCC) induced in rats by VC. These 2 HCC did contain a mutation at codon 61 of the Ha-ras gene. In order to extend this study and further explore the mechanisms of tumour induction, an additional 6 ASL and 6 HCC induced in rats by VC were analysed for ras gene point mutations, as well as 10 rat and 10 murine ASL induced by vinyl fluoride (VF), and 5 ASL, 6 Kupffer cell sarcomas, 4 HCC and 2 cholangiocellular carcinomas induced by Thorotrast in rats. Tumour DNA was analysed by PCR-SSCP and direct sequencing. None of the rodent ASL contained a mutation at codon 13 of the Ki-ras gene showing that the ras gene mutational pattern is species-specific. The CAA-->CTA mutation, previously found at codon 61 of the Ha-ras gene in rat HCC, was observed in 5 further VC-induced HCC but was not detected in the Thorotrast-induced HCC, suggesting carcinogen-specificity. This mutation was also absent in VC-induced ASL, which supports the cell-specificity of the ras mutational pattern in chemically induced tumours. No predominant mutation was detected in VF- and Thorotrast-induced tumours. Thus, a given mutation in a tumour may be carcinogen-specific but also depend on the species and the cell type.

Animals↗

A cancer risk assessment of di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate: application of the new U.S. EPA Risk Assessment Guidelines.

The current United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classification of di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) as a B2 "probable human" carcinogen is based on outdated information. New toxicology data and a considerable amount of new mechanistic evidence were used to reconsider the cancer classification of DEHP under EPA's proposed new cancer risk assessment guidelines. The total weight-of-evidence clearly indicates that DEHP is not genotoxic. In vivo administration of DEHP to rats and mice results in peroxisome proliferation in the liver, and there is strong evidence and scientific consensus that, in rodents, peroxisome proliferation is directly associated with the onset of liver cancer. Peroxisome proliferation is a transcription-mediated process that involves activation by the peroxisome proliferator of a nuclear receptor in rodent liver called the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPARalpha). The critical role of PPARalpha in peroxisomal proliferation and carcinogenicity in mice is clearly established by the lack of either response in mice genetically modified to remove the PPARalpha. Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain how, in rodents, peroxisome proliferation can lead to the formation of hepatocellular tumors. The general consensus of scientific opinion is that PPARalpha-induced mitogenesis and cell proliferation are probably the major mechanisms responsible for peroxisome proliferator-induced hepatocarcinogenesis in rodents. Oxidative stress appears to play a significant role in this increased cell proliferation. It triggers the release of TNFalpha by Kupffer cells, which in turn acts as a potent mitogen in hepatocytes. Rats and mice are uniquely responsive to the morphological, biochemical, and chronic carcinogenic effects of peroxisome proliferators, while guinea pigs, dogs, nonhuman primates, and humans are essentially nonresponsive or refractory; Syrian hamsters exhibit intermediate responsiveness. These differences are explained, in part, by marked interspecies variations in the expression of PPARalpha, with levels of expression in humans being only 1-10% of the levels found in rat and mouse liver. Recent studies of DEHP clearly indicate a nonlinear dose-response curve that strongly suggests the existence of a dose threshold below which tumors in rodents are not induced. Thus, the hepatocarcinogenic effects of DEHP in rodents result directly from the receptor-mediated, threshold-based mechanism of peroxisome proliferation, a well-understood process associated uniquely with rodents. Since humans are quite refractory to peroxisomal proliferation, even following exposure to potent proliferators such as hypolipidemic drugs, it is concluded that the hepatocarcinogenic response of rodents to DEHP is not relevant to human cancer risk at any anticipated exposure level. DEHP should be classified an unlikely human carcinogen with a margin of exposure (MOE) approach to risk assessment. The most appropriate and conservative point of reference for assessing MOEs should be 20 mg/kg/day, which is the mouse NOEL for peroxisome proliferation and increased liver weight. Exposure of the general human population to DEHP is approximately 30 microg/kg body wt/day, the major source being from residues in food. Higher exposures occur occupationally [up to about 700 microg/kg body wt/day (mainly by inhalation) based on current workplace standards] and through use of certain medical devices [e.g., up to 457 microg/kg body wt/day for hemodialysis patients (intravenous)], although these have little relevance because the routes of exposure bypass critical activation enzymes in the gastrointestinal tract.

Animals↗

A recommended occupational exposure limit for formaldehyde based on irritation.

In recent years, several regulatory agencies and professional societies have recommended an occupational exposure limit (OEL) for formaldehyde. This article presents the findings of a panel of experts, the Industrial Health Foundation panel, who were charged to identify an OEL that would prevent irritation. To accomplish this task, they critiqued approximately 150 scientific articles. Unlike many other chemicals, a large amount of data is available upon which to base a concentration-response relationship for human irritation. A mathematical model developed by Kane et al. (1979) for predicting safe levels of exposure to irritants based on animal data was also evaluated. The panel concluded that for most persons, eye irritation clearly due to formaldehyde does not occur until at least 1.0 ppm. Information from controlled studies involving volunteers indicated that moderate to severe eye, nose, and throat irritation does not occur for most persons until airborne concentrations exceed 2.0-3.0 ppm. The data indicated that below 1.0 ppm, if irritation occurs in some persons, the effects rapidly subside due to "accommodation." Based on the weight of evidence from published studies, the panel found that persons exposed to 0.3 ppm for 4-6 h in chamber studies generally reported eye irritation at a rate no different than that observed when persons were exposed to clean air. It was noted that at a concentration of 0.5 ppm (8-h TWA) eye irritation was not observed in the majority of workers (about 80%). Consequently, the panel recommended an OEL of 0.3 ppm as an 8-h time-weighted average (TWA) with a ceiling value (CV) of 1.0 ppm (a concentration not to be exceeded) to avoid irritation. The panel believes that the ACGIH TLV of 0.3 ppm as a ceiling value was unnecessarily restrictive and that this value may have been based on the TLV Committee's interpretation of the significance of studies involving self-reported responses at concentrations less than 0.5 ppm. The panel concluded that any occupational or environmental guideline for formaldehyde should be based primarily on controlled studies in humans, since nearly all other studies are compromised by the presence of other contaminants. The panel also concluded that if concentrations of formaldehyde are kept below 0.1 ppm in the indoor environment (where exposures might occur 24 h/d) this should prevent irritation in virtually all persons. The panel could not identify a group of persons who were hypersensitive, nor was there evidence that anyone could be sensitized (develop an allergy) following inhalation exposure to formaldehyde. The panel concluded that there was sufficient evidence to show that persons with asthma respond no differently than healthy individuals following exposure to concentrations up to 3.0 ppm. Although cancer risk was not a topic that received exhaustive evaluation, the panel agreed with other scientific groups who have concluded that the cancer risk of formaldehyde is negligible at airborne concentrations that do not produce chronic irritation.

Animals↗