Abstract:Dear Editor, This letter responds to the commentary1 on our paper.2 We would like to thank Dr Alessandro Francesco Gualtieri for his interest in our paper and for his many constructive comments. We agree with the idea that asbestos-induced carcinogenesis requires a multidisciplinary perspective, including biochemistry, mineralogy, physics and toxicology, as he described. As pathologists, we recognize that giving intraperitoneal UICC chrysotile, crocidolite and amosite generates malignant mesothelioma in almost 100% of rats in vivo,3 whereas giving other fibrous materials does not.4 We would like to answer some of the questions raised by Dr Gualtieri.1 (i) Because mesothelial cells are the targets of mesothelioma carcinogenesis, the proposed model is reasonable, but abundant adipocytes in the peritoneal cavity promote carcinogenesis in collaboration with macrophages and this model disregards the travelling of asbestos fibers from the airway to the somatic cavity, which, indeed, requires decades in humans. (ii) The origin of iron is an interesting issue. We suggested the importance of hemolysis and the adsorption thereafter of hemoglobin on asbestos fibers in the lung.5 Alternatively, the recent cutting-edge mineralogical studies by Dr Gualtieri clearly showed the components/localization of iron on asbestos1 and are of much interest for further consideration. (iii) Asbestos bodies are representatives of corpses of macrophages, indicating that numerous thin and long asbestos fibers presumably passed through the lung parenchyma. Our data demonstrated the high affinity of hemoglobin to asbestos, forming a niche for oxidative reactions.5 (iv) We believe that catalytic Fe(II) is more important than Fe(III) in carcinogenesis because it initiates a Fenton reaction, whereas Fe(III) is almost insoluble at neutral pH. Fluorescent visualization of catalytic Fe(II) is currently available.6 (v) We did not emphasize the two different roles of macrophages:2 scavenging foreign fibers and promoting inflammation where thin and long fibres cannot be transported to lymph nodes. The inflammatory response after intraperitoneal injection is indeed proportionally associated with mesothelial carcinogenesis and important.7 (vi) Although there may be some controversy about banning chrysotile (white asbestos with threshold and impurity issues) globally, chrysotile is carcinogenic to mesothelial cells (IARC Group 1) and should be banned as soon as possible.8 The important point is that asbestos-induced mesothelial carcinogenesis takes a few decades. Cancer becomes the predominant public health problem after a country has conquered the major infectious diseases and achieved a longer average lifetime of the population. Cancer prevention in this way is important for the future of every country. We believe that local iron overload is the major mechanism of pathogenesis in asbestos-induced mesothelial carcinogenesis, based on the genetic alterations in malignant mesothelioma induced by asbestos3 in comparison to an iron-induced cancer rat model,9 the observation of local iron deposition, and the preventive effects of iron chelators.10 However, we currently think that neither desferal nor deferasirox is practically applicable to people who have already been substantially exposed to asbestos because of the invasive nature of administration (intrapleural injection) of desferal2 and the potential renal side-effects of deferasirox. Regular blood donation or phlebotomy could be the best strategy for the prevention of asbestos-induced carcinogenesis, if it is experimentally demonstrated to be effective. We would like to encourage epidemiologists worldwide to collect data on the role of iron in carcinogenesis, including lung cancer associated with asbestos exposure. Iron is the most fundamental metal in our body and there is no way to excrete excess iron after it has been taken up into the blood, except by hemorrhage. The reaction to a foreign body is inflammation, similar to that to bacteria. To avoid feeding iron to bacteria, our cells execute mechanisms to decrease extracellular iron levels, which eventually lead to intracellular excess iron. This is another mechanism of local iron overload. Therefore, anti-inflammatory measures would work as well. We further believe that asbestos may even have been associated with the origin of life on Earth. Thus, any scientific and constructive collaborative efforts, as well as discussion, are welcome. The authors have no conflicts of interest.

Human Health Hazards Associated with Asbestos in Building Materials

Is asbestos still a problem in the world? A current review

Asbestos history and use

Mitigation of Contamination and Health Risk: Asbestos Management and Regulatory Practices

[Research Progress on the Association of Occupational Antimony Exposure with Lung Cancer and Its Carcinogenic Mechanism].

Analyzing biological and molecular characteristics and genomic damage induced by exposure to asbestos

Health hazards from fine asbestos dusts. An analysis of 70,656 occupational preventive medical investigations from 1973 to the end of 1986

Global Asbestos Disaster

Occupational lung disease--past record and future trend using the asbestos case as an example.

Sustainable management of hazardous asbestos-containing materials: Containment, stabilization and inertization.

[Asbestos: detection and characterization in tissue]

Asbestos and disease – a public health success story?

Hazardous waste in the Anthropocene: The comparative methods for asbestos roofs detection to assess the environmental risk

Asbestos and Iron

O-248 EXPOSURE HAZARDS FROM ONGOING USE AND LEGACY OF ASBESTOS CEMENT IN CONSTRUCTION

Scientific Misconduct in Asbestos-related Occupational Health Studies: A Literature Review on the Impact of Intellectual Dishonesty to Scientific Research

[Inventory of occupational exposure to asbestos with particular reference to Tuscan workers]

Government and Navy knowledge regarding health hazards of asbestos: a state of the science evaluation (1900 to 1970)

Dust diseases and the legacy of corporate manipulation of science and law

In Response to Sharing Different Perspectives to Understand Asbestos‐induced Carcinogenesis: A Comment to Jiang Et Al. (2016) by Alessandro Francesco Gualtieri (2017)

Health hazards due to the inhalation of amorphous silica