LIVER CELLS: CARCINOGEN METABOLISM AND MECHANISM OF ACTION
J. Weisburger
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1980.tb29529.x
IF: 6.499
1980-09-01
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Abstract:Much has been learned in the last thirty years about the mechanisms whereby chemicals induce cancer. Some concepts, cherished at one time, such as the K-region theory, applied to the carcinogenic polycyclic hydrocarbons, have been found to be untenable as such, and have undergone considerable modification.' Many lines of evidence provided the background for the current view, that genotoxic carcinogens can be either direct-acting, without host metabolism, but that most chemical carcinogens, namely, procarcinogens, required biochemical ac t iva t i~n .~ '~ The product of such activation, first called ultimate carcinogen by the Millers,' was in the form of positively charged electrophilic reactants, as indeed were the agents that were direct-acting. This concept, which has provided a unifying generalization for the many different chemical types of chemical carcinogens, has also yielded insight into the relationship, now reasonably well-documented, between mutagenesis and carcin~genesis.~*' In addition, it further gave partial explanations for the organ-specific action of many carcinogens, in terms of the availability in a target tissue compared to a nontarget tissue, of the enzymic machinery that could convert a procarcinogen to the active ultimate carcinogen. The interaction of carcinogens with DNA and the new knowledge on complex enzyme systems performing DNA repair provide a sound basis for understanding two aspects of the problem of cancer causation. The first is the differential repair that also accounts for organ specifi~ity".~; and the second provides a singularly effective tool to detect carcinogens, as will be reviewed in this work.' Cancer induction in animals and in man is a complex multistep proces~ .~ The first steps involve the activation of a chemical carcinogen or procarcinogen through metabolic enzymes, with conversion to the ultimate carcinogen. This electrophilic reactant combines not only with DNA, but with other cellular nucleophiles. This is why, under some conditions, exhaustion of the supply of such nucleophiles upon chronic intake of carcinogens, like the loss of glutathione from the liver, renders the process more facile, since DNA is a more likely target. It also accounts for the fact that certain electrophiles appear more mutagenic in a bacterial system than they are carcinogenic in a mammalian system. Indeed, there are apparently more competing nucleophiles in the mammalian cell than in the bacterial cell, both as a result of more complex cytosolic proteins, and also membranes and membrane-bound nucleophiles. The altered DNA is expressed during duplication of the cell or, in contrast, can be repaired before duplication of the cell. Excision repair restores the DNA to a state of nonneoplastic expression under some conditions. SOS-like repair, post-replication repair, or an indirect effect on the fidelity of DNA povmerases, all may result, after duplication, in a cell type containing abnormal DNA.