Skip Navigation

This Article
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 Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (25)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Felley-Bosco, E.
Right arrow Articles by Harris, C. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Felley-Bosco, E.
Right arrow Articles by Harris, C. C.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 1995 Oxford University Press

research-article

Nitric oxide and ethylnitrosourea: relative mutagenicity in the p53 tumor suppressor and hypoxanthine-phosphoribosyltransferase genes

Emanuela Felley-Bosco , Jovan Mirkovitch 1, Stefan Ambs 2, Katherine Macé 3, Andrea Pfeifer 3, Larry K. Keefer 4 and Curtis C. Harris 2

Pharmacology and Toxicology Institute Bugnon 27, 1007 Lausanne
1Swiss Institute of Experimental Research on Cancer 1066 Epalinges, Switzerland
2Laboratory of Human Carcinogenesis, National Cancer Institute Bethesda, MD 20892, USA
3Nestec, Vers-chez-les-Blanes Switzerland
4Laboratory of Comparative Carcinogenesis, National Cancer Institute, Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center Frederick, MD 21702, USA

Nitric oxide (NO) is a cellular messenger which is mutagenic in bacteria and human TK6 cells and induces deamination of 5-methylcytosine (5meC) residues in vitro. The aims of this study were: (i) to investigate whether NO induces 5meC deamination in codon 248 of the p53 gene in cultured human bronchial epithelial cells (BEAS-2B); and (ii) to compare NO mutagenicity to that of ethylnitrosourea (ENU), a strong mutagen. Two approaches were used: (i) a novel genotypic assay, using RFLP/PCR technology on purified exon VII sequence of the p53 gene; and (ii) a phenotypic (HPRT) mutation assay using 6-thioguanine selection. BEAS-2B cells were either exposed to 4 mM DEA/NO (Et2N[N2O2]Na, an agent that spontaneously releases NO into the medium) or transfected with the inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) gene. The genotypic mutation assay, which has a sensitivity of 1 ×10–6, showed that 4 mM ENU induces detectable numbers of G -> A transitions in codon 248 of p53 while 5-methylcytosine deamination was not detected in either iNOS-transfected cells or cells exposed to 4 mM DEA/NO. Moreover, ENU was dose-responsively mutagenic in the phenotypic HPRT assay, reaching mutation frequencies of 24 and 96 times that of untreated control cells at ENU concentrations of 4 and 8 mM respectively; by contrast, 4 mM DEA/NO induced no detectable mutations in this assay, nor were any observed in cells transfected with murine iNOS. We conclude that if NO is at all promutagenic in these cells, it is significantly less so than the ethylating mutagen, ENU.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Nucleic Acids ResHome page
D.-H. Lee, T. R. O'Connor, and G. P. Pfeifer
Oxidative DNA damage induced by copper and hydrogen peroxide promotes CG->TT tandem mutations at methylated CpG dinucleotides in nucleotide excision repair-deficient cells
Nucleic Acids Res., August 15, 2002; 30(16): 3566 - 3573.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CarcinogenesisHome page
A.-C. Souici, J. Mirkovitch, P. Hausel, L. K.Keefer, and E. Felley-Bosco
Transition mutation in codon 248 of the p53 tumor suppressor gene induced by reactive oxygen species and a nitric oxide-releasing compound
Carcinogenesis, February 1, 2000; 21(2): 281 - 287.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
MutagenesisHome page
G.J.S. Jenkins, H.S. Suzen, R.A. Sueiro, and J.M. Parry
The restriction site mutation assay: a review of the methodology development and the current status of the technique
Mutagenesis, September 1, 1999; 14(5): 439 - 448.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.