Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
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 (76)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by James, N. H.
Right arrow Articles by Roberts, R. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by James, N. H.
Right arrow Articles by Roberts, R. A.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 1996 Oxford University Press

research-article

Species differences in response to peroxisome proliferators correlate in vitro with induction of DNA synthesis rather than suppression of apoptosis

Neil H. James and Ruth A. Roberts 1

Zeneca Central Toxicology Laboratory Aldcrley Park, Macclesfield, SK10 4TJ, UK

1To whom correspondence should be addressed

Tumorigenesis caused by the peroxisome proliferator (PP) class of non-genotoxic hepatocarcinogens is species restricted; rat and mouse are considered responsive whereas the available evidence suggests that humans, non-human primates, dogs, hamsters and guinea, pigs are non-responsive. We have demonstrated previously that the PP, nafenopin can suppress rat hepatocyte apoptosis both in vitro and in vivo. Here we describe the ability of nafenopin to suppress apoptosis in mouse, hamster, guinea pig and rat hepatocytes and induce S-phase in mouse and rat hepatocytes. Hepatocyte monolayers from all species examined degenerated rapidly in culture. However, nafenopin (50 µM) reversibly maintained the viability of both rat and mouse hepatocytes. This maintenance was associated with a decrease (P less double equals 0.01) in the number of hepatocytes displaying chromatin condensation patterns characteristic of apoptosis. Treatment of rat and mouse monolayers with 5 ng/ml transforming growth factor-ß1(TGFß1) induced high levels of apoptosis (P less double equals 0.01); co-addition of nafenopin suppressed this induced apoptosis (P less double equals 0.01). TGFß1 also induced apoptosis in hamster and guinea pig hepatocytes (P less double equals 0.01) and unexpectedly nafenopin was able to suppress this induced apoptosis (P less double equals 0.01) as well as reversibly maintaining the viability of hamster and guinea pig hepatocyte monolayers. Thus, all the species examined responded to nafenopin by a suppression of both spontaneous and TGFß1-induced apoptosis. In contrast, only rat and mouse hepatocytes showed an induction of S-phase in response to nafenopin (P less double equals 0.01). Certain key experiments were repeated using the PPs methyl clofenapate (MCP) (100 µM) and Wy-14, 643 (10 µM). Both were able to suppress spontaneous and TGFß1-induced apoptosis in rat and guinea pig hepatocytes although the effects of MCP were weak (P less double equals 0.05) compared with nafenopin or Wy-14 643 (P less double equals 0.01). The rat and mouse liver tumour promoter, phenobarbitone (PB) was assessed also. Rat hepatocytes responded to PB with a suppression of apoptosis and an induction of S-phase (P less double equals 0.01). Hamster and guinea pig cells gave no response in the S-phase assay and exhibited no suppression of either spontaneous or TGFß1-induced apoptosis. Interestingly, nafenopin suppressed the apoptosis induced by the DNA damaging drugs, etoposide and hydroxyurea (P less double equals 0.01) suggesting that PPs can impact on diverse apoptosis signalling pathways. Overall, species differences in response to the non-genotoxic hepatocarcinogens studied, correlate with induction of DNA synthesis rather than with suppression of apoptosis. The data extend ourknowledge of the mechanisms of species differences in non-genotoxic hepatocarcinogenesis, posing interesting questions on the relative roles of apoptosis and DNA synthesis in carcinogenisis.


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
Toxicol SciHome page
M. Sanchez, L. Gastaldi, M. Remedi, A. Caceres, and C. Landa
Rotenone-Induced Toxicity is Mediated by Rho-GTPases in Hippocampal Neurons
Toxicol. Sci., August 1, 2008; 104(2): 352 - 361.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Toxicol SciHome page
S. M. Corthals, L. M. Kamendulis, and J. E. Klaunig
Mechanisms of 2-Butoxyethanol-Induced Hemangiosarcomas
Toxicol. Sci., August 1, 2006; 92(2): 378 - 386.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Toxicol SciHome page
A. N. Bachman, L. M. Kamendulis, and J. I. Goodman
Diethanolamine and Phenobarbital Produce an Altered Pattern of Methylation in GC-Rich Regions of DNA in B6C3F1 Mouse Hepatocytes Similar to That Resulting from Choline Deficiency
Toxicol. Sci., April 1, 2006; 90(2): 317 - 325.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Toxicol SciHome page
L. M. Kamendulis and J. E. Klaunig
Species Differences in the Induction of Hepatocellular DNA Synthesis by Diethanolamine
Toxicol. Sci., October 1, 2005; 87(2): 328 - 336.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Toxicol SciHome page
W. Bursch, M. Chabicovsky, U. Wastl, B. Grasl-Kraupp, K. Bukowska, H. Taper, and R. Schulte-Hermann
Apoptosis in Stages of Mouse Hepatocarcinogenesis: Failure to Counterbalance Cell Proliferation and to Account for Strain Differences in Tumor Susceptibility
Toxicol. Sci., May 1, 2005; 85(1): 515 - 529.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Toxicol SciHome page
W. Bursch, U. Wastl, K. Hufnagl, and R. Schulte-Hermann
No Increase of Apoptosis in Regressing Mouse Liver after Withdrawal of Growth Stimuli or Food Restriction
Toxicol. Sci., May 1, 2005; 85(1): 507 - 514.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Infect. Immun.Home page
S. S. Allen, L. Cassone, T. M. Lasco, and D. N. McMurray
Effect of Neutralizing Transforming Growth Factor {beta}1 on the Immune Response against Mycobacterium tuberculosis in Guinea Pigs
Infect. Immun., March 1, 2004; 72(3): 1358 - 1363.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Toxicol SciHome page
M. L. O'Brien, M. L. Cunningham, B. T. Spear, and H. P. Glauert
Peroxisome Proliferators Do Not Activate the Transcription Factors AP-1, Early Growth Response-1, or Heat Shock Factors 1 and 2 in Rats or Hamsters
Toxicol. Sci., September 1, 2002; 69(1): 139 - 148.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Toxicol SciHome page
S. Hasmall, G. Orphanides, N. James, W. Pennie, K. Hedley, A. Soames, I. Kimber, and R. Roberts
Downregulation of Lactoferrin by PPAR{alpha} Ligands: Role in Perturbation of Hepatocyte Proliferation and Apoptosis
Toxicol. Sci., August 1, 2002; 68(2): 304 - 313.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Toxicol SciHome page
J. C. Tharappel, M. L. Cunningham, B. T. Spear, and H. P. Glauert
Differential Activation of Hepatic NF-{{kappa}}B in Rats and Hamsters by the Peroxisome Proliferators Wy-14,643, Gemfibrozil, and Dibutyl Phthalate
Toxicol. Sci., July 1, 2001; 62(1): 20 - 27.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Toxicol SciHome page
M. L. O'Brien, T. P. Twaroski, M. L. Cunningham, H. P. Glauert, and B. T. Spear
Effects of Peroxisome Proliferators on Antioxidant Enzymes and Antioxidant Vitamins in Rats and Hamsters
Toxicol. Sci., April 1, 2001; 60(2): 271 - 278.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CarcinogenesisHome page
S. C. Hasmall, D. A. West, K. Olsen, and R. A. Roberts
Role of hepatic non-parenchymal cells in the response of rat hepatocytes to the peroxisome proliferator nafenopin in vitro
Carcinogenesis, December 1, 2000; 21(12): 2159 - 2165.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CarcinogenesisHome page
S. C. Cosulich, N. H. James, M. R.C. Needham, P. P. Newham, K. R. Bundell, and R. A. Roberts
A dominant negative form of IKK2 prevents suppression of apoptosis by the peroxisome proliferator nafenopin
Carcinogenesis, September 1, 2000; 21(9): 1757 - 1760.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Toxicol SciHome page
J. S. Isenberg, L. M. Kamendulis, J. H. Smith, D. C. Ackley, G. Pugh Jr., A. W. Lington, and J. E. Klaunig
Effects of Di-2-Ethylhexyl Phthalate (DEHP) on Gap-Junctional Intercellular Communication (GJIC), DNA Synthesis, and Peroxisomal Beta Oxidation (PBOX) in Rat, Mouse, and Hamster Liver
Toxicol. Sci., July 1, 2000; 56(1): 73 - 85.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CarcinogenesisHome page
S. Cosulich, N. James, and R. Roberts
Role of MAP kinase signalling pathways in the mode of action of peroxisome proliferators
Carcinogenesis, April 1, 2000; 21(4): 579 - 584.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CarcinogenesisHome page
P. Kasper and L. Mueller
Sex-specific induction of apoptosis by cyproterone acetate in primary rat hepatocytes
Carcinogenesis, November 1, 1999; 20(11): 2185 - 2188.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Cancer Res.Home page
N. Macdonald, P. R. Holden, and R. A. Roberts
Addition of Peroxisome Proliferator-activated Receptor {{alpha}} to Guinea Pig Hepatocytes Confers Increased Responsiveness to Peroxisome Proliferators
Cancer Res., October 1, 1999; 59(19): 4776 - 4780.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CarcinogenesisHome page
S. Chevalier and R.A. Roberts
G1-arrested FaO cells re-enter the cell cycle upon stimulation with the rodent non-genotoxic hepatocarcinogen nafenopin
Carcinogenesis, July 1, 1999; 20(7): 1209 - 1213.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Cell Sci.Home page
S Chevalier, N Macdonald, and R. Roberts
Induction of DNA replication by peroxisome proliferators is independent of both tumour necrosis factor (alpha) priming and EGF-receptor tyrosine kinase activity
J. Cell Sci., January 12, 1999; 112(24): 4785 - 4791.
[Abstract] [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.