Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
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 ISI Web of Science
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 (8)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Löw-Baselli, A.
Right arrow Articles by Grasl-Kraupp, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Löw-Baselli, A.
Right arrow Articles by Grasl-Kraupp, B.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Carcinogenesis, Vol. 21, No. 10, 1869-1877, October 2000
© 2000 Oxford University Press

Carcinogenesis

Failure to demonstrate chemoprevention by the monoterpene perillyl alcohol during early rat hepatocarcinogenesis: a cautionary note

Alexandra Löw-Baselli, Wolfgang W. Huber, Monika Käfer, Krystyna Bukowska, Rolf Schulte-Hermann and Bettina Grasl-Kraupp1

Institut für Tumorbiologie-Krebsforschung, University of Vienna, Borschkegasse 8a, A-1090 Vienna, Austria

The monoterpene perillyl alcohol (PA) is being considered as a useful chemopreventive and therapeutic agent against human cancers. However, no data are available on the effects of PA in the first stages of hepatocarcinogenesis. To study such effects, putatively initiated cells and preneoplastic foci in hepatocarcinogenesis were used as a model. Male Wistar rats were treated with a single dose of N-nitrosomorpholine (NNM). Between days 4 and 91 after NNM, subgroups of rats received either PA (1 g/kg body wt/day) or phenobarbital (PB) (50 mg/kg body wt/day) in the diet. Since PA treatment reduced food intake, one control group was fed ad libitum, while a second control was pair fed between days 4 and 91. In order to enhance any treatment effects, all groups, including the controls, were treated with the potent tumor promoter PB after day 91 until the end of the experiment at day 266. Rats were killed at multiple time points and putatively initiated cells and preneoplastic foci were identified by staining positively for placental glutathione S-transferase (G+). The following results were obtained. (i) A few days after NNM treatment single G+ cells emerged; a considerable portion of which developed into foci. (ii) Treatment with PB resulted in an increase in number and size of G+ foci. (iii) PA treatment failed to reduce the number of G+ cells; it somewhat lowered rates of apoptosis in G+ foci and clearly increased their average size. (iv) Eighty-seven days of PA revealed no protective effect on day 266, but, similar to PB treatment, increased the growth of foci. In conclusion, PA exerted no detectable chemopreventive effect in the early stages of rat hepatocarcinogenesis. It rather exerted a PB-like tumor promoting activity. These data argue against a recommendation of PA as a chemopreventive agent for healthy humans.


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
 Am. J. Physiol. Gastrointest. Liver Physiol.Home page
M. Raidl, W. Berger, R. Schulte-Hermann, D. Kandioler-Eckersberger, S. Kappel, F. Wrba, M. Micksche, and B. Grasl-Kraupp
Expression of the lung resistance-related protein in human and rat hepatocarcinogenesis
Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol, November 1, 2002; 283(5): G1117 - G1124.
[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.