Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow A corrigendum has been published
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 (15)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nia, A.B.
Right arrow Articles by Van Schooten, F.J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Nia, A.B.
Right arrow Articles by Van Schooten, F.J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Carcinogenesis, Vol. 21, No. 7, 1335-1340, July 2000
© 2000 Oxford University Press


Molecular Epidemiology and Cancer Prevention

Comparison between smoking-related DNA adduct analysis in induced sputum and peripheral blood lymphocytes

A.Besarati Nia, L.M. Maas, E.M.C. Brouwer, J.C.S. Kleinjans and F.J. Van Schooten1

Department of Health Risk Analysis and Toxicology, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands

We investigated the applicability of induced sputum (IS), a non-invasive derivative from the lower respiratory tract, for smoking-related DNA adduct analysis and its comparability with peripheral blood lymphocytes (PBL). Lipophilic DNA adducts were quantified by the 32P-post-labeling assay in IS and PBL of smokers (n = 9) with stable smoking status at three time points (one week intervals) and non-smokers (n = 9) at one time point. The success rate for sputum induction was 100% at all time points. There was no significant difference in total cell count, cell viability, squamous cell count and DNA yield between smokers and non-smokers. Within the smokers, there was no significant difference in IS cytology at the three time points: overall (mean of three measurements) total cell count, 9.0 ± 2.4x106; cell viability, 77 ± 4%; squamous cell count, 28 ± 5%; non-squamous cell count, 72 ± 4% (bronchoalveolar macrophages, 75 ± 6%; neutrophils, 17 ± 3%; bronchoepithelial cells, 7 ± 2%; lymphocytes, 0.7 ± 0.2%; metachromatic cells, 0.3 ± 0.2%). IS DNA yield did not differ significantly at the three time points [overall (mean of three extractions) DNA yield, 66 ± 20 µg]. A typical smoking-associated diagonal radioactive zone was observed in the adduct maps of IS and PBL of all and five smokers, respectively, and of none of the non-smokers. Lipophilic DNA adduct levels in both IS and PBL of smokers were higher than those of non-smokers (3.7 ± 0.9 versus 0.7 ± 0.2/108 nt, P = 0.0005, and 2.1 ± 0.3 versus 0.6 ± 0.1/108 nt, P = 0.0001, respectively). In smokers the level of adducts in IS was non-significantly higher than that in PBL (3.7 ± 0.9 versus 2.1 ± 0.3/108 nt, P = 0.1), whilst in non-smokers the difference was not appreciable (0.7 ± 0.2 versus 0.6 ± 0.1/108 nt). Within the smokers there was no significant change in the level of adducts at the three time points either in IS or in PBL (coefficients of variation 34 and 29%, respectively). Adduct levels in IS at each time point were higher than those in PBL, leading to a significantly higher overall (mean of three quantifications) level of adducts in IS than PBL (3.3 ± 0.2 versus 2.1 ± 0.1/108 nt, P = 0.02). The overall levels of adducts in both IS and PBL were dose-dependently related to smoking indices. We conclude that IS is a preferable matrix as compared with PBL for molecular dosimetry of (current) exposure to inhalatory carcinogens as its analysis reveals both the existence and the magnitude of exposure more explicitly.


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
CarcinogenesisHome page
F. Veglia, S. Loft, G. Matullo, M. Peluso, A. Munnia, F. Perera, D. H. Phillips, D. Tang, H. Autrup, O. Raaschou-Nielsen, et al.
DNA adducts and cancer risk in prospective studies: a pooled analysis and a meta-analysis
Carcinogenesis, May 1, 2008; 29(5): 932 - 936.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
MutagenesisHome page
E. Gyorffy, L. Anna, K. Kovacs, P. Rudnai, and B. Schoket
Correlation between biomarkers of human exposure to genotoxins with focus on carcinogen-DNA adducts
Mutagenesis, January 1, 2008; 23(1): 1 - 18.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CarcinogenesisHome page
D. M.v. Leeuwen, E. v. Agen, R. W.H. Gottschalk, R. Vlietinck, M. Gielen, M. H.M.v. Herwijnen, L. M. Maas, J. C.S. Kleinjans, and J. H.M.v. Delft
Cigarette smoke-induced differential gene expression in blood cells from monozygotic twin pairs
Carcinogenesis, March 1, 2007; 28(3): 691 - 697.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Toxicol SciHome page
D. M. van Leeuwen, R. W. H. Gottschalk, M. H. van Herwijnen, E. J. Moonen, J. C. S. Kleinjans, and J. H. M. van Delft
Differential Gene Expression in Human Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells Induced by Cigarette Smoke and Its Constituents
Toxicol. Sci., July 1, 2005; 86(1): 200 - 210.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.Home page
F. Veglia, G. Matullo, and P. Vineis
Bulky DNA Adducts and Risk of Cancer: A Meta-Analysis
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., February 1, 2003; 12(2): 157 - 160.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CarcinogenesisHome page
D. H. Phillips
Smoking-related DNA and protein adducts in human tissues
Carcinogenesis, December 1, 2002; 23(12): 1979 - 2004.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CarcinogenesisHome page
A. Besaratinia, L.M. Maas, E.M.C. Brouwer, E.J.C. Moonen, T.M.C.M. De Kok, G.J. Wesseling, S. Loft, J.C.S. Kleinjans, and F.J. Van Schooten
A molecular dosimetry approach to assess human exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in pubs
Carcinogenesis, July 1, 2002; 23(7): 1171 - 1176.
[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.