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 arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lijinsky, W.
Right arrow Articles by Andrews, A.W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lijinsky, W.
Right arrow Articles by Andrews, A.W.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 1983 Oxford University Press

research-article

Skin carcinogenesis tests in mice of derivatives of 7,12-dimethyl- benz[a]anthracene substituted in the ‘A’ ring

William Lijinsky, Wayne B. Manning 1 and A.W. Andrews

Basic Research Program-LBI, Chemical Carcinogenesis Program, Frederick Cancer Research Facility Frederick, MD 21701, USA

1Present address: American Dade, 1851 Delaware Parkway, Miami, FL 33152, USA.

Seven derivatives of 7,12-dimethylbenz[a]anthracene (DMBA) having substituents in the ‘A’ ring have been tested for carcinogenic activity by chronic application to the skin of female Swiss mice. Saturation of the A ring, as in 1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-DMBA, resulted in a very potent skin carcinogen which induced almost 100% of skin carcinomas within 26 weeks. The 2-bromo-derivative was apparently not carcinogenic. Respectively, 35% and 40% of the mice treated with 2-methoxy and 4-bromo-DMBA developed skin tumors, mainly squamous cell carcinomas with the former and mainly neurosarcomas for the latter. The remaining compounds, 3-methoxy-, 4-methoxy- and 3-bromo-DMBA each induced skin tumors on 3–5 animals. There were no quantitative correlations between bacterial mutagenicity of the substituted DMBA's and their carcinogenic potencies in mouse skin painting. The reasons for the differences in carcinogenic activity are not clear, but the effects, particularly the strong carcinogenicity of the tetrahydro-derivative, suggest the possibility that mechanisms other than formation of a dihydrodiol epoxide in the A ring might be involved.


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




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.