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 (11)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wong, H. L.
Right arrow Articles by Hecht, S. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wong, H. L.
Right arrow Articles by Hecht, S. S.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Carcinogenesis, Vol. 24, No. 2, 291-300, February 2003
© 2003 Oxford University Press


MOLECULAR EPIDEMIOLOGY AND CANCER PREVENTION

Comparative metabolism of N-nitrosopiperidine and N-nitrosopyrrolidine by rat liver and esophageal microsomes and cytochrome P450 2A3

Hansen L. Wong, Sharon E. Murphy, Mingyao Wang and Stephen S. Hecht1

University of Minnesota Cancer Center, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA

N-nitrosopiperidine (NPIP) is a potent esophageal carcinogen in rats whereas structurally similar N-nitrosopyrrolidine (NPYR) induces liver, but not esophageal tumors. NPIP is a possible causative agent for human esophageal cancer. Our goal is to explain mechanistically these differing carcinogenic activities in the esophagus. We hypothesize that differences in metabolic activation of these nitrosamines could be one factor accounting for their differing carcinogenicity. {alpha}-Hydroxylation is the key metabolic activation pathway leading to nitrosamine-induced carcinogenesis. In this study, we examined the {alpha}-hydroxylation rates of [3,4-3H]NPIP and [3,4-3H]NPYR by male F344 rat esophageal and liver microsomes. The major {alpha}-hydroxylation products of NPIP and NPYR, 2-hydroxytetrahydro-2H-pyran (2-OH-THP) and 2-hydroxytetrahydrofuran (2-OH-THF), respectively, were monitored by high performance liquid chromatography with radioflow detection. NPIP or NPYR (4 µM) was incubated with varying concentrations of esophageal microsomes and co-factors. Microsomes converted NPIP to 2-OH-THP with a 40-fold higher velocity than NPYR to 2-OH-THF. Similar results were observed in studies with NPIP and NPYR at substrate concentrations between 4 and 100 µM. Kinetics of NPIP {alpha}-hydroxylation were biphasic; KM values were 312 ± 50 and 1600 ± 312 µM. Expressed cytochrome P450 2A3, found in low levels in rat esophagus, was a good catalyst of NPIP {alpha}-hydroxylation (KM = 61.6 ± 20.5 µM), but a poor catalyst of NPYR {alpha}-hydroxylation (Km = 1198 ± 308 µM). Cytochrome P450 2A3 may play a role in the preferential activation of NPIP observed in rat esophagus. Liver microsomes metabolized NPYR to 2-OH-THF (Vmax/KM = 3.23 pmol/min/mg/µM) as efficiently as NPIP to 2-OH-THP (Vmax/KM = 3.80–4.61 pmol/min/mg/µM). We conclude that rat esophageal microsomes activate NPIP but not NPYR whereas rat liver microsomes activate NPIP and NPYR. These results are consistent with previous findings that tissue-specific activation of nitrosamines contributes to tissue-specific tumor formation.


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.