Skip to main content

Do Carcinogens Have a Threshold Dose? Pro and Contra

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Regulatory Toxicology

Abstract

With sound understanding of biological concepts, the notion of threshold effect levels has grown in acceptance especially for electrophile-induced mutations. However, mutagenesis is one part of the exposure-to-tumor process in chemical carcinogenesis. In the following chapter, we postulate diverse protective mechanisms that may contribute to no-effect thresholds in chemical carcinogenesis. Key mechanisms contributing to threshold doses are carcinogen detoxification and DNA repair. Elimination of cells harboring premutagenic DNA lesions by apoptosis and other cell death pathways and reduced proliferation rates within tissues may minimize mutation rates and therefore, contribute to threshold dose effects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 599.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Becker K, Gregel C, Fricke C, Komitowski D, Dosch J, Kaina B (2003) DNA repair protein MGMT protects against N-methyl-N-nitrosourea-induced conversion of benign into malignant tumors. Carcinogenesis 24(3):541–546

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blumberg PM, Boutwell RK (1980) In vitro studies on the mode of action of the phorbol esters, potent tumor promoters: Part 1. Crit Rev Toxicol 8(2):153–197

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Christmann M, Tomicic MT, Origer J, Aasland D, Kaina B (2006) c-Fos is required for excision repair of UV-light induced DNA lesions by triggering the re-synthesis of XPF. Nucleic Acids Res 34(22):6530–6539

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Coquerelle T, Dosch J, Kaina B (1995) Overexpression of N-methylpurine-DNA glycosylase in Chinese hamster ovary cells renders them more sensitive to the production of chromosomal aberrations by methylating agents – a case of imbalanced DNA repair. Mutat Res/DNA Repair 336(1):9–17

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fritz G, Tano K, Mitra S, Kaina B (1991) Inducibility of the DNA repair gene encoding O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase in mammalian cells by DNA-damaging treatments. Mol Cell Biol 11(9):4660–4668

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hengstler JG, Bogdanffy MS, Bolt HM, Oesch F (2003) Challenging dogma; thresholds for genotoxic carcinogens? The case of vinyl acetate. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 43:485–520

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Herrerro ME, Arnd M, Hengstler JG, Oesch F (1997) Recombinant expression of human microsomal epoxide hydrolase protects V79 Chinese hamster cells from styrene oxide, but not from ethylene oxide-included DNA strand breaks. Environ Mol Mutagen 30:429–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson GE, Zair ZM, Bodger OG, Lewis PD, Rees BJ, Verma JR, Thomas AD, Doak SH, Jenkins GJS (2012) Investigating mechanisms for non-linear genotoxic responses, and analysing their effects in binary combination. Gene Environ 34(4):179–185

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kaina B, Fritz G, Coquerelle T (1993) Contribution O6-alkylguanine and N-alkyl-purines to the formation of sister chromatid exchanges, chromosomal aberrations and gene mutations: new insights gained from studies of genetically engineered mammalian cell lines. Environ Mol Mutagen 22:283–292

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lindahl T, Sedgwick B, Sekiguchi M, Nakabeppu Y (1988) Regulation and Expression of the Adaptive Response to Alkylating Agents. Annu Rev Biochem 57:133–157

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Littlefield NA, Farmer JH, Gaylor DW, Sheldon WG (1980) Effects of dose and time in a long-term, low-dose carcinogenic study. J Environ Pathol Toxicol 3(3):17–34

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lutz WK, Beland PE, Candrian R, Fekete T, Fischer WH (1996) Dose-time response in mouse skin tumor induction by 7, 12-dimethylbenz[a]anthracene and 12-O-tetradecanoyl-phorbol-13-acetate. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 23(1 Pt 1):44–48

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ochiai M, Ubagai T, Kawamori T, Imai H, Sugimura T, Nakagama H (2001) High susceptibility of Scid mice to colon carcinogenesis induced by azoxymethane indicates a possible caretaker role for DNA-dependent protein kinase. Carcinogenesis 22(9):1551–1555

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Parkinson EK (1985) Defective responses of transformed keratinocytes to terminal differentiation stimuli. Their role in epidermal tumour promotion by phorbol esters and by deep skin wounding. Br J Cancer 52(4):479–493

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Quiros S, Roos WP, Kaina B (2010) Processing of O6-methylguanine into DNA double-strand breaks requires two rounds of replication whereas apoptosis is also induced in subsequent cell cycles. Cell Cycle 9(1):168–178

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ramana CV, Boldogh I, Izumi T, Mitra S (1998) Activation of apurinic/apyrimidinic endonuclease in human cells by reactive oxygen species and its correlation with their adaptive response to genotoxicity of free radicals. Proc Natl Acad Sci 95(9):5061–5066

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schulte-Herman R, Hoffman V, Parzefall W, Kallenbach M, Gerhard A, Schuppler J (1980) Adaptive response of rat liver to the gestagen and antiandrogen cyproterone acetate and other inducers, II, Induction and growth. Chem Biol Interact 31:287–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seager AL, Shah UK, Mikhail JM, Nelson BC, Marquis BJ, Doak SH, Johnson GE, Griffiths SM, Carmichael PL, Scott SJ, Scott AD, Jenkins GJ (2012) Pro-oxidant induced DNA damage in human lymphoblastoid cells: homeostatic mechanisms of genotoxic tolerance. Toxicol Sci 128(2):387–397

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas AD, Jenkins GJ, Kaina B, Bodger OG, Tomaszowski KH, Lewis PD, Doak SH, Johnson GE (2013) Influence of DNA repair on nonlinear dose-responses for mutation. Toxicol Sci 132(1):87–95

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tomicic MT, Reischmann P, Rasenberger B, Meise R, Kaina B, Christmann M (2011) Delayed c-Fos activation in human cells triggers XPF induction and an adaptive response to UVC-induced DNA damage and cytotoxicity. Cell Mol Life Sci 68:1785–1798

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Waddel WJ, Fukishima S, Williams GM (2006) Concordance of thresholds for carcinogenicity of N-nitrosodiethylamine. Arch Toxicol 8:305–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wirtz S, Nagel G, Eshkind L, Neurath MF, Samson LD, Kaina B (2010) Both base excision repair and O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase protect against methylation-induced colon carcinogenesis. Carcinogenesis 31:2111–2117

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zair ZM, Jenkins GJS, Doak SH, Singh R, Brown K, Johnson GE (2011) N-methylpurine DNA glycosylase plays a pivotal role in the threshold response of ethyl methanesulfonate–induced chromosome damage. Toxicol Sci 119(2):346–358

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bernd Kaina .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this entry

Cite this entry

Kaina, B., Thomas, A.D., Hengstler, J.G. (2014). Do Carcinogens Have a Threshold Dose? Pro and Contra. In: Reichl, FX., Schwenk, M. (eds) Regulatory Toxicology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35374-1_55

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics