No abstract

The nuclear receptors CAR (constitutive androstane receptor) and possibly PXR (pregnane X receptor) mediate the hepatic effects of phenobarbital (PB) and similar-acting compounds. Although PB is a potent nongenotoxic tumor promoter in rodent liver, epidemiological data from epilepsy patients treated with phenobarbital do not show a specific role of PB in human liver cancer risk. That points to species differences in the susceptibility to tumor promotion by PB, which might be attributed to divergent functions of the PB receptors CAR and PXR in mice and humans. In the present study, male transgenic mice expressing human CAR and PXR were used to detect possible differences between wild-type (WT) and humanized mice in their response to CAR activation in a tumor initiation/promotion experiment with a single injection of the tumor initiator N-nitrosodiethylamine preceding chronic PB treatment for 10 months. Analysis of liver tumor burden revealed that PB strongly promoted the outgrowth of hepatocellular adenoma driven by activated β-catenin in WT mice, whereas the tumor-promoting effect of PB was much less pronounced in the humanized group. In conclusion, the present findings demonstrate that human CAR and PXR support tumor promotion by PB in mouse liver, but to a significantly lesser extent than the WT murine receptors.

To assess the impact of a mixture containing dioxin-like and non-dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), male mice were initiated with N-nitroso-diethylamine and subsequently treated with PCB126, an Ah-Receptor agonist, and PCB153, acting via activation of the constitutive androstane receptor. The two congeners were given at two dose levels: the low dose was adjusted to induce ~150-fold increases in cytochrome P450 (Cyp)1a1 (PCB126) and Cyp2b10 mRNAs (PCB153), and the high dose was chosen as twice the low dose. To keep the liver PCB levels constant, mice were given initial loading doses followed by weekly maintenance doses calculated on the basis of the PCBs' half-lives. Mice were treated with the individual congeners (low and high dose) or with a mixture consisting of the low doses of the 2 PCBs. The following results were obtained: (1) the 2 PCBs produced dose-dependent increases in Cyp1a1 and Cyp2b10 mRNA, protein, and activity when given individually; (2) combined treatment caused more than additive effects on Cyp1a1 mRNA expression, protein level, and ethoxyresurofin activity; (3) changes in the levels of several proteins were detected by proteome analysis in livers of PCB-treated mice; (4) besides these biological responses, the individual PCBs caused no significant increase in the number of glucose-6-phospatase (G6Pase)-deficient neoplastic lesions in liver, whereas a moderate significant effect occurred in the combination group. These results suggest weak but significant response-additive effects of the 2 PCBs when given in combination. They also suggest that the Cyp biomarkers tend to overestimate the carcinogenic response produced by the PCBs in mouse liver.

Abstracts / Toxicology Letters 229S (2014) S40-S252 S147 (1.89 nmol/mmol creatinine) and 12.11 nmol/L (1.26 nmol/mmol creatinine), respectively.The nuclear receptors CAR (constitutive androstane receptor) and, possibly, PXR (pregnane X receptor) mediate the hepatic effects of phenobarbital (PB) and similarly acting compounds. While being potent non-genotoxic tumor promoters in rodent liver, humans appear, if at all, to be at much lower risk from PB or related substances. Species differences in the susceptibility to tumor promotion by PB might be attributed to divergent functions of the PB receptors CAR and PXR in mice and humans.In the present study, transgenic mice expressing human CAR and PXR were used to detect possible differences between wild type and humanized mice in their response to CAR activation. Two studies were performed: a 28 days study with different concentrations of PB, and an initiation/promotion experiment with a single injection of the tumor initiator N-nitrosodiethylamine preceding chronic PB treatment for 10 months.Induction of model CAR target mRNAs did not substantially differ between wild type and humanized mice. At high PB doses, hepatic PB contents were higher in the humanized group. Analysis of liver tumor burden revealed that PB slightly more efficiently promoted tumor growth in wild type mice. In conclusion, the present findings support the hypothesis that human CAR and PXR support tumor promotion in mouse liver to a lesser extent than the murine receptors.http://dx.

Activation of Wnt/β-catenin signaling is important for human and rodent hepatocarcinogenesis. In mice, the tumor promoter phenobarbital (PB) selects for hepatocellular tumors with activating β-catenin mutations via constitutive androstane receptor activation. PB-dependent tumor promotion was studied in mice with genetic inactivation of Apc, a negative regulator of β-catenin, to circumvent the problem of randomly induced mutations by chemical initiators and to allow monitoring of PB- and Wnt/β-catenin-dependent tumorigenesis in the absence of unknown genomic alterations. Moreover, the study was designed to investigate PB-induced proliferation of liver cells with activated β-catenin. PB treatment provided Apc-deficient hepatocytes with only a minor proliferative advantage, and additional connexin 32 deficiency did not affect the proliferative response. PB significantly promoted the outgrowth of Apc-deficient hepatocellular adenoma (HCA), but simultaneously inhibited the formation of Apc-deficient hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The probability of tumor promotion by PB was calculated to be much lower for hepatocytes with loss of Apc, as compared to mutational β-catenin activation. Comprehensive transcriptomic and phosphoproteomic characterization of HCA and HCC revealed molecular details of the two tumor types. HCC were characterized by a loss of differentiated hepatocellular gene expression, enhanced proliferative signaling, and massive over-activation of Wnt/β-catenin signaling. In conclusion, PB exerts a dual role in liver tumor formation by promoting the growth of HCA but inhibiting the growth of HCC. Data demonstrate that one and the same compound can produce opposite effects on hepatocarcinogenesis, depending on context, highlighting the necessity to develop a more differentiated view on the tumorigenicity of this model compound.