Biological monitoring of carcinogens: current status and perspectives

Abstract

Biomonitoring exposures to carcinogens is common practice and a variety of biomarkers have been developed to assess both exposures and biochemical/biological effects. However, their clinical and preventive relevance is still uncertain. The understanding of cancer as a genetic disease has dramatically evolved during last decades, showing that cancer cell types acquire their characteristics with different strategies, time frames and microenvironments. Therefore, the place of current biomarkers within this complex scenario of gene-environment interactions leading to cancer cannot be defined. Reasons are manifold. Most studies assessed cancer risk on a group basis through snapshots taken at unknown time-points of the postulated chain of events. Little attention has been paid to the variety and variability of exposures, and no prospective study validated the indicators of biochemical/biological effects. New opportunities and suggestions for biomonitoring exposures to carcinogens could derive from exploring the exposome that combines exposures from all sources both external and internal. The discovery of new biomarkers and the identification of relevant gene-specific pathways could be achieved through metabolomic and genome-wide studies. In conclusion, it is possible to envisage personalized biomonitoring procedures, such as those already implemented in the context of nutrition and clinical oncology.

Smart Comet: Uma Abordagem Automatizada Para Detecção E Classificação De Dano Celular Dispondo Do Ensaio Cometa

“…De fato, a exposição do ser vivo a agentes tóxicos pode interferir na harmônia e estabilidade do DNA [1]. Neste quesito, destacamse os cânceres oriundos da exposição a carcinógenos [2]. A capacidade de detectar, precocemente, tais mecanismos aumenta as chances de se reverter a patogênese e, quando não, melhorar a qualidade de vida dos indivíduos envolvidos [3].…”

The cytoprotective and the dark side of Nrf2

“…Further influential articles published in the Archives of Toxicology in recent years focus on nanotoxicity (Kim et al 2012;Landsiedel et al 2012;Nunes et al 2012;Trpkovic et al 2012;Gebel 2012;Oesch and Landsiedel 2012), the use of stem cells in toxicology (Wobus and Löser 2011;Krug et al 2013;Seiler et al 2011), carcinogenesis (Bernstein et al 2011Golka et al 2011;Burns and Korach 2012;Pavanello and Lotti 2012;Brambilla et al 2011), metal toxicology (Chasapis et al 2012, neurotoxicity (Soderlund 2012;Carvalho et al 2012;Mariussen 2012), in silico and in vitro methods (Karp and Caspi 2011;Godoy et al 2013;Mehling et al 2012;Geenen et al 2012) and oxidative stress (Matés et al 2012). The editors hope that this choice meets the current needs of our readers, and encourage them to suggest further In 1988, Paul Talalay and colleagues described a protein with highly reactive cysteine residues that protects against chemical carcinogenesis (Talalay et al 1988) This led to the discovery of an elaborate network of highly inducible, cytoprotective proteins that are controlled by the Keap1-Nrf2 pathway (Itoh et al 1999;Dinkova-Kostova et al 2002;Kobayashi et al 2004;Wakabayashi et al 2004;Motohashi and Yamamoto 2004;Zhang and Hannink 2003;Balogun et al 2003;McMahon et al 2003;Zhang et al 2004;Kwak et al 2003).…”