CEBP Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research - 2008 Cancer Health Disparities Conference 2009
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
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 Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Natarajan, T. G.
Right arrow Articles by Adams-Campbell, L. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Natarajan, T. G.
Right arrow Articles by Adams-Campbell, L. L.
Related Collections
Right arrow Risk Assessment
Right arrow Risk Assessment: Biomarkers
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Vol. 15, 437-442, March 2006
© 2006 American Association for Cancer Research

{gamma}-Radiation-Induced Chromosomal Mutagen Sensitivity Is Associated with Breast Cancer Risk in African-American Women: Caffeine Modulates the Outcome of Mutagen Sensitivity Assay

Thanemozhi G. Natarajan1, Natarajan Ganesan1, Pamela Carter-Nolan2, Cynthia A. Tucker2, Peter G. Shields1 and Lucile L. Adams-Campbell2

1 Department of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center and 2 Howard University Cancer Center, Washington, DC

Requests for reprints: Peter G. Shields, Medicine and Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, 3800 Reservoir Road, Northwest, LL (S) Level, Room 150, Box 571465, Washington, DC 20057-1465. Phone: 202-687-0003; Fax: 202-687-0004. E-mail: pgs2{at}georgetown.edu


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Several different cancer studies have indicated that lymphocyte mutagen sensitivity is a marker of DNA repair deficiency and increased cancer risk. We have used a mutagen sensitivity assay (MSA) measuring {gamma}-radiation-induced chromosomal aberrations in freshly cultured lymphocytes and assessed breast cancer risk in African-American women. Concurrently, we conducted duplicate cultures in the presence of caffeine, which overrides G2 arrest in cultured cells, decreases time to DNA repair, and hence increases the aberration rate. In comparison with the non–caffeine-treated cells, we are conceptually segregating the contribution of DNA repair and time for DNA repair as individual susceptibility phenotypes. Blood samples were obtained from 61 cases and 86 controls at Howard University Hospital. Two sets of whole-blood cultures were established and {gamma}-irradiated (1 Gy) at 67 hours, one of which was treated with caffeine (1 mg/mL). Thereafter, cultures were processed for obtaining metaphase spreads. Fifty metaphases were screened for chromatid breaks. The mean breaks per cell (MBPC) for cases (0.34 ± 0.15) was significantly greater than for controls (0.24 ± 0.12; P < 0.0001). Using the 75th percentile value of controls as a cutoff to define mutagen sensitivity, the sensitive individuals had an odds ratio of 4.5 (95% confidence intervals, 2.2-9.1) for breast cancer compared with individuals that were not sensitive. The adjusted odds ratio was 3.3 (95% confidence intervals, 0.147-73.917), which was statistically significant but was limited by the small number of subjects. The results for caffeine co-culture were not predictive of breast cancer (MBPC: cases, 1.6 ± 0.9 versus controls, 1.5 ± 0.8; P = 0.8663). Comparing the MBPC for caffeine and noncaffeine cultures, there was a correlation in controls (n = 79; Spearman r = 0.4286; P < 0.0001), but not in cases (n = 58; Spearman r = 0.06609; P = 0.6221). This study indicates that the MSA phenotype is a risk factor for breast cancer in African-American women, with a significant effect observable even in small studies. The use of caffeine did not enhance the predictivity of MSA, but the correlation with non-caffeine cultures in controls indicates that the MSA phenotype is due to both DNA repair and G2 arrest capacity. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15(3):437–42)


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Breast cancer is a disease of mixed etiology. The best documented and most common risk factors are related to endogenous and exogenous hormonal exposure. Although a positive family history is the strongest risk factor, familial cases caused by highly penetrant genes (BRCA1 and BRCA2) account for only ~2% of all cases (1). Therefore, for most women, low penetrant susceptibility genes elevate their risk for breast cancer, including those for DNA repair (2, 3). There are both genotypic and phenotypic assays available to assess genetic susceptibility from low penetrant genes, and genotypic methods are more commonly used (3, 4). However, there remains a role for phenotypic assays because these methods represent complex genetic traits that can account for the net result of several genetic pathways and the cumulative effects of low-risk genetic variants whose effects may be difficult to see in single candidate gene studies (4).

The mutagen sensitivity assay (MSA) represents a complex genetic trait that measures chromosomal aberrations (i.e., chromatic breaks), and this assay is considered to be a marker of unrepaired DNA damage. Virtually every study of the MSA that has been published reports statistically significant risk estimates for increased sensitivity (5-22). Methods vary across laboratories depending on the mutagen used, e.g., {gamma}-radiation (15), radiomimetic chemotherapeutic agent bleomycin (6), or benzo(a)pyrene-diol-epoxide (23, 24), and others. The results for different types of mutagens do not yield similar results in the same individuals, indicating that they are measuring different DNA repair capacities (24). For breast cancer risk, the MSA, or similar assays, have been applied only in small studies, but elevated chromosomal radiosensitivity has been reported (16-22, 25). Helzlsouer et al. studied 17 high-risk cancer-free women who had close relatives with breast cancer, 4 breast cancer cases, and 19 controls (26). They showed that the women at high-risk and the cases with breast cancer were five times likely to have suboptimal DNA repair compared with controls. Only 32% of the controls were sensitive, compared with 71% of high-risk women. In another study, 14 breast cancer cases, 19 first-degree family members, and 17 controls were tested, with identical results (19). They found that 35% of controls were sensitive versus 79% of family relatives. A third study examined 50 breast cancer cases and compared them to 111 controls (27). Mean breaks per cell were 109 (SD, 26.8) and 94 (SD, 13.6), respectively (P = 0.001). These results, however, still need further replication. Also, none has specifically addressed the relationship between MSA and breast cancer risk in African-American women. Although African-American women have a lower risk of breast cancer overall, they have a higher risk of presenting with higher stage disease, or tumors that are more aggressive by stage of disease (28-30). Although reasons for this include issues around access to health care. In fact, there is only one study that we could find that assessed African-Americans for MSA and cancer risk of any type, which was for lung cancer risk, and sensitivity was associated with a 3-fold risk (Caucasians were not compared with African-Americans (6)). In this study, we have focused exclusively on risk in African-American women.

A variation of the {gamma}-radiation-induced MSA involves the introduction of radiosensitizers at a critical time point postirradiation. We conducted the MSA in the presence of caffeine because the effect(s) of caffeine on mutagen sensitivity is considered an important model for assessing mutagenesis (31). This modification allows for the separate consideration for the contribution of DNA repair and cell cycle control in response to mutagen exposure, where it is not known which contribution affects the number of chromosomal breaks (32). Caffeine decreases a naturally occurring shoulder on the survival curve for cultured lymphocytes following radiation exposure (radiation induces G2 arrest) by decreasing time for G2 and phosphorylation of G2-M checkpoint proteins (33, 34). It is a known radiation sensitizer (35). Alterations in cell cycle checkpoints, which allow time for DNA repair, could also affect mutation rates (36). Thus, the use of caffeine may enhance the predictivity for DNA repair capacity in the MSA because it inhibits DNA repair time by eliminating G2 arrest, and hence variability in the population would be due to differences in repair efficiency of the radiation damage without regard to cell cycle variables. We hypothesized that the difference in the number of breaks between radiation and radiation plus caffeine reflects the maximum dose which cannot be repaired without G2 arrest. It should not be inferred or expressly concluded that this is a study of caffeine and cancer risk because the in vitro treatment is not analogous to human exposure; caffeine is not considered to be a mutagen or human carcinogen (37-39).

In this study, using a case-control study design, we have assessed if MSA is predictive of breast cancer risk in African-American women. Although there has been limited application of the MSA for breast cancer in general, there has been no prior study in African-American women. We also have investigated the outcomes of caffeine-modulated mutagen sensitivity to assess if reducing the time for DNA repair could result in a more predictive MSA, through elimination of "repair-time" variability, and thus directly assessing DNA repair capacity. To our knowledge, this is the first report on the evaluation of caffeine-modified mutagen sensitivity in women with breast cancer.


   Materials and Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Approval for this study was obtained from the Institutional Review Boards of the NIH, the Georgetown University Medical Center, and Howard University. All cases and controls included in the study were African-American women.

Cases
All cases recruited in this study were African-American women born in the U.S., residing in the Washington, DC metro area and diagnosed with breast cancer at the Howard University Hospital (Washington, DC). After the initial identification of the cases from the biopsy report and the confirmation of diagnosis via pathology reports, consent was obtained from the surgeon. This was followed by contacting the patient by a formal letter and a follow-up telephone call to discuss the willingness to participate in the study and schedule an appointment. The participation rate was 70%. On the day of interview, a formal consent form was signed, anthropometric measurements were taken, phlebotomy was conducted, and a survey questionnaire was completed.

All women had a working telephone at home and were able to communicate in English. Severely ill or institutionalized women were excluded, as were those diagnosed with HIV or chronic hepatitis. Also excluded were women suffering from drug abuse or unable to give informed consent. Our study included a total of 61 women diagnosed with breast cancer (unilateral or bilateral). Women who had received chemotherapy or radiation treatment were not included in this study, as these treatments might affect mutagen sensitivity.

Controls
The controls for our study were randomly selected from the Washington, DC Voters Registration List obtained from the Board of Election. The prospective controls were contacted by a letter followed by telephonic call to discuss the study and willingness to participate. On the day of interview, the participants were requested to sign the consent form and complete a set of questionnaires, after which blood sample was taken. Eligibility criteria were the same as those for cases, except that the controls must have had no personal history of breast cancer.

Other exclusion criteria (for both cases and controls) were previous diagnosis of other cancer(s), radiation treatment for other illnesses, surgery, or intake of specific medications (antibiotics, steroids, and immunosuppressants) at least 2 months prior to drawing blood for MSA. Blood samples drawn from cases and controls were handled similarly and the laboratory personnel were blinded to the case's status.

Mutagen Sensitivity Assay
Whole blood cultures were established from each subject within 24 hours of phlebotomy as described elsewhere (40). Briefly, 1 mL of fresh venous blood was inoculated into a T-25 flask with 9 mL of RPMI 1640, supplemented with 20% fetal bovine serum and phytohemagglutinin (112.5 µg/mL). These cultures were then incubated at 37°C for 67 hours, at which time they were exposed to 1 Gy of {gamma}-radiation from a 137Cs irradiator (JL Shepherd Mark I). The cultures were incubated for an additional 4 hours to allow time for DNA repair. Subsequently, colcemid (0.04 µg/mL) was added for 1 hour to arrest the cells in metaphase. The cells were then spun down and treated with a hypotonic solution of 0.06 mol/L potassium chloride for 25 minutes, spun down again, and the supernatant was discarded. The cells were fixed with methanol and glacial acetic acid in a 3:1 ratio. Slides were prepared by adding two to three drops of the fixed cells on clean cold slides to obtain metaphase spreads. Slides were air-dried for 24 to 48 hours and then stained with 4% Giemsa (Sigma Aldrich Corp., St. Louis, MO). For each subject, 50 well-spread metaphases were screened and the mean chromatid break per cell (MBPC) was assessed per individual. Breaks were defined as lesions in which the distance between the "broken" pieces was larger than the width of the chromatid; otherwise, they were considered as gaps. Gaps were not included in the present study. If both chromatids had a break, it was designated as a chromosomal break. Each chromatid break was counted as one break, whereas each chromosomal break was counted as two breaks. Cells with more than 12 chromatid breaks were excluded from this study.

Caffeine-Modulated Assay
Concurrently, fresh phytohemagglutinin-stimulated lymphocyte cultures were established as above, except that after 67 hours of culture and treatment with {gamma}-radiation, caffeine (Sigma Chemicals) was added to a final concentration of 1 mg/mL and incubated for an additional 4 hours. The subsequent steps of colcemid arrest, harvesting, fixing, slide preparation, staining, and chromatid break assessment methods followed were the same as described above for MSA.

Statistical Analysis
All analyses were conducted with SigmaStat version 3.0.1 (SPSS, Inc.). The mean and SDs of MBPC was determined for cases and control groups under separate categories, i.e., 1 Gy and 1 Gy + C. Nonparametric t test, i.e., Mann-Whitney test was used to compare cases and controls. A significance level of {alpha} = 0.05 was used throughout. The cutoff MBPC value for defining radiation sensitivity in cases was set at 75th percentile value of the MBPC for control group. To analyze the correlation between radiation-treated (1 Gy) and radiation plus caffeine-treated (1 Gy + C) scores for each group, the Spearman's correlation coefficient was used. The relationships between variables were analyzed using Pearson product moment correlation. For estimation of cancer risk adjusting for influence of other variables, unconditional logistic regression was done. Models were adjusted for age, menopausal status, age at menarche, family history of breast cancer, and alcohol use. All P values were based on two-sided tests.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
Demographic characteristics by case-control status are given in Table 1. The mean ages of the cases and controls were 59.4 and 52.7 years, respectively. Family history of breast cancer was present in 38% of the cases compared with 22% in controls; otherwise there was no significant difference.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Characteristics of cases and controls

 
Mutagen Sensitivity Assay
The MBPC for the patients with breast cancer (0.34 ± 0.15) was significantly greater than that for the control group (0.24 ± 0.12; P < 0.0001; Fig. 1). As evident from the graph, the distribution of cases is skewed towards the high sensitivity end of the graph. To determine the unadjusted odds for breast cancer risk based on mutagen sensitivity, cases and controls were dichotomized at the 75th percentile MBPC of the controls (0.29 chromatid breaks per cell). Analysis based on this value revealed that the sensitive individuals had an overall odds ratio of 4.5 (95% confidence intervals, 2.2-9.1).


Figure 1
View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. Distribution of cases and controls as a function of radiation-induced mutagen sensitivity.

 
In order to confirm whether variables of interest including age, menopausal status, family history of cancer, family history of breast cancer, smoking, and alcohol intake had an effect on the MSA and chromatid breaks per cell, we determined the Pearson product moment correlation. This analysis showed that age was not statistically correlated with chromatid breaks per cell (r = 0.678, P = 0.414) and neither were menopausal status (r = 0.0313, P = 0.707), family history of cancer (r = 0.0408, P = 0.624), alcohol intake (r = 0.0658, P = 0.428), and smoking (r = –0.0646, P = 0.437).

Breast cancer risk was associated with age (r = 0.276, P < 0.001), menopausal status (r = 0.243, P < 0.05), and family history of breast cancer (r = 0.17, P < 0.05). All other variables including family history of other cancer, smoking, and alcohol failed to show any association with cancer status. MSA in unconditional logistic regression, adjusted for age, menopausal status, family history of breast cancer, and alcohol drinking showed a strong association with case-control status (r = 5.799, P < 0.001), in which the odds ratio of chromatid breaks per cell was 3.3 (0.14-74.0) for cases compared with controls (P < 0.001).

Caffeine-Modified MSA
Data for the caffeine-modulated assay was available for 59 cases and 80 controls. Unlike the analysis for the MSA, the caffeine-modulated assay did not reveal statistically significant differences for cases (1.6 ± 0.9) versus controls (1.5 ± 0.8; P = 0.9; Fig. 2).


Figure 2
View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 2. Distribution of cases and controls as a function of caffeine-modified radiation-induced mutagen sensitivity.

 
We analyzed if the MSA and caffeine-modulated assay MBPC were correlated in cases and controls; that is, if a woman was sensitive to MSA, would she also be sensitive for caffeine-modulated assay? For this correlation analysis, we included only those cases and controls for which both assays were available. It was found that there was a statistically significant correlation for controls (n = 79; Spearman r = 0.43; P < 0.01; Fig. 3), but not for cases (n = 58; Spearman r = 0.07; P = 0.62; Fig. 4). Table 2 gives a summary of the statistics of mutagen sensitivity with and without caffeine by case-control status. Using the cutoff of the 75th percentile in controls at 0.29 MBPC, 87% of cases were above this cutoff, compared with only 25% of controls. Thus, the 75th percentile is both sensitive and specific.


Figure 3
View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 3. Controls: correlation analysis of MBPC with and without caffeine modulation (n = 79).

 

Figure 4
View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 4. Cases: correlation analysis of MBPC with and without caffeine modulation (n = 58).

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2. Statistics of mutagen sensitivity by case-control status

 

   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
This study indicates that MSA is an independent risk factor for breast cancer in African-American women. This is consistent with findings for other cancers in Whites and African-Americans, as shown in Table 3. Given that twin studies indicate that the MSA is a heritable trait (41), and numerous studies that show positive associations, the results are not likely confounded by case status, age, or unknown variables. In this study, conducting caffeine-modulated assay did not improve the risk prediction for the MSA, but did indicate that the phenotypic MSA is likely related to both DNA repair and cell cycle G2-M arrest. Although this epidemiologic study is relatively small, it had sufficient power to show the utility of the MSA for breast cancer risk, as has been done in studies of similar or slightly larger size (22, 25, 42, 43). An odds ratio of 4.5 in our study is higher than that of an earlier report wherein radiation-sensitive individuals had an odds ratio of 2.83 for developing breast cancer (25). However, this study was conducted on a fewer number of cases and controls (n = 44) and the subjects were likely not African-American.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3. List of publications for studies of mutagen sensitivity and cancer

 
Phenotypes, such as MSA, represent combined genotypes in a pathway, in this case, nonhomologous repair capacity and cell cycle control. The association for phenotypic studies and cancer risk often show main effects in small studies, such as for the MSA shown in Table 3. Single candidate gene studies are challenged because the effect of a single gene variant within a pathway might not be sufficiently penetrant to show the increased risk, even in large studies, especially if the frequency of the variant is small. This would also hold true for haplotypes. However, phenotypes have the capacity to show the result of combined low-penetrant genes or haplotypes of both low and high frequency, and there is some evidence that DNA repair enzyme polymorphisms affect chromosomal aberrations and MSA (44-46). Thus, the penetrance of phenotypes could be higher and observable in small studies. Separately, phenotypic markers may be better cancer risk biomarkers compared with genetic markers because the phenotype would account for differences in genetic diversity among different ethnic and racial groups. Although specific genetic traits might vary widely among different ethnic and racial groups, how these would combine to affect DNA would be assessed jointly in the MSA.

There are some limitations to this study, including its small size and possible chance effect. Also, we could not stratify where the MSA could have different risks according to menopausal status. Our cases and controls that provided a blood sample were not well matched, but logistic regression with adjustment for age still indicated the increased risk, and age was not correlated with MSA. Another potential confounder might be case status, and it would be more informative to show the risk for the MSA in a cohort study. However, this assay is technically difficult and hence not feasible for cohort studies, but provides evidence for identifying associations with, and application of, other less technically difficult assays (e.g., the COMET assay). One study suggests that the MSA might be confounded by case status because persons with higher stage head and neck cancers were more likely to be sensitive (47), but the reports are conflicting (9). We believe that our results are not confounded by case status because there is no clear a priori reason to believe that the cultured B lymphocytes would behave differently from cases and controls, and that there is consistency across cancer sites. Another argument against case bias is that age, gender, smoking, and micronutrient consumption were not associated with bleomycin or benzo(a)pyrene sensitivity (24, 48, 49). Separately, there is no reason to suspect laboratory variability because the laboratory staff was blinded to case status, and samples were analyzed concurrently. A replicate analysis in our laboratory provided acceptable quality control results (see below),3 as has been reported by others.

The evidence that MSA is a heritable trait comes from studies of high risk breast cancer families (19, 26, 50, 51) and twin studies (41), demonstrating heritability in noncancer subjects. Specifically, Cloos et al., tested bleomycin MSA in 135 healthy volunteers from 53 pedigrees, including monozygotic and dizygotic twins (41). There was no evidence for shared family environments, but 75% of the variance was accounted for by heredity. The correlation coefficient in monozygotic twins was 0.79 (0.65-0.88), whereas for dizygotes was 0.42 (0.00-0.71).

In this study, we chose {gamma}-radiation as the mutagen for the MSA. This was done for several reasons, and because most prior breast cancer studies also used this mutagen (19, 26, 27). Also, {gamma}-radiation is a direct DNA-damaging agent that is not dependent on cell penetration, metabolism, or clearance. In vitro breast cell culture studies of immortalized normal mammary epithelial cells show similar chromatid breaks after G2 phase irradiation (52). BRCA1 and BRCA2 knockout mice are more sensitive to radiation and have deficient repair for DNA damage (53), and radiation down-regulates BRCA1 (54). With an intact p53, ionizing radiation affects the G1-S checkpoint and probably the G2-M checkpoint as well (55). All of these reasons support the hypothesis that the MSA is a good biomarker for decreased DNA repair capacity for different repair pathways, and hence, would also be associated with genetic polymorphisms of different types of DNA repair genes.

Compared with previous reports for {gamma}-radiation-induced MSA (Table 4), the MBPC for MSA from our study was relatively lower. Such differences could arise from a number of causes including differences in study population, radiation dosages, irradiator calibrations, postradiation incubation time, experimental handling, and slide-reading criteria such as inclusion/exclusion of gaps. Significant differences in scoring of breaks and gaps can exist even among experienced cytogeneticists (56). However, provided that the analyst maintains a constant criteria and the study is "blinded," the results from a given analyst would be valid. In this investigation, cell culture, harvesting, slide preparation, staining, and slide scoring was done by a single analyst (T.G. Natarajan) for the entire period of the study. Prior to performing this study, assay reproducibility was tested in our laboratory with samples from five donors and repeated five times each at intervals of 2 to 4 weeks (Wilks' Lambda P = 0.44).3


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 4. Reported literature on MBPC and experimental/slide-reading conditions

 
The addition of caffeine to the cultures, a priori were believed to have improved the risk estimated, but this did not happen. The differential effect in cases and controls suggest that there may be a difference by case status for G2M arrest, but that the phenotype did not predict breast cancer risk. There is another evidence that G2M arrest, specifically mediated by cyclin-dependent kinase 1 / cyclin-B activity, affects chromosomal radiosensitivity (20). One reason for this may be that cells, in the presence of caffeine, were too radiosensitive, and so this would be similar to conducting MSA at much higher radiation doses. This might result in the loss of specificity for the assay.

Our study shows that the MSA may be a clinically useful biomarker of breast cancer risk, pending replication in other studies. It represents a complex phenotype of both DNA repair and cell cycle control. To date, this complex phenotype remains a stronger predictor of sporadic breast cancer risk than any known individual genotypes. The MSA is probably a complex genotype representing both DNA repair and cell cycle control. This study also contributes to other existing data on breast cancer risk in African-American women.


   Acknowledgments
 
We thank Dr. Theodore Puck for his many insightful discussions.


   Footnotes
 
Grant support: U.S. Department of Defense (DAMD17-98-1-8110) awarded to Dr. Adams-Campbell and by GCRC 5M01RR010284 awarded to Dr. Robert E. Taylor (Howard University).

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

3 Manuscript submitted. Back

Received 5/16/05; revised 10/18/05; accepted 1/ 6/06.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Peto J, Collins N, Barfoot R, et al. Prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations in patients with early-onset breast cancer [see comments]. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:943–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Weber BL, Nathanson KL. Low penetrance genes associated with increased risk for breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 2000;36:1193–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  3. Goode EL, Ulrich CM, Potter JD. Polymorphisms in DNA repair genes and associations with cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2002;11:1513–30.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Paz-Elizur T, Brenner DE, Livneh Z. Interrogating DNA repair in cancer risk assessment. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005;14:1585–7.[Free Full Text]
  5. Wu X, Gu J, Patt Y, et al. Mutagen sensitivity as a susceptibility marker for human hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1998;7:567–70.[Abstract]
  6. Spitz MR, Hsu TC, Wu X, Fueger JJ, Amos CI, Roth JA. Mutagen sensitivity as a biological marker of lung cancer risk in African Americans. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1995;4:99–103.[Abstract]
  7. Zheng YL, Loffredo CA, Yu Z, et al. Bleomycin-induced chromosome breaks as a risk marker for lung cancer: a case-control study with population and hospital controls. Carcinogenesis 2003;24:269–74.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Wei Q, Gu J, Cheng L, et al. Benzo(a)pyrene diol epoxide-induced chromosomal aberrations and risk of lung cancer. Cancer Res 1996;56:3975–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Wang LE, Sturgis EM, Eicher SA, Spitz MR, Hong WK, Wei Q. Mutagen sensitivity to benzo(a)pyrene diol epoxide and the risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Clin Cancer Res 1998;4:1773–8.[Abstract]
  10. Wu X, Gu J, Hong WK, et al. Benzo[a]pyrene diol epoxide and bleomycin sensitivity and susceptibility to cancer of upper aerodigestive tract. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:1393–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Cloos J, Spitz MR, Schantz SP, et al. Genetic susceptibility to head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996;88:530–5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Gajecka M, Rydzanicz M, Jaskula-Sztul R, Wierzbicka M, Szyfter W, Szyfter K. Reduced DNA repair capacity in laryngeal cancer subjects. A comparison of phenotypic and genotypic results. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 2005;62:25–37.[Medline]
  13. Spitz MR, Hoque A, Trizna Z, et al. Mutagen sensitivity as a risk factor for second malignant tumors following malignancies of the upper aerodigestive tract [see comments]. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86:1681–4.[Free Full Text]
  14. Szekely G, Remenar E, Kasler M, Gundy S. Mutagen sensitivity of patients with cancer at different sites of the head and neck. Mutagenesis 2005;20:381–5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Bondy ML, Wang LE, el Zein R, et al. {gamma}-Radiation sensitivity and risk of glioma. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:1553–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Scott D, Spreadborough AR, Roberts SA. Radiation-induced G2 delay and spontaneous chromosome aberrations in ataxia-telangiectasia homozygotes and heterozygotes. Int J Radiat Biol 1994;66:S157–63.[Medline]
  17. Scott D, Barber JB, Levine EL, Burrill W, Roberts SA. Radiation-induced micronucleus induction in lymphocytes identifies a high frequency of radiosensitive cases among breast cancer patients: a test for predisposition? Br J Cancer 1998;77:614–20.[Medline]
  18. Parshad R, Price FM, Bohr VA, Cowans KH, Zujewski JA, Sanford KK. Deficient DNA repair capacity, a predisposing factor in breast cancer. Br J Cancer 1996;74:1–5.[Medline]
  19. Patel RK, Trivedi AH, Arora DC, Bhatavdekar JM, Patel DD. DNA repair proficiency in breast cancer patients and their first-degree relatives. Int J Cancer 1997;73:20–4.[CrossRef][Medline]
  20. Terzoudi GI, Jung T, Hain J, et al. Increased G2 chromosomal radiosensitivity in cancer patients: the role of cdk1/cyclin-B activity level in the mechanisms involved. Int J Radiat Biol 2000;76:607–15.[CrossRef][Medline]
  21. Baria K, Warren C, Roberts SA, West CM, Scott D. Chromosomal radiosensitivity as a marker of predisposition to common cancers? Br J Cancer 2001;84:892–6.[CrossRef][Medline]
  22. Riches AC, Bryant PE, Steel CM, et al. Chromosomal radiosensitivity in G2-phase lymphocytes identifies breast cancer patients with distinctive tumour characteristics. Br J Cancer 2001;85:1157–61.[CrossRef][Medline]
  23. Xiong P, Bondy ML, Li D, et al. Sensitivity to benzo(a)pyrene diol-epoxide associated with risk of breast cancer in young women and modulation by gluthathione S-transferase polymorphisms: a case-control study. Cancer Res 2001;61:8465–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Gu J, Bondy ML, Sigurdson A, Spitz MR, Hsu TC, Wu X. Three measures of mutagen sensitivity in a cancer-free population. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 1999;110:65–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  25. Buchholz TA, Wu X. Radiation-induced chromatid breaks as a predictor of breast cancer risk. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001;49:533–7.[CrossRef][Medline]
  26. Helzlsouer KJ, Selmin O, Huang HY, et al. Association between glutathione S-transferase M1, P1, and T1 genetic polymorphisms and development of breast cancer [see comments]. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:512–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Scott D, Spreadborough A, Levine E, Roberts SA. Genetic predisposition in breast cancer. Lancet 1994;344:1444.[Medline]
  28. Newman LA. Breast cancer in African-American women. Oncologist 2005;10:1–14.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Porter PL, Lund MJ, Lin MG, et al. Racial differences in the expression of cell cycle-regulatory proteins in breast carcinoma. Cancer 2004;100:2533–42.[CrossRef][Medline]
  30. Ademuyiwa FO, Olopade OI. Racial differences in genetic factors associated with breast cancer. Cancer Metastasis Rev 2003;22:47–53.[CrossRef][Medline]
  31. Puck TT, Johnson R, Rasumussen S. A system for mutation measurement in mammalian cells: application to {gamma}-irradiation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1997;94:1218–23.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Dornfeld KJ, Lawrence TS. A predisposition supposition for glioma. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:1512–3.[Free Full Text]
  33. Ning S, Knox SJ. G2/M-phase arrest and death by apoptosis of HL60 cells irradiated with exponentially decreasing low-dose-rate {gamma} radiation. Radiat Res 1999;151:659–69.[CrossRef][Medline]
  34. Tenzer A, Pruschy M. Potentiation of DNA-damage-induced cytotoxicity by G2 checkpoint abrogators. Curr Med Chem Anticancer Agents 2003;3:35–46.
  35. Powell SN, DeFrank JS, Connell P, et al. Differential sensitivity of p53(–) and p53(+) cells to caffeine-induced radiosensitization and override of G2 delay. Cancer Res 1995;55:1643–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Loeb KR, Loeb LA. Significance of multiple mutations in cancer. Carcinogenesis 2000;21:379–85.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. McGuinness SM, Shibuya ML, Ueno AM, Vannais DB, Waldren CA. Mutant quantity and quality in mammalian cells (AL) exposed to cesium-137 {gamma} radiation: effect of caffeine. Radiat Res 1995;142:247–55.[Medline]
  38. Thompson WG. Coffee: brew or bane? Am J Med Sci 1994;308:49–57.[Medline]
  39. Nehlig A, Debry G. Coffee and cancer: a review of human and animal data. World Rev Nutr Diet 1996;79:185–221.[Medline]
  40. Hsu TC, Johnston DA, Cherry LM, et al. Sensitivity to genotoxic effects of bleomycin in humans: possible relationship to environmental carcinogenesis. Int J Cancer 1989;43:403–9.[Medline]
  41. Cloos J, Nieuwenhuis EJ, Boomsma DI, et al. Inherited susceptibility to bleomycin-induced chromatid breaks in cultured peripheral blood lymphocytes. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:1125–30.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  42. Roberts SA, Spreadborough AR, Bulman B, Barber JB, Evans DG, Scott D. Heritability of cellular radiosensitivity: a marker of low-penetrance predisposition genes in breast cancer? Am J Hum Genet 1999;65:784–94.[CrossRef][Medline]
  43. Helzlsouer KJ, Harris EL, Parshad R, Perry HR, Price FM, Sanford KK. DNA repair proficiency: potential susceptibility factor for breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996;88:754–5.[Free Full Text]
  44. Harms C, Salama SA, Sierra-Torres CH, Cajas-Salazar N, Au WW. Polymorphisms in DNA repair genes, chromosome aberrations, and lung cancer. Environ Mol Mutagen 2004;44:74–82.[CrossRef][Medline]
  45. Affatato AA, Wolfe KJ, Lopez MS, Hallberg C, Ammenheuser MM, Abdel-Rahman SZ. Effect of XPD/ERCC2 polymorphisms on chromosome aberration frequencies in smokers and on sensitivity to the mutagenic tobacco-specific nitrosamine NNK. Environ Mol Mutagen 2004;44:65–73.[CrossRef][Medline]
  46. Wang Y, Spitz MR, Zhu Y, Dong Q, Shete S, Wu X. From genotype to phenotype: correlating XRCC1 polymorphisms with mutagen sensitivity. DNA Repair (Amst) 2003;2:901–8.
  47. Spitz MR, Fueger JJ, Halabi S, Schantz SP, Sample D, Hsu TC. Mutagen sensitivity in upper aerodigestive tract cancer: a case-control analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1993;2:329–33.[Abstract]
  48. IARC, Mycotoxins: aflatoxins; studies of cancer in experimental animals. In: Anonymous, IARC Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Lyon (France): IARC; 1993. p. 263–395.
  49. Oyama T, Kawamoto T, Mizoue T, et al. Cytochrome P450 2E1 polymorphism as a risk factor for lung cancer: in relation to p53 gene mutation. Anticancer Res 1997;17:583–7.[Medline]
  50. Broaddus VC. Asbestos, the mesothelial cell and malignancy: a matter of life or death. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol 1997;17:657–9.[Free Full Text]
  51. Roy SK, Trivedi AH, Bakshi SR, et al. Bleomycin-induced chromosome damage in lymphocytes indicates inefficient DNA repair capacity in breast cancer families. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2000;19:169–73.[Medline]
  52. Sanford KK, Price FM, Rhim JS, Stampfer MR, Parshad R. Role of DNA repair in malignant neoplastic transformation of human mammary epithelial cells in culture. Carcinogenesis 1992;13:1137–41.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  53. Gowen LC, Avrutskaya AV, Latour AM, Koller BH, Leadon SA. BRCA1 required for transcription-coupled repair of oxidative DNA damage. Science 1998;281:1009–12.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  54. Scully R, Chen J, Ochs RL, et al. Dynamic changes of BRCA1 subnuclear location and phosphorylation state are initiated by DNA damage. Cell 1997;90:425–35.[CrossRef][Medline]
  55. Ko LJ, Prives C. p53: puzzle and paradigm. Genes Dev 1996;10:1054–72.[Free Full Text]
  56. Brogger A, Norum R, Hansteen IL, et al. Comparison between five Nordic laboratories on scoring of human lymphocyte chromosome aberrations. Hereditas 1984;100:209–18.[Medline]
  57. Boren HG, Wright EC, Harris CC. Quantitative light microscopic autoradiography. In: Prescott D, editor. Methods in cell biology. vol. 8. New York: Academic Press; 1974. p. 277–88.




This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
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 Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Natarajan, T. G.
Right arrow Articles by Adams-Campbell, L. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Natarajan, T. G.
Right arrow Articles by Adams-Campbell, L. L.
Related Collections
Right arrow Risk Assessment
Right arrow Risk Assessment: Biomarkers

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online