Differential Response to DNA Damage May Explain Different Cancer Susceptibility Between Small and Large Intestine

Although large intestine (LI) cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States, small intestine (SI) cancer is relatively rare. Because oxidative DNA damage is one possible initiator of tumorigenesis, we investigated if the SI is protected against cancer because of a...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) N.J.), 2005-07, Vol.230 (7), p.464-471
Hauptverfasser: Hong, Mee Young, Turner, Nancy D., Carroll, Raymond J., Chapkin, Robert S., Lupton, Joanne R.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 471
container_issue 7
container_start_page 464
container_title Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.)
container_volume 230
creator Hong, Mee Young
Turner, Nancy D.
Carroll, Raymond J.
Chapkin, Robert S.
Lupton, Joanne R.
description Although large intestine (LI) cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States, small intestine (SI) cancer is relatively rare. Because oxidative DNA damage is one possible initiator of tumorigenesis, we investigated if the SI is protected against cancer because of a more appropriate response to oxidative DNA damage compared with the LI. Sixty rats were allocated to three treatment groups: 3% dextran sodium sulfate (DSS, a DNA-oxidizing agent) for 48 hrs, withdrawal (DSS for 48 hrs + DSS withdrawal for 48 hrs), or control (no DSS). The SI, compared with the LI, showed greater oxidative DNA damage (P < 0.001) as determined using a quantitative immunohistochemical analysis of 8-oxodeoxyguanosine (8-oxodG). The response to the DNA adducts in the SI was greater than in the LI. The increase of TdT–mediated dUTP-biotin nick end labeling (TUNEL)-positive apoptosis after DSS treatment was greater in the SI compared with the LI (P < 0.001), and there was a positive correlation (P = 0.031) between DNA damage and apoptosis in the SI. Morphologically, DSS caused an extensive loss of crypt structure shown in lower crypt height (P = 0.006) and the number of intact crypts (P = 0.0001) in the LI, but not in the SI. These data suggest that the SI may be more protected against cancer by having a more dynamic response to oxidative damage that maintains crypt morphology, whereas the response of the LI makes it more susceptible to loss of crypt architecture. These differential responses to oxidative DNA damage may contribute to the difference in cancer susceptibility between these two anatomic sites of the intestine.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/153537020523000704
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>sage_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1177_153537020523000704</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_153537020523000704</sage_id><sourcerecordid>10.1177_153537020523000704</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c407t-74e12212363c3ba15730e7033b86271902c6d6a3b08728f95662834a823553b53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kF1LwzAUhoMobk7_gBeSP1CXjyZpL-c2dTAVnF6XtDuVjDatSYb239uxqReCVzmE530550HokpJrSpUaU8EFV4QRwTghRJH4CA13nxGXaXr8PffEAJ15vyGECsXkKRpQkSZCMjpE7zNTluDABqMr_Ay-bawHHBo8e5zgma71G-AH3eH5Z1tpY_EPj6faFuDwausLaIPJTWVCh28gfABYvKp1VWFt13ipXd-xsAF8MBbO0UmpKw8Xh3eEXm_nL9P7aPl0t5hOllERExUiFQNljDIuecFz3W_OCSjCeZ5IpmhKWCHXUvOcJIolZSqkZAmPdcK4EDwXfITYvrdwjfcOyqx1ptauyyjJdv6yv_760NU-1G7zGta_kYOwHhjvAd-LyTbN1tn-iP8qvwBArnZl</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Differential Response to DNA Damage May Explain Different Cancer Susceptibility Between Small and Large Intestine</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><creator>Hong, Mee Young ; Turner, Nancy D. ; Carroll, Raymond J. ; Chapkin, Robert S. ; Lupton, Joanne R.</creator><creatorcontrib>Hong, Mee Young ; Turner, Nancy D. ; Carroll, Raymond J. ; Chapkin, Robert S. ; Lupton, Joanne R.</creatorcontrib><description>Although large intestine (LI) cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States, small intestine (SI) cancer is relatively rare. Because oxidative DNA damage is one possible initiator of tumorigenesis, we investigated if the SI is protected against cancer because of a more appropriate response to oxidative DNA damage compared with the LI. Sixty rats were allocated to three treatment groups: 3% dextran sodium sulfate (DSS, a DNA-oxidizing agent) for 48 hrs, withdrawal (DSS for 48 hrs + DSS withdrawal for 48 hrs), or control (no DSS). The SI, compared with the LI, showed greater oxidative DNA damage (P &lt; 0.001) as determined using a quantitative immunohistochemical analysis of 8-oxodeoxyguanosine (8-oxodG). The response to the DNA adducts in the SI was greater than in the LI. The increase of TdT–mediated dUTP-biotin nick end labeling (TUNEL)-positive apoptosis after DSS treatment was greater in the SI compared with the LI (P &lt; 0.001), and there was a positive correlation (P = 0.031) between DNA damage and apoptosis in the SI. Morphologically, DSS caused an extensive loss of crypt structure shown in lower crypt height (P = 0.006) and the number of intact crypts (P = 0.0001) in the LI, but not in the SI. These data suggest that the SI may be more protected against cancer by having a more dynamic response to oxidative damage that maintains crypt morphology, whereas the response of the LI makes it more susceptible to loss of crypt architecture. These differential responses to oxidative DNA damage may contribute to the difference in cancer susceptibility between these two anatomic sites of the intestine.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1535-3702</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1535-3699</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/153537020523000704</identifier><identifier>PMID: 15985621</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Animals ; Apoptosis ; Cell Proliferation ; Deoxyguanosine - analogs &amp; derivatives ; Deoxyguanosine - analysis ; Dextran Sulfate - toxicity ; Disease Susceptibility - etiology ; DNA - drug effects ; DNA Adducts - metabolism ; DNA Damage ; Intestinal Neoplasms - genetics ; Intestine, Large - immunology ; Intestine, Large - pathology ; Intestine, Small - immunology ; Intestine, Small - pathology ; Male ; Oxidative Stress ; Rats</subject><ispartof>Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.), 2005-07, Vol.230 (7), p.464-471</ispartof><rights>2005 by the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c407t-74e12212363c3ba15730e7033b86271902c6d6a3b08728f95662834a823553b53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c407t-74e12212363c3ba15730e7033b86271902c6d6a3b08728f95662834a823553b53</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15985621$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hong, Mee Young</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Turner, Nancy D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carroll, Raymond J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chapkin, Robert S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lupton, Joanne R.</creatorcontrib><title>Differential Response to DNA Damage May Explain Different Cancer Susceptibility Between Small and Large Intestine</title><title>Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.)</title><addtitle>Exp Biol Med (Maywood)</addtitle><description>Although large intestine (LI) cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States, small intestine (SI) cancer is relatively rare. Because oxidative DNA damage is one possible initiator of tumorigenesis, we investigated if the SI is protected against cancer because of a more appropriate response to oxidative DNA damage compared with the LI. Sixty rats were allocated to three treatment groups: 3% dextran sodium sulfate (DSS, a DNA-oxidizing agent) for 48 hrs, withdrawal (DSS for 48 hrs + DSS withdrawal for 48 hrs), or control (no DSS). The SI, compared with the LI, showed greater oxidative DNA damage (P &lt; 0.001) as determined using a quantitative immunohistochemical analysis of 8-oxodeoxyguanosine (8-oxodG). The response to the DNA adducts in the SI was greater than in the LI. The increase of TdT–mediated dUTP-biotin nick end labeling (TUNEL)-positive apoptosis after DSS treatment was greater in the SI compared with the LI (P &lt; 0.001), and there was a positive correlation (P = 0.031) between DNA damage and apoptosis in the SI. Morphologically, DSS caused an extensive loss of crypt structure shown in lower crypt height (P = 0.006) and the number of intact crypts (P = 0.0001) in the LI, but not in the SI. These data suggest that the SI may be more protected against cancer by having a more dynamic response to oxidative damage that maintains crypt morphology, whereas the response of the LI makes it more susceptible to loss of crypt architecture. These differential responses to oxidative DNA damage may contribute to the difference in cancer susceptibility between these two anatomic sites of the intestine.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Apoptosis</subject><subject>Cell Proliferation</subject><subject>Deoxyguanosine - analogs &amp; derivatives</subject><subject>Deoxyguanosine - analysis</subject><subject>Dextran Sulfate - toxicity</subject><subject>Disease Susceptibility - etiology</subject><subject>DNA - drug effects</subject><subject>DNA Adducts - metabolism</subject><subject>DNA Damage</subject><subject>Intestinal Neoplasms - genetics</subject><subject>Intestine, Large - immunology</subject><subject>Intestine, Large - pathology</subject><subject>Intestine, Small - immunology</subject><subject>Intestine, Small - pathology</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Oxidative Stress</subject><subject>Rats</subject><issn>1535-3702</issn><issn>1535-3699</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kF1LwzAUhoMobk7_gBeSP1CXjyZpL-c2dTAVnF6XtDuVjDatSYb239uxqReCVzmE530550HokpJrSpUaU8EFV4QRwTghRJH4CA13nxGXaXr8PffEAJ15vyGECsXkKRpQkSZCMjpE7zNTluDABqMr_Ay-bawHHBo8e5zgma71G-AH3eH5Z1tpY_EPj6faFuDwausLaIPJTWVCh28gfABYvKp1VWFt13ipXd-xsAF8MBbO0UmpKw8Xh3eEXm_nL9P7aPl0t5hOllERExUiFQNljDIuecFz3W_OCSjCeZ5IpmhKWCHXUvOcJIolZSqkZAmPdcK4EDwXfITYvrdwjfcOyqx1ptauyyjJdv6yv_760NU-1G7zGta_kYOwHhjvAd-LyTbN1tn-iP8qvwBArnZl</recordid><startdate>20050701</startdate><enddate>20050701</enddate><creator>Hong, Mee Young</creator><creator>Turner, Nancy D.</creator><creator>Carroll, Raymond J.</creator><creator>Chapkin, Robert S.</creator><creator>Lupton, Joanne R.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20050701</creationdate><title>Differential Response to DNA Damage May Explain Different Cancer Susceptibility Between Small and Large Intestine</title><author>Hong, Mee Young ; Turner, Nancy D. ; Carroll, Raymond J. ; Chapkin, Robert S. ; Lupton, Joanne R.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c407t-74e12212363c3ba15730e7033b86271902c6d6a3b08728f95662834a823553b53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Apoptosis</topic><topic>Cell Proliferation</topic><topic>Deoxyguanosine - analogs &amp; derivatives</topic><topic>Deoxyguanosine - analysis</topic><topic>Dextran Sulfate - toxicity</topic><topic>Disease Susceptibility - etiology</topic><topic>DNA - drug effects</topic><topic>DNA Adducts - metabolism</topic><topic>DNA Damage</topic><topic>Intestinal Neoplasms - genetics</topic><topic>Intestine, Large - immunology</topic><topic>Intestine, Large - pathology</topic><topic>Intestine, Small - immunology</topic><topic>Intestine, Small - pathology</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Oxidative Stress</topic><topic>Rats</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hong, Mee Young</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Turner, Nancy D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carroll, Raymond J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chapkin, Robert S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lupton, Joanne R.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hong, Mee Young</au><au>Turner, Nancy D.</au><au>Carroll, Raymond J.</au><au>Chapkin, Robert S.</au><au>Lupton, Joanne R.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Differential Response to DNA Damage May Explain Different Cancer Susceptibility Between Small and Large Intestine</atitle><jtitle>Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.)</jtitle><addtitle>Exp Biol Med (Maywood)</addtitle><date>2005-07-01</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>230</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>464</spage><epage>471</epage><pages>464-471</pages><issn>1535-3702</issn><eissn>1535-3699</eissn><abstract>Although large intestine (LI) cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States, small intestine (SI) cancer is relatively rare. Because oxidative DNA damage is one possible initiator of tumorigenesis, we investigated if the SI is protected against cancer because of a more appropriate response to oxidative DNA damage compared with the LI. Sixty rats were allocated to three treatment groups: 3% dextran sodium sulfate (DSS, a DNA-oxidizing agent) for 48 hrs, withdrawal (DSS for 48 hrs + DSS withdrawal for 48 hrs), or control (no DSS). The SI, compared with the LI, showed greater oxidative DNA damage (P &lt; 0.001) as determined using a quantitative immunohistochemical analysis of 8-oxodeoxyguanosine (8-oxodG). The response to the DNA adducts in the SI was greater than in the LI. The increase of TdT–mediated dUTP-biotin nick end labeling (TUNEL)-positive apoptosis after DSS treatment was greater in the SI compared with the LI (P &lt; 0.001), and there was a positive correlation (P = 0.031) between DNA damage and apoptosis in the SI. Morphologically, DSS caused an extensive loss of crypt structure shown in lower crypt height (P = 0.006) and the number of intact crypts (P = 0.0001) in the LI, but not in the SI. These data suggest that the SI may be more protected against cancer by having a more dynamic response to oxidative damage that maintains crypt morphology, whereas the response of the LI makes it more susceptible to loss of crypt architecture. These differential responses to oxidative DNA damage may contribute to the difference in cancer susceptibility between these two anatomic sites of the intestine.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>15985621</pmid><doi>10.1177/153537020523000704</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1535-3702
ispartof Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.), 2005-07, Vol.230 (7), p.464-471
issn 1535-3702
1535-3699
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1177_153537020523000704
source MEDLINE; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals
subjects Animals
Apoptosis
Cell Proliferation
Deoxyguanosine - analogs & derivatives
Deoxyguanosine - analysis
Dextran Sulfate - toxicity
Disease Susceptibility - etiology
DNA - drug effects
DNA Adducts - metabolism
DNA Damage
Intestinal Neoplasms - genetics
Intestine, Large - immunology
Intestine, Large - pathology
Intestine, Small - immunology
Intestine, Small - pathology
Male
Oxidative Stress
Rats
title Differential Response to DNA Damage May Explain Different Cancer Susceptibility Between Small and Large Intestine
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T21%3A43%3A48IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-sage_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Differential%20Response%20to%20DNA%20Damage%20May%20Explain%20Different%20Cancer%20Susceptibility%20Between%20Small%20and%20Large%20Intestine&rft.jtitle=Experimental%20biology%20and%20medicine%20(Maywood,%20N.J.)&rft.au=Hong,%20Mee%20Young&rft.date=2005-07-01&rft.volume=230&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=464&rft.epage=471&rft.pages=464-471&rft.issn=1535-3702&rft.eissn=1535-3699&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/153537020523000704&rft_dat=%3Csage_cross%3E10.1177_153537020523000704%3C/sage_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/15985621&rft_sage_id=10.1177_153537020523000704&rfr_iscdi=true