Dataset Information

Distinguishing between genotoxic and non-genotoxic hepatocarcinogens by gene expression profiling and bioinformatic pathway analysis.

ABSTRACT: A rapid and sensitive method to determine the characteristics of carcinogens is needed. In this study, we used a microarray-based genomics approach, with a short-term in vivo model, in combination with insights from statistical and mechanistic analyses to determine the characteristics of carcinogens. Carcinogens were evaluated based on the different mechanisms involved in the responses to genotoxic carcinogens and non-genotoxic carcinogens. Gene profiling was performed at two time points after treatment with six training and four test carcinogens. We mapped the DEG (differentially expressed gene)-related pathways to analyze cellular processes, and we discovered significant mechanisms that involve critical cellular components. Classification results were further supported by Comet and Micronucleus assays. Mechanistic studies based on gene expression profiling enhanced our understanding of the characteristics of different carcinogens. Moreover, the efficiency of this study was demonstrated by the short-term nature of the animal experiments that were conducted.

SUBMITTER: Lee SJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6505678 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Distinguishing between genotoxic and non-genotoxic hepatocarcinogens by gene expression profiling and bioinformatic pathway analysis.

Lee Seul Ji SJ Yum Young Na YN Kim Sang Cheol SC Kim Yuneung Y Lim Johan J Lee Won Jun WJ Koo Kyung Hye KH Kim Joo Hwan JH Kim Jee Eun JE Lee Woo Sun WS Sohn Soojung S Park Sue Nie SN Park Jeong Hill JH Lee Jeongmi J Kwon Sung Won SW

Scientific reports 20131003

A rapid and sensitive method to determine the characteristics of carcinogens is needed. In this study, we used a microarray-based genomics approach, with a short-term in vivo model, in combination with insights from statistical and mechanistic analyses to determine the characteristics of carcinogens. Carcinogens were evaluated based on the different mechanisms involved in the responses to genotoxic carcinogens and non-genotoxic carcinogens. Gene profiling was performed at two time points after t ...[more]

PMID: 24089152

Similar Datasets

Project description:To clarify difference in the responses on the reprogramming of metabolism toward carcinogenesis between genotoxic and non-genotoxic hepatocarcinogens in the liver, rats were repeatedly administered genotoxic hepatocarcinogens (N-nitrosodiethylamine, aflatoxin B1, N-nitrosopyrrolidine, or carbadox) or non-genotoxic hepatocarcinogens (carbon tetrachloride, thioacetamide, or methapyrilene hydrochloride) for 28, 84, or 90 days. Non-genotoxic hepatocarcinogens revealed transcript expression changes suggestive of suppressed mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) after 28 days and increased glutathione S-transferase placental form-positive (GST-P+) foci downregulating adenosine triphosphate (ATP) synthase subunit beta, mitochondrial precursor (ATPB), compared with genotoxic hepatocarcinogens after 84 or 90 days, suggesting that non-genotoxic hepatocarcinogens are prone to suppress OXPHOS from the early stage of treatment, which is in contrast to genotoxic hepatocarcinogens. Both genotoxic and non-genotoxic hepatocarcinogens upregulated glycolytic enzyme genes and increased cellular membrane solute carrier family 2, facilitated glucose transporter member 1 (GLUT1) expression in GST-P+ foci for up to 90 days, suggesting induction of a metabolic shift from OXPHOS to glycolysis at early hepatocarcinogenesis by hepatocarcinogens unrelated to genotoxic potential. Non-genotoxic hepatocarcinogens increased c-MYC+ cells after 28 days and downregulated Tp53 after 84 or 90 days, suggesting a commitment to enhanced metabolic shift and cell proliferation. Genotoxic hepatocarcinogens also enhanced c-MYC activation-related metabolic shift until 84 or 90 days. In addition, both genotoxic and non-genotoxic hepatocarcinogens upregulated glutaminolysis-related Slc1a5 or Gls, or both, after 28 days and induced liver cell foci immunoreactive for neutral amino acid transporter B(0) (SLC1A5) in the subpopulation of GST-P+ foci after 84 or 90 days, suggesting glutaminolysis-mediated facilitation of cell proliferation toward hepatocarcinogenesis. These results suggest differential responses between genotoxic and non-genotoxic hepatocarcinogens on reprogramming of energy metabolic pathways toward carcinogenesis in liver cells from the early stage of hepatocarcinogen treatment.

Project description:IntroductionVarious challenges have been overcome with regard to applying 'omics technologies for chemical risk assessments. Previously we published results detailing targeted mRNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) on a next generation sequencer using intact RNA derived from freshly frozen rat liver tissues. We successfully discriminated genotoxic hepatocarcinogens (GTHCs) from non-genotoxic hepatocarcinogens (NGTHCs) using 11 selected marker genes. Based on this, we next attempted to use formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) pathology specimens for RNA-Seq analyses.FindingsIn this study we performed FFPE RNA-Seq to compare a typical GTHC, 2-acetylaminofluorene (AAF) to genotoxicity equivocal p-cresidine (CRE). CRE is used as a synthetic chemical intermediate, and this compound is classified as an IARC 2B carcinogen and is mutagenic in S. typhimurium, which is non-genotoxic to rat livers as assessed by single strand DNA damage analysis. RNA-Seq was used to examine liver FFPE samples obtained from groups of five 10-week-old male F344 rats that were fed with chemicals (AAF: 0.025% and CRE: 1% in food) for 4 weeks or from controls that were fed a basal diet. We extracted RNAs from FFPE samples and RNA-Seq was performed on a MiniSeq (Illumina) using the TruSeq custom RNA panel. AAF induced remarkable differences in the expression of eight genes (Aen, Bax, Btg2, Ccng1, Gdf15, Mbd1, Phlda3 and Tubb4b) from that in the control group, while CRE only induced expression changes in Gdf15, as shown using Tukey's test. Gene expression profiles for nine genes (Aen, Bax, Btg2, Ccng1, Cdkn1a, Gdf15, Mbd1, Phlda3, and Plk2) differed.between samples treated with AAF and CRE. Finally, principal component analysis (PCA) of 12 genes (Aen, Bax, Btg2, Ccnf, Ccng1, Cdkn1a, Gdf15, Lrp1, Mbd1, Phlda3, Plk2, and Tubb4b) using our previous Open TG-GATE data plus FFPE-AAF and FFPE-CRE successfully differentiated FFPE-AAF, as GTHC, from FFPE-CRE, as NGHTC.ConclusionOur results suggest that FFPE RNA-Seq and PCA are useful for evaluating typical rat GTHCs and NGTHCs.

Project description:Liver tumors in rodents are frequently induced by non-genotoxic carcinogens. These hepatocarcinogens generally activate hepatic nuclear receptors (e.g., CAR and PXR), resulting in a cascade of signals causing modifications in the expression of genes responsible for several processes involved in carcinogenesis. Evaluation of the carcinogenic potential of chemicals is a regulatory requirement but is time-consuming and expensive. Consequently, several short-term in vivo and in vitro approaches, using molecular tools, have been proposed as predictive models for non-genotoxic hepatocarcinogens. The objective of our study was to discriminate between chemicals that are either non-genotoxic hepatocarcinogens or merely hepatotoxicants and also between CAR and PXR modulators on the basis of their gene expression profiles. Thus, we treated rats for seven days with the hepatoxicants, diclofenac and diazepam, or with several CAR and PXR modulators, which were mainly hepatocarcinogens. Different hepatic gene expression profiles were obtained not only between the hepatotoxicants and the non-genotoxic hepatocarcinogens but also between the CAR activators phenobarbital, phenytoin and 1,1-bis-(4-chlorophenyl)-2,2-dichloroethene which were grouped together, and the two PXR activators pregnenolone 16Î±-carbonitrile and clotrimazole. Diethylstilbestrol had an expression profile that was quite distinct from the other PXR activators, suggesting that this compound is certainly not a classic PXR modulator. Moreover, some differences were observed between phenytoin (not considered as a hepatocarcinogen), and the other two CAR activators. Our data therefore indicate that discrimination is possible between hepatocarcinogens and hepatotoxicants, between CAR and PXR modulators and also between compounds within the same class of modulators using a short-term transcriptomic approach. CAR or PXR inducers were administered in suspension to rats (7 weeks old at start of treatment) by oral gavage at a daily dose for 7 consecutive days. Treatment-related changes in gene expression were determined in the liver using whole genome oligonucleotide microarrays.

Project description:Intracranial aneurysm (IA) is a severe clinical condition of primary concern and currently, there is no effective therapeutic reagent. The present study aimed to investigate the molecular mechanism of IA via bioinformatic analysis. Various gene expression profiles (GSE26969) were downloaded from the Gene Expression Omnibus database, including 3 IA and 3 normal superficial temporal artery samples. Firstly, the limma package in R language was used to identify differentially expressed genes (DEGs; P‑value <0.01 and |log2 FC|≥1). Secondly, the database for annotation, visualization and integrated discovery software was utilized to perform pathway and functional enrichment analyses (false discovery rate ≤0.05). Finally, protein‑protein interaction (PPI) network and sub‑network clustering analyses were performed using the biomolecular interaction network database and ClusterONE software, respectively. Following this, a transcription factor regulatory network was identified from the PPI network. A total of 1,124 DEGs were identified, of which 989 were upregulated and 135 downregulated. Pathway and functional enrichment analyses revealed that the DEGs primarily participated in RNA splicing, functioning of the spliceosome, RNA processing and the mRNA metabolic process. Following PPI network analysis, 1 hepatocyte nuclear factor (HNF) 4A (transcription factor)‑centered regulatory network and 5 DEG‑centered sub‑networks were identified. On analysis of the transcription factor regulatory network, 6 transcription factors (HNF6, HNF4A, E2F4, YY1, H4 and H31T) and a regulatory pathway (HNF6‑HNF4‑E2F4) were identified. The results of the present study suggest that activating transcription factor‑5, Jun proto‑oncogene, activator protein‑1 transcription factor subunit, HNF6, HNF4 and E2F4 may participate in IA progression via vascular smooth muscle cell apoptosis, inflammation, vessel wall remodeling and damage and the tumor necrosis factor‑β signaling pathway. However, further experimental studies are required to validate these predictions.

Dataset Information

Distinguishing between genotoxic and non-genotoxic hepatocarcinogens by gene expression profiling and bioinformatic pathway analysis.

Publications

Distinguishing between genotoxic and non-genotoxic hepatocarcinogens by gene expression profiling and bioinformatic pathway analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets