Comparative metabolism of N-nitrosopiperidine and N-nitrosopyrrolidine by rat liver and esophageal microsomes and cytochrome P450 2A3

Hansen L. Wong, Sharon E. Murphy, Mingyao Wang and Stephen S. Hecht1

University of Minnesota Cancer Center, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA


    Abstract
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
N-nitrosopiperidine (NPIP) is a potent esophageal carcinogen in rats whereas structurally similar N-nitrosopyrrolidine (NPYR) induces liver, but not esophageal tumors. NPIP is a possible causative agent for human esophageal cancer. Our goal is to explain mechanistically these differing carcinogenic activities in the esophagus. We hypothesize that differences in metabolic activation of these nitrosamines could be one factor accounting for their differing carcinogenicity. {alpha}-Hydroxylation is the key metabolic activation pathway leading to nitrosamine-induced carcinogenesis. In this study, we examined the {alpha}-hydroxylation rates of [3,4-3H]NPIP and [3,4-3H]NPYR by male F344 rat esophageal and liver microsomes. The major {alpha}-hydroxylation products of NPIP and NPYR, 2-hydroxytetrahydro-2H-pyran (2-OH-THP) and 2-hydroxytetrahydrofuran (2-OH-THF), respectively, were monitored by high performance liquid chromatography with radioflow detection. NPIP or NPYR (4 µM) was incubated with varying concentrations of esophageal microsomes and co-factors. Microsomes converted NPIP to 2-OH-THP with a 40-fold higher velocity than NPYR to 2-OH-THF. Similar results were observed in studies with NPIP and NPYR at substrate concentrations between 4 and 100 µM. Kinetics of NPIP {alpha}-hydroxylation were biphasic; KM values were 312 ± 50 and 1600 ± 312 µM. Expressed cytochrome P450 2A3, found in low levels in rat esophagus, was a good catalyst of NPIP {alpha}-hydroxylation (KM = 61.6 ± 20.5 µM), but a poor catalyst of NPYR {alpha}-hydroxylation (Km = 1198 ± 308 µM). Cytochrome P450 2A3 may play a role in the preferential activation of NPIP observed in rat esophagus. Liver microsomes metabolized NPYR to 2-OH-THF (Vmax/KM = 3.23 pmol/min/mg/µM) as efficiently as NPIP to 2-OH-THP (Vmax/KM = 3.80–4.61 pmol/min/mg/µM). We conclude that rat esophageal microsomes activate NPIP but not NPYR whereas rat liver microsomes activate NPIP and NPYR. These results are consistent with previous findings that tissue-specific activation of nitrosamines contributes to tissue-specific tumor formation.

Abbreviations: 2-OH-THF, 2-hydroxytetrahydrofuran; 2-OH-THP, 2-hydroxy-tetrahydro-2H-pyran; GC-PICI-MS, gas chromatography-positive ion chemical ionization-mass spectrometry; HPLC-UV-radioflow, high performance liquid chromatography with in-line ultraviolet absorbance and radioflow detection; lactol, 2-hydroxy-5-(3-pyridyl)tetrahydrofuran; NAB, N'-nitrosoanabasine; NBzMA, N-nitrosobenzylmethylamine; NDMA, N-nitrosodimethylamine; NNN, N'-nitrosonornicotine; NPIP, N-nitrosopiperidine; NPYR, N-nitrosopyrrolidine; P450, cytochrome P450; [S], substrate concentration; Sf9, Spodoptera frugiptera


    Introduction
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
N-nitrosopiperidine (NPIP; Figure 1Go) and N-nitrosopyrrolidine (NPYR; Figure 2Go) are structurally homologous cyclic nitrosamines with differing carcinogenic activities. Both are established carcinogens in mice, rats, and hamsters and are possible human carcinogens (1). Comparative carcinogenicity studies of these two nitrosamines in rats have shown that NPIP induces tumors in the esophagus and in some experiments tumors in the nasal cavity, liver, and stomach whereas NPYR induces mainly liver tumors, but not a single esophageal tumor (24). NPIP is also more toxic than NPYR in rats, with a five-fold lower LD50 (2). Clearly, NPIP is a more potent esophageal carcinogen than is NPYR. We seek to understand the molecular basis of this intriguing structure–tumorigenicity relationship.



View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1. Metabolic activation of NPIP.

 


View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2. Metabolic activation of NPYR.

 
Humans are exposed to NPIP and NPYR. Exogenous sources include diet and mainstream and environmental tobacco smoke (58). Significantly higher amounts of NPIP and NPYR may be formed endogenously by nitrosation of dietary piperidine and pyrrolidine, respectively (9,10). Because exposure to NPIP and NPYR may be considerable, these nitrosamines could be important agents in human cancer.

Nitrosamines require metabolic activation to exert their carcinogenic effects. The key activation pathway is cytochrome P450 (P450)-catalyzed hydroxylation of the carbon {alpha} to the nitroso group. Extensive studies in laboratory animals have demonstrated that tissue-specific metabolic activation leads to tissue-specific DNA adduct formation and carcinogenesis by a number of nitrosamines (11,12). Kleihues and co-workers clearly demonstrated that the esophageal carcinogenicity of methylalkylnitrosamines in rats correlated with high levels of promutagenic methylated DNA adducts in target tissues (1315). Other studies showed that rat esophageal microsomes catalyzed the {alpha}-hydroxylation of esophageal carcinogens such as N'-nitrosonornicotine (NNN), N-nitrosobenzylmethylamine (NBzMA), N-nitrosodiethylamine, and N-nitrosomethyl-n-pentylamine with low KM values ranging from 5.1 to 64 µM (1619). Taken together, these results suggest that preferential metabolic activation of NPIP compared with NPYR in the rat esophagus might be one factor leading to its higher carcinogenicity in this tissue.

The metabolic activation of NPIP, leading to DNA adduct formation, is shown in Figure 1Go (20,21). The unstable {alpha}-hydroxy-NPIP spontaneously decomposes to electrophilic intermediates that react with nucleophilic sites of DNA bases forming DNA adducts. Previous studies have identified several DNA adducts resulting from reactions of NPIP with DNA or deoxyguanosine (2225). The major water-trapped end product of NPIP {alpha}-hydroxylation is 5-hydroxypentanal, which cyclizes to 2-hydroxytetrahydro-2H-pyran (2-OH-THP) (20).

Metabolic {alpha}-hydroxylation of NPYR, analogous to NPIP, generates the corresponding electrophilic intermediates shown in Figure 2Go (2630). DNA adducts generated from {alpha}-hydroxylation of NPYR have been identified (22,23, 3135). The major water-trapped end product of NPYR {alpha}-hydroxylation is 4-hydroxybutanal, which exists predominantly as 2-hydroxytetrahydrofuran (2-OH-THF) (29).

In the present study, {alpha}-hydroxylation rates (2-OH-THP versus 2-OH-THF formation) of NPIP and NPYR by rat esophageal or liver microsomes were compared to determine whether tissue-specific differences in metabolic activation exist for these two structurally related cyclic nitrosamines. Metabolism of these two nitrosamines in rat esophageal microsomes has not been studied previously. Highly sensitive methods were developed to address this question. Metabolism of NPYR by S9 fractions (containing microsomes) from rat esophagus and non-glandular stomach has been reported (36). However, it was not determined whether enzymes in the rat esophagus were involved in NPYR metabolism. Little is known about the kinetics of NPIP and NPYR {alpha}-hydroxylation. To our knowledge, there are only two reports in the literature concerning the kinetics of NPYR {alpha}-hydroxylation by liver microsomes; KM values were 14.1 and 16.5 mM (27,30). Further, the apparent kinetic parameters of NPIP {alpha}-hydroxylation catalyzed by liver microsomes have not been reported.


    Materials and methods
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Caution
NPIP and NPYR are carcinogens in experimental animals and should be handled with extreme care using appropriate safety wear and ventilation at all times.

Chemicals
[3,4-3H]NPIP (10 Ci/mmol), [3,4-3H]NPYR (2 Ci/mmol), and [5-3H]NNN (27 Ci/mmol) were obtained from Moravek Biochemicals (Brea, CA). Tritium-labeled NPIP and NPYR were purified by normal-phase high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) using system 1. Using reverse-phase HPLC with radioflow detection of purified NPIP (system 4) and NPYR (system 2), the radiochemical purity of both nitrosamines was 99.8% with no radioactivity co-eluting with 2-OH-THP and 2-OH-THF, respectively. [5-3H]NNN was used without further purification. The radiochemical purity of [5-3H]NNN was 99.7% by reverse-phase HPLC with radioflow detection using system 6. The chemical purity of the radiolabeled substrates was >99%. Unlabeled NPIP and NPYR (99% purity) were purchased from Sigma Chemical Co. (St Louis, MO) and were used without further purification. 5-Hydroxypentanal (2,4-dinitrophenyl)hydrazone, 4-hydroxypentanal(2,4-dinitrophenyl)hydrazone, NNN, 4-hydroxy-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone, and 2-hydroxy-5-(3-pyridyl)tetrahydrofuran (lactol) were prepared as described previously (3741). Pefabloc® SC was purchased from Roche Molecular Biochemicals (Indianapolis, IN). Monoflo 5TM scintillation fluid was obtained from National Diagnostics (Atlanta, GA). Isobutane and methane (research grade 99.9%) were purchased from Matheson (Irving, TX) and Air Products (Allentown, PA), respectively. All other chemicals were purchased from Sigma Chemical Co., Aldrich Chemical Co. (Milwaukee, WI), or Mallinckrodt Chemical Co. (Paris, KY).

Apparatus
HPLC analyses were carried out on a Waters Associates (Waters Division, Millipore, Milford, MA) system equipped with an in-line Gilson Model 116 UV detector (Gilson Medical Electronics, Middleton, WI) and a ß-Ram radioactivity HPLC flow-through detector (Model 2B, IN/US Systems, Tampa, FL). Gas chromatography-positive ion chemical ionization-mass spectrometry (GC-PICI-MS) was carried out with a HP5890 series II GC (Hewett-Packard) using a DB-17MS (50% dimethyl/50% diphenylpolysiloxane) capillary column (0.25 x 30 m, 0.15 mm film thickness; J & W Scientific, Folsom, CA) coupled to a Thermo Finnigan TSQ-7000 instrument (San Jose, CA). The emission current and voltage were 700 µA and 150 V, respectively. The source temperature was 150°C. Isobutane and methane were used as the reagent gases for mass analysis of NPIP and NPYR, respectively. 1H and 13C NMR data were obtained on a 300 MHz Varian spectrometer (San Jose, CA).

HPLC analysis
Tritium-labeled NPIP and NPYR were purified by a normal-phase system with a Waters Econosil C18 column (250 x 4.6 mm; Deerfield, IL). Compounds were eluted isocratically with methylene chloride. Impurities were then washed off the column with 95:5 methylene chloride/methanol (system 1). A reverse-phase system consisting of a Metasil© ODS column (250 x 4.6 mm, Metachem, Torrance, CA) was utilized for analysis of NNN, NPIP and NPYR metabolism and 2-OH-THP/2-OH-THF isolation. Analytes from NPYR metabolism catalyzed by esophageal and hepatic microsomes were eluted isocratically for 10 min with 1% methanol and 99% 20 mM sodium phosphate buffer, pH 6, followed by a linear gradient to 50% methanol over 30 min (system 2). NPYR metabolites from incubations with P450 2A3 were eluted isocratically for 10 min with 0% methanol and 100% 25 mM ammonium acetate buffer, pH 4.5, followed by a linear gradient to 20% methanol over 15 min. Analytes were then eluted isocratically with 20% methanol and 80% 25 mM ammonium acetate buffer, pH 4.5 (system 3). For analysis of NPIP metabolites, compounds were eluted isocratically for 20 min with 4% methanol and 96% 20 mM sodium phosphate buffer, pH 6, followed by a linear gradient to 50% methanol over 10 min (system 4). NPIP metabolites from incubations with P450 2A3 were eluted isocratically for 20 min with 1% methanol and 99% 25 mM ammonium acetate buffer, pH 4.5, followed by a linear gradient to 15% methanol over 15 min. Analytes were then eluted isocratically with 15% methanol and 85% ammonium acetate buffer, pH 4.5 (system 5). NNN and its metabolites were eluted isocratically for 5 min with 5% acetonitrile and 95% 25 mM ammonium acetate buffer, pH 4.5, followed by a linear gradient to 35% acetonitrile over 40 min (system 6). To confirm the identity of metabolites, 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazone derivatives of 2-OH-THP and 2-OH-THF were analyzed using isocratic 30% acetonitrile and 70% water (system 7). For 2-OH-THP and 2-OH-THF recovery studies, metabolites were purified using isocratic 100% water. The column was pre-washed with 50% methanol and 50% water (system 8). The flow rate for all HPLC systems was 1 ml/min. Reference metabolites and internal standard were analyzed by UV absorbance at 254 nm. Radiolabeled metabolites of parent compounds were measured by radioflow detection (scintillation fluid-to-HPLC elutant ratio of 3).

Preparation of 2-OH-THP and 2-OH-THF
2-OH-THF was prepared as previously described (42). Briefly, 2,3-dihydrofuran (132 mmol) was reacted with 50 ml of 0.2 N HCl for 15 min at 4°C followed by 30 min at room temperature. The mixture was extracted with chloroform (6 x 50 ml). The organic extracts were washed with 5% NaHCO3, dried (MgSO4), and concentrated. The resulting oil was purified by distillation and flash chromatography (silica gel, 70–230 mesh, 60 Å) using chloroform and methanol. The identity and purity of the product were confirmed by HPLC using system 2, 1H NMR, 13C NMR, and GC-PICI-MS. 1H NMR (CDCl3): {delta} 5.52 (m, 1H, OCH-OH), 4.04 (m, 1H, H{alpha} of OCH2), 3.85 (s, 1H, -OH), 3.82 (m, 1H, Hß of OCH2), 1.8–2.1 (m, 4H, CH2CH2). 13C NMR (CDCl3): 98.4 (C-2), 67.4 (C-4), 34.1, and 23.5. MS [m/z (relative intensity)]: 89([M+1]+, 98), 71 (100), 43 (8), 39 (7).

2-OH-THP was prepared in similar fashion using 3,4-2H-dihydropyran (109.6 mmol) as the starting material (43). The identity and purity of the product were confirmed by HPLC using system 4, 1H NMR, 13C NMR, and GC-PICI-MS. 1H NMR (CDCl3): 4.88 (m, 1H, OCH-OH), 4.00 (m, 1H, H{alpha} of OCH2), 3.52 (m, 1H, Hß of OCH2), 3.34 (s, 1H, -OH), 1.82 (m, 2H, H’s on C-3), 1.50 (m, 4H, H’s on C-4 and C-5). 13C NMR (CDCl3): {delta} 94.6 (C-2), 64.0 (C-5), 32.0, 25.3, and 20.3. MS [m/z (relative intensity)]: 103 ([M+1]+, 3), 101 (10), 85 (100).

Isolation of esophageal microsomes
Esophageal microsomes were prepared by the method of Murphy and Spina with a few exceptions (16). Briefly, esophageal mucosa from male F344 rats (age 15–17 weeks) were obtained from Harlan Bioproducts (Indianapolis, IN). Dry-ice frozen tissues (eight per preparation) were crushed in a liquid nitrogen-cooled Bessman tissue pulverizer (Fisher Scientific, Springfield, NJ). All subsequent steps in the preparation of microsomes were performed at 4°C. The tissues were homogenized in 50 mM Tris buffer, pH 7.4, containing 1 mM EDTA and 0.4 mM Pefabloc® SC using a glass Tenbroeck tissue homogenizer. The homogenate was centrifuged at 9000 g for 30 min. The supernatant was centrifuged at 105 000 g for 90 min. The microsomal pellet was resuspended in 50 mM Tris buffer, pH 7.4, containing 1 mM EDTA. The microsomes were assayed immediately for NNN {alpha}-hydroxylation as described previously (16). The remaining microsomal suspension was stored at –80°C.

The assay for NNN {alpha}-hydroxylation was carried out as follows: Tritium-labeled NNN (0.1 µM; 0.54 µCi), 10 mM MgCl2, an NADPH-generating system (0.4 mM NADP+, 10 mM glucose-6-phosphate, 0.4 units/ml glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase), microsomes (50–70 µg microsomal protein) in 100 mM sodium phosphate, pH 7.4, were incubated for 30 min at 37°C. The total volume was 0.2 ml. Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase was purchased from Sigma (Type XII from Torula yeast, St Louis, MO). The reaction was terminated with 20 µl of 0.3 N Ba(OH)2 and 20 µl of 0.3 N ZnSO4. 4-Hydroxy-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone metabolite standard was added prior to centrifugation of the mixture at 8000 g for 10 min. The supernatant was analyzed by HPLC with in-line ultraviolet absorbance and radioflow detection (HPLC-UV-radioflow) using system 6. Microsomal preparations that {alpha}-hydroxylated 0.5% or more of NNN under the above conditions were considered active.

Isolation of hepatic microsomes
Liver tissues were excised from male F344 rats purchased from Charles River Laboratories (Wilmington, MA). The rats were housed in the specific pathogen-free animal quarters of the University of Minnesota Cancer Center, fed a standard diet, and given water ad libitum. The tissues were frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored until the time of preparation. Three separate preparations of microsomes were isolated as described previously using one liver per preparation (26); preparations were designated as RLM101, RLM102, and RLM103. Microsomes were suspended in 10 mM Tris buffer, pH 7.4, containing 1 mM EDTA and 20% glycerol and stored at –80°C. Protein concentrations were determined using the Microprotein 610-A kit (Sigma, St Louis, MO) and a UV-Vis spectrophotometer (Beckman DU-7400, Fullerton, CA).

In vitro metabolism by esophageal microsomes
Metabolic studies were carried out using tritium-labeled NPIP or NPYR. Substrate solutions were prepared using the following general procedure as described previously for N-nitrosomethyl-n-pentylamine (17). Tritium-labeled NPIP or NPYR in methylene chloride and water were added to a 4 ml glass vial. Transfer of tritium-labeled nitrosamine to the aqueous layer was achieved by application of a stream of nitrogen via a Pasteur pipette to the surface of the mixture until 10 min after the methylene chloride layer disappeared.

Based on the requisite amount of microsomes needed for each metabolic study, four to eight preparations (eight esophagi per preparation) of esophageal microsomes were thawed and pooled prior to use. Each pool of microsomes was used for only one metabolic study. In all, five pools were prepared. The pools were designated as REM A, REM B, REM C, REM D, and REM E. Protein concentrations of each pool were determined as described above for liver microsomes.

NPIP and NPYR metabolism, catalyzed by esophageal microsomes at varying substrate concentrations, was carried out as follows: [3,4-3H]NPIP or [3,4-3H]NPYR (1.5–4 µCi) and the corresponding unlabeled nitrosamine (in amounts to attain final substrate concentrations of 4, 7, 10, 20, 40, 70, and 100 µM), 10 mM MgCl2, an NADPH-generating system (0.4 mM NADP+, 10 mM glucose-6-phosphate, 0.4 units/ml glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase), and microsomes (95 µg microsomal protein; REM B) in 100 mM sodium phosphate, pH 7.4, were incubated from 15 to 30 min at 37°C. The reaction was initiated by addition of microsomes. The specific activities of [3,4-3H]NPIP and [3,4-3H]NPYR varied from 0.01–10 and 0.01–2 Ci/mmol, respectively. The total volume was 200 µl. The reaction was terminated with 20 µl of 0.3 N Ba(OH)2 and 20 µl of 0.3 N ZnSO4. For studies with NPIP, 2-OH-THP (100 µg) metabolite standard and lactol (3 µg, internal standard) were added prior to centrifugation of the mixture at 8000 g for 10 min. The supernatant was analyzed by HPLC-UV-radioflow using system 4. For NPYR experiments, the procedure was repeated with the following exceptions: 2-OH-THF standard (10 mg) was added instead of 2-OH-THP and system 2 was used for HPLC analysis.

NPIP and NPYR metabolism was studied at varying microsomal protein concentrations. Samples were prepared as described above with the following modifications: incubations contained 15, 30, 60, 90, or 120 µg microsomal protein (REM A), 1.6 µCi of the appropriate radiolabeled substrate, and the corresponding amount of unlabeled nitrosamine to attain the final substrate concentration of 4 µM NPIP or NPYR. Saturation kinetics study of NPIP {alpha}-hydroxylation was conducted as described above using final substrate concentrations of 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 20, 30, 40, 55, 70, 100, 150, 250, 500, 1000, and 2000 µM and microsomes from REM C. The specific activities of [3,4-3H]NPIP varied from 0.01–10 and 0.01–2 Ci/mmol, respectively.

The following control studies in esophageal microsomes were performed. To determine if a component in the aqueous [3,4-3H]NPYR solution inhibited microsomal metabolic activity, the rates of NPIP {alpha}-hydroxylation in the presence or absence of NPYR were compared. [3,4-3H]NPIP (0.4–2 Ci/mmol) with or without [3,4-3H]NPYR (2 Ci/mmol) was incubated with microsomes (REM D) and co-factors at 37°C for 15 min and then analyzed as above. To determine whether metabolites reacted with esophageal microsomal protein during the incubation, the rates of 2-OH-THP and 2-OH-THF metabolism were determined. [3H]2-OH-THP (10 Ci/mmol) or [3H]2-OH-THF (2 Ci/mmol) were isolated from incubations of rat liver microsomes and tritium-labeled NPIP or NPYR, respectively, by reverse-phase HPLC using system 8, incubated with esophageal microsomes (REM E) and co-factors at 37°C for 30 min, and then analyzed as described above for esophageal microsomal metabolism. All aforementioned incubations with NPIP and NPYR were performed in triplicate (n = 3), i.e. three individual samples incubated under the same reaction conditions and each analyzed once.

The identification of 2-OH-THP as a metabolite of NPIP with esophageal microsomes and co-factors was confirmed by co-elution with a standard using system 4. For further confirmation, tritium-labeled co-elutant corresponding to the 2-OH-THP standard (system 4) was collected and derivatized with an acidic solution of 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine. A radiolabeled peak co-eluting with the 5-hydroxypentanal(2,4-dinitrophenyl)hydrazone standard was detected by reverse-phase HPLC-UV-radioflow using system 7.

In vitro metabolism by liver microsomes
NPIP and NPYR substrate solutions were prepared as described above for metabolic studies with esophageal microsomes. To determine the KM and Vmax of NPIP {alpha}-hydroxylation for three different preparations of liver microsomes, NPIP was incubated with RLM101, RLM102, and RLM103. Kinetic parameters for NPYR {alpha}-hydroxylation were determined using one microsomal preparation, RLM102. The final substrate concentrations were 1, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 350, 500, and 750 µM. The specific activities of [3,4-3H]NPIP and [3,4-3H]NPYR ranged from 0.013–10 and 0.013–2 Ci/mmol, respectively. NPIP and NPYR incubations contained 25–70 µg and 25–120 µg microsomal protein, respectively. The work-up procedure and HPLC analysis were repeated as described above for esophageal microsomes. All incubations were conducted in triplicate (n = 3).

The identification of 2-OH-THP as a metabolite of NPIP with liver microsomes and co-factors was confirmed as described above following metabolism by esophageal microsomes. The identity of 2-OH-THF from liver microsomal incubations with NPYR was confirmed by similar methods. System 2 was used to isolate the metabolite and analyze with 2-OH-THF standard.

In vitro metabolism by P450 2A3
Microsomes from Spodoptera frugiperda (Sf9) cells transfected with cDNA for P450 2A3 (2.4 pmol/µl in 50 mM Tris buffer, pH 7.4 containing 20% glycerol) were a generous gift from Dr Xinxin Ding (Wadsworth Center, Albany, NY). Microsomes from Sf9 cells transfected with cDNA for NADPH-P450 oxidoreductase were purchased from PanVera (Madison, WI). Incubations were performed essentially as described previously (18) with some exceptions. Briefly, [3,4-3H]NPIP or [3,4-3H]NPYR (0.4–4 µCi) and the corresponding unlabeled nitrosamine (in amounts to attain final substrate concentrations of 1, 3, 10, 20, 50, 100, 250, 500, 1000, and 1500 µM), MgCl2 (2 µmol), P450 2A3 (2–4 pmol), NADPH-P450 oxidoreductase (25-molar excess relative to P450 2A3), and Tris buffer, pH 7.4 (10 µmol), in a volume of 180 µl were incubated for 5 min at 37°C and then placed on ice. This first incubation served to facilitate the association of the proteins prior to initiation of reaction. The specific activities of [3,4-3H]NPIP and [3,4-3H]NPYR ranged from 0.013–10 and 0.013–2 Ci/mmol, respectively. Reactions were initiated by the addition of an NADPH-generating system (0.08 µmol of NADP+, 2 µmol of glucose-6-phosphate, 0.08 units of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase in a volume of 20 µl) and were carried out for 30 min at 37°C. The total reaction volume was 200 µl. Reactions were terminated with 20 µl of 0.3 N Ba(OH)2 and 20 µl of 0.3 N ZnSO4. The samples were prepared and analyzed as described above for in vitro metabolism by esophageal microsomes except that systems 3 and 5 were used for analysis of NPYR and NPIP metabolism, respectively.

Data analysis
Velocities were quantitated by accounting for the percent recovery of lactol (internal standard) for substrate concentrations below 500 µM. For concentrations at or above 500 µM, velocities were calculated using the percent product formed relative to the total radioactivity. For saturation kinetics studies, the mean and standard deviation of product velocities from incubations conducted in triplicate for each substrate concentration were calculated and represented graphically. Except for the saturation kinetics study of NPIP metabolism to 2-OH-THP catalyzed by esophageal microsomes, KM, Vmax, and their standard deviations of goodness of fit were calculated by SigmaPlot® 2000 (SPSS, Chicago, IL) computer application program. The software program employs nonlinear least-squares regression analysis to fit a Michaelis–Menten curve to the data plotted on a velocity (v) versus substrate concentration ([S]) graph. For the saturation kinetics study of esophageal microsomal metabolism of NPIP, kinetic parameters and their standard deviations were calculated by linear least-squares regression analysis (SigmaPlot® 2000) of the data plotted on a Hanes–Woolf plot ([S]/v versus [S]). The limits of detection for NPIP and NPYR metabolites were 0.02 and 0.1 pmol, respectively (signal-to-noise ratio after background subtraction = 3; sp. act. = 10 Ci/mmol for NPIP and 2 Ci/mmol for NPYR).


    Results
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Direct quantitation of metabolite formation
Previous studies of NPIP and NPYR {alpha}-hydroxylation with hepatic microsomes quantitated formation of 2-OH-THP and 2-OH-THF, respectively, by their 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazone derivatives, using HPLC with UV detection (27,30). In the present study, the use of tritium-labeled NPIP and NPYR afforded us a highly sensitive and direct detection method, which was essential for quantitation of the relatively low levels of metabolism in rat esophageal microsomes. Representative HPLC chromatograms obtained using radioflow detection of NPIP and NPYR metabolites by esophageal and liver microsomes are shown in Figure 3Go. The major NPIP product peak in rat liver or esophageal microsomes co-eluted with 2-OH-THP standard at a retention time of ~20 min (Figure 3AGo, B). This peak (from rat liver microsomes) was collected by reverse-phase HPLC and its 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazone derivative co-eluted with 5-hydroxypentanal(2,4-dinitrophenyl)hydrazone standard. Similar methods were employed to confirm the identity of the NPYR metabolite peak eluting at ~11 min as 2-OH-THF (Figure 3CGo, D).



View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3. HPLC analysis using radioflow detection of NPIP and NPYR and their corresponding metabolites following incubation of 20 µM [3,4-3H]NPIP with (A) rat hepatic or (B) esophageal microsomes and co-factors or 20 µM [3,4-3H]NPYR with (C) rat hepatic or (D) esophageal microsomes and co-factors. Total radioactivity injected for HPLC analysis ranged from 1.9–2.1 x 106 dpm. Details of enzyme assays and analyses are described in Materials and methods. The traces for NPYR and NPIP analyses were obtained using systems 2 and 3, respectively. Abbreviations: 2-OH-THP, 2-hydroxytetrahydro-2H-pyran; 2-OH-THF, 2-hydroxytetrahydrofuran.

 
2-OH-THP and 2-OH-THF are the cyclized forms of the aldehydes, 5-hydroxypentanal and 4-hydroxybutanal, respectively (Figures 1 and 2GoGo). Aldehydes can bind to nucleophilic sites in proteins, which may result in low recoveries. To investigate the percent of protein binding by these aldehydes, tritium-labeled 2-OH-THP and 2-OH-THF were isolated from liver microsomal incubations with tritium-labeled NPIP and NPYR, respectively. The metabolites were then incubated with esophageal microsomes and co-factors. Neither 2-OH-THP nor 2-OH-THF bound extensively to esophageal protein as >80% of either metabolite remained following incubation with microsomes. Further, lactol, a pyridine-substituted UV-detectable 2-hydroxytetrahydrofuran, was employed as a recovery marker. Lactol was added to each sample immediately after quenching of each microsomal reaction. The recoveries were found to be >90%.

Metabolism of NPIP and NPYR by rat liver microsomes
The formation of 2-OH-THP and 2-OH-THF increased linearly over a 60 min period and over a protein concentration up to 0.5 mg/ml in incubations with tritium-labeled NPIP and NPYR, respectively. These metabolites were not present in control incubations, carried out with heat-treated microsomes or without co-factors. Concentration-dependent formation of 2-OH-THP from NPIP was determined following incubation with three different preparations of hepatic microsomes (RLM101, RLM102, and RLM103; microsomes isolated from one liver per preparation). A representative velocity versus substrate concentration plot is shown in Figure 4AGo for substrate concentrations between 1 and 750 µM with RLM102 microsomes. The KM and Vmax values for 2-OH-THP formation from NPIP metabolism by RLM101, RLM102, and RLM103 are summarized in Table IGo. The KM values among the three microsomal preparations were comparable (Table IGo). Saturation kinetics of 2-OH-THF formation from tritium-labeled NPYR were carried out with one preparation of hepatic microsomes (RLM102). A velocity versus substrate concentration plot of 2-OH-THF is illustrated in Figure 4BGo for the same concentration range with RLM102 microsomes. The KM and Vmax values for 2-OH-THF formation from NPYR are presented in Table IGo. Catalytic efficiencies (V/K) were similar for the two nitrosamines (Table IGo).



View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4. Concentration dependence of (A) 2-OH-THP formation (filled circles) from NPIP and (B) 2-OH-THF formation (open triangles) from NPYR following incubation with one preparation of rat hepatic microsomes (RLM102) and co-factors. Metabolite formation was determined by HPLC analysis with ultraviolet absorbance and radioflow detection as described in Materials and methods. Data points and error bars represent the mean and standard deviation, respectively, of product velocities for three individual samples (n = 3) each analyzed once. Michaelis–Menten curves were graphed using kinetic parameters derived by nonlinear regression analysis (SigmaPlot®). Kinetic parameters are listed in Table IGo.

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table I. Kinetic parameters of NPIP and NPYR {alpha}-hydroxylation catalyzed by rat hepatic and esophageal microsomes and P450 2A3
 
Metabolism of NPIP and NPYR in rat esophageal microsomes
In order to maximize metabolic activity, microsomes were prepared in small quantities using eight esophagi per preparation. Metabolic activity was assessed following each preparation of microsomes by {alpha}-hydroxylation of NNN, a substrate for esophageal microsomal metabolism (18). Microsomes (50–70 µg microsomal protein) that {alpha}-hydroxylated at least 0.5% of NNN (0.1 µM) over 30 min were considered active. NNN metabolic activity usually varied about three-fold between individual active preparations.

Depending on the amount of microsomes required for each metabolic study, active preparations (between 4–8) were pooled and immediately used. Each pool of microsomes was used for only one study. To ensure an accurate comparison of NPIP versus NPYR metabolism, tritium-labeled NPIP and NPYR were incubated with the same pool of microsomes. In all, five pools were prepared for studies with esophageal microsomes.

The formation of 2-OH-THP and 2-OH-THF from NPIP and NPYR, respectively, were determined over a protein concentration range of 0–0.6 mg/ml as shown in Figure 5Go. The initial concentrations of NPIP and NPYR were 4 µM. With increasing microsomal protein concentration, 2-OH-THP formed linearly whereas little 2-OH-THF was produced. The amounts of 2-OH-THF detected for all samples over this microsomal protein concentration range were no more than twice the limit of detection (0.1 pmol). The slope of 2-OH-THP formation from NPIP versus protein concentration was 40-fold higher than that of 2-OH-THF production from NPYR. Neither metabolite was present in control incubations, carried out with heat-treated microsomes or without co-factors. Also, 2-OH-THP formation increased over a 30 min period (data not shown).



View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 5. Rat esophageal microsomal dependence of NPIP and NPYR {alpha}-hydroxylation. Tritium-labeled NPIP or NPYR (4 µM) was incubated with pooled microsomes (REM A) for 30 min. The formation of 2-OH-THP (filled circles) from NPIP and 2-OH-THF (open triangles) from NPYR was determined by HPLC analysis with ultraviolet absorbance and radioflow detection as described in Materials and methods. Data points and error bars represent the mean and standard deviation, respectively, of product velocities for three individual samples (n = 3) that were each analyzed once.

 
Preferential {alpha}-hydroxylation of NPIP over NPYR in esophageal microsomes was also observed at seven concentrations ranging from 4 to 100 µM as shown in Figure 6Go. Formation of 2-OH-THP was dependent on substrate concentration, increasing from 3.47 ± 0.16 (4 µM) to 45.7 ± 2.0 pmol/min/mg (100 µM). In contrast, only a marginal increase in 2-OH-THF formation was observed at substrate concentrations from 7 to 100 µM (0.186 ± 0.168 pmol/min/mg at 7 µM to 6.76 ± 2.29 pmol/min/mg). The formation of 2-OH-THF was below the limit of detection at 4 µM. The rate of 2-OH-THF formation was at least seven-fold lower than the rate of 2-OH-THP formation over these substrate concentrations.



View larger version (9K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 6. Concentration dependence of NPIP and NPYR {alpha}-hydroxylation following incubation with rat esophageal microsomes and co-factors. Pooled microsomes (REM B) were incubated with 4–100 µM tritium-labeled NPIP or NPYR for 15 min. The formation of 2-OH-THP (filled circles) from NPIP and 2-OH-THF (open triangles) from NPYR was determined by HPLC analysis with ultraviolet absorbance and radioflow detection as described in Materials and methods. Data points and error bars represent the mean and standard deviation, respectively, of product velocities for three individual samples (n = 3) that were each analyzed once.

 
Low levels of 2-OH-THF were observed following esophageal metabolism of NPYR (Figures 5 and 6GoGo). It is unlikely that the metabolism of NPYR by esophageal microsomes to 2-OH-THF was underestimated. First, the levels of 2-OH-THF can be quantified by the HPLC-UV-radioflow method used here as evidenced by the time- and microsomal concentration-dependent formation of 2-OH-THF from NPYR by liver microsomes. We also tested whether a component in the [3,4-3H]NPYR solution, which was used for the NPYR incubations, inhibited metabolism by rat esophageal microsomes. [3,4-3H]NPYR solution added to an incubation mixture containing [3,4-3H]NPIP and esophageal microsomes did not inhibit metabolism of NPIP to 2-OH-THP.

The kinetics of 2-OH-THP formation over the concentration range of 0.5 to 2000 µM were determined as shown in Figure 7Go. Standard Michaelis–Menten kinetics predicts a linear relationship of the data in the Hanes–Woolf plot; however the data fit along two different slopes with an inflection point at 180 µM. The KM and Vmax values calculated from the fitted line for the data at higher substrate concentrations (150–2000 µM) were 1600 ± 312 µM and 824 ± 119 pmol/min/mg, respectively. The KM and Vmax values calculated from the fitted line for the data for concentrations from 0.5 to 150 µM were 312 ± 50 µM and 226 ± 35 pmol/min/mg, respectively. Hanes–Woolf analysis suggests the presence of biphasic kinetics. Further, analysis using an Eadie–Hofstee (v vs. v/[S]) or velocity versus substrate plot gave similar values for the two sets of kinetic parameters.



View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 7. Hanes–Woolf plot ([S]/v vs. [S]) of NPIP {alpha}-hydroxylation following 15 min incubations with pooled rat esophageal microsomes (REM C) and co-factors [concentration range: 0.5–2000 µM; 0.5–250 µM (inset)]. Data points and error bars represent the mean and standard deviation, respectively, for product velocities of three individual samples (n = 3) each analyzed once. Solid and dashed lines were fitted to the data of samples with substrate concentrations from 0.5 to 150 µM and from 150 to 2000 µM, respectively, by linear regression analysis (SigmaPlot®). KM values derived from the solid and dashed lines were 312 and 1600 µM, respectively.

 
Metabolism of NPIP and NPYR in Sf9-expressed P450 2A3
The formation of 2-OH-THP from NPIP and 2-OH-THF from NPYR increased linearly with incubation time (up to 45 min) and P450 2A3 concentration (up to 40 pmol/ml). These metabolites were not present in control incubations that were carried out without microsomes or co-factors. Saturation kinetics studies of 2-OH-THP and 2-OH-THF formation from NPIP and NPYR, respectively, at substrate concentrations from 1 to 1500 µM, were conducted. The kinetic parameters for both reactions are summarized in Table IGo. The KM of P450 2A3-mediated NPIP metabolism to 2-OH-THP was 61.6 ± 20.5 µM, which was 19.4 times lower than that of NPYR metabolism to 2-OH-THF (KM = 1198 ± 308 µM). Furthermore, P450 2A3 catalytic efficiency (Vmax/KM) of 2-OH-THP formation from NPIP was 22 times higher than that of 2-OH-THF formation from NPYR (153 vs. 6.95 pmol/min/nmol P450/µM; Table IGo).


    Discussion
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
NPIP induces esophageal tumors in rats, regardless of the route of administration (24). It also causes tumors in the nasal cavity, liver, and stomach, depending on the type of administration (24). In contrast, NPYR is a hepatic, but not an esophageal carcinogen (24). A number of unique DNA adducts of NPIP and NPYR have been identified that may contribute to the differences in carcinogenicity observed in the esophagus (23,24). Based on previous work involving nitrosamines (11,12), we hypothesized that differences in rates of NPIP and NPYR {alpha}-hydroxylation in the esophagus may contribute to the different organospecific carcinogenicities of these two compounds. The findings from the present study strongly support this hypothesis.

Rat esophageal microsomes {alpha}-hydroxylate NPIP at a considerably higher rate than NPYR. Microsomes converted NPIP (4 µM) to 2-OH-THP at a 40-fold higher rate than NPYR (4 µM) to 2-OH-THF at five different microsomal concentrations (Figure 5Go). Further, microsomes activated NPIP with at least a seven-fold higher rate compared with NPYR over the substrate concentration range of 4–100 µM (Figure 6Go). In contrast, the {alpha}-hydroxylation rates of these nitrosamines by rat liver microsomes were similar (Figure 4Go, Table IGo).

We developed an HPLC-radioflow method to directly quantitate 2-OH-THP or 2-OH-THF following reaction of tritium-labeled NPIP or NPYR, respectively, with microsomes or P450 2A3. Aldehydic products of NPIP and NPYR {alpha}-hydroxylation previously have been characterized and quantitated via their 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazone derivatives using HPLC with UV and radioflow detection (20,27,28,36,4448). Using nonlabeled NPYR, Chen et al. achieved a limit of detection of 0.2 nmol for 2-OH-THF, as measured by its derivative, for studies with rat liver microsomes in vitro (21). Several in vivo and in vitro studies employed 14C-labeled NPYR and NPIP to increase assay sensitivity (20,28,36,4448). The highest specific activity used in these studies for either NPIP and NPYR was 0.0188 Ci/mmol (44). In the present study, the specific activities of tritium-labeled NPIP and NPYR were 10 and 2 Ci/mmol, respectively, markedly higher than in previous studies with the 14C-labeled compounds. Because of the high specific activities, we were able to examine the metabolism of these nitrosamines at concentrations as low as 0.5 µM. The limits of detection for NPIP and NPYR metabolites were 0.02 and 0.1 pmol, respectively, substantially lower than in previous studies. Further, the recoveries were excellent: >90%.

From previous studies, the KM values of liver microsomal metabolism of NPYR were 14.1 and 16.5 mM for substrate concentrations between 1 and 90 mM (27,30). We report a KM for NPYR {alpha}-hydroxylation in rat liver microsomes that is >100-fold lower over a substrate concentration range from 1 to 750 µM. These results suggest that there are at least two enzymes involved in NPYR {alpha}-hydroxylation in rat liver. P450 2E1, a human and rat liver microsomal enzyme, and P450 2A6, a human ortholog to P450 2A1/2, exhibited high NPYR {alpha}-hydroxylase activity (49). KM values of cDNA-expressed P450 2E1 and 2A6 were 34 µM and 1.26 mM (49). P450 2E1 and rat P450 2A1/2 may be involved in {alpha}-hydroxylation of NPYR by rat liver microsomes. The presence of more than one key liver NPYR {alpha}-hydroxylase would explain why the velocities of 2-OH-THF formation are higher than the calculated Michaelis–Menten curve at the higher substrate concentrations (Figure 4Go).

In contrast to NPYR, NPIP {alpha}-hydroxylation kinetics by rat liver microsomes and individual P450s have not been studied. Our findings represent the first report on the apparent kinetic parameters of NPIP {alpha}-hydroxylation by rat liver microsomes (Table IGo). It seems likely that in rat liver, the same P450 enzymes mediate NPIP and NPYR {alpha}-hydroxylation. Fujita and co-workers reported significant mutagenicity of NPIP in S.typhimurium strains expressing P450 2A6 and 2E1 (50). If P450 2E1 and a rat enzyme similar to P450 2A6 are primarily responsible for NPIP and NPYR activation in the liver, then the similar KM values observed for the microsomal metabolism of these cyclic nitrosamines would suggest that these enzymes do not preferentially activate either NPIP or NPYR.

In this study, there was a clear difference in NPIP and NPYR {alpha}-hydroxylation catalyzed by rat esophageal microsomes (Figures 5 and 6GoGo). Several lines of evidence suggest that P450 2A3 is an enzyme that may contribute to the preferential activation of NPIP in the esophagus. P450 2A3 has been detected in the esophagus, nasal mucosa, and lung, but not in the liver (5154). The KM values for NPIP and NPYR {alpha}-hydroxylation catalyzed by Sf9-expressed P450 2A3 were 61.6 ± 20.5 and 1198 ± 308 µM, respectively (19.4-fold difference; Table IGo). P450 2A3 is an efficient {alpha}-hydroxylase of other esophageal carcinogens such as NNN, NBzMA, and N-nitrosomethyl-n-pentylamine (1618,55). Also, elevated levels of P450 2A3 mRNA corresponded with increased NBzMA activation in cultured esophagus from animals treated with N-(4-hydroxyphenyl)retinamide, an esophageal tumor enhancer (56).

However, levels of P450 2A3 mRNA in rat esophagus are minute compared with nasal mucosa (1600-fold less) (53). Rat esophageal microsomes do not catalyze coumarin 7-hydroxylation, an efficient P450 2A3-mediated pathway (18). Further, previous studies with NBzMA and NNN provided strong evidence that the esophageal enzyme responsible for their activation is not P450 2A3, but an enzyme not yet isolated (18,54). This yet-to-be-isolated enzyme may be the one responsible for the differential activation of NPIP and NPYR in the esophagus.

Recently, Swann and co-workers isolated P450 2B21 cDNA from the rat esophagus (57). P450 2B21 may be involved in nitrosamine activation, although preliminary data indicate that it does not catalyze the metabolism of NPIP. Also, P450 1A1 was detected in the rat esophagus (19,53). Purified rabbit P450 1A1 catalyzed NPYR {alpha}-hydroxylation (58), but P450 1A1-mediated NPIP {alpha}-hydroxylation has not been studied. Therefore, it is unclear what role P450 1A1 plays in the esophageal metabolism of NPIP and NPYR. Further work is necessary to identify the rat esophageal enzyme(s) responsible for activation of NPIP.

Kinetic data for NPIP {alpha}-hydroxylation, catalyzed by esophageal microsomes, adhered to two distinct lines in the Hanes–Woolf plot with an inflection point at 180 µM, which suggests biphasic kinetics (Figure 7Go). We report KM values of 312 and 1600 µM for 2-OH-THP formation from NPIP. One explanation for the observed kinetics is the presence of more than one {alpha}-hydroxylase involved in NPIP metabolism. von Weymarn and co-workers observed the presence of at least two P450 enzymes involved in the methylene hydroxylation of NBzMA by rat esophageal microsomes (18). The KM and Vmax values for the high and low-affinity enzymes were 5.1 µM and 54 pmol/min/mg and 446 µM and 500 pmol/min/mg, respectively. Another possibility is the presence of two substrate-binding sites of one esophageal microsomal enzyme involved in NPIP metabolism. Biphasic kinetics involving two substrate-binding sites have been reported for P450 1A2, 2B6, 2C8, 2C9, 3A4, and 3A5 (5961). However, a fit of our data to the Hill equation (n < 1) indicated the presence of one binding site.

Rat esophageal microsomes efficiently catalyze the activation of several esophageal carcinogens. The KM values for the metabolic activation of NNN, N-nitrosodiethylamine, and N-nitroso-n-pentylamine were 49, 13, and 64 µM, respectively (16,17,19). The KM values of NBzMA and NPIP metabolic activation are given above. Taken together, rat esophageal microsomes do not activate NPIP as well as other esophageal carcinogens. Further work is necessary to understand these differences in activation. The observed low KM for NPIP was higher than expected, which suggests that there are contributing factors other than metabolic activation involved in its organospecificity. Also, we cannot exclude the possibility of a high-affinity NPIP {alpha}-hydroxylase in the esophagus. A more sensitive quantitation method measuring {alpha}-hydroxylation rates for substrate concentrations <0.5 µM may reveal an enzyme with a KM value lower than reported in this study. However, it is clear that esophageal microsomes activated NPIP, but not NPYR. This substantial difference in activation is remarkable considering that they differ by only one carbon.

The results of the present study are consistent with those of previous investigations comparing metabolism of structurally related nitrosamines in the rat esophagus. In rats, methylalkylnitrosamines with alkyl chains of 3–6 carbons are potent esophageal carcinogens (95–100% tumor incidence) whereas those nitrosamines having alkyl chains of 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, or 10 carbons are weakly carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic to the esophagus (62). Methylalkylnitrosamines are believed to elicit their carcinogenic potential via metabolic formation of a DNA methylating species (63,64). As discussed before, Kleihues and co-workers clearly demonstrated that esophageal carcinogenicity of these nitrosamines correlated with high levels of promutagenic methylated DNA adducts in target tissues (1315). Differences in tissue-specific metabolism leading to differences in tissue-specific carcinogenicities were also observed with NBzMA and N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA). In rats, NBzMA induces esophageal tumors while NDMA causes mainly liver tumors, but no esophageal tumors (62). Rat esophageal microsomes catalyzed NBzMA methylene hydroxylation to benzaldehyde and a methylating agent (64). In contrast, NDMA demethylation, which generates formaldehyde and a methylating agent, was not detected (64).

Metabolic activation of structurally homologous NNN and N'-nitrosoanabasine (NAB) was also compared. NNN is a potent rat esophageal carcinogen whereas NAB is weakly carcinogenic in the esophagus (65). Hydroxylation at the 2' carbon leading to the generation of a pyridyloxobutylating agent is considered to be the key metabolic activation pathway of NNN (66). Cultured rat esophagus primarily metabolized NNN via 2'-hydroxylation and NAB via 6'-hydroxylation (67). Significantly lower levels of 2'-hydroxylation of NAB were detected compared with that of NNN (67). These findings and those of the present study strongly support the hypothesis that local metabolic activation in the esophagus leads to tissue-specific tumor induction.

In summary, this study clearly shows that rat esophageal microsomes activate NPIP, but not NPYR, while rat liver microsomes activate both NPIP and NPYR. This is likely a contributing factor to the organospecific carcinogenicities of NPIP and NPYR in rats. We expect that these differences in esophageal metabolism will translate to differences in esophageal DNA adduct levels for rats treated with NPIP or NPYR; these studies are ongoing in our laboratory.


    Notes
 
1 To whom correspondence should be addressed at: University of Minnesota Cancer Center, Mayo Mail Code 806, 420 Delaware St SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA Email: hecht002{at}umn.edu Back


    Acknowledgments
 
We thank Peter W.Villalta for carrying out the mass spectrometry experiments on 2-OH-THP and 2-OH-THF and Linda B.von Weymarn for helpful discussions on preparation of rat esophageal microsomes. This study was supported by grant no. CA-85702 from the National Cancer Institute. Mass spectrometry was carried out in the Analytical Chemistry and Biomarkers Core Facility of the University of Minnesota Cancer Center, supported in part by National Cancer Institute grant CA-77598.


    References
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Preussmann,R. and Stewart,B.W. (1984) N-Nitroso carcinogens. In Searle,C.E. (ed.) Chemical Carcinogenesis. ACS Monograph 182, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, pp. 643–828.
  2. Druckrey,H., Preussmann,R., Ivankovic,S. and Schmahl,D. (1967) [Organotropic carcinogenic effects of 65 various N-nitroso-compounds on BD rats]. Z. Krebsforsch., 69, 103–201.[ISI][Medline]
  3. Gray,R., Peto,R., Brantom,P. and Grasso,P. (1991) Chronic nitrosamine ingestion in 1040 rodents: the effect of the choice of nitrosamine, the species studied and the age of starting exposure. Cancer Res., 51, 6470–6491.[Abstract]
  4. Lijinsky,W. and Reuber,M.D. (1981) Carcinogenic effect of nitrosopyrrolidine, nitrosopiperidine and nitrosohexamethyleneimine in Fischer rats. Cancer Lett., 12, 99–103.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  5. Hotchkiss,J.H. (1989) Preformed N-nitroso compounds in foods and beverages. Cancer Surv., 8, 295–321.[ISI][Medline]
  6. Tricker,A.R., Ditrich,C. and Preussmann,R. (1991) N-nitroso compounds in cigarette tobacco and their occurrence in mainstream tobacco smoke. Carcinogenesis, 12, 257–261.[Abstract]
  7. Mahanama,K.R.R. and Daisey,J.M. (1996) Volatile N-nitrosamines in environmental tobacco smoke: sampling, analysis, emission factors and indoor air exposures. Environ. Sci. Technol., 30, 1477–1484.[CrossRef][ISI]
  8. Kataoka,H., Kurisu,M. and Shindoh,S. (1997) Determination of volatile N-nitrosamines in combustion smoke samples. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 59, 570–576.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  9. Bartsch,H., Ohshima,H., Pignatelli,B. and Calmels,S. (1989) Human exposure to endogenous N-nitroso compounds: quantitative estimates in subjects at high risk for cancer of the oral cavity, oesophagus, stomach and urinary bladder. Cancer Surv., 8, 335–362.[ISI][Medline]
  10. Tricker,A.R., Pfundstein,B., Kalble,T. and Preussmann,R. (1992) Secondary amine precursors to nitrosamines in human saliva, gastric juice, blood, urine and faeces. Carcinogenesis, 13, 563–568.[Abstract]
  11. Magee,P.N. and Barnes,J.M. (1967) Carcinogenic nitroso compounds. In Haddow,A. and Weinhouse,S. (eds) Adv. Cancer Res., Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 163–246.
  12. Bartsch,H., Margison,G.P., Malaveille,C., Camus,A.M., Brun,G., Margison,J.M., Kolar,G.F. and Wiessler,M. (1977) Some aspects of metabolic activation of chemical carcinogens in relation to their organ specificity. Arch. Toxicol., 39, 51–63.[ISI][Medline]
  13. Hodgson,R.M., Wiessler,M. and Kleihues,P. (1980) Preferential methylation of target organ DNA by the oesophageal carcinogen N-nitrosomethylbenzylamine. Carcinogenesis, 1, 861–866.[ISI][Medline]
  14. von Hofe,E., Schmerold,I., Lijinsky,W., Jeltsch,W. and Kleihues,P. (1987) DNA methylation in rat tissues by a series of homologous aliphatic nitrosamine ranging from N-nitrosodimethylamine to N-nitrosododecylamine. Carcinogenesis, 8, 1337–1341.[Abstract]
  15. Koenigsmann,M., Schmerold,I., Jeltsch,W., Ludeke,B., Kleihues,P. and Wiessler,M. (1988) Organ and cell specificity of DNA methylation by N-nitrosomethylamylamine in rats. Cancer Res., 48, 5482–5486.[Abstract]
  16. Murphy,S.E. and Spina,D.A. (1994) Evidence for a high-affinity enzyme in rat esophageal microsomes which {alpha}-hydroxylates N'-nitrosonornicotine. Carcinogenesis, 15, 2709–2713.[Abstract]
  17. Chen,S.C., Wang,X., Xu,G., Zhou,L., Vennerstrom,J.L., Gonzalez,F., Gelboin,H.V. and Mirvish,S.S. (1999) Depentylation of [3H-pentyl]methyl-n-amylnitrosamine by rat esophageal and liver microsomes and by rat and human cytochrome P450 isoforms. Cancer Res., 59, 91–98.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. von Weymarn,L.B., Felicia,N.D., Ding,X. and Murphy,S.E. (1999) N-Nitrosobenzylmethylamine hydroxylation and coumarin 7-hydroxylation: catalysis by rat esophageal microsomes and cytochrome P450 2A3 and 2A6 enzymes. Chem. Res. Toxicol., 12, 1254–1261.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  19. Pinto,L.F., Moraes,E., Albano,R.M., Silva,M.C., Godoy,W., Glisovic,T. and Lang,M.A. (2001) Rat oesophageal cytochrome P450 (CYP) monooxygenase system: comparison to the liver and relevance in N-nitrosodiethylamine carcinogenesis. Carcinogenesis, 22, 1877–1883.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Leung,K.H., Park,K.K. and Archer,M.C. (1978) {alpha}-Hydroxylation in the metabolism of N-nitrosopiperidine by rat liver microsomes: formation of 5-hydroxypentanal. Res. Commun. Chem. Pathol. Pharmacol., 19, 201–211.[ISI][Medline]
  21. Nakamura,M., Horiguchi,Y. and Kawabata,T. (1984) Effect of ascorbic acid and some reducing agents on N-nitrosopiperidine metabolism by liver microsomes. IARC Sci. Publ., 547–552.
  22. Young-Sciame,R., Wang,M., Chung,F.L. and Hecht,S.S. (1995) Reactions of {alpha}-acetoxy-N-nitrosopyrrolidine and {alpha}-acetoxy-N-nitrosopiperidine with deoxyguanosine: formation of N2-tetrahydrofuranyl and N2-tetrahydropyranyl adducts. Chem. Res. Toxicol., 8, 607–616.[ISI][Medline]
  23. Wang,M., Young-Sciame,R., Chung,F.L. and Hecht,S.S. (1995) Formation of N2-tetrahydrofuranyl and N2-tetrahydropyranyl adducts in the reactions of {alpha}-acetoxy-N-nitrosopyrrolidine and {alpha}-acetoxy-N-nitrosopiperidine with DNA. Chem. Res. Toxicol., 8, 617–624.[ISI][Medline]
  24. Hecht,S.S., Young-Sciame,R. and Chung,F.L. (1992) Reaction of {alpha}-acetoxy-N-nitrosopiperidine with deoxyguanosine: oxygen-dependent formation of 4-oxo-2-pentenal and a 1,N2-ethenodeoxyguanosine adduct. Chem. Res. Toxicol., 5, 706–712.[ISI][Medline]
  25. Liu,Z., Young-Sciame,R. and Hecht,S.S. (1996) Liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization mass spectrometric detection of an ethenodeoxyguanosine adduct and its hemiaminal precursors in DNA reacted with {alpha}-acetoxy-N-nitrosopiperidine and cis-4-oxo-2-pentenal. Chem. Res. Toxicol., 9, 774–780.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  26. Hecht,S.S., Chen,C.B. and Hoffmann,D. (1978) Evidence for metabolic {alpha}-hydroxylation of N-nitrosopyrrolidine. Cancer Res., 38, 215–218.[Abstract]
  27. Chen,C.B., McCoy,G.D., Hecht,S.S., Hoffmann,D. and Wynder,E.L. (1978) High pressure liquid chromatographic assay for {alpha}-hydroxylation of N-nitrosopyrrolidine by isolated rat liver microsomes. Cancer Res., 38, 3812–3816.[Abstract]
  28. Hecker,L.I., Farrelly,J.G., Smith,J.H., Saavedra,J.E. and Lyon,P.A. (1979) Metabolism of the liver carcinogen N-nitrosopyrrolidine by rat liver microsomes. Cancer Res., 39, 2679–2686.[Abstract]
  29. Hecht,S.S., McCoy,G.D., Chen,C.H. and Hoffmann,D. (1981) The metabolism of cyclic nitrosamines. In Scanlan,R.A. and Tannenbaum,S.R. (eds) N-Nitroso Compounds. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, pp. 49–75.
  30. Wang,M.Y., Chung,F.L. and Hecht,S.S. (1988) Identification of crotonaldehyde as a hepatic microsomal metabolite formed by {alpha}-hydroxylation of the carcinogen N-nitrosopyrrolidine. Chem. Res. Toxicol., 1, 28–31.[ISI][Medline]
  31. Chung,F.L. and Hecht,S.S. (1983) Formation of cyclic 1,N2-adducts by reaction of deoxyguanosine with {alpha}-acetoxy-N-nitrosopyrrolidine, 4-(carbethoxynitrosamino)butanal, or crotonaldehyde. Cancer Res., 43, 1230–1235.[ISI][Medline]
  32. Wang,M., Chung,F.L. and Hecht,S.S. (1989) Formation of acyclic and cyclic guanine adducts in DNA reacted with {alpha}-acetoxy-N-nitrosopyrrolidine. Chem. Res. Toxicol., 2, 423–428.[ISI][Medline]
  33. Wang,M. and Hecht,S.S. (1997) A cyclic N7,C-8 guanine adduct of N-nitrosopyrrolidine (NPYR): formation in nucleic acids and excretion in the urine of NPYR-treated rats. Chem. Res. Toxicol., 10, 772–778.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  34. Wang,M., Upadhyaya,P., Dinh,T.T., Bonilla,L.E. and Hecht,S.S. (1998) Lactols in hydrolysates of DNA treated with {alpha}-acetoxy-N-nitrosopyrrolidine or crotonaldehyde. Chem. Res. Toxicol., 11, 1567–1573.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  35. Wang,M., McIntee,E.J., Shi,Y., Cheng,G., Upadhyaya,P., Villalta,P.W. and Hecht,S.S. (2001) Reactions of {alpha}-acetoxy-N-nitrosopyrrolidine with deoxyguanosine and DNA. Chem. Res. Toxicol., 14, 1435–1445.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  36. Scanlan,R.A., Farrelly,J.G., Hecker,L.I. and Lijinsky,W. (1980) Lack of metabolism of 2,6-dimethyldinitrosopiperazine by microsomes and postmicrosomal supernatant prepared from the rat esophagus and non- glandular stomach. Cancer Lett., 10, 293–299.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  37. Dictionary of Organic Compounds (1982) 5th edn. Chapman and Hall, New York, Vol. 3, p. 3201.
  38. Paul,R. and Tchelitcheff,S. (1948) Sur l’aldéhyde {gamma}-hydroxybutyrique et ses dérivés (On 4-hydroxybutyraldehyde and its derivatives). Bull. Soc. Chim. Fr., 15, 197–203.[ISI]
  39. Hu,M.W., Bondinell,W.E. and Hoffman,D. (1974) Synthesis of carbon-14-labelled myosmine, nornicotine and N'-nitrosonornicotine. J. Labelled Comp., 10, 79–88.[ISI]
  40. Hecht,S.S., Chen,C.B., Dong,M., Ornaf,R.M., Hoffman,D. and Tso,T.C. (1977) Studies on non-volatile nitrosamines in tobacco. Beitr. Tabakforsch., 9, 1–6.
  41. Chen,C.B., Hecht,S.S. and Hoffmann,D. (1978) Metabolic {alpha}-hydroxylation of the tobacco-specific carcinogen, N'-nitrosonornicotine. Cancer Res., 38, 3639–3645.[ISI][Medline]
  42. Normant,H. (1949) Preparation and reactions of 2,3-dihydrofuran. C. R. Hebd. Seances Acad. Sci., 228, 102–104.[ISI]
  43. Schniepp,L.E. and Geller,H.H. (1946) Preparation of dihydropyran, {delta}-hydroxyvaleraldehyde and 1,5-pentanediol from tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol. J. Am. Chem. Soc., 68, 1646–1648.[ISI]
  44. Harris,C.C., Autrup,H., Stoner,G.D., McDowell,E.M., Trump,B.F. and Schaefer,P. (1977) Metabolism of acyclic and cyclic N-nitrosamines in cultured human bronchi. J. Natl Cancer Inst., 59, 1401–1404.[ISI][Medline]
  45. Hecht,S.S., Chen,C.B., McCoy,G.D. and Hoffmann,D. (1979) {alpha}-Hydroxylation of N-nitrosopyrrolidine and N-nitrosonornicotine by human liver microsomes. Cancer Lett., 8, 35–41.[ISI][Medline]
  46. Hecker,L.I. (1980) In vitro metabolism of N-nitrosopyrrolidine by rat lung subcellular fractions: {alpha}-hydroxylation in a non-target tissue. Chem. Biol. Interact., 30, 57–65.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  47. Farrelly,J.G., Stewart,M.L. and Hecker,L.I. (1982) The metabolism of nitrosopyrrolidine by hepatocytes from Fischer rats. Chem. Biol. Interact., 41, 341–351.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  48. Marlowe,C. and Waddell,W.J. (1983) Affinity of [14C]nitrosopiperidine and metabolites for mouse epithelial tissues. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol., 67, 110–116.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  49. Flammang,A.M., Gelboin,H.V., Aoyama,T., Gonzalez,F.J. and McCoy,G.D. (1993) N-Nitrosopyrrolidine metabolism by cDNA-expressed human cytochrome P 450s. Biochem. Arch., 9, 197–204.[ISI]
  50. Fujita,K.K. and Kamataki,T. (2001) Predicting the mutagenicity of tobacco-related N-nitrosamines in humans using 11 strains of Salmonella typhimurium YG7108, each coexpressing a form of human cytochrome P450 along with NADPH-cytochrome P450 reductase. Environ. Mol. Mutagen., 38, 339–346.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  51. Kimura,S., Kozak,C.A. and Gonzalez,F.J. (1989) Identification of a novel P450 expressed in rat lung: cDNA cloning and sequence, chromosome mapping and induction by 3-methylcholanthrene. Biochemistry, 28, 3798–3803.[ISI][Medline]
  52. Su,T., Sheng,J.J., Lipinskas,T.W. and Ding,X. (1996) Expression of CYP2A genes in rodent and human nasal mucosa. Drug Metab. Dispos., 24, 884–890.[Abstract]
  53. Gopalakrishnan,R., Morse,M.A., Lu,J., Weghorst,C.M., Sabourin,C.L., Stoner,G.D. and Murphy,S.E. (1999) Expression of cytochrome P450 2A3 in rat esophagus: relevance to N-nitrosobenzylmethylamine. Carcinogenesis, 20, 885–891.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  54. Murphy,S.E., Isaac,I.S., Ding,X. and McIntee,E.J. (2000) Specificity of cytochrome P450 2A3-catalyzed {alpha}-hydroxylation of N'-nitrosonornicotine enantiomers. Drug Metab. Dispos., 28, 1263–1266.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  55. Chen,S.C., Zhou,L., Ding,X. and Mirvish,S.S. (2001) Depentylation of the rat esophageal carcinogen, methyl-n-pentylnitrosamine, by microsomes from various human and rat tissues and by cytochrome P450 2A3. Drug Metab. Dispos., 29, 1221–1228.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  56. Gupta,A., Nines,R., Rodrigo,K.A., Aziz,R.A., Carlton,P.S., Gray,D.L., Steele,V.E., Morse,M.A. and Stoner,G.D. (2001) Effects of dietary N-(4-hydroxyphenyl)retinamide on N-nitrosomethylbenzylamine metabolism and esophageal tumorigenesis in the Fischer 344 rat. J. Natl Cancer Inst., 93, 990–998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  57. Brookman-Amissah,N., Mackay,A.G. and Swann,P.F. (2001) Isolation and sequencing of the cDNA of a novel cytochrome P450 from rat oesophagus. Carcinogenesis, 22, 155–160.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  58. McCoy,G.D. and Koop,D.R. (1988) Reconstitution of rabbit liver microsomal N-nitrosopyrrolidine {alpha}-hydroxylase activity. Cancer Res., 48, 3987–3992.[Abstract]
  59. Korzekwa,K.R., Krishnamachary,N., Shou,M., Ogai,A., Parise,R.A., Rettie,A.E., Gonzalez,F.J. and Tracy,T.S. (1998) Evaluation of atypical cytochrome P450 kinetics with two-substrate models: evidence that multiple substrates can simultaneously bind to cytochrome P450 active sites. Biochemistry, 37, 4137–4147.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  60. Hosea,N.A., Miller,G.P. and Guengerich,F.P. (2000) Elucidation of distinct ligand binding sites for cytochrome P450 3A4. Biochemistry, 39, 5929–5939.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  61. Miller,G.P. and Guengerich,F.P. (2001) Binding and oxidation of alkyl 4-nitrophenyl ethers by rabbit cytochrome P450 1A2: evidence for two binding sites. Biochemistry, 40, 7262–7272.[ISI][Medline]
  62. Lijinsky,W. (1987) Structure-activity relations in carcinogenesis by N-nitroso compounds. Cancer Metastasis Rev., 6, 301–356.[ISI][Medline]
  63. Lai,D.Y. and Arcos,J.C. (1980) Minireview: dialkylnitrosamine bioactivation and carcinogenesis. Life Sci., 27, 2149–2165.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  64. Labuc,G.E. and Archer,M.C. (1982) Esophageal and hepatic microsomal metabolism of N-nitrosomethylbenzylamine and N-nitrosodimethylamine in the rat. Cancer Res., 42, 3181–3186.[Abstract]
  65. Hoffmann,D., Raineri,R., Hecht,S.S., Maronpot,R. and Wynder,E.L. (1975) Effects of N'-nitrosonornicotine and N'-nitrosonanabasine in rats. J. Natl Cancer Inst., 55, 977–981.[ISI][Medline]
  66. Hecht,S.S. (1998) Biochemistry, biology and carcinogenicity of tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines. Chem. Res. Toxicol., 11, 559–603.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  67. Hecht,S.S. and Young,R. (1982) Regiospecificity in the metabolism of the homologous cyclic nitrosamines, N'-nitrosonornicotine and N'-nitrosoanabasine. Carcinogenesis, 3, 1195–1199.[ISI][Medline]
Received July 26, 2002; revised September 16, 2002; accepted September 24, 2002.





This Article
Abstract
FREE Full Text (PDF)
Alert me when this article is cited
Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Email this article to a friend
Similar articles in this journal
Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Similar articles in PubMed
Alert me to new issues of the journal
Add to My Personal Archive
Download to citation manager
Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Articles by Wong, H. L.
Articles by Hecht, S. S.
PubMed
PubMed Citation
Articles by Wong, H. L.
Articles by Hecht, S. S.