Department of Pathology, Rm. 200F, Medical College of Ohio, 3055 Arlington Avenue, Toledo, Ohio 436145806
Received June 19, 2000; accepted August 23, 2000
![]() |
ABSTRACT |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Key Words: bromodichloromethane; bromoform; cell proliferation; chlorodibromomethane; chloroform; c-myc; DNA methylation; hepatotoxicity; trihalomethanes.
![]() |
INTRODUCTION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The route of administration appears to play a significant role in the dosimetry and metabolism of the trihalomethanes and consequently in their carcinogenic and toxic activity. Although, chloroform was carcinogenic in mice when administered by gavage, it was not carcinogenic and did not promote liver cancer when administered in the drinking water (Jorgenson, et al., 1985; Klaunig et al., 1986
; Pereira et al., 1985
). Furthermore, cell proliferation was enhanced by chloroform administered by gavage but not given in drinking water (Larson et al., 1994
; Pereira, 1994
; Pereira and Grothaus, 1997
). The trihalomethanes are metabolized to reactive dihalocarbonyl metabolites that react with nucleophilic compounds and macromolecules (Ammann et al., 1998
; Lilly et al., 1997
; Pankow et al., 1997
; Pohl, 1977
). Thus, the dihalocarbonyl metabolite of chloroform, phosgene, binds glutathione (GSH) in what appears to be a detoxifying mechanism (Ilett et al., 1973
; Pohl, 1979
). Administering the trihalomethanes as a bolus by gavage is expected to result in greater plasma and liver concentrations than when the same dose is delivered during the time the mice drink water. Thus, administering the trihalomethanes by gavage could overwhelm the ability of the liver to detoxify them, resulting in toxicity, regenerative hyperplasia, and promotion of cancer.
Regulation of cell proliferation is a critical facet of carcinogenesis; consequently, one mechanism proposed for nongenotoxic mouse liver carcinogens, including the trihalomethanes, is the enhancement of cell proliferation (Butterworth et al., 1992; Goodman et al., 1991
; Roberts et al., 1997
). Decreased methylation of DNA and protooncogenes could result in decreased regulation of cell proliferation (Counts and Goodman, 1995
). 5-Methylcytosine (5-MeC) is a naturally occurring modification of eukaryotic DNA that plays a role in the control of gene expression (Baylin et al., 1998
; Kegelmeye et al., 1997; Razin and Kafri, 1994
; Wolffe et al., 1999
). Decreased levels of 5-MeC in DNA and in specific genes are frequent early events in human and rodent tumors (Baylin et al., 1998
; Bender et al., 1998
; Bird et al., 1996; Pascale et al., 1993
). In mouse liver, nongenotoxic carcinogens, including dichloroacetic acid (DCA), phenobarbital, trichloroacetic acid (TCA), and trichloroethylene, have been shown to decrease the methylation of DNA and protooncogenes (Counts and Goodman, 1995
; Counts et al., 1996
; Tao et al., 1998
, 1999
Tao et al., 2000). Thus, DNA hypomethylation has been proposed as a mechanism for nongenotoxic carcinogens and tumor promoters (Counts and Goodman, 1995
).
The protooncogene and cellular transcription factor, c-myc, plays a pivotal role in apoptosis, cell replication, and differentiation (Christensen et al., 1999; Holden et al., 1998
). The expression of c-myc is increased in the liver during enhanced cell proliferation (Butterworth et al., 1994
; Fausto and Shank, 1983
; Sprankle et al., 1996
; Wainfan and Poirier, 1992
). Methylation of CpG sites in its promoter region regulates in part the expression of its mRNA (Jones and Buckley, 1990
; Razin and Kafri, 1994
; Wainfan and Poirer, 1992). The methylation of the c-myc gene is decreased by a diet deficient in choline and methionine (Wainfan and Poirer, 1992) and by DCA, TCA, and trichloroethylene (Tao et al., 1999
Tao et al., 2000). Thus, decreased methylation of the c-myc gene could be used as a biomarker for DNA hypomethylation induced by nongenotoxic carcinogens.
The studies reported here compared in mouse liver the ability of the trihalomethanes to induce toxicity, to increase cell proliferation, and to decrease the methylation of the c-myc protooncogene. We also report a comparison of the activity of the trihalomethanes administered by oral gavage to their activity when administered in drinking water.
![]() |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Animals.
VAF (viral antibody-free) 6-week old female B6C3F1 mice were purchased from Charles River Breeding Laboratory (Portage, MI) and maintained in our AAALAC accredited laboratory-animal facility. The mice were housed in polycarbonate cages (4/cage) with stainless steel wire lids and absorbent corncob bedding (Andersons, Toledo, OH) in humidity and temperature controlled rooms with a 12-h light/dark cycle. Deionized filtered tap water with/without the trihalomethanes and Purina Rodent Diet (J&B Feed, Toledo, OH) were provided ad libitum.
Experimental design.
At 78 weeks of age, the mice were weighed and randomly assigned to the different treatment groups (Table 1). The mice then started to receive the trihalomethanes either in their drinking water for 11 consecutive days or by oral gavage in corn oil administered daily for 5 days, off for 2 days, and then daily again for 4 days. The mice were sacrificed 24 h after the last gavage dose. The dose levels of the trihalomethanes administered by gavage in corn oil were selected so that the high dose had been previously demonstrated to be carcinogenic in female B6C3F1 mice (NCI, 1976
; NTP, 1985
, 1987
, 1989
). The gavage doses were formulated daily in corn oil. The concentrations of the trihalomethanes in the drinking water were chosen as approximately 75% saturation. Drinking water formulations were prepared every 3 days with deionized water and given to the mice in measured 200 ml aliquots so that consumption could be determined at each change of the water.
|
Toxicity.
Hemotoxylin and eosin-stained sections of liver were evaluated for toxicity using the semi-quantitative procedure described by Iijima et al. (1983), which was modified to incorporate a 0 to +4 grading of severity. Grade 1 consisted of mid lobular ballooning hepatocytes, Grade 2 of the mid lobular ballooning hepatocytes extending to the central vein, Grade 3 of centrilobular necrosis with ballooning hepatocytes, and Grade 4 of necrosis extending from the central vein to the mid lobule zone.
PCNA-labeling index.
Paraffin sections were hydrated and placed in 2N HCl at 50°C for 20 min. Endogenous peroxidase was quenched with 0.3% hydrogen peroxide for 30 min. The sections were blocked with diluted horse serum for 20 min and incubated with 100 µl monoclonal mouse anti-PCNA (1:300) at 4°C overnight. They were then washed and incubated with biotinylated anti-mouse IgG for 30 min at room temperature, followed by a 30-min incubation with Vectastain ABC reagent. Stain was developed using 33'-Diaminobenzidine followed by washing with deionized water and counter staining with hemotoxylin. The nuclei of PCNA-positive cells stained brown, while unlabeled nuclei were light blue. Approximately 1000 hepatocytes/mouse were evaluated and the PCNA-LI was determined to be the number of PCNA-positive cells divided by the total number of hepatocytes evaluated x 100.
Methylation of DNA.
Liver tissue was homogenized in 0.75 ml TE buffer (10 mM TrisHCl, pH 8.0, 0.1 M EDTA) containing 0.5% SDS, and the DNA isolated as previously described (Tao et al., 1998). Briefly, the homogenate was treated with DNase-free RNase (400 µg/ml) and proteinase K (200 µg/ml) and then extracted 3 times with phenol, once with phenol:chloroform (1:1), and finally with chloroform. The DNA was precipitated with cold ethanol containing 10 M ammonium acetate (10% volume), washed twice with 70% ethanol, and hydrolyzed in 100 µl of 12 M perchloric acid at 100°C for 1 h. After the addition of 230 µl of 6 M KOH, the precipitate was removed by centrifugation. The supernatant filtered through a 0.2 µm polypropylene syringe filter (Whatman Inc., Clifton, NJ) and analyzed using a Waters Model 510 HPLC system (Milford, MA) equipped with a Whatman Partisphere C18 column (4.6 x 250mm, 5 µm particle). The column was eluted for 15 min with an isocratic mobile phase of 100 mM ammonium acetate (pH 4.25) containing 0.5% acetonitrile. The flow rate was 2 ml/min and the detection wavelength was 280 nm. The retention time for cytosine, 5-MeC and guanine were 5.0, 6.5, and 7.4 min, respectively, with thymine and adenine eluted later. The percentage of cytosine present as 5-MeC was calculated from the peak areas using the formula, 5-MeC/(5-MeC + cytosine) x 100.
Methylation of the promoter region of the c-myc gene.
The methylation of the promoter region of the c-myc gene was evaluated using Hpa II restriction enzyme digestion followed by Southern blot analysis, as previously described (Tao et al., 1999Tao et al., 2000). Briefly, isolated DNA was dissolved in TE buffer and digested overnight with Hpa II (10 U/µg DNA) at 37°C. Hpa II does not cut CCGG sites when the internal cytosine is methylated. The digested DNA was electrophoresed on a 1% agarose gel. Equal loading of the gel was indicated by equal ethidium bromide fluorescence. The gels were washed with 2X SSC and transferred to HybondTM-N+ nylon membranes using a Model 785 vacuum blotter (Bio Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA). The DNA was cross-linked by ultraviolet irradiation (UV Stratalinker Model 2400, Strategene, La Jolla, CA). The membranes were pre-hybridized at 42°C for 1 h in 20 ml of pre-hybridization solution (50% formamide, 5X Dehardt's Reagent, 6X SSPE, 10% dextran sulfate, 1% SDS, and 100 µg/ml denatured nonhomologous DNA). Random 32P-labeled c-myc probe (65 µg) was added to the pre-hybridization solution and hybridization continued for 12 h at 42°C. After hybridization, the membranes at 20-min intervals were stringently washed 5 times with 4X SSC containing 0.5% SDS at 65°C, 3 times with 2X SSC containing 0.5% SDS at 37°C, and finally once with 2X SSC at 37°C. The membranes were dried, sealed in plastic bags, and autoradiography-processed at 70°C with Kodak Biomax MR X-ray film, Kodak intensifying screens, and a Kodak M35A automatic film processor. Optical density of the autoradiograms was measured with a Scion Image Analysis System (Scion Corp., Frederick, MD).
The c-myc probe was designed from the GeneBank database (GeneBank accession number, M1234) to contain the 11315 bp in the promoter region of the gene. The probe was produced by PCR amplification of mouse liver DNA using sense 5'-TCTAGAACCAATGCACAGAGCAAAAG-3' and antisense 5'-GCCTCAGCCCGCAGTCCAGTACTCC-3' primers.
Statistical evaluation.
Statistical analysis was performed using SigmaStat software version 2.03 (Jandel Corp., San Rafeal, CA). Body and organ weights, liver:bw ratio, liver toxicity, PCNA-LI, and DNA methylation were analyzed for statistical significance by an ANOVA followed by a Tukey or Dunnett's test with a p-value < 0.05.
![]() |
RESULTS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
|
|
|
PCNA-LI
The trihalomethanes, when administered by gavage, caused a dose-dependent increase in the PCNA-LI (Fig. 5). The high-dose level of chloroform and bromoform resulted in the greatest increase in the PCNA-LI, followed by bromodichloromethane and chlorodibromomethane. The low-dose gavage of the trihalomethanes, with the exception of chloroform, also increased the PCNA-LI. When administered in drinking water, the trihalomethanes increased the PCNA-LI to an extent similar to their low gavage dose (Fig. 6
). However, the increase was only statistically significant for chloroform and bromoform.
|
|
|
|
|
The intensity of the bands present after Hpa II digestion was determined using a Scion Image Analysis System (Scion Corp., Frederick, MD). Methylation of the c-myc promoter decreased with the increasing dose of the trihalomethane administered by gavage. The 5 bands after Hpa II digestion exhibited similar dose-response curves. Therefore, Figure 10 contains the dose-response curves for band 3 (1.0Kb), chosen as representative since it is the middle band in size and the second darkest in intensity. The dose-response curves for chloroform and bromodichloromethane increased sharply between the low- and high-dose levels, while the relationships for bromoform and chlorodibromomethane appeared convex. Furthermore, chloroform and bromodichloromethane reduced the methylation of the c-myc gene more than the 2 other trihalomethanes.
|
![]() |
DISCUSSION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Toxicity, cell proliferation, and DNA methylation are all possible components of a nongenotoxic mechanism for the trihalomethanes. DNA methylation can control the expression of genes including those associated with cell proliferation. The expression of c-myc has been reported to be increased by chloroform administered by gavage to B6C3F1 mice (Sprankle et al., 1996). We have also found increased expression of c-myc in mice administered chloroform by gavage as well as in the drinking water (data not presented). Chloroform also increased the expression of c-fos (Sprankle et al., 1996
) and 4 genes identified by the differential-display technique (Kegelmeyer et al., 1997
). These genes could also be hypomethylated, as suggested by the significant decrease (
40%) in global DNA methylation, indicating that many genes besides c-myc are hypomethylated. Thus, the hypomethylation of c-myc could be an indicator of possible hypomethylation of other genes.
A possible mechanism for DNA hypomethylation by the trihalomethanes is to prevent, after DNA replication, the methylation of the daughter strands of DNA. Under normal conditions, there is very little cell proliferation in the liver. Therefore, this mechanism requires that the trihalomethanes enhance cell proliferation in order to produce unmethylated daughter strands of DNA. All four trihalomethanes did enhance cell proliferation. The trihalomethanes could then prevent the methylation of the daughter strands of DNA by inhibiting DNA methyltransferase (DNA MTase) or by reducing the availability of S-adenosyl methionine (SAM). DNA MTase activity is increased in most tumors, including liver tumors, in the presence of DNA hypomethylation (Baylin et al., 1998; Bird et al., 1996; Jones and Buckley, 1990
; Wolffe et al., 1999
). Also dichloroacetic acid and trichloroacetic acids in mouse liver decreased the methylation of the c-myc gene without decreasing DNA MTase activity (Tao et al., 2000b
). Therefore, it is unlikely that decreased activity of DNA MTase is the mechanism for DNA hypomethylation. The level of SAM could be reduced by liver toxicity that reduces the level of ATP required for the synthesis of SAM or by reducing the level of GSH as proposed by Lertratanangkoon et al. (1997). Depletion of GSH induces its synthesis, utilizing SAM for the synthesis of cysteine. The prevention of dichloroacetic acid- and trichloroacetic acid-induced hypomethylation of c-jun and c-myc genes by methionine supports this hypothesis (Tao et al., 2000a
). Presumably, methionine prevented the decrease in methylation by maintaining the availability of SAM. Hence, it is proposed that the trihalomethanes decreased DNA methylation by enhancing cell proliferation, possibly as a regenerative response to their toxicity, and then preventing the methylation of the newly synthesized daughter strands of DNA.
All four trihalomethanes were toxic to the liver. The toxicity of the trihalomethanes, except for bromodichloromethane, started with ballooning hepatocytes in the mid-zone of the lobule and progressed to centrilobular necrosis. However, in contrast to the other trihalomethanes, the toxicity induced by bromodichloromethane was mainly confined to the central lobular zone and included hydropic degeneration that progressed to centrilobular bridging necrosis, fibrosis and calcification. Similar toxicity for bromodichloromethane has been reported by NTP (1987); the low dose used in their bioassay resulted in degeneration, and the high dose resulted in necrosis, fibrosis, and the presence of microgranulomas at the central vein. The two dose levels of their bioassay were similar to those reported here. Bromodichloromethane has also been reported to differ from the other trihalomethanes by demonstrating mutagenic activity that required activation with GSH (Pegram et al., 1997). Thus, the genotoxicity and toxicity of bromodichloromethane distinguishes it from the other trihalomethanes.
Comparison of the toxicity of the trihalomethanes to their ability to enhance cell proliferation indicated a lack of correlation. All four trihalomethanes, when administered by gavage, increased the liver:bw ratio, induced liver toxicity, and enhanced cell proliferation, i.e., the PCNA-LI. Bromodichloromethane and chloroform were more toxic than chlorodibromomethane and bromoform. However, chlorodibromomethane was the most potent in increasing the liver:bw ratio followed by bromodichloromethane > chloroform > bromoform. With respect to the PCNA-LI, chloroform and bromoform were the most efficacious. Thus, the high dose of bromoform increased the PCNA-LI similarly to the high dose of chloroform although, of the four trihalomethanes, it was the weakest in increasing the liver:bw ratio and inducing toxicity. Although both the high dose of bromoform and the low dose of chloroform were minimally toxic (Grade 1.5), only bromoform increased the PCNA-LI, i.e., 25.3 ± 2.2 and 0.87 ± 0.22 for the high dose of bromoform and the low dose of chloroform, respectively. Thus, the ability of a trihalomethane to increase cell proliferation did not correlate with its toxicity.
The effect of the trihalomethanes on the PCNA-LI also did not correlate with their effect on the liver:bw ratio. The large increase in the PCNA-LI induced by bromoform did not correlate with its limited increase in the liver/bw ratio, which could be due to its very weak toxicity, i.e. inducing only mid-zonal ballooning hepatocytes. In contrast, along with their enhancement of cell proliferation, the more extensive toxicity of chloroform and bromodichloromethane could contribute to their greater increase in the liver:bw ratio. Furthermore, the extensive toxicity of chloroform and bromodichloromethane is consistent with their enhancement of cell proliferation resulting from regenerative hyperplasia, while the minimal toxicity of bromoform and chlorodibromomethane indicate that they increase cell proliferation by another mechanism.
For the most part, the dose-response relationships for the increase in the PCNA-LI and the decrease in the methylation of the c-myc gene by the trihalomethanes were similar. The PCNA-LI increased sharply between the low and high doses of chloroform, bromodichloromethane, and bromoform with the dose-response curve for chloroform suggesting a threshold. The dose-response curves for the ability of chloroform and bromodichloromethane to reduce the methylation of the c-myc gene also increased sharply with dose. Thus, the dose-response curves for the enhancement of the PCNA-LI and for the reduction in the methylation of the c-myc gene suggested that chloroform and bromodichloromethane have to overcome detoxifying mechanisms prior to exerting full activity.
Chloroform administered in drinking water affected the liver:bw ratio, toxicity, cell proliferation, and methylation of the c-myc gene much less than when administered by gavage. The daily dose of chloroform administered in drinking water was greater than its high gavage-dose. Furthermore, drinking water exposure was for seven days a week, while gavage treatment was only five days a week. Still, the ability of chloroform in drinking water to increase the liver:bw ratio, induce toxicity, increase the PCNA-LI, and reduce the methylation of the c-myc gene was at most only as efficacious as its low gavage dose. This is consistent with the previously reported weaker ability of chloroform administered in the drinking water to induce toxicity and to enhance cell proliferation, compared to chloroform administered by oral gavage (Larson et al., 1994; Pereira, 1994
; Pereira and Grothaus, 1997
). It was also consistent with the inability of chloroform to promote liver tumors in mice when administered in drinking water at daily dose levels similar to its carcinogenic dose when administered by gavage (Jorgenson et al., 1985
; Klaunig et al., 1986
, Pereira et al., 1985
). The weaker activity of chloroform administered in drinking water could result from its incremental delivery each time the mouse drinks, which should result in a lower liver concentration than obtained from the bolus delivered by oral gavage. The lower liver concentration of chloroform could be insufficient to overcome GSH and other detoxification mechanisms.
Drinking water exposure to the other three trihalomethanes resulted in daily dose levels that were similar to or slightly higher than the low dose administered by oral gavage (the greatest difference was for bromoform, i.e., 1.19 and 0.79 mmol/kg/day by drinking water and gavage, respectively). Drinking water exposure affected liver:bw ratio, liver toxicity, PCNA-LI, and c-myc methylation, to a degree similar for the most part to their low gavage dose. However, in contrast to chloroform, the evaluation of the other trihalomethanes in drinking water at concentrations that were equivalent to their high gavage dose was prevented by their limited solubility.
In conclusion, the trihalomethanes administered by gavage increased cell proliferation and decreased DNA methylation, supporting a nongenotoxic mechanism for their carcinogenic activity in mouse liver. The dose-response curves of the trihalomethanes, especially chloroform and bromodichloromethane, suggested the need to overcome detoxification mechanisms prior to exerting full activity, which could explain their weak activity, especially that of chloroform, when administered in drinking water. The slower rate of delivery by drinking water is expected to result in a lower liver concentration that should increase the opportunity for detoxification. Hence, the activity of the trihalomethanes appears to be dependent on their rate of delivery, i.e., rapidly by oral gavage and more slowly in drinking water.
![]() |
NOTES |
---|
1 To whom correspondence should be addressed. Fax: (419) 383-3089. E-mail: mpereira{at}mco.edu.
![]() |
REFERENCES |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Baylin, S. B., Herman, J. G., Graff, J. R., Vertino, P. M., and Issa, J-P. (1998). Alterations in DNA methylation: A fundamental aspect of neoplasia. Adv. Cancer Res. 72, 14196.[ISI][Medline]
Bender, C. M., Zingg, J. M., and Jones, P. A. (1998). DNA methylation as a target for drug design. Pharm. Res. 15, 175187.[ISI][Medline]
Bird, A. P. (1996). The relationship of DNA methylation to cancer. Cancer Surv. 28, 87101.[ISI][Medline]
Butterworth, B. E., Popp, J. A., Conolly, R. B., and Goldsworthy, T. L. (1992). Chemically induced cell proliferation in carcinogenesis. IARC Scient. Publ. 116, 279305.
Butterworth, B. E., Sprankle, C. S., Goldsworthy, S. M., Wilson, D. M., and Goldsworthy, T. L. (1994). Expression of myc, fos, and Ha-ras in the liver of furan-treated F344 rats and B6C3F1 mice. Mol. Carcinog. 9, 2432.[ISI][Medline]
Christensen, J.G., Goldsworthy, T. L., and Cattley, R. C. (1999). Dysregulation of apoptosis by c-myc in transgenic hepatocytes and effects of growth factors and nongenotoxic carcinogens. Mol. Carcinog. 25, 273284.[ISI][Medline]
Coleman, W. E., Munch, J. W., Kaylor, W. H., Streicher, R. P., Ringhand, H. P., and Meier, J. R. (1984). Gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy analysis of mutagenic extracts of aqueous chlorinated humic acid. A comparison of the byproducts to drinking water contaminants. Environ. Sci. Technol. 18, 674678.[ISI]
Counts, J. L., and Goodman, J. L. (1995). Hypomethylation of DNA: A nongenotoxic mechanism involved in tumor promotion. Toxicol. Lett. 82/83, 663672.
Counts, J. L., Sarmiento, J. I., Harbison, M. L., Downing, J. C., McClain, R. M., and Goodman, J. L. (1996). Cell proliferation and global methylation status changes in mouse liver after phenobarbital and/or choline-devoid, methionine-deficient diet administration. Carcinogenesis 17, 12511257.[Abstract]
Fausto, N., and Shank, P. R. (1983). Oncogene expression in liver regeneration and hepatocarcinogenesis. Hepatology 3, 10161023.[ISI][Medline]
Goodman, J. I., Ward, J. M., Popp, J. A., Klaunig, J. E., and Fox, T. R. (1991). Mouse liver carcinogenesis: Mechanisms and relevance. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 17, 651665.[ISI][Medline]
Holden, P. R., Odum, J., Soames, A. R., Foster, J. R., Elcombe, C. R., and Tugwood, J. D. (1998). Immediate-early gene expression during regenerative and mitogen-induced liver growth in the rat. J. Biochem. Mol. Toxicol. 12, 7982.[Medline]
IARC (1991). Chlorinated drinking-water; Chlorination by-products. In IARC Monograph on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans, Vol. 52, 45268. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.
Ilett, K. F., Reid, W. D., Sipes, I. G., and Krishna, G. (1973). Chloroform toxicity in mice: Correlation of renal and hepatic necrosis with covalent binding of metabolites to tissue macromolecules. Exp. Mol. Pathol. 19, 215229.[ISI][Medline]
Iijima, M., Cote, M. G., and Plaa, G. L. (1983). A semi-quantitative morphologic assessment of chordecone-potentiated chloroform hepatotoxicity. Toxicol. Lett. 17, 307314.[ISI][Medline]
Jolley, R. L., Condie, L. W., Johnson, J. D., Katz, S., Minear, R. A., Mattice, J. S., and Jacobs, V. A. (Eds.) (1990). Water Chlorination: Chemistry, Environmental Impact, and Health Effects, Vol. 6. Lewis Publishing, Michigan.
Jones, P. A., and Buckley, J. D. (1990). The role of DNA methylation in cancer. Adv. Cancer Res. 54, 123.[Medline]
Jorgenson, T. A., Meierhenry, E. F., Rushbrook, C. J., Bull, R. J., and Robinson, M. (1985). Carcinogenicity of chloroform in drinking water to male Osborne-Mendel rats and female B6C3F1 mice. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 5, 760769.[ISI][Medline]
Klaunig, J. E., Ruch, R. J., and Pereira, M. A. (1986). Carcinogenicity of chlorinated methane and ethane compounds administered in drinking water to mice. Environ. Health Perspect. 69, 8995.[ISI][Medline]
Kegelmeyer, A. E., Sprankle, C. S., Horesovsky, G. J., and Butterworth, B. E. (1997). Differential display identified in mRNA levels in regenerating livers from chloroform-treated mice. Mol. Carcinog. 20, 288297.[ISI][Medline]
Lapeyre, J. N., and Becker, J. J. (1979). 5-Methylcytosine content of nuclear DNA during chemical hepatocarcinogenesis and in carcinomas which result. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Comm. 87, 698705.[ISI][Medline]
Larson, J. L., Wolf, D. C., and Butterworth, B. E. (1994). Induced cytotoxicity and cell proliferation in the hepatocarcinogenicity of chloroform in female B6C3F1 mice: Comparison of administration by gavage in corn oil vs. ad libitum in drinking water. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 22, 90102.[ISI][Medline]
Le Curieux, F., Gauthier, L., Erb, F., and Marzin, D. (1995). Use of the SOS chromotest, the Ames-fluctuation test, and the newt micronucleus test to study the genotoxicity of the four trihalomethanes. Mutagenesis 10, 333341.[Abstract]
Lertratanangkoon, K., Wu, C. J., Savaraj, N., and Thomas, M. L. (1997). Alterations of DNA by glutathione depletion. Cancer Lett. 120, 149156.[ISI][Medline]
Lilly, P. D., Ross, T. M., and Pegram, R. A. (1997). Trihalomethane comparative toxicity: Acute renal hepatic toxicity of chloroform and bromodichloromethane following aqueous gavage. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 40, 101110.[ISI][Medline]
NCI (1976). Carcinogenesis bioassay of chloroform. National Tech. Inform. Service No. PB264018/AS. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD.
NTP (1985). Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of chlorodibromomethane in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. National Toxicology Program TR 282, DHHS Publ. No. (NIH) 852538. NIH, Bethesda, MD.
NTP (1987). Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of bromodichloromethane in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. National Toxicology Program TR 321, DHHS Publ. No. (NIH) 882537. NIH, Research Triangle Park, NC.
NTP (1989). Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of bromoform in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. National Toxicology Program TR 350, DHHS Publ. No.(NIH) 852850. NIH, Bethesda, MD.
Pankow, D., Damme, B., and Wünscher, U. (1997). Chlorodibromomethane metabolism to bromide and carbon dioxide in rats. Arch. Toxicol. 71, 203210.[ISI][Medline]
Pascale, R. M., Simile, M. M., and Feo, F. (1993). Genomic abnormalities in hepatocarcinogenesis: Implications for a chemopreventive strategy. Anticancer Res. 13, 13411356.[ISI][Medline]
Pegram, R. A., Anderson, M. E., Warren, S. H., Ross, T. M., and Claxton, L. D. (1997). Gluathione S-transferase-mediated mutagenicity of trihalomethanes in Salmonella typhimurium T 1535: Contrasting results with bromodichloromethane and chloroform. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 144, 183188.[ISI][Medline]
Pereira, M. A. (1994). Route of administration determines whether chloroform enhances or inhibits cell proliferation in the liver of B6C3F1 mice. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 23, 8792.[ISI][Medline]
Pereira, M. A., and Grothaus, M. (1997). Chloroform in the drinking water prevents hepatic cell proliferation induced by chloroform administered by gavage in corn oil to mice. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 37, 8287.[ISI][Medline]
Pereira, M. A., Knutsen, G. L., and Herren-Freund, S. L. (1985). Effect of subsequent treatment of chloroform or phenobarbital on the incidence of liver and lung tumors initiated by ethylnitrosourea in 15-day-old mice. Carcinogenesis 6, 203207.[Abstract]
Pohl, L. R. (1979). Biochemical toxicology of chloroform. Rev. Biochem. Toxicol. 1, 79107.
Pohl, L. R., Booshan, B., Whittaker, N. F., and Krishna, G. (1977). Phosgene: A metabolite of chloroform. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 79, 684691.[ISI][Medline]
Razin, A., and Kafri, T. (1994). DNA methylation from embryo to adult. Prog. Nucleic Acid Res. Mol. Biol. 48, 5381.[ISI][Medline]
Reitz, R. H., Mendrala, A. L., Corley, R. A., Quast, J. F., Gargas, M. L., Andersen, M. E., Staats, D. A., and Conolly, R. B. (1990). Estimating the risk of liver cancer associated with human exposures to chloroform using physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 105, 443459.[ISI][Medline]
Roberts, R. A., Nebert, D. W., Hickman, J. A., Richburg, J. H., and Goldsworthy, T.L. (1997). Perturbation of the mitosis/apoptosis balance: A fundamental mechanism in toxicology (Review). Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 38, 107115.[ISI][Medline]
Rosenthal, S. L. (1987). A review of mutagenicity of chloroform. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 10, 211226.[ISI][Medline]
Sprankle, C. S., Larson, J. L., Goldsworthy, S. M., and Butterworth, B. E. (1996). Levels of myc, fos, Ha-ras, met, and hepatocyte growth factor mRNA during regenerative cell proliferation in female mouse liver and male rat kidney after a cytotoxic dose of chloroform. Cancer Lett. 101, 97106.[ISI][Medline]
Tao, L., Kramer, P. M., Ge, R., and Pereira, M. A. (1998). Effect of dichloroacetic acid and trichloroacetic acid on DNA methylation in liver and tumors of female B6C3F1 mice. Toxicol. Sci. 43, 139144.[Abstract]
Tao, L., Ge, G., Xie, M., Kramer, P. M., and Pereira, M. A. (1999). Effect of trichloroethylene on DNA methylation and expression of early-intermediate protooncogenes in the liver of B6C3F1 mice. J. Biochem. Mol. Toxicol. 13, 231237.[ISI][Medline]
Tao, L., Yang, S., Xie, M., Kramer, P., and Pereira, M. A. (2000a). Effect of trichloroethylene and its metabolites, dichloroacetic acid and trichloroacetic acid, on the methylation and expression of c-jun and c-myc protoncogenes in mouse liver: Prevention by methionine. Toxicol. Sci. 54, 399407.
Tao, L., Yang, S., Xie, M., Kramer, P. M. and Pereira, M. A. (2000b) Hypomethylation and overexpression of c-jun and c-myc protooncogenes and increased DNA methyltransferase activity in dichloroacetic and trichloroacetic acid-promoted mouse liver tumors. Cancer Lett. 158, 185193.[ISI][Medline]
Uden, P. C., and Miller, J. W. (1983). Chlorinated acids and chloral in drinking water. J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 75, 524527.[ISI]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1979). National interim primary drinking water regulations; control of the trihalomethanes in drinking water; final rule. Fed. Regist. 44, 6862468707.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1994). National primary drinking water regulations; disinfectants and disinfection byproducts; proposed rule. Fed. Regist. 59, 3866838829.
Wainfan, E., and Poirier, L. (1992). Methyl groups in carcinogenesis: Effects on DNA methylation and gene expression. Cancer Res. 52, 2071s2077s.[Abstract]
Wolffe, A. P., Jones, P. L., and Wade, P. A. (1999). DNA demethylation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 96, 58945896.