Comparative Hepatocarcinogenicity of Hexachlorobenzene, Pentachlorobenzene, 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene, and 1,4-Dichlorobenzene: Application of a Medium-Term Liver Focus Bioassay and Molecular and Cellular Indices

Daniel L. Gustafson*,2, Michael E. Long*,2, Russell S. Thomas{dagger},3, Stephen A. Benjamin{dagger} and Raymond S. H. Yang*,1

Center for Environmental Toxicology and Technology, * Department of Environmental Health and {dagger} Department of Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523–1680

Received July 20, 1999; accepted October 6, 1999


    ABSTRACT
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Of the twelve different chlorobenzene isomers, a thorough evaluation of carcinogenicity has only been assessed on monochlorobenzene, 1,2-, and 1,4-dichlorobenzene, and hexachlorobenzene. In the studies presented here, we measured the ability of 1,4-dichlorobenzene (DCB), 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene (TeCB), pentachlorobenzene (PeCB), and hexachlorobenzene (HCB) to promote glutathione S-transferase {pi} (GSTP1-1) positive preneoplastic foci formation in rat liver, following diethylnitrosamine (DEN) initiation. The results from these studies show that TeCB, PeCB, and HCB all promote the formation of GSTP1-1 positive foci and that DCB does not. The numbers and area of foci were greatest following HCB promotion, and TeCB and PeCB were approximately equal in their promoting ability. Levels of hepatic CYP1A2, CYP2B1/2, non-focal GSTP1-1, and c-fos were measured in response to treatment with the 4 chlorobenzene isomers, as were reduced glutathione (GSH) and oxidized glutathione (GSSG) levels. Results from these studies show that induction of CYP1A2 and CYP2B1/2 have correlation with both the presence and degree of GSTP1-1 foci promotion by the 4 chlorobenzenes. Alterations in GSH and GSSG levels were similar in PeCB- and TeCB-treated animals in that GSSG levels were significantly decreased, whereas HCB and DCB did not have this effect, although HCB treatment led to a significant increase in GSH levels. We conclude that induction of CYP1A2 or CYP2B1/2 by chlorobenzene isomers may indicate promotional ability, and that this property might be exploited to predict the hepatocarcinogenicity of other chlorobenzene isomers.

Key Words: hexachlorobenzene; pentachlorobenzene; 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene; 1,4-dichlorobenzene; medium-term bioassays; carcinogenicity.


    INTRODUCTION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The chlorobenzenes are important environmental contaminants that are used for both private and industrial applications. This class of compounds is formed by the chlorine substitution of a single benzene ring, and is comprised of 12 chlorobenzene isomers ranging from mono- to hexa-substituted. The uses of chlorobenzenes range from chemical intermediates in commercial chemical production to pesticides, and they are produced worldwide in mass quantities (Morita, 1977; Peattie et al., 1984Go). The carcinogenicity of various chlorobenzene isomers in rodents has been studied. Thorough evaluation of the carcinogenicity of mono- (NTP, 1985aGo), 1,2- and 1,4-di- (NTP, 1985bGo, 1987Go), and hexachlorobenzene (Cabral et al., 1979Go; Smith and Cabral, 1980Go) have been carried out. Results from 2-year bioassays performed by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) have shown that 1,4-dichlorobenzene is a carcinogen (NTP, 1987Go), mono-chlorobenzene showed equivocal results (NTP, 1985aGo), and 1,2-dichlorobenzene was negative (NTP, 1985bGo). Other studies have clearly shown that hexachlorobenzene is carcinogenic (Cabral et al., 1979Go; Smith and Cabral, 1980Go). Thorough carcinogenic evaluation of the other 8 chlorobenzene isomers using the 2-year bioassay have not been done.

Although 2-year cancer bioassays in rodents are the most reliable method of determining the carcinogenic potential of xenobiotics, short- and medium-term bioassays have been developed in an attempt to lessen the burden of potential carcinogen screening. The use of glutathione S-transferase {pi} (GSTP1-1) expression as a marker for preneoplastic lesions in liver is a well established method, and has been used extensively in medium-term bioassays to identify potential hepatocarcinogens (Ogiso et al., 1990Go). GSTP1-1 focus formation used in conjunction with initiation/promotion medium-term study designs, has been shown to correctly identify 97% of known genotoxic hepatocarcinogens and 86% of known nongenotoxic hepatocarcinogens (Hasegawa and Ito, 1994Go). The sensitivity and specificity of GSTP1-1 focus formation in liver sections as an endpoint in medium-term study designs has made this combination a reliable tool for screening agents for hepatocarcinogenicity (Hasegawa and Ito, 1990Go).

Earlier studies from our laboratory, using GSTP1-1 focus formation in a medium-term initiation/promotion study design, have shown that pentachlorobenzene (PeCB) (Thomas et al., 1998bGo) and 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene (TeCB) cause promotion of DEN initiated GSTP1-1 foci, whereas 1,4-dichlorobenzene does not (Gustafson et al., 1998Go). Earlier studies have also shown that hexachlorobenzene (HCB) is positive for GSTP1-1 focus promotion using the same study design (Cabral et al., 1996Go). Results from studies with PeCB and HCB, within this medium-term study design, have shown that PeCB and HCB treatment causes the induction of non-focal GSTP1-1, and that this induction co-localizes with the induction of c-fos, c-jun, and CYP1A2 in the liver (Thomas et al., 1998cGo). Other studies with PeCB showed that liver glutathione concentrations and glutathione-associated enzymes were altered (Thomas et al., 1998bGo). Alterations in glutathione-associated enzymes included increases in glutathione reductase (GR) and {gamma}-glutamylcysteine synthetase ({gamma}-GCS) in the centrilobular region. These changes in GR and {gamma}-GCS in the centrilobular region were accompanied by a decrease in GSTP1-1 foci in the centrilobular region, which suggests that these biochemical changes may play some role in the negative selection of foci in the centrilobular region.

The studies presented here compare the carcinogenic potential of 4 chlorobenzene isomers: 1,4-dichlorobenzene (DCB), TeCB, PeCB, and HCB. The potential was determined using a medium-term initiation/promotion protocol, as well as observed changes in glutathione status, non-focal GSTP1-1 induction, and the induction of c-fos, CYP1A2, CYP2B1/2, and CYP2E1 in response to exposure to equimolar levels of these 4 chlorobenzene isomers. These studies provide a unique opportunity to use medium-term carcinogenicity assays, in conjunction with molecular and biochemical measurements, to attempt to identify specific changes in liver associated with hepatocarcinogenicity in this series of isomers.


    MATERIALS AND METHODS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Materials
1,4-Dichlorobenzene, 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene, pentachlorobenzene, hexachlorobenzene, and 2-vinylpyridine were purchased from Aldrich Chemical (Milwaukee, WI). Bovine serum albumin (fraction V), diethylnitrosamine (DEN), 5,5`-dithios-2-nitrobenzoic acid (DTNB), glutathione (GSH), glutathione disulfide (GSSG), glutathione reductase, glycine, NADPH, NP-40, phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride, sodium deoxycholate, sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), 5-sulfosalicylic acid, and Tween 20 were purchased from Sigma Chemical (St. Louis, MO). For immunohistochemical staining of GSTP1-1 foci, the primary antibody for GSTP1-1 was purchased from Binding Site (San Diego, CA); immunoperoxidase kits specific to the primary antibody were purchased from Vector Labs (Burlingame, CA); and 3-amino-9-ethyl carbazole (AEC) was purchased from Biomeda (Foster City, CA). For immunoblots, rabbit polyclonal antibody to human GSTP1-1 was purchased from Oncor (Gaithersburg, MD), sheep polyclonal antibodies to rat CYP1A2 and CYP2B1/2 and anti-sheep IgG HRP conjugate were purchased from Chemicon International Inc. (Temecula, CA), rabbit polyclonal antibody to rat CYP2E1 was purchased from Oxford Biomedical Research Inc. (Oxford, MI), mouse monoclonal antibody to c-fos was purchased from Oncogene Research Products (Cambridge, MA), and anti-rabbit and anti-mouse IgG HRP conjugates were purchased from Amersham (Arlington Heights, IL). SDS–polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis reagents were purchased from BioRad (Richmond, CA). Anti-rabbit IgG-horseradish peroxidase conjugate, ECL detection kits, and ECL hyperfilm were purchased from Amersham. Bicinchoninic acid (BCA) total-protein-assay reagent was purchased from Pierce Chemical (Rockford, IL). All other reagents were of analytical grade.

Animals and Treatment
Male F344 rats (30 days of age) were purchased from Harlan Sprague-Dawley (Indianapolis, IN) and allowed to acclimate for an additional 4 weeks. Following acclimation, animals were randomized by weight and assigned to treatment groups as shown in Figure 1Go. Groups 2 through 5 consisted of 18 rats each, while 12 rats were allocated to Group 1 (vehicle control), for each study. At Week 0, Groups 3, 4, and 5 received a single intra peritoneal (ip) injection of DEN (200 mg/kg) dissolved in 0.9% saline. Groups 1 and 2 received an injection of saline only. After a 2-week recovery period, chemical treatment was started with daily gavage administration of the appropriate chlorobenzene isomer in a corn oil vehicle through the remainder of the 8-week study. Groups 2 and 5 received chlorobenzene isomer at a dose of 0.4 mmol/kg/day, while Group 4 received 0.1 mmol/kg/day. Groups 1 and 3 received the corn oil vehicle only, by gavage At Week 3, a partial hepatectomy was performed on all animals. Control and treated animals were given food (Harlan Tekad NIH-07 Diet, Madison, WI) and water ad libitum and lighting was set on a 12-h light/dark cycle. These studies were conducted in accordance with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines for the care and use of laboratory animals. Animals were housed in a fully accredited American Association for Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) facility.



View larger version (27K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIG. 1. Experimental design for the initiation/promotion study. The initiating agent, DEN, was administered ip (200 mg/kg) at the beginning of the study (Week 0). Chlorobenzene isomers were delivered by gavage starting at Week 2, 7-days/week. A two-thirds partial hepatectomy was performed on all animals at Week 3.

 
At the end of the 8-week study, animals were killed by aortic exsanguination following CO2/ether anesthesia. Whole livers were removed and tissue sections taken from the liver lobes. Tissue sections were fixed in either 10% neutral buffered formalin or ice-cold acetone, embedded in paraffin, serially sectioned at 5 µm, and mounted on microscope slides. Formalin-fixed sections were stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) for histopathological examination and acetone-fixed sections were used for GSTP1-1 foci analysis.

For studies measuring the induction of CYP1A2, CYP2B1/2, and CYP2E1 in liver, animals were dosed with 0.1 mmol/kg/day of the appropriate chlorobenzene by gavage in corn oil for 1 week. Animals were killed as described above following the 7 days of daily treatment, and livers were removed and stored at –80°C until microsomal fractions were isolated.

Immunohistochemical Staining and Liver Foci Analysis
Acetone-fixed liver sections were deparaffinized in xylene and rehydrated by passage through an alcohol series. Endogenous peroxidase was quenched in 3% hydrogen peroxide for 10 min. The slides were rinsed with deionized water and placed in phosphate buffered saline (PBS) (pH 7.4; 2.7 mM KCl, 0.14 M NaCl, 1.5 mM KH2PO4, 8.1 mM Na2HPO4). A standard avidin/biotin (ABC) protocol was followed using an immunoperoxidase kit specific for the primary antibody. GSTP1-1 primary-antibody incubations were done at 37°C for 15 min. A final incubation with 3-amino-9-ethyl carbazole (AEC) was then carried out. Slides were then counterstained with hematoxylin for histologic evaluation.

GSTP1-1 foci were measured using a Leitz light microscope coupled with the Bioquant image analysis system (Version IV). Measurements consisted of manually outlining the GSTP1-1 foci on liver sections and allowing software to compute the area within the outline. Reference areas of liver sections were measured on a separate system using a Dage CCD72 MTI camera (Dage Corporation, Michigan City IN) connected with a Bioquant system (Version 2.60). In this system, images of the liver sections were projected on a computer terminal and automatically outlined and measured by the computer software. Comparisons between treatment groups were made using numbers and areas of foci of more than 0.2 mm in diameter normalized to the reference area.

GSH and GSSG Measurements
GSH and GSSG concentrations were measured in rat livers using a microtiter-plate assay as previously described (Vandeputte et al., 1994Go). Briefly, approximately 0.5 g of –80°C frozen liver was homogenized in 2 ml of ice-cold 10 mM HCl, an aliquot was taken for total protein determination, and a 480-µl aliquot of tissue homogenate was added to 120 µl of 6.5% (w/v) 5-sulfosalicylic acid. Samples were incubated on ice for 10 min, followed by centrifugation for 10 min. The supernatant was collected and stored on ice until used. Twenty µl of blank, standard, or unknown were added to a 96-well plate, followed by twenty µl of sodium phosphate buffer (143 mM, pH 7.4) with 6.3 mM EDTA to neutralize the samples. Two hundred µl of assay mix, consisting of 143 mM sodium phosphate (pH 7.4), 6.3 mM EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid), 1 mM DTNB, and 0.34 mM NADPH, was then added to each well, followed by a 5-min incubation at room temperature. The reaction was begun by the addition of 40 µl of glutathione reductase (8.5 IU/ml in 143 mM sodium phosphate buffer, pH 7.4), and the rate determined by measuring the change in absorbance at 405 nm using a Bio-Tek 9000 plate reader.

GSSG content was determined by following the same procedure, except samples were incubated for one h with 2-vinylpyridine (5 % (v/v) final concentration) prior to the assay. GSH (glutathione), and GSSG (glutathione disulfide) concentrations were calculated from standard curves generated using known concentrations of GSH and GSSG.

Western Blotting
For Western-blot analysis of c-fos and GSTP1-1 samples were prepared by homogenizing approximately 0.5 g of frozen liver tissue in 1.5 ml of 10 mM Tris-Cl (pH 7.4), 150 mM NaCl, 0.1 % (w/v) SDS, 0.5% (w/v) sodium deoxycholate, 1% (w/v) NP-40, and 100 µg/ml phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride. Homogenized samples were incubated on ice for 30 min , followed by centrifugation at 15,000 x g for 20 min. The resulting supernatant was collected, and total protein concentration determined in the sample. For Western-blot analysis of CYP1A2, CYP2B1/2, and CYP2E1, microsomal fractions were isolated using a standard differential centrifugation procedure and total protein concentration determined. The amount of total protein and the percent SDS–PAGE gel used was determined for GSTP1-1, CYP1A2, CYP2B1/2, CYP2E1, and c-fos Western blots, independently based on empirical data and the molecular weight of the protein. Filters were then blocked overnight at 4°C with TBST (10 mM Tris-Cl, pH 7.5, 100 mM NaCl, 0.1 % (v/v) Tween 20) containing 1–5% nonfat dried milk (NFDM). Filters were then incubated with the appropriate primary antibody in TBST with 1–5% NFDM for 1 h at room temperature. Following the addition of primary antibody, the filter was washed 3 times with TBST. Filters were then incubated with the appropriate secondary antibody, a species-specific IgG horseradish-peroxidase conjugate, in TBST with 1–5% NFDM for 1 h at room temperature. Following incubation with the secondary antibody, filters were washed 3 times in TBST. The blots were then developed using ECL detection. Quantitation of blots was done using an imaging densitometer (BioRad).

Total Protein Determination
Total protein in samples was determined using the BCA Protein Assay Reagent with bovine serum albumin as a standard.

Statistical Analysis
Numbers and areas of GSTP1-1 foci greater than 0.2 mm in diameter were analyzed using a standard unbalanced analysis of variance. For the high dose group, between-group post tests were performed using Bonferroni`s adjustment for multiple comparisons (DeVore and Peck, 1996). Comparisons between the low-dose treatment and its respective controls were made using a Student`s t-test. All statistical tests were performed using the Minitab statistical software package, release 10.5 (Minitab, Inc., State College, PA).


    RESULTS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Body Weight and Liver Weight
Body and liver weights were measured upon necropsy, and the results are shown in Table 1Go for the saline and chlorobenzene isomer control groups. None of the chlorobenzenes had any significant effect on final body weight in the absence or presence (not shown) of DEN initiation. Final liver weights, however, were significantly increased by treatment with TeCB, PeCB and HCB with (not shown) and without DEN initiation. DCB had no effect on final liver weight. Histopathological examination of H&E-stained liver sections of TeCB, PeCB and HCB treated animals showed centrilobular hepatocellular hypertrophy, karyomegaly, and anisocytosis, which account for the increase in final liver weight. None of these histopathological changes were seen in the DCB-treated livers. DEN-initiated liver sections showed slightly more hepatocellular vacuolation when compared to non-initiated controls.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 1 Effect of Chlorobenzene Isomers on Final Body and Liver Weight in Male F344 Rats Subjected to an Initiation/Promotion Protocol
 
GSTP1-1 Focus Formation
GSTP1-1 focus formation in liver was measured in response to CB treatment following DEN initiation, and the results are shown in Figure 2Go. Figures 2a and 2bGoGo show the area of large foci (>0.2 mm in diameter) and number of large foci normalized to results obtained in animals that received an initiating dose of DEN but no subsequent CB exposure, respectively. The results of these experiments showed that DCB treatment at the low (0.1 mmol/kg day)- or high (0.4 mmol/kg/day)-dose did not promote GSTP1-1 focus formation. TeCB, PeCB, and HCB treatment at both low and high doses led to a significant increase in both large focus areas and numbers. HCB-induced promotion of GSTP1-1 foci area and number was also significantly greater than TeCB or PeCB when normalized values were compared at both high and low dose levels.



View larger version (29K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIG. 2. Area (A) and number (B) of GSTP1-1 foci (>0.2 mm diameter) in F344 rats subjected to an initiation/promotion protocol using chlorobenzene isomers as the initiating agents. Values are normalized to the DEN control (group 3) according to the experimental design shown in Figure 1Go. Values represent the mean ± SD of the normalized values; *Significantly increased (P < 0.01) when compared to DEN control group. **Significantly increased (P < 0.05) when compared to PeCB- or TeCB-treated groups.

 
GSH and GSSG
Previous studies from our laboratory have shown that PeCB treatment causes a lobular-dependent change in enzymes involved in glutathione metabolism and concomitant decreases in hepatic oxidized glutathione (GSSG) levels (Thomas et al., 1998bGo). TeCB treatment, at the high dose, caused similar changes to those seen with PeCB treatment, with an approximately 50% decrease in GSSG levels and no change to GSH levels. HCB treatment led to a significant increase in GSH levels, from 43.3 ± 3.7 to 50.5 ± 6.6 nmol GSH/mg protein, with no significant change to GSSG levels. DCB treatment had no effect on hepatic GSH or GSSG levels. The effect of chlorobenzene treatment on hepatic GSH, GSSG, and GSH:GSSG ratios is summarized in Figure 3Go.



View larger version (31K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIG. 3. Reduced and oxidized glutathione levels in F344 rat livers following chlorobenzene-isomer exposure in the context of an initiation/promotion protocol. Liver GSH and GSSG levels were measured in the chlorobenzene isomer control group (group 2) as shown in Figure 1Go. Values represent the mean ± SD and are normalized to the matched vehicle control group. *Significantly different (P < 0.05) from vehicle control group.

 
Cytochrome P-450 Induction
Induction of CYP1A2, CYP2B1/2, and CYP2E1 were measured in response to one week of daily chlorobenzene isomer treatment at 0.1 mmol/kg/day. CYP1A2 protein was induced in response to TeCB, PeCB, and HCB, with the induction by HCB being approximately 2-fold greater than PeCB and TeCB. The induction profile of CYP2B1/2 by the chlorobenzenes was similar to that seen with CYP1A2, although the difference in HCB induction with respect to PeCB and TeCB was not as great. For both CYP1A2 and CYP2B1/2 induction, DCB showed no change from the corn-oil controls. CYP2E1 induction was equal for all the chlorobenzenes tested. Western blots of P450 protein and their quantitation are shown in Figure 4Go.



View larger version (46K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIG. 4. Effect of chlorobenzene isomer exposure on the induction of CYP1A2, CYP2B1/2, and CYP2E1 in F344 rat liver. (A) Representative blots and (B) Densitometry results. Animals were exposed to the appropriate chlorobenzene isomer by gavage at a dose of 0.1 mmol/kg/day for 7 consecutive days. Protein induction was measured by Western blotting using isolated microsomal fractions. Relative amounts of immunoreactive protein present were calculated using an imaging densitometer. Values plotted represent the mean ± SD of densitometric data from the blots shown. *Significantly different (P < 0.05) from corn- oil controls. **Significantly different (P < 0.05) from TeCB and PeCB treatment.

 
Non-focal GSTP1-1 and c-fos Induction
Induction of these proteins was measured by Western blotting, and the results are summarized in Figures 5 and 6GoGo. GSTP1-1 induction in the absence of DEN-initiation was non-focal and localized to the centrilobular region. Visual inspection of liver sections stained for GSTP1-1 showed non-focal staining for PeCB- and HCB-treated animals, but not TeCB and DCB-treated animals. These results were verified by Western blotting as DCB and TeCB- treatment showed no induction, whereas PeCB and HCB treatment showed 3.6 ± 0.5 and 4.0 ± 0.7-fold induction, respectively. Induction of c-fos was similar to what we have previously shown for PeCB and HCB treatment (Thomas et al., 1998cGo), and induction by TeCB was also seen. DCB treatment had no effect on c-fos expression in the liver.



View larger version (37K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIG. 5. Non-focal expression of GSTP1-1 in chlorobenzene isomer treated F344 rat liver. Expression of non-focal GSTP1-1 was measured by Western blotting in liver preparations from chlorobenzene isomer control animals (group 2). In the absence of an initiating dose of DEN (groups 1 and 2), no GSTP1-1 foci were present, thus the expression of GSTP1-1 is a non-focal phenomena not related to the presence of GSTP1-1 foci. Values represent the mean ± SD normalized to the vehicle control group. *Significantly different (P < 0.05) from vehicle control group.

 


View larger version (41K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIG. 6. Effect of chlorobenzene isomer treatment on c-fos expression. (A) Representative blots and (B) Densitometry results. Expression of c-fos was measured by Western blotting in liver preparations from chlorobenzene isomer control animals (group 2) and normalized to vehicle control values (group 1). Values represent the mean ± SD of normalized to the vehicle control group. *Significantly different (P < 0.05) from vehicle control group. ac-Jun induction values are from Thomas et al., 1998c.

 

    DISCUSSION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The chlorobenzenes are an important class of chemicals in terms of potential adverse health effects through environmental exposure. The high level of commercial and private use of these compounds, both past and present, guarantees some level of human exposure to one, or a combination of, the isomers (Morita, 1977; Peattie et al., 1984Go). Previous studies from the NTP, as well as findings from independent laboratories, have characterized the potential carcinogenicity of some of the chlorobenzene isomers in rodent models. These results have shown that 1,4-dichlorobenzene (DCB)(NTP, 1987Go) and HCB (Cabral et al., 1979Go; Smith and Cabral, 1980Go) are carcinogenic. Our findings with DCB are not necessarily in conflict with the National Toxicology Program studies (NTP, 1987Go), however, because: (1) the renal tumors in male rats were most likely due to {alpha}-globulin accumulation, which is species- and sex-specific (Barter and Sherman, 1999Go; Charbonneau et al., 1989Go); (2) the doses used in the NTP studies causing murine liver tumors are 10 to 40 times higher than those in our studies (NTP, 1987Go). Mono-chlorobenzene showed equivocal results in an NTP study (NTP, 1985aGo), and 1,2-dichlorobenzene (NTP, 1985bGo) was negative. Little or no data are available on the carcinogenicity of the other isomers, and no studies to date have addressed the relative carcinogenicity of the chlorobenzene isomers to each other.

Although the NTP cancer bioassay is considered the definitive method for assessing carcinogenicity, this mode of assessment is too resource-intensive and time-consuming. That is probably the main reason why only about 500 chemicals have been assessed with the NTP/NCI cancer bioassay protocol since its inception 37 years ago. To efficiently obtain information on the approximately 70,000 chemicals in commerce as well as the huge numbers of chemical mixtures relevant to public health, an alternative and predictive toxicology approach must be developed. In this paper, we attempt to strengthen Ito's medium-term, liver-focus bioassay by correlating molecular and biochemical indices with carcinogenic potential as expressed by the increase in GSTP1-1 focus formation.

The present study was undertaken to compare the ability of 4 chlorobenzene isomers, DCB, 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene (TeCB), pentachlorobenzene (PeCB), and HCB to induce the formation of GSTP1-1 positive foci in an initiation/promotion medium-term assay, as well as to quantify molecular and biochemical changes that seem to be associated with foci formation. Previous studies from our laboratory, and others, have shown that HCB is positive for carcinogenicity in the context of this medium-term assay study design (Benjamin et al., 1996Go; Cabral et al., 1996Go), and that PeCB (Thomas et al., 1998bGo) and TeCB are positive, while DCB is negative (Gustafson et al., 1998Go). The results from these studies are compiled here as normalized to the DEN control, to account for subjective differences in foci scoring. These data show that although TeCB, PeCB, and HCB all test positive in this assay at both 0.1 and 0.4 mmol/kg/day, HCB induces significantly more foci. This phenomena is not just a factor of dose, however, as none of the compounds that tested positive showed any significant dose-responsiveness between 0.1 and 0.4 mmol/kg/day. Previous studies with HCB, using this medium-term assay design, have shown a clear dose-responsiveness when HCB was given in the diet in a range of 0.6–150 ppm; however the dose-responsiveness followed a trend that suggested a plateau level for foci induction (Cabral et al., 1996Go). Results measuring the promoting effect of phenobarbital in a similar inititation/promotion protocol have shown similar results at high doses (Kitano et al., 1998Go).

Gross pathology of treated versus control livers showed a marked increase in liver weight in TeCB-, PeCB-, and HCB-treated groups. Histologic examination of liver sections showed centrilobular hepatocellular hypertrophy, karyomegaly, and anisocytosis in these same groups. DCB-treated animals showed none of these gross pathologic or histologic changes, showing that induction of these changes is consistent with foci-promoting ability with these 4 isomers. Previous studies from our laboratory have also shown no increase in cell proliferation, as measured by proliferating-cell nuclear-antigen (PCNA) labeling, in response to PeCB exposure as used in these studies (Thomas et al., 1998bGo). These studies actually showed a decrease in cell proliferation in response to PeCB exposure at 0.4 mmol/kg/day, suggesting that induced cell proliferation is not responsible for the measured promotional effect.

Studies to address changes in molecular or biochemical indicators, that may play a role in chlorobenzene-induced GSTP1-1 foci formation, were done both in animals that received the same treatment regimen as those in focus formation studies, with the exception that they were not DEN-initiated, as well as in animals that received only 7 consecutive days of low-dose chlorobenzene treatment. The molecular and biochemical indicators measured were CYP1A2, CYP2B1/2, CYP2E1, c-fos, non-focal GSTP1-1, and glutathione. These markers were chosen based on previous studies from our laboratory that suggested they might be important indicators that play a role in foci development.

Analysis of glutathione levels in control and chlorobenzene isomer-treated animals showed that reduced glutathione (GSH) levels were unchanged in response to treatment with DCB, TeCB, or PeCB and were slightly elevated in response to HCB. However, oxidized glutathione (GSSG) levels were significantly decreased in response to PeCB and TeCB treatment. These decreases in GSSG in response to PeCB and TeCB were accompanied by a significant increase in the GSH:GSSG ratio. Previous studies from our laboratory have localized the biochemical changes thought to be responsible for the decrease in GSSG to an induction in glutathione reductase (GR) and {gamma}-glutamylcysteine synthetase ({gamma}-GCS), specifically in the centrilobular region (Thomas et al., 1998bGo). It has been proposed that these changes in the GSH:GSSG ratio in response to PeCB treatment may play a role in the negative selection of GSTP1-1 foci in the centrilobular region, as this induction is accompanied by a decrease in the relative number of foci in the centrilobular versus non-centrilobular regions. This may account for the relative increase in GSTP1-1 foci with HCB as compared to TeCB and PeCB, as HCB did not induce significant decreases in GSSG or increases in the GSH:GSSG ratio.

The induction of non-focal GSTP1-1 expression is localized to the centrilobular region, and co-localized with CYP1A2, c-fos, c-jun, and porphyrin accumulation in PeCB- and HCB-treated animals (Thomas et al., 1998cGo). The fact that induction of non-focal GSTP1-1 was seen in response to treatment with PeCB and HCB, but not in TeCB- and DCB-treated animals, suggests that this induction may be linked to porphyrin accumulation, since TeCB and DCB do not cause porphyrin accumulation in the liver (Carlson, 1977Go; Chu et al., 1983Go).

Induction of CYP1A2 and CYP2B1/2 correlated to the presence or absence of promoting ability in this series of chlorobenzene isomers, and the fold induction of CYP1A2 was consistent with the relative focus-promoting abilities of HCB, PeCB, and TeCB. Previous studies have shown a correlation between induction of CYP2B isozymes and tumor-promoting ability with phenobarbital and barbiturate-like compounds (Diwan et al., 1988Go; Nims et al., 1987Go; Wolff et al., 1991Go). Induction of CYP1A1 and CYP1A2 has also been used as an indicator of TCDD-induced changes in growth kinetics in a 2-cell clonal growth model that effectively describes TCDD-induced promotion (Conolly and Andersen, 1997Go). However, quantitative correlations between the induction of CYP1A2 and preneoplastic foci formation are tenuous due to the non-linearity of CYP1A1 and CYP1A2 induction by TCDD (Vanden Heuval et al., 1994Go). Other studies have shown that levels of CYP1A1 induction do not predict the promoting potency of dioxins (Schrenk et al., 1994Go). Taken together, these other studies suggest that the increased induction of CYP2B1/2 by HCB, when compared to PeCB and TeCB, is an effective indicator for the increased GSTP1-1 foci area and numbers seen in this study with HCB.

The goal of these studies was to measure the hepatocarcinogenic potential of these 4 chlorobenzene isomers, along with molecular and cellular changes in the liver that occurred due to chlorobenzene exposure. We are currently developing physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models for chlorobenzene isomers in normal (Thomas et al., 1998aGo), and partially hepatectomized animals (Thomas et al., 1999Go), that will allow for prediction of target tissue dosimetry. Our long-term goal is to use the results from short- and medium-term assays, along with target tissue dosimetry from PBPK models, to predict target tissue effects. The next step in the implementation of this approach is to test other chlorobenzene isomers in short-term assays, and to measure the molecular and cellular endpoints presented here. Those results can then be used to predict the effect of the tested isomers in the medium-term, liver-focus bioassay. This type of alternative and predictive approach to toxicology has been proposed to be an effective way to undertake the arduous task of screening the enormous number of chemicals and chemical mixtures that need to be defined in terms of their potential toxicities (Yang et al., 1998Go). Although this approach may seem far-fetched, the use of predictive models for tissue dosimetry, along with mechanistic data that may predict disease outcome, is already being implemented into risk-assessment guidelines (Page et al., 1997Go).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 2 Summary of Biochemical, Molecular, and Pathological Indices Associated with Chlorobenzene Exposure
 


    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
The experimental work on this study was conducted at the Center for Environmental Toxicology and Technology (CETT) at Colorado State University and the efforts of many CETT colleagues are gratefully acknowledged. This work was supported, in part, by a research contract from the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (F49620–94–1–0304), and NIEHS Superfund Basic Research Program Project Grant (P42 ES05949) and a collaborative research agreement with the US Army Center for Environmental Health Research.


    NOTES
 
1 To whom correspondence should be addressed. Fax: (970) 491–8304, E-mail: ryang{at}cvmbs.colostate.edu. Back

2 Present address: School of Pharmacy, Campus Box C-238, UCHSC, 4200 E. Ninth Ave., Denver, CO 80262. Back

3 Present address: McArdle Laboratory for Cancer Research, 1400 University Ave., Madison, WI 53706. Back


    REFERENCES
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Barter, J. A., and Sherman, J. A. (1999). An evaluation of the carcinogenic hazard of 1,4-dichlorobenzene based on internationally recognized criteria. Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 29, 64–79.[ISI][Medline]

Benjamin, S. A., El-Masri, H. A., Thomas, R. S., Chubb, L. S., Coulson, A. L., and Yang, R. S. H. (1996). The utilization of the medium-term liver foci bioassay for studying the carcinogenicity of hexachlorobenzene. Toxicologist 30, 837.

Cabral, J. R. P., Mollner, T., Raitano, F., and Shubik, P. (1979). Carcinogenesis of hexachlorobenzene in mice. Int. J. Cancer 23, 47–51.[ISI][Medline]

Cabral, R., Hoshiya, T., Hakoi, K., Hasegawa, R., and Ito, N. (1996). Medium-term bioassay for the hepatocarcinogenicity of hexachlorobenzene. Cancer Lett. 100, 223–226.[ISI][Medline]

Carlson, G. P. (1977). Chlorinated benzene induction of hepatic porphyria. Experientia 33, 1627–1629.[ISI][Medline]

Charbonneau, M., Strasser, J., Jr., Lock, E. A., Turner, M. J., Jr., and Swenberg, J. A. (1989). Involvement of reversible binding to alpha2µ-globulin in 1,4-dichlorobenzene-induced nephrotoxicity. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 99, 122–132.[ISI][Medline]

Chu, I., Villeneuve, D., Secours, V., and Valli, V.E. (1983). Comparative toxicity of 1,2,3,4-, 1,2,4,5-, and 1,2,3,5- tetrachlorobenzene in the rat: Results of acute and subacute studies. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 11, 663–677.[ISI][Medline]

Conolly, R. B., and Andersen, M. E. (1997). Hepatic foci in rats after diethylnitrosamine initiation and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin promotion: Evaluation of a quantitative two-cell model and of CYP 1A1/1A2 as a dosimeter. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 146, 281–293.[ISI][Medline]

DeVore, J., and Peck, R. (1986). Statistics: The Exploration and Analysis of Data. West Publishing, New York.

Diwan, B. A., Rice, J. M., Nims, R. W., Lubet, R. A., Hu, H., and Ward, J. M. (1988). P450 enzyme induction by 5-ethyl-5-phenylhydantoin and 5,5-diethylhydantoin, analogues of barbiturate tumor promoters phenobarbital and barbital, and promotion of liver and thyroid carcinogenesis initiated by N-nitrosodiethylamine in rats. Cancer Res. 48, 2492–2497.[Abstract]

Gustafson, D. L., Coulson, A. L., Feng, L., Pott, W. A., Thomas, R. S., Chubb, L. S., Saghir, S. A., Benjamin, S. A., and Yang, R. S. H. (1998). Use of a medium-term liver focus bioassay to assess the hepatocarcinogenecity of 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene and 1,4-dichlorobenzene. Cancer Lett. 129, 39–44.[ISI][Medline]

Hasegawa, R. and Ito, N. (1990). Liver medium-term bioassay in rats for screening of carcinogens and modifying factors in hepatocarcinogenesis. Food Chem. Toxicol. 30, 979–992.

Hasegawa, R., and Ito, N. (1994). Hepatocarcinogenesis in the rat. In Carcinogenesis (M. P. Waalkes and J. M. Ward, Eds.), pp. 39–65. Raven Press, Ltd., New York.

Kitano, M., Ichihara, T., Matsuda, T., Wanibuchi, H., Tamano, S., Hagiwara, A., Imaoka, S., Funae, Y., Shirai, T., and Fukushima, S. (1998). Presence of a threshold for promoting effects of phenobarbital on diethylnitrosamine-induced hepatic foci in the rat. Carcinogenesis 19, 1475–1480.[Abstract]

Morita, M. (1997). Chlorinated benzenes in the environment. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Safety 1, 1–6.

Nims, R. W., Devor, D. E., Henneman, J. R., and Lubet, R. A. (1987). Induction of alkoxyresorufin-O-dealkylases, epoxide hydrolase, and liver weight gain: Correlation with liver tumor-promoting potential in a series of barbiturates. Carcinogenesis 8, 67–71.[Abstract]

NTP (U.S. National Toxicology Program) (1985a). Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of chlorobenzene in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. TR261. NTP, Research Triangle Park, NC.

NTP (U.S. National Toxicology Program) (1985b). Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of 1,2-dichlorobenzene (O-dichlorobenzene) in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. TR 255. Research Triangle Park, NC.

NTP (U.S. National Toxicology Program) (1987). Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of 1,4-dichlorobenzene in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. NTP TR 319. NTP, Research Triangle Park, NC.

Ogiso, T., Tatematsu, M., Tamano, S., Hasegawa, R., and Ito, N. (1990). Correlation betwen medium-term liver bioassay system data and results of long-term testing in rats. Carcinogenesis 11, 561–566.[Abstract]

Page, N. P., Singh, D. V., Farland, W., Goodman, J. I., Conolly, R. B., Andersen, M. E., Clewell, H. J., Frederick, C. B., Yamasaki, H., and Lucier, G. (1997). Implementation of EPA revised cancer-assessment guidelines: Incorporation of mechanistic and pharmacokinetic data. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 37, 16–36.[ISI][Medline]

Peattie, M. E., Lindsay, D. G., and Hoodless, R. A. (1984). Dietary exposure of man to chlorinated benzenes in the United Kingdom. Science Total Environ. 34, 73–86.[ISI]

Schrenk, D., Buchmann, A., Dietz, K., Lipp, H. P., Brunner, H., Sirma, H., Munzel, P., Hagenmaier, H., Gebhardt, R., and Bock, K. W. (1994). Promotion of preneoplastic foci in rat liver with 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and a defined mixture of 49 polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins. Carcinogenesis 15, 509–515.[Abstract]

Smith, A. G., and Cabral, J. R.(1980). Liver-cell tumors in rats fed hexachlorobenzene. Cancer Lett. 11, 169–172.[ISI][Medline]

Thomas, R. S., Gustafson, D. L., Ewert, D. H., Saghir, S. A., and Yang, R. S. H. (1998a). Further development of a physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for pentachlorobenzene in male F344 rats. Toxicol. Sci. 42, 140.

Thomas, R. S., Gustafson, D. L., Long, M. E., Borghoff, S. J., and Yang, R. S. H. (1999). A physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for pentachlorobenzene: Application to a medium term liver foci bioassay. Toxicol. Sci. 48, 14.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Thomas, R. S., Gustafson, D. L., Pott, W. A., Long, M. E., Benjamin, S. A., and Yang, R. S. H. (1998b). Evidence for hepatocarcinogenic activity of pentachlorobenzene with intralobular variation in foci incidence. Carcinogenesis 19, 1855–1862.[Abstract]

Thomas, R. S., Gustafson, D. L., Ramsdell, H. S., El-Masri, H. A., Benjamin, S. A., and Yang, R. S. H. (1998c). Enhanced regional expression of glutathione s-transferase P1–1 with co-localized AP-1 and CYP1A2 induction in chlorobenzene-induced porphyria. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 150, 22–31.[ISI][Medline]

Vanden Heuval, J. P., Clark, G. C., Kohn, M. C., Tritscher, A. M., Greenlee, W. F., Lucier, G. W., and Bell, D. A. (1994). Dioxin-responsive genes: Examination of dose-response relationships using quantitative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction. Cancer Res. 54, 62–68.[Abstract]

Vandeputte, C., Guizon, I., Genestie-Denis, I., Vannier, B., and Lorenzon, G. (1994). A microtiter-plate assay for total glutathione and glutathione disulfide contents in cultured/isolated cells: Performance study of a new miniaturized protocol. Cell Biol. Toxicol. 10, 415–421.[ISI][Medline]

Wolff, G. L., Leakey, J. E. A., Bazare, J. J., Harmon, J. R., Webb, P. J., and Law, M. G. (1991). Susceptibility to phenobarbital promotion of hepatotumoroigenesis: Correlation with differential expression and induction of hepatic drug metabolizing enzymes in heavy and light male (C3H x VY) F1 hybrid mice. Carcinogenesis 12, 911–915.[Abstract]

Yang, R. S. H., Thomas, R. S., Gustafson, D. L., Campain, J., Benjamin, S. A., Verhaar, H. J. M., and Mumtaz, M. M. (1998). Approaches to developing alternative and predictive toxicology based on PBPK/PD and QSAR modeling. Env. Health Perspect. 106, 1385–1393.[ISI]