Susceptibility to Aflatoxin B1-Induced Carcinogenesis Correlates with Tissue-Specific Differences in DNA Repair Activity in Mouse and in Rat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To investigate the mechanisms responsible for species- and tissue-specific differences in susceptibility to aflatoxin B(1) (AFB(1))-induced carcinogenesis, DNA repair activities of nuclear extracts from whole mouse lung and liver and rat liver were compared, and the ability of in vivo treatment of mice with AFB(1) to alter repair of AFB(1)-DNA damage was determined. Plasmid DNA containing AFB(1)-N(7)-guanine or AFB(1)-formamidopyrimidine adducts were used as substrates for the in vitro determination of DNA repair synthesis activity, detected as incorporation of radiolabeled nucleotides. Liver extracts from CD-1 mice repaired AFB(1)-N(7)-guanine and AFB(1)-formamidopyrimidine adducts 5- and 30-fold more effectively than did mouse lung, and approximately 6- and 4-fold more effectively than did liver extracts from Sprague-Dawley rats. The susceptibility of mouse lung and rat liver to AFB(1)-induced carcinogenesis correlated with lower DNA repair activity of these tissues relative to mouse liver. Lung extracts prepared from mice treated with a single tumorigenic dose of 50 mg/kg AFB(1) i.p. and euthanized 2 hours post-dosing showed minimal incision and repair synthesis activities relative to extracts from vehicle-treated mice. Conversely, repair activity towards AFB(1)-N(7)-guanine damage was approximately 3.5-fold higher in liver of AFB(1)-treated mice relative to control. This is the first study to show that in vivo treatment with AFB(1) can lead to a tissue-specific induction in DNA repair. The results suggest that lower DNA repair activity, sensitivity of mouse lung to inhibition by AFB(1), and selective induction of repair in liver contribute to the susceptibility of mice to AFB(1)-induced lung tumorigenesis relative to hepatocarcinogenesis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".