MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2561719457 · doi:10.1158/1940-6215.prev-14-a10

Abstract A10: Exposure to heterocyclic aromatic amines, genetic susceptibility and bulky DNA adduct levels in blood leukocytes

2015· article· en· W2561719457 on OpenAlexaffabout
Vikki Ho, Sarah Peacock, Thomas E. Massey, Roger Godschalk, Frederik‐Jan van Schooten, Jian Chen, Will D. King

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Prevention Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDNA adductCarcinogenAdductChemistryMutagenDNACarcinogenesisCancerInternal medicineBiochemistryEndocrinologyGeneMedicineOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: There is compelling evidence to suggest that aspects of diet influence cancer risk; specifically, high meat consumption is associated with elevated risks. Exposure to heterocyclic aromatic amines (HAAs), carcinogens produced in meat when cooked at high temperatures, is a hypothesized explanation for the meat-cancer relationship. Reactive HAA metabolites form adducts with DNA; left unrepaired, adducts can induce mutations which may initiate/promote carcinogenesis. Genetic differences in the ability to biotransform HAAs (as conferred by polymorphisms in CYP1A1, CYP1A2, CYP1B1, NAT1 and NAT2) and repair DNA adducts (as conferred by polymorphisms in XPA, XPD and XRCC1) is postulated to modify the dietary HAAs-DNA adduct relationship. Methods: In a cross-sectional study of 99 healthy volunteers recruited from Kingston, Ontario, Canada, dietary exposure to HAAs and bulky DNA adduct levels in blood leukocytes was investigated. A detailed questionnaire was used in combination with a mutagen database to estimate average intake of dietary HAAs. Specifically, the detailed questionnaire obtained the average frequency of consumption, usual level of doneness and usual serving size of nine commonly consumed meats items with high HAA content. Bulky DNA adduct levels were measured in blood collected after an overnight fast using 32P-postlabelling. Least squares regression was used to examine the relationship between dietary HAA exposure and bulky DNA adduct levels in blood. Gene-diet interactions between dietary HAAs and genetic factors relevant to the biotransformation of HAAs and DNA repair were also examined. Results: No main effects of dietary exposure to HAAs on bulky DNA adduct levels were observed. However, polymorphisms in NAT1 were found to associate with bulky DNA adduct levels. Specifically, those with the putative NAT1*10 rapid acetylator phenotype had a lower adduct level than those with the slow acetylator phenotype (p=0.02). Furthermore, having five or more ‘at-risk’ genotypes was associated with higher bulky DNA adduct levels (p=0.03). Gene-diet interactions were also observed between the NAT1*10 allele and dietary HAAs (p<0.05); specifically, among the slow acetylator phenotype, higher intakes of dietary HAAs were associated with an increase in DNA adduct levels compared to lower intakes. Conclusions: This study provides evidence of a biologic relationship between dietary HAAs, genetic susceptibility and bulky DNA adduct formation. The lack of a strong independent association between dietary HAAs and DNA adducts suggests that dietary HAAs are not a large contributor to bulky DNA adducts in this Canadian population; future studies should consider relevant gene-diet interactions to clarify the potential role of HAAs in carcinogenesis. Citation Format: Vikki Ho, Sarah Peacock, Thomas E. Massey, Roger W. L. Godschalk, Frederik-Jan van Schooten, Jian Chen, Will D. King. Exposure to heterocyclic aromatic amines, genetic susceptibility and bulky DNA adduct levels in blood leukocytes. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual AACR International Conference on Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research; 2014 Sep 27-Oct 1; New Orleans, LA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Can Prev Res 2015;8(10 Suppl): Abstract nr A10.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.630
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.100
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Prevention ResearchSame topicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity AssessmentFrench-language works237,207