Skip to main content
NCBI home page
British Journal of Cancer logoLink to British Journal of Cancer
. 1982 Jun;45(6):912–920. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1982.144

Must initiators come first? Tumorigenic and carcinogenic effects on skin of 3-methylcholanthrene and TPA in various sequences.

O H Iversen, U M Iversen
PMCID: PMC2011048  PMID: 7093124

Abstract

Groups of hairless mice were treated with 4 skin applications of 470 nmol 3-methylcholanthrene (MCA) in benzene and 4 of 20 nmol 12-O-tetradecanoylphorbol-13-acetate (TPA) in various sequences, twice a week, together and separately. Three days after the last application, cell kinetic investigations were made comprising the counting of basal and suprabasal cells, the assessment of hyperplasia, the mitotic rate by the stathmokinetic method, the labelling index and the specific activity of DNA after injection of a dose of [3H]dT, and the determination of percentage of cells in each cell-cycle phase by flow cytometry. These studies showed that various treatment schedules with 4 applications stimulated proliferation and caused epidermal hyperplasia, but there was no significant difference between the groups in degree of growth stimulation. There was a significantly higher tumour production by all the combinations than by MCA alone. It was of no significant importance for the tumour production whether the 4 applications of MCA came before or after the 4 of TPA. Alternating treatment (MCA-TPA, etc.) seemed to give a higher tumour risk than the other treatment sequences. The consequences of these results for the two-stage theory of carcinogenesis (stating that initiation must come first) are discussed, and it is concluded that (at least under the experimental conditions used here) initiation does not need to come first for a good tumour yield.

Full text

PDF
912

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. BERENBLUM I., HARAN N. The significance of the sequence of initiating and promoting actions in the process of skin carcinogenesis in the mouse. Br J Cancer. 1955 Jun;9(2):268–271. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1955.23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. BOUTWELL R. K. SOME BIOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF SKIN CARCINOGENISIS. Prog Exp Tumor Res. 1964;4:207–250. doi: 10.1159/000385978. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baba T., Aoki K., Ishii M. Relation between the so-called two-phase theory and summation theory in carcinogenesis. Gan. 1967 Apr;58(2):161–166. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Boutwell R. K. The biochemistry of preneoplasia in mouse skin. Cancer Res. 1976 Jul;36(7 Pt 2):2631–2635. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Clausen O. P., Lindmo T., Sandnes K., Thorud E. Separation of mouse epidermal basal and differentiating cells for microflow fluorometric measurements: a methodologic study. Virchows Arch B Cell Pathol. 1976 May 26;20(4):261–275. doi: 10.1007/BF02890345. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Gail M. H., Santner T. J., Brown C. C. An analysis of comparative carcinogenesis experiments based on multiple times to tumor. Biometrics. 1980 Jun;36(2):255–266. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Goerttler K., Loehrke H. Improved tumour yields by means of a TPA-DMBA-TPA variation of the Berenrlum-Mottram experiment on the back skin of NMRI mice. The effect of stationary hyperplasia without inflammation. Exp Pathol (Jena) 1976;12(6):336–341. doi: 10.1016/s0014-4908(76)80009-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Kreyberg L. Lung cancer in workers in a nickel refinery. Br J Ind Med. 1978 May;35(2):109–116. doi: 10.1136/oem.35.2.109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Laerum O. D. Oxygen consumption of basal and differentiating cells from hairless mouse epidermis. A new method for obtaining almost pure selections of basal and differentiating cells respectively. J Invest Dermatol. 1969 Feb;52(2):204–211. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Meurman L. O., Kiviluoto R., Hakama M. Mortality and morbidity among the working population of anthophyllite asbestos miners in Finland. Br J Ind Med. 1974 Apr;31(2):105–112. doi: 10.1136/oem.31.2.105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. POUND A. W. The localisation of the influence of croton oil stimulation on tumour initiation by urethane in mice. Aust J Exp Biol Med Sci. 1963 Feb;41:73–79. doi: 10.1038/icb.1963.6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Peto R. Editorial: Guidelines on the analysis of tumour rates and death rates in experimental animals. Br J Cancer. 1974 Feb;29(2):101–105. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1974.45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Pound A. W. Carcinogenesis and cell proliferation. N Z Med J. 1968 Jan;67(426 Suppl):88–99. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. ROE F. J. The effect of applying croton oil before a single application of 9,10-dimathyl-1,2-benzanthracene. Br J Cancer. 1959 Mar;13(1):87–91. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1959.11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. SALAMAN M. H., ROE F. J. Incomplete carcinogens: ethyl carbamate (urethane) as an initiator of skin tumour formation in the mouse. Br J Cancer. 1953 Dec;7(4):472–481. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1953.49. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. SKJAEGGESTAD O. EXPERIMENTAL EPIDERMAL HYPERPLASIA IN MICE: RELATION TO CARCINOGENESIS. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand Suppl. 1964:SUPPL 169–169:1+. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Shinozuka H., Ritchie A. C. Pretreatment with croton oil, DNA synthesis, and carcinogenesis by carcinogen followed by croton oil. Int J Cancer. 1967 Mar 15;2(2):77–84. doi: 10.1002/ijc.2910020203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. TANNENBAUM A., VESSELINOVITCH S. D., SILVERSTONE H. INCREASED INDUCTION OF SKIN TUMORS BY PRETREATMENT WITH CROTON OIL. Cancer Res. 1964 Apr;24:361–366. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from British Journal of Cancer are provided here courtesy of Cancer Research UK

RESOURCES