Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as: Curr Pharmacol Rep. 2017 Apr 7;3(3):114–125. doi: 10.1007/s40495-017-0088-z

Environmental influences in the etiology of colorectal cancer: the premise of metabolomics

Nicholas J W Rattray 1, Georgia Charkoftaki 1, Zahra Rattray 2, James E Hansen 2,3, Vasilis Vasiliou 1, Caroline H Johnson 1,*
PMCID: PMC5475285  NIHMSID: NIHMS866492  PMID: 28642837

Abstract

Purpose of Review

In this review we discuss how environmental exposures predominate the etiology of colorectal cancer (CRC). With CRC being a personalized disease influenced by genes and environment, our goal was to explore the role metabolomics can play in identifying exposures, assessing the interplay between co-exposures, and the development of personalized therapeutic interventions.

Recent Findings

Approximately 10 % of CRC cases can be explained by germ-line mutations, whereas the prevailing majority are caused by an initiating exposure event occurring decades prior to diagnosis. Recent research has shown that dietary metabolites are linked to a procarcinogenic or protective environment in the colon which is modulated by the microbiome. In addition, excessive alcohol has been shown to increase the risk of CRC and is dependent on diet (folate), the response of microbiome, and genetic polymorphisms within the folate and alcohol metabolic pathways. Metabolomics can not only be used to identify this modulation of host metabolism, which could affect the progression of the tumors but also response to targeted therapeutics.

Summary

This review highlights the current understanding of the multifaceted etiology and mechanisms of CRC development but also highlights where the field of metabolomics can contribute to a greater understanding of environmental exposure in CRC.

Keywords: metabolomics, colorectal cancer, exposome, acetaldehyde dehydrogenase, alcohol, microbiome

Introduction

Cancer is a major cause of morbidity and mortality affecting all populations worldwide, with far-reaching socioeconomic consequences. Improved methods for selection of appropriate therapeutic interventions is critical to addressing this public health concern (1). With the dawn of the millennium and through the completion of the ‘human genome project’, concerted efforts were invested in profiling gene variants that promote tumorigenesis and multidrug resistance, in an attempt to identify biomarkers that would facilitate successful diagnostic and therapeutic interventions (2). However, some of the challenges associated with this approach have included the genomic complexity and molecular heterogeneity of cancer, establishing the biological relevance of genetic changes to tumorigenesis, and the need for characterizing all of the associated downstream effects. Despite extensive gene characterization and the identification of thousands of mutations linked to cancer, it is increasingly apparent that only a limited number of molecular pathways that are responsible for driving carcinogenesis have been recognized, and the mechanistic basis of many genetic signatures remain largely unknown (35). Indeed, for diseases that contribute to mortality in the Western population, environmental factors have an attributable risk of 80–90%, thus both genetic and environmental factors in tandem with gene-environment interactions need to be considered as contributors to susceptibility, expression and risk (6, 7).

Exposures play such a large role in carcinogenesis, that in 2011 the World Health Organization (WHO) calculated that 19% of all cancer deaths worldwide (more than 1.3 million people) were linked to some form of environmental stressor (8), and up to a third of those were estimated to be caused by exposures to carcinogens in the workplace (9). However, these stark statistics are compounded by the sheer numbers of chemicals one can potentially be exposed to; the U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency Toxic Substance Control Act (EPA-TSCA) Chemical Substances Inventory contains over 85,000 different chemical moieties registered for commerce that are freely exposed to the public domain (10).

Over the past 46 years, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), acting as the world authority on determining the cancer-causing potential of different substances, has evaluated the cancer-causing potential of 900 likely candidates with approximately 100 classified as “carcinogenic to humans’. The adoption of new tools that can contribute to and expedite exposure research are rapidly needed to alleviate the complexity of exposure research. Chemical profiling of blood is one such way to determine if an exposure event has taken place. Currently, just over 4500 metabolites have been identified within human blood using mass spectrometry based metabolomics (11). Although the vast majority documented are naturally abundant species essential to cellular function, exogenous exposure chemicals such as pesticides and environmental pollutants have been detected, quantified and linked to a range of diseases (12, 13).

Multi-leveled analytical strategies that integrate genetic traits, environmental exposures and epidemiology data can help understand complex cancer mechanisms, contributing to the generation of an expressed phenotype of exposure (Fig. 1). This concept, termed as the ‘exposotype’ is a holistic snapshot of the multileveled downstream effects on all biological systems within the body that are influenced by an incident exposure. The process of analyzing and temporally measuring all of the exposures that an individual accrues over their lifetime is defined under the umbrella of the exposome (14) and projects such as the Human Exposome and HELIX Projects are driven by understanding the complex effects the environment plays on our personal lives (15). Exposomics aims to analyze cumulative internal exposures (host factors which affect the cellular environment) and external exposures (toxicants and social determinants) and assess their impact on disease outcomes and risk (16). It is known that during the life course of an individual, a wide range of stressors can modulate every aspect of their health. These stressors come from every part of daily life and can have a profound effect on the molecular events that take place within our cells, that if left unchecked by DNA proof reading and correction mechanisms can lead to the development of unregulated cell growth and cancer (Fig 2).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Metabolomics within the gene-environmental continuum. The causation of most cancers resides at the interface of genetic and environmental exposure. By using multiple platforms, a more comprehensive analysis of the effects the exposome plays on cancer phenotype can be assessed. By analyzing the downstream metabolic products of this modulated gene expression, metabolomics can be used to refine mechanistic understanding of exposure whilst also potentially identifying novel biomarkers. Adapted from (138).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

The biochemical breakdown of ethanol is dependent on genetic polymorphisms in the ethanol and folate metabolic pathways. Many consecutive enzymes play important roles in maintaining redox homeostasis and protecting the cells from oxidative stress but dysregulation within these systems can lead to the formation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) that can damage cellular components.

In recent years, profiling based genomic, metabolic and protein approaches have emerged as tools capable of elucidating the interplay between epigenetic aberrations induced by environmental stimuli, and disease etiology in cancer, and thus have utility in the exposome pipeline linking exposures to biological impact (17, 18). In addition, advancements in high-throughput analytical, statistical and big data capabilities have paved a path for translational assessment of disease mechanisms through a systems biology approach. Consequently, to elucidate pathways and mechanisms influenced by environmental stimuli and genetic alterations, a ‘multileveled’ approach is crucial for phenotype stratification in patient cohorts, and identification of downstream molecular effectors involved in tumorigenesis. The field of metabolomics is capable of assisting in this by providing profiling tools that can analyze the pool of metabolites within a sample (19). This in turn can bridge the downstream genetic and upstream environmental gap, and in combination with other profiling approaches has potential to make meaningful contributions to the field of precision medicine (20). As an analytical technology, mass spectrometry is in a prime position to deliver on exposure analysis as it offers high sensitivity, acute selectivity and dynamic range to analyze a broad range of metabolites. Mass spectrometry-based metabolomics, the analysis of all the low molecular weight chemical entities in a sample, can be used to directly quantify chemical exposure from human biological media such as blood, urine and sweat, but can also investigate the downstream pathway and mechanistic consequences of an exposure event (21). Initial work has highlighted the need for standardize analytical protocols to enable reproducible data comparisons over time and even across laboratories (22, 23). When tested by biological questions, this approach has been applied in several situations such as workplace exposure of trichloroethylene, which has previously been linked to an increase in liver, kidney and blood cancers (24). By applying an untargeted metabolomics discovery approach, correlations to immunosuppression, hepatotoxicity and nephrotoxicity inferred a deeper understanding of the molecular mechanisms of this type of exposure.

In addition, pharmacometabolomics, a tool that monitors metabolites to estimate a pharmaceutical drug response, can be used to assess inter-individual variability in tumor response and adverse events, driving the search for a means of identifying and deciphering molecular signatures that predict the behavior and drug sensitivities of distinct tumor phenotypes (25).

Herein, this review discusses the field of metabolomics and its application to understanding the etiology and mechanisms of cancer in a move towards understand environmental exposures, gene-environment interactions, and ultimately the development of precision medicine for this disease. We focus on colorectal cancer (CRC) as a prime example of complex disease in which both genetic and environmental influences (diet, alcohol and pathogenic bacteria) are causative factors.

Metabolomic studies on colorectal cancer

CRC is the third most common cancer in both males and females and the second leading cause of cancer death across both genders in the US (26). Only 10 % of individuals that develop CRC carry germ-line mutations. These mutations result in a number of familial syndromes including Lynch syndrome, where mutations to DNA mismatch repair genes result in microsatellite instability, and Familial Adenomatous Polyposis, which arises due to mutations in the Adenomatous Polyposis Coli (APC) tumor suppressor gene (27). Metabolic pathways linked to CRC predominantly include those involved in cellular growth. Upregulation of glycolysis and tricarboxylic cycle pathways are vital metabolic traits that are hijacked by cancer cells to enable rapid and unregulated growth, this modulation has been detected in tumor tissues from CRC patients (28, 29). Upregulation of the pentose-phosphate pathway, another potential route for energy production, has also been detected using mass spectrometry-based metabolomics methods on HCT116 colon cancer cells (30). Metabolic consequences of genetic aberrations in CRC have been a focus of metabolomic studies, particular models of APC suppression which causes activation of β-catenin signaling (31, 32). A comprehensive study which examined urinary metabolites and gene expression on tumors from APC(Min/+) mice and patient tumors, revealed consistent metabolic changes associated with early tumor development. The urinary metabolome revealed hypermethylated metabolites, and increased polyamine synthesis and nucleic acid synthesis (33). Other studies have used anti-proliferative agents in models of CRC to determine their effects on tumor development and metabolism. Such studies include administration of ginseng (34, 35), rice bran (36, 37), pomegranate extract (38), natural products (39), chemotherapeutics (40, 41) and anti-microbial peptides (42) which collectively show decreased energy utilization and cell growth. However, CRC is perhaps one of the prime examples of an environmentally-mediated disease. In addition to identification of the causative agent, the combinatorial effect of multiple exposures (internal and external) are important for risk assessment. Most studies have primarily focused on the analysis of a single exposure therefore it is not possible to ascertain the combined effect, let alone decipher how differences in the internal environment (inflammation, stress, genetics) respond to external environmental exposures. This is where top-down metabolomic approaches come into play, allowing for the measurement of downstream metabolites that can be related to combined exposures at a population level (43). Metabolomics can also bridge the downstream genetic and upstream environmental gap, allowing for the analysis of both metabolites and chemical compounds that result from an exposure concurrently. This can also be directed applied to CRC patients identifying cluster of individuals that have similar profiles and outcomes.

Exposure metabolites and colorectal cancer

At present, metabolomic studies that examine the effect of environmental exposures on CRC risk are few but interest is growing due to novel insights it has provided thus far. CRC is perhaps one of the prime examples of an environmentally-mediated disease, this is evidenced by studies on migrant populations that assume CRC risk of the host population within one generation (44). Even though CRC incidence rates have been falling over the past couple of decades due to increased screening and removal of precancerous polyps, CRC incidence rates have been increasing for individuals under the age of 50, which is of high concern (45). Thus identification of environmental risk factors is imperative to provide intervention approaches in high-risk populations.

Specific environmental influences have been associated with CRC in epidemiological studies. They include diets rich in red, processed and grilled meats, pre-existing diseases (obesity, inflammatory bowel diseases, type 2 diabetes), smoking and alcohol use. Other suspected risk factors include disruption to circadian rhythms (night-shift work) and the presence and organization of pathogenic microbiota (4648). Dietary exposures and cancer risk is well-established, so much so that IARC recently classified one dietary constituent, processed meats and red meat, as Class 1 and Class 2A carcinogens respectively (49). As dietary risk in CRC has been discussed comprehensively in other reviews (50, 51), we will describe here the procarcinogenic and chemoprotective metabolites which potentially interacted with other co-exposures, leading towards increased carcinogenesis.

Ingested materials that enter the colon consist of a complex milieu of partly digested food products, xenobiotics, and pollutants. The role of the colon is to complete digestion and eliminate waste products from this milieu, a process that is aided by the host microbiome. As mentioned processed meats (meat that has been transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking) and red meats have been associated with CRC. These meats contain genotoxic N-nitroso compounds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and heterocyclic amines (upon heating). A recent study identified oxidative stress markers dityrosine and 3-dehydroxycarnitine in fecal samples from individuals that consumed red meats, supporting a causal relationship between and aberrant microenvironment in the colon that could lead to disease (52). Interestingly the carcinogenic compounds found in these types of meats are also prevalent in other environmental sources such as cigarette smoke, dust, automobile engines. This suggests that individuals exposed to high levels of these environmental pollutants could also have a higher risk of CRC. In addition to meats, high fat intake can increase the risk of CRC through increased bile acid secretion and microbial-production of genotoxic secondary bile acids. Secondary bile acids have been shown to disrupt cell membranes, generate reactive oxygen species (ROS) and reactive nitrogen species causing DNA damage (53). In addition to procarcinogenic ingested compounds, there are a number of dietary nutrients that have been suggested to act as chemoprotectants, including the aforementioned ginseng and rice bran, which upon administration were shown to decrease cellular proliferation and carcinogenesis in vivo (34, 35) (36, 37). In addition to these dietary products, Vitamin D has also been linked to decreased CRC risk (54). Vitamin D is a ligand for the nuclear vitamin D receptor (VDR), which upon activation causes downstream regulation of a multitude of genes involved in cellular proliferation and tumor angiogenesis. One of these genes (CYP3A4) is of particular importance as it is involved in the elimination of secondary bile acids, thus downregulation of VDR could increase the risk of CRC in individuals with a high fat diet (55, 56). Metabolomic studies on mouse models of Vdr inactivation showed patterns of increased primary and secondary bile acid production associated with inflammatory bowel diseases and CRC (57), however, metabolomic studies have not been carried out on CRC patients to determine the association. Fiber is also a well-established chemoprotectant involved in elimination of secondary bile acids, and increasing the passage and weight of stools. Moreover, one of its most important properties is through the actions of its metabolic products, butyrate, propionate, acetate, which are produced by microbial fermentation in the colon. Butyrate in particular has been shown to play a major role as an anti-proliferative agent, also increasing apoptosis and the production of healthy bacteria. Metabolomic studies carried out on feces collected from patients with CRC have consistently shown decreased butyrate levels compared to controls (5860). Folate, derived from fruits and vegetables, is an essential intermediate in one-carbon metabolism and increases the production of S-adenosylmethionine (SAM). SAM is a ubiquitous methyl donor, enabling the metabolism of polyamines, DNA synthesis and DNA methylation. Individuals with folate deficiency have increased DNA hypomethylation and impaired DNA synthesis, in addition low levels of folate accelerates alcohol-induced production of oxidative stress as described below. Given the evidence for the roles of dietary metabolites in CRC, further analysis is required to assess the biological effects of these metabolites.

Moreover, it is clear that co-exposure of diet with other environmental factors, augments or ameliorate their effects. One such intricate balance has emerged between the diet, alcohol and microbiome.

Alcohol and colorectal cancer

Excessive alcohol consumption and its associated health and societal problems vary worldwide, however, the burden of disease and death is a significant public health problem in nearly all countries (61). There is evidence from epidemiological studies to show that alcohol consumption is associated with CRC (62). A 2011 meta-analysis, showed a higher association with CRC among subjects with heavy drinking (RR ≥4 drinks per day = 1.52, 95% CI 1.27–1.81) compared to moderate drinkers (RR 2 to 3 drinks per day = 1.21, 95% CI: 1.13–1.28). In addition, this link was found to be stronger in individuals of East Asian decent (heavy drinkers, RR = 1.81, 95% CI 1.33–2.46; Pheterogeneity = 0.04) (63). The same conclusion was drawn from a 2006 meta-analysis study, which included more than 6,300 patients; heavy drinkers had a higher risk of CRC than moderate drinkers (64). Age, gender, volume and quality of alcohol consumed and pattern of drinking have all been shown to modulate risk (61, 62).

Genetic polymorphisms for enzymes in the alcohol and folate metabolic pathways play a major role in CRC risk. Ethanol is metabolized to acetaldehyde via alcohol dehydrogenases (ADH), catalase (CAT) and CYP2E1 enzymes. It is further oxidized via acetaldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH), isoforms 1A1, 1B1, and 2 to acetate and eliminated by the liver (65, 66). Ethanol-induced cancer is closely linked to the pathways involved for its metabolism, and is mainly attributed to the production of acetaldehyde which has been classified as a carcinogen by IARC (67). Evidence for the association between ethanol, acetaldehyde and cancer is derived from epidemiological studies, as well as from mechanistic data from rodent models. Ethanol oxidation by ADH and CYP2E1 results in the production of acetaldehyde, however the latter also induces the generation of ROS (Fig. 2) (68). Compared to wild type mice, the development of fatty liver and oxidative stress should be alleviated in Cyp2e1 −/− mice (69, 70). Moreover, there is evidence to supporting a genotoxic mechanism whereby acetaldehyde reacts with DNA bases, forming DNA adducts, resulting in genetic mutations. N2-ethyl–2′-deoxyguanosine (N2-ethyl-dG), the major stable acetaldehyde DNA adduct, and has been reported at high levels in alcoholics. DNA adducts can also be produced by ROS; 4-hydroxynonenal (4HNE) is a lipid peroxidation product that reacts with deoxyadenosine or deoxycytidine to form stable exocyclic etheno-DNA adducts (Fig 2) (71). (7274). However, there is large inter-individual variability in the presence of etheno-DNA adduct in alcohol consumers, and significant correlations have not been established (75).

There is also evidence that polymorphisms in methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) contribute to a lower risk of CRC. The CT/TT genotype shifts folate metabolism away from DNA methylation to DNA synthesis. Moderate to heavy alcohol drinkers with this genotype have a lower risk of CRC when compared to never/occasional drinkers with the CC genotype (OR = 0.68, 95% CI, 0.47–0.98) (76). Furthermore, MTHFR plays an important role in the one-carbon metabolic pathway converting 5,10-methylenetetrahydrofolate to 5-methyltetrahydrofolate, (Fig. 2), and directs folate pools towards methionine in the transulfuration pathway. Methionine is the precursor of the sulfur-containing amino acid cysteine (cystathionine β-synthase (CBS) catalyzes homocysteine conversion to cysteine). This pathway leads into the synthesis of glutathione (GSH) via a heterodimer enzyme comprising a catalytic glutamate-cysteine ligase (GCLC) and a modifier (GCLM) subunit (Fig. 2). GSH plays a key role in maintaining redox homeostasis and protecting the cells from oxidative stress. A recent study utilizing global knockout Gclm mice, found that the cells were protected against hepatic steatosis, despite showing increased oxidative stress, suggesting that an adaptive response was triggered through activation of the AMPK pathway (77). The above-mentioned metabolic pathways have been the subject of multiple studies on cancer metabolism, however metabolomic studies are required to fully understand the effect of alcohol on the folate pathway and the role of MTHFR (78).

Acetaldehyde concentrations are generally quite low in tissues, however, levels can increase after large volumes of ethanol ingestion and inefficient ethanol-metabolizing enzymes; in the colon, alcohol levels can reach the same as those seen in blood (75). ALDH2 is crucial for acetaldehyde catabolism, since most of the acetaldehyde generated is eliminated by actions of this enzyme. The mutant ALDH2*2 allele encodes a catalytically inactive subunit, whereas ALDH2*1/2*2 encodes only 6.25% of the active enzyme. Individuals carrying the mutant allele, are slow acetaldehyde metabolizers and subsequently accumulate large pools of the metabolite (79). Studies on Aldh2−/− mice found that ethanol treatment increased plasma acetaldehyde levels compared to the wild type (80, 81). Approximately 40% of individuals of East Asian descent, carry the inactive variant ALDH2*2, resulting in extremely low ALDH2 activity. Individuals with the ALDH2*2 allele have increased risk for developing cancer of the upper aerodigestive tract, as well as oropharyngeal, laryngeal and esophageal cancer (82, 83). A strong association has also been seen in individuals that have polymorphisms in ADH1B and CRC (62, 84); ADH1B*1/*1 carriers (n = 246) were shown to have a much slower metabolism of ethanol compared to ADH1B*2 carriers (n = 559) (85). Another recent study found that 39 out of 40 human samples with colonic adenocarcinoma were positive for ALDH1B. Since the expression of this protein is very low in healthy colon, the dramatic increase observed in the tissues demonstrates a link between elevated ALDH1B1 and CRC (86). Increased plasma acetaldehyde levels have also been measured in Aldh1b1−/− mice after a single dose of ethanol (65).

In order to evaluate the association between alcohol consumption and CRC in human populations, studies currently rely on self-reported questionnaire data, which is subject to misclassification due societal pressure. Metabolomics could be used to strengthen the causal association through the use of non-invasive biomarkers which could be used as an approach for risk assessment. A recent study analyzed serum from two population cohorts (case-control) to quantify previously identified biomarkers of alcohol consumption (87). Unfortunately, no association was seen between these biomarkers and CRC. This may have been a consequence of the time frame from alcohol consumption to sampling, and a lack of personal history on the nature of the individual’s lifetime drinking, both of which were not known. However, this study highlights the potential and considerations for metabolomics analysis for assessing alcohol consumption in relationship to CRC, particularly to assess the validity of questionnaire data. Other metabolomic studies have identified biomarkers of alcohol consumption, which are promising and need validation in additional cohorts (88). In addition to biomarkers, mechanisms of ethanol-induced injury that lead to CRC can be investigated through further investigation of metabolic pathways, revealing interactions between alcohol and other co-exposures to understand inter-individual variability.

Microbial co-exposure and mechanisms of colorectal cancer

One important consideration for almost all exposures is the interaction with the microbiome. For the past decade the microbiome has been under surveillance as a potential mediator of CRC. It is known that the colonic microbiome is responsible for co-metabolism of dietary and environmental compounds that enter the colon, and the resultant metabolites produced can have either carcinogenic or tumor suppressive properties as well as regulating microbial growth and diversity. One example is microbial fermentation of dietary fiber which produces short chain fatty acids as mentioned previously. These acids could effectively lower the pH of the colon if produced in excess, however bicarbonate secretion, controlled by cellular carbonic anhydrase, ensures that colonic pH is maintained at approximately pH 7.4 (89). This balance can be effected by multiple processes, including bacteria exotoxins which can stimulate bicarbonate secretion (90), or by disease, cancer cells produce elevated levels of lactic acid and protons which modify carbonic anhydrases enabling the cancer cells to survive (19, 91). In addition to host cellular processes, environmental changes caused by switches in diet, microbial infection, or drug treatment, can cause a modulation of the microbial communities within the colon. Dietary changes can rapidly alter the growth of different bacterial species, changing disease risk and metabolite production. This was exemplified in an investigation of the microbiome and metabolome in subjects given a two-week dietary exchange (92). A switch from a high fat, high protein and low fiber diet, to the inverse, resulted in increased saccharolytic fermentation and butyrogenesis with decreased secondary bile acid production. In addition, a decrease in proliferative and inflammatory biomarkers were observed in the colonic mucosa, revealing that dietary exposure can alter the microbiome, metabolites and disease risk (93).

Previous research has shown that several invasive pathogenic bacteria are linked to CRC, most notably Enterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilis (94), Fusobacterium nucleatum (95, 96) and Escherichia coli strain NC101 (97). Mechanisms of action reveal DNA damage, inflammation and immune-cell infiltration in models, however direct causation has yet to be ascertained in CRC patients (98). It is also important to consider how the community of bacteria interacts as a whole, this is evident from studies that have identified chronic bacterial biofilms in CRC. Chronic biofilms are conglomerates of bacteria encased in a polymeric matrix, which colonize and breech the mucus barrier. Biofilms in CRC cause a state of increased cellular proliferation and inflammation, but do not contain higher abundances of pathogenic strains compared to tumor-associated bacteria which are not within a biofilm (47). Interestingly normal colon tissues that have biofilms have similar bacterial diversity associated with CRC tissues than with normal colon tissues without biofilms, indicating a stepwise progression from a dysbiotic microbiome, to biofilm production and carcinogensis (99). Furthermore, metabolomics was used to examine the metabolism of biofilms in CRC and revealed biofilm-associated metabolites (46), indicating that biofilms produce metabolites that could affect the tumor microenvironment and response to therapeutics (100). However, what is not clear is the exposure that triggered biofilm formation and tumor development in this study. A new paradigm developed for exposomic approaches suggests a meet-in-the-middle approach to tackle this problem (101). Prospective cohort studies that measure exposures and preclinical response, can be used to identify associated biomarkers. These exposure biomarkers can then be used to mine retrospective case-control studies to essentially identify casual relationships (102).

As aforementioned, alcohol can result in oxidative stress within the colon and a progression to CRC. The microbiome is also involved in the metabolism of alcohol; microbial co-oxidation of ethanol increases the production of acetaldehyde. Microbial geni involved in ethanol oxidation have been identified as gram-positive Ruminococcus, Collinsella, Coriobacterium, Bifidobacterium and gram-negative Prevotella (103). Escherichia coli has also been linked to the accumulation of acetaldehyde in the intestinal lumen (104). Due to the ensuing oxidative stress caused by chronic alcohol exposure, obligate anaerobes are less likely to prevail than other species that are more tolerant to the microenvironment, such as Proteobaceria; a species linked to inflammation (105). For the host, this inflammation is likely to be exacerbated by downstream acetaldehyde production. Endotoxin circulation from gram-negative bacteria subsequently leads to increased intestinal barrier permeability, a facet compounded by bacterial overgrowth observed in moderate drinkers (106). The creation of such dysbiotic environments has also been shown to be vital factors in promotion of other alimentary cancers (107) and even liver disease (108). Interestingly, modulation of bacterial species in the gut has even been shown to play a psychological role in which the gut-brain axis has been altered by microbiotic communication effecting gut-barrier function and influence behavior in alcohol dependence (109).

Therapeutics and pharmacometabolomics in colorectal cancer

Since the evolution of metabolomics in 1998 (110), the development and growth of the sub-discipline of pharmacometabolomics (111) has blossomed to such an extent that a community led White Paper has called for US Government inclusion of the area in to the highest level of funding considerations (112). This confidence has been driven by the potential to deliver in areas that genome based research alone has failed to achieve a full understanding of and has heralded the post genomic diagnostic era in which detailed knowledge of expressed phenotype is vital. Applications include revealing primary and secondary markers of disease states, providing in-depth understanding of underlying molecular mechanisms of diseases and the potential to uncover biomarkers activated by drug treatment thus identifying response phenotypes (112).

One area of use for these strategies is cancer, and several reviews have been written that provide comprehensive background on the area (113117). As the life-time risk of developing CRC in the US is 1 in 21 (4.7%) for men and 1 in 23 (4.4%) for women (118) it is no surprise that concerted efforts have been made to apply these methodologies to this disease. Identification of early onset biomarkers and prognostication has been a focus of CRC researchers since early detection and diagnosis can make curing the disease easier. One set of metabolites, the acetylated polyamines; monoacetylspermidine and N1, N12-diacetylspermine, are constantly upregulated in biological fluids and tissues of CRC patients (46, 119124). These metabolites are end products of polyamine metabolism transported from the cell for excretion. Polyamines have been associated with the development of CRC, and ornithine decarboxylase (ODC), the first enzyme in the polyamine synthesis pathway is a target for the chemotherapeutic difluoromethylornithine (DFMO). DFMO inactivates ODC and suppresses tumor formation (125). Therefore, this metabolic pathway is of particular interest for drug development for CRC patients, and DFMO is currently under assessment in a number of clinical trials. Serum amino acids (126) and urinary nucleosides (127) have also been identified as candidates for future assay design alongside methods for modeling stratified markers for disease staging (128). The ultimate aim for all these approaches is understanding mode of action of disease better and eventually creation of a rapid and robust blood or urine based screening test that can be routinely used within the clinic and thus reduce the number of patients with a poorer prognosis.

Upon treatment with chemotherapeutics, inter-patient variability in response can be large and lead to higher levels of toxicity to some patient sub-groups alongside lower efficacy of the active drug Pharmacometabolomic profiling techniques have already been shown that drug toxicity can be predicted in CRC patients treated with the chemotherapeutic capecitabine (129) in which a panel of low-density lipoprotein derived lipids predicted a higher toxic response over the treatment period. The efficacy of such drug treatments have also been shown to be markedly effected by a host’s microbiome with researchers also calling for measurement of microbiome activity to be included as an integral part of pharmaceutical development (130). Ultimately, the greatest impact of any metabolomics technology in CRC investigation lies within the integration of metabolic data into multi-dimensional datasets forming a systems wide approach. Only by combining information from pharmacogenomics (131), pharmacoproteomic (132) and transcriptomic experiments alongside drug pharmacology based pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics processes (133) can the fullest picture of how an individual will respond to drug intervention be painted.

Conclusion

Metabolomics is a vital tool for evaluating exposures and their impact on biological outcomes, particularly in a disease with a multifaceted etiology such as CRC. Using metabolomics within the context of the exposome could identify subsets of individuals that have similar exposure history and related internal biological underpinnings, thus providing entry points for precision medicine approaches. Pharmacometabolomics, a discipline that monitors metabolites to understand the response of a pharmaceutical drug leads itself to exposomics and precision medicine (134). However, caution exists in that the complex makeup of the internal environment must be known before administration of the drug, as has been evidenced by interactions of the microbiome with immunotherapeutics, dramatically effecting their efficacy (135). Thus drugs must be tailored to respond to the genetic underpinnings of the disease manifestation as well as from onslaughts from the internal environment. This will dramatically improve drug efficacy and move toward precision medicine approaches. Therefore, oncology metabolomics can be applied in diagnostic techniques, studies of disease pathophysiology, prognostication, and prediction and assessment of response to therapy (136). While profiling based technologies at all stages of the central dogma are currently specialized and complex in nature, signatures identified by these approaches can be incorporated into miniaturized ‘lab-on-chip’ systems applicable to the clinic in the future (137). Thus metabolomics can be applied to studies on CRC to uncover mechanisms of cancer development and identify gene-environment interactions. Moreover, metabolomics can aid in assessment of disease severity and response to pharmacological interventions in the clinic via pharmacometabolomics and even be used to identify patients in early prediagnostic stages of the disease. Ultimately, this work is leading to improved awareness of environmental risk factors, early diagnosis, and outcomes for CRC patients.

Acknowledgments

This work is supported, by grants from the National Eye Institute, NIH; EY11490 (VV), National Institute on alcohol abuse and alcoholism (NIAAA), NIH; AA021724 (VV), NIAAA, NIH; AA022057 (VV).

Footnotes

Disclosure

There are no conflicts of interests within this article.

Human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors

References

  • 1.World cancer report 2014. WHO; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Vucic EA, Thu KL, et al. Translating cancer ‘omics’ to improved outcomes. Genome Research. 2012;22(2):188–95. doi: 10.1101/gr.124354.111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Boca SM, Kinzler KW, et al. Patient-oriented gene set analysis for cancer mutation data. Genome Biology. 2010;11(11):R112. doi: 10.1186/gb-2010-11-11-r112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Campbell RM, Tummino PJ. Cancer epigenetics drug discovery and development: the challenge of hitting the mark. The Journal of Clinical Investigation. 2014;124(1):64–9. doi: 10.1172/JCI71605. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Alexandrov LB, Nik-Zainal S, et al. Signatures of mutational processes in human cancer. Nature. 2013;500(7463):415–21. doi: 10.1038/nature12477. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ottman R. Gene–Environment Interaction: Definitions and Study Designs. Preventive medicine. 1996;25(6):764–70. doi: 10.1006/pmed.1996.0117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Willett WC. Balancing life-style and genomics research for disease prevention. Science. 2002;296(5568):695–8. doi: 10.1126/science.1071055. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.The World Health Organisation. Environmental and Occupational Cancers Fact Sheet No 350. 2011 [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Takala J, Hämäläinen P, et al. Global Estimates of the Burden of Injury and Illness at Work in 2012. Journal of Occupational & Environmental Hygiene. 2014;11(5):326–37. doi: 10.1080/15459624.2013.863131. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.United States Environmental Protection Agency. Toxic Substances Control Act Chemical Substance Inventory. 2017 [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Wishart DS, Jewison T, et al. HMDB 3.0 - The Human Metabolome Database in 2013. Nucleic Acids Research. 2013;41:D801–7. doi: 10.1093/nar/gks1065. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bonvallot N, Tremblay-Franco M, et al. Metabolomics Tools for Describing Complex Pesticide Exposure in Pregnant Women in Brittany (France) Plos One. 2013;8(5):e64433. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0064433. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Corrion ML, Ostrea EM, et al. Detection of prenatal exposure to several classes of environmental toxicants and their metabolites by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry in maternal and umbilical cord blood. Journal of chromatography B, Analytical technologies in the biomedical and life sciences. 2005;822(1–2):221–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jchromb.2005.06.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Wild CP. Complementing the genome with an “exposome”: the outstanding challenge of environmental exposure measurement in molecular epidemiology. Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention: a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology. 2005;14(8):1847–50. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0456. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Vrihheid M, Slama R, et al. The human early-life exposome (HELIX): project rationale and design. Environmental Health Perspective. 2014;122(6):535–44. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1307204. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/exposome/.
  • 17.Holmes E, Wilson ID, Nicholson JK. Metabolic Phenotyping in Health and Disease. Cell. 2008;134(5):714–7. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2008.08.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Ogino S, Lochhead P, et al. Molecular pathological epidemiology of epigenetics: emerging integrative science to analyze environment, host, and disease. Mod Pathol. 2013;26(4):465–84. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2012.214. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Johnson CH, Ivanisevic J, Siuzdak G. Metabolomics: beyond biomarkers and towards mechanisms. Nature reviews Molecular cell biology. 2016;(7):451–9. doi: 10.1038/nrm.2016.25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Wishart DS. Emerging applications of metabolomics in drug discovery and precision medicine. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2016;15(7):473–84. doi: 10.1038/nrd.2016.32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Metz TO, Baker ES, et al. Integrating ion mobility spectrometry into mass spectrometry-based exposome measurements: what can it add and how far can it go? Bioanalysis. 2017;9(1):81–98. doi: 10.4155/bio-2016-0244. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Jones DP. Sequencing the exposome: A call to action. Toxicology Reports. 2016;3:29–45. doi: 10.1016/j.toxrep.2015.11.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Go Y-M, Walker DI, Liang Y, Uppal K, Soltow QA, Tran V, et al. Reference Standardization for Mass Spectrometry and High-resolution Metabolomics Applications to Exposome Research. Toxicological Sciences. 2015;148(2):531–43. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfv198. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Walker DI, Uppal K, Zhang L, Vermeulen R, Smith M, Hu W, et al. High-resolution metabolomics of occupational exposure to trichloroethylene. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2016;45(5):1517–1527. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyw218. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Wheeler HE, Maitland ML, et al. Cancer pharmacogenomics: strategies and challenges. Nat Rev Genet. 2013;14(1):23–34. doi: 10.1038/nrg3352. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.ACS - Cancer Facts & Figures. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Al-Sohaily S, Biankin A, et al. Molecular pathways in colorectal cancer. Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology. 2012;27(9):1423–31. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2012.07200.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Hirayama A, Kami K, et al. Quantitative Metabolome Profiling of Colon and Stomach Cancer Microenvironment by Capillary Electrophoresis Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry. Cancer Research. 2009;69(11):4918–25. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-08-4806. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Denkert C, Budczies J, et al. Metabolite profiling of human colon carcinoma - deregulation of TCA cycle and amino acid turnover. Molecular Cancer. 2008;7:15. doi: 10.1186/1476-4598-7-72. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Yamamoto T, Takano N, et al. Reduced methylation of PFKFB3 in cancer cells shunts glucose towards the pentose phosphate pathway. Nature Communications. 2014;5:16. doi: 10.1038/ncomms4480. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Kakuta S, Nishiumi S, et al. Profiling of volatile compounds in APC(Min/+) mice blood by dynamic headspace extraction and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr B. 2015;1003:35–40. doi: 10.1016/j.jchromb.2015.09.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Rubinfeld B, Souza B, et al. Association of the Apc Gene-Product with Beta-Catenin. Science. 1993;262(5140):1731–4. doi: 10.1126/science.8259518. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Manna SK, Tanaka N, et al. Biomarkers of coordinate metabolic reprogramming in colorectal tumors in mice and humans. Gastroenterology. 2014;146(5):1313–24. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2014.01.017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Wang CZ, Yu CH, et al. American Ginseng Attenuates Colitis-Associated Colon Carcinogenesis in Mice: Impact on Gut Microbiota and Metabolomics. Cancer Prev Res. 2016;9(10):803–11. doi: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-15-0372. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Xie GX, Wang CZ, et al. Metabonomic Profiling Reveals Cancer Chemopreventive Effects of American Ginseng on Colon Carcinogenesis in Apc(Min/+) Mice. J Proteome Res. 2015;14(8):3336–47. doi: 10.1021/acs.jproteome.5b00388. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Norris L, Malkar A, et al. Search for novel circulating cancer chemopreventive biomarkers of dietary rice bran intervention in Apc(Min) mice model of colorectal carcinogenesis, using proteomic and metabolic profiling strategies. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2015;59(9):1827–36. doi: 10.1002/mnfr.201400818. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Sheflin AM, Borresen EC, et al. Pilot Dietary Intervention with Heat-Stabilized Rice Bran Modulates Stool Microbiota and Metabolites in Healthy Adults. Nutrients. 2015;7(2):1282–300. doi: 10.3390/nu7021282. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Nunez-Sanchez MA, Garcia-Villalba R, et al. Targeted metabolic profiling of pomegranate polyphenols and urolithins in plasma, urine and colon tissues from colorectal cancer patients. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2014;58(6):1199–211. doi: 10.1002/mnfr.201300931. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Gao D, Wang YN, et al. Metabolomics study on the antitumor effect of marine natural compound flexibilide in HCT-116 colon cancer cell line. J Chromatogr B. 2016;1014:17–23. doi: 10.1016/j.jchromb.2016.01.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Fang ZZ, Zhang DF, et al. Irinotecan (CPT-11)-induced elevation of bile acids potentiates suppression of IL-10 expression. Toxicology and applied pharmacology. 2016;291:21–7. doi: 10.1016/j.taap.2015.12.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Bradshaw-Pierce EL, Pitts TM, et al. Utilization of Quantitative In Vivo Pharmacology Approaches to Assess Combination Effects of Everolimus and Irinotecan in Mouse Xenograft Models of Colorectal Cancer. Plos One. 2013;8(3) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0058089. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Kuroda K, Fukuda T, et al. Antimicrobial peptide FF/CAP18 induces apoptotic cell death in HCT116 colon cancer cells via changes in the metabolic profile. Int J Oncol. 2015;46(4):1516–26. doi: 10.3892/ijo.2015.2887. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Rappaport SM, Smith MT. Epidemiology. Environment and disease risks. Science. 2010;330(6003):460–1. doi: 10.1126/science.1192603. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Marchand LL. Combined influence of genetic and dietary factors on colorectal cancer incidence in Japanese Americans. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1999;(26):101–5. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jncimonographs.a024220. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Meyer JE, Narang T, et al. Increasing Incidence of Rectal Cancer in Patients Aged Younger Than 40 Years An Analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Database. Cancer. 2010;116(18):4354–9. doi: 10.1002/cncr.25432. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Johnson CH, Dejea CM, et al. Metabolism links bacterial biofilms and colon carcinogenesis. Cell Metabolism. 2015;21(6):891–7. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2015.04.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Dejea CM, Wick EC, et al. Microbiota organization is a distinct feature of proximal colorectal cancers. PNAS. 2014;111(51):18321–6. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1406199111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Parent ME, El-Zein M, et al. Night work and the risk of cancer among men. American journal of epidemiology. 2012;176(9):751–9. doi: 10.1093/aje/kws318. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Bouvard V, Loomis D, et al. Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(16):1599–600. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00444-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Rooks MG, Garrett WS. Gut microbiota, metabolites and host immunity. Nature Reviews Immunology. 2016;16(6):341–52. doi: 10.1038/nri.2016.42. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.O’Keefe SJ. Diet, microorganisms and their metabolites, and colon cancer. Nature reviews Gastroenterology & hepatology. 2016;13(12):691–706. doi: 10.1038/nrgastro.2016.165. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Rombouts C, Hemeryck LY, et al. Untargeted metabolomics of colonic digests reveals kynurenine pathway metabolites, dityrosine and 3-dehydroxycarnitine as red versus white meat discriminating metabolites. Scientific reports. 2017;7:42514. doi: 10.1038/srep42514. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Majer F, Sharma R, et al. New highly toxic bile acids derived from deoxycholic acid, chenodeoxycholic acid and lithocholic acid. Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry. 2014;22(1):256–68. doi: 10.1016/j.bmc.2013.11.029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Hibler EA, Molmenti CL, et al. Associations between circulating 1,25(OH)(2)D concentration and odds of metachronous colorectal adenoma. Cancer causes & control. 2014;25(7):809–17. doi: 10.1007/s10552-014-0382-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Slattery ML, Murtaugh M, et al. Associations between BMI, energy intake, energy expenditure, VDR genotype and colon and rectal cancers (United States) Cancer causes & control. 2004;15(9):863–72. doi: 10.1007/s10552-004-1048-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Slattery ML, Neuhausen SL, et al. Dietary calcium, vitamin D, VDR genotypes and colorectal cancer. Int J Cancer. 2004;111(5):750–6. doi: 10.1002/ijc.20330. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Kim JH, Yamaori S, et al. Implication of intestinal VDR deficiency in inflammatory bowel disease. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2013;1830(1):2118–28. doi: 10.1016/j.bbagen.2012.09.020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Lin Y, Ma CC, et al. NMR-based fecal metabolomics fingerprinting as predictors of earlier diagnosis in patients with colorectal cancer. Oncotarget. 2016;7(20):29454–64. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.8762. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Monleon D, Morales JM, et al. Metabolite profiling of fecal water extracts from human colorectal cancer. NMR in Biomedicine. 2009;22(3):342–8. doi: 10.1002/nbm.1345. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Weir TL, Manter DK, et al. Stool Microbiome and Metabolome Differences between Colorectal Cancer Patients and Healthy Adults. Plos One. 2013;8(8) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0070803. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.World Health Organisation. Global status report on alcohol and health. 2014 [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Seitz HK. Alcohol and cancer-individual risk factors. Addiction. 2017;112(2):232–3. doi: 10.1111/add.13664. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Fedirko V, Tramacere I, et al. Alcohol drinking and colorectal cancer risk: an overall and dose-response meta-analysis of published studies. Annals of oncology. 2011;22(9):1958–72. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdq653. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Moskal A, Norat T, et al. Alcohol intake and colorectal cancer risk: a dose-response meta-analysis of published cohort studies. International Journal of Cancer. 2007;120(3):664–71. doi: 10.1002/ijc.22299. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Singh S, Arcaroli J, et al. Acetaldehyde and retinaldehyde-metabolizing enzymes in colon and pancreatic cancers. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2015;815:281–94. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-09614-8_16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Heit C, Dong H, et al. Transgenic mouse models for alcohol metabolism, toxicity, and cancer. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2015;815:375–87. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-09614-8_22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.IARC Working Group. Alcoholic beverage consumption and ethyl carbamate (urethane) International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2010. (IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans No. 96). [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Seitz HK, Stickel F. Molecular mechanisms of alcohol-mediated carcinogenesis. National Reviews Cancer. 2007;7(8):599–612. doi: 10.1038/nrc2191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Yang L, Wu D, et al. Cytochrome P4502E1, oxidative stress, JNK, and autophagy in acute alcohol-induced fatty liver. Free Radical Biology and Medicine. 2012;53(5):1170–80. doi: 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2012.06.029. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Lu Y, Cederbaum AI. Autophagy Protects against CYP2E1/Chronic Ethanol-Induced Hepatotoxicity. Biomolecules. 2015;5(4):2659–74. doi: 10.3390/biom5042659. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Linhart K, Bartsch H, Seitz HK. The role of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and cytochrome P-450 2E1 in the generation of carcinogenic etheno-DNA adducts. Redox biology. 2014;3:56–62. doi: 10.1016/j.redox.2014.08.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Balbo S, Hashibe M, et al. N2-ethyldeoxyguanosine as a potential biomarker for assessing effects of alcohol consumption on DNA. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers. 2008;17(11):3026–32. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Singh R, Gromadzinska J, et al. Detection of acetaldehyde derived N(2)-ethyl-2′-deoxyguanosine in human leukocyte DNA following alcohol consumption. Mutation Research. 2012;737(1–2):8–11. doi: 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2012.07.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Balbo S, Juanes RC, et al. Increased levels of the acetaldehyde-derived DNA adduct N 2-ethyldeoxyguanosine in oral mucosa DNA from Rhesus monkeys exposed to alcohol. Mutagenesis. 2016;31(5):553–8. doi: 10.1093/mutage/gew016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Neuman MG, French SW, et al. Alcohol, microbiome, life style influence alcohol and non-alcoholic organ damage. Experimental Molecolar Pathology. 2017;102(1):162–80. doi: 10.1016/j.yexmp.2017.01.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Svensson T, Yamaji T, et al. Alcohol consumption, genetic variants in the alcohol- and folate metabolic pathways and colorectal cancer risk: the JPHC Study. Scientific reports. 2016;6:36607. doi: 10.1038/srep36607. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Chen Y, Singh S, et al. Chronic Glutathione Depletion Confers Protection against Alcohol-induced Steatosis: Implication for Redox Activation of AMP-activated Protein Kinase Pathway. Scientific Reports. 2016;6:29743. doi: 10.1038/srep29743. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Ashkavand Z, O’Flanagan C, et al. Metabolic Reprogramming by Folate Restriction Leads to a Less Aggressive Cancer Phenotype. Molecular cancer research. 2017;15(2):189–200. doi: 10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-16-0317. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Matsuda T, Yabushita H, et al. Increased DNA damage in ALDH2-deficient alcoholics. Chemical Research in Toxicology. 2006;19(10):1374–8. doi: 10.1021/tx060113h. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Jamal M, Ameno K, et al. Ethanol and Acetaldehyde After Intraperitoneal Administration to Aldh2-Knockout Mice-Reflection in Blood and Brain Levels. Neurochemistry Research. 2016;41(5):1029–34. doi: 10.1007/s11064-015-1788-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Fan F, Cao Q, et al. Impact of chronic low to moderate alcohol consumption on blood lipid and heart energy profile in acetaldehyde dehydrogenase 2-deficient mice. Acta Pharmacologica Sinica. 2014;35(8):1015–22. doi: 10.1038/aps.2014.46. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Yokoyama A, Muramatsu T, et al. Alcohol-related cancers and aldehyde dehydrogenase-2 in Japanese alcoholics. Carcinogenesis. 1998;19(8):1383–7. doi: 10.1093/carcin/19.8.1383. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Seitz HK, Matsuzaki S, et al. Alcohol and cancer. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 2001;25:137s–43s. doi: 10.1097/00000374-200105051-00024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Yokoyama A, Kamada Y, et al. Effects of ADH1B and ALDH2 Genetic Polymorphisms on Alcohol Elimination Rates and Salivary Acetaldehyde Levels in Intoxicated Japanese Alcoholic Men. Alcoholism: Clinical Experimental Research. 2016;40(6):1241–50. doi: 10.1111/acer.13073. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Yokoyama A, Yokoyama T, et al. Blood ethanol levels of nonabstinent Japanese alcoholic men in the morning after drinking and their ADH1B and ALDH2 genotypes. Alcohol. 2014;49(1):31–7. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agt136. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Chen Y, Orlicky DJ, et al. Aldehyde dehydrogenase 1B1 (ALDH1B1) is a potential biomarker for human colon cancer. Biochemistry Biophysics Research Communications. 2011;405(2):173–9. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2011.01.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Troche JR, Mayne ST, et al. Alcohol Consumption-Related Metabolites in Relation to Colorectal Cancer and Adenoma: Two Case-Control Studies Using Serum Biomarkers. Plos One. 2016;11(3) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150962. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Harada S, Takebayashi T, et al. Metabolomic profiling reveals novel biomarkers of alcohol intake and alcohol-induced liver injury in community-dwelling men (vol 21, pg 18, 2016) Environmental Health Previews. 2016;21(4):283–4. doi: 10.1007/s12199-015-0494-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Spicer SS, Sens MA, Tashian RE. Immunocytochemical demonstration of carbonic anhydrase in human epithelial cells. Journal of Histochemistry and Cytochemistry. 1982;30(9):864–73. doi: 10.1177/30.9.6813372. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Argenzio RA, Whipp SC. Effect of Escherichia-Coli Heat-Stable Entero-Toxin, Cholera-Toxin and Theophylline on Ion-Transport in Porcine Colon. Journal of Physiology. 1981;320:469–87. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1981.sp013962. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Brahimi-Horn MC, Laferriere J, et al. Hypoxia and Tumor Angiogenesis. In: Marme D, Fusenig N, editors. Tumor Angiogenesis: Basic Mechanisms and Cancer Therapy. 2008. p. 186. [Google Scholar]
  • 92.David LA, Maurice CF, et al. Diet rapidly and reproducibly alters the human gut microbiome. Nature. 2014;505(7484):559–63. doi: 10.1038/nature12820. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.O’Keefe SJ, Li JV, et al. Fat, fibre and cancer risk in African Americans and rural Africans. Nature communications. 2015;6:6342. doi: 10.1038/ncomms7342. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Wu S, Rhee KJ, Albesiano E, et al. A human colonic commensal promotes colon tumorigenesis via activation of T helper type 17 T cell responses. Nature Medicine. 2009;15(9):1016–22. doi: 10.1038/nm.2015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Kostic AD, Chun E, et al. Fusobacterium nucleatum potentiates intestinal tumorigenesis and modulates the tumor-immune microenvironment. Cell host & microbe. 2013;14(2):207–15. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2013.07.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Mima K, Cao Y, et al. Fusobacterium nucleatum in Colorectal Carcinoma Tissue According to Tumor Location. Clinical Translational Gastroenterology. 2016;7(11):e200. doi: 10.1038/ctg.2016.53. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Arthur JC, Perez-Chanona E, et al. Intestinal inflammation targets cancer-inducing activity of the microbiota. Science. 2012;338(6103):120–3. doi: 10.1126/science.1224820. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Brennan CA, Garrett WS. Gut Microbiota, Inflammation, and Colorectal Cancer. Annual Reviews of Microbiology. 2016;70:395–411. doi: 10.1146/annurev-micro-102215-095513. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Dejea CM, Sears CL. Do biofilms confer a pro-carcinogenic state? Gut microbes. 2016;7(1):54–7. doi: 10.1080/19490976.2015.1121363. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Johnson CH, Spilker ME, et al. Metabolite and Microbiome Interplay in Cancer Immunotherapy. Cancer Research. 2016;76(21):6146–52. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-16-0309. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Vineis P, Perera F. Molecular epidemiology and biomarkers in etiologic cancer research: the new in light of the old. Cancer epidemiology. 2007;16(10):1954–65. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-0457. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Chadeau-Hyam M, Athersuch TJ, et al. Meeting-in-the-middle using metabolic profiling - a strategy for the identification of intermediate biomarkers in cohort studies. Biomarkers. 2011;16(1):83–8. doi: 10.3109/1354750X.2010.533285. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Tsuruya A, Kuwahara A, et al. Major Anaerobic Bacteria Responsible for the Production of Carcinogenic Acetaldehyde from Ethanol in the Colon and Rectum. Alcohol. 2016;51(4):395–401. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agv135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Chen P, Schnabl B. Host-microbiome interactions in alcoholic liver disease. Gut Liver. 2014;8(3):237–41. doi: 10.5009/gnl.2014.8.3.237. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Tsuruya A, Kuwahara A, et al. Ecophysiological consequences of alcoholism on human gut microbiota: implications for ethanol-related pathogenesis of colon cancer. Scientific Reports. 2016;6:27923. doi: 10.1038/srep27923. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Purohit V, Bode JC, et al. Alcohol, Intestinal Bacterial Growth, Intestinal Permeability to Endotoxin, and Medical Consequences: Summary of a Symposium. Alcohol (Fayetteville, NY) 2008;42(5):349–61. doi: 10.1016/j.alcohol.2008.03.131. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Schwabe RF, Jobin C. The microbiome and cancer. Nature Reviews Cancer. 2013;13(11):800–12. doi: 10.1038/nrc3610. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Schnabl B, Brenner DA. Interactions Between the Intestinal Microbiome and Liver Diseases. Gastroenterology. 146(6):1513–24. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2014.01.020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Leclercq S, Matamoros S, et al. Intestinal permeability, gut-bacterial dysbiosis, and behavioral markers of alcohol-dependence severity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2014;111(42):E4485–E93. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1415174111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Oliver SG, Winson MK, et al. Systematic functional analysis of the yeast genome. Trends in Biotechnology. 1998;16(9):373–8. doi: 10.1016/s0167-7799(98)01214-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Clayton AT, Lindon JC, et al. Pharmaco-metabonomic phenotyping and personalized drug treatment. Nature. 2006;440(7087):1073–7. doi: 10.1038/nature04648. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Beger RD, Dunn W, et al. Metabolomics enables precision medicine: “A White Paper, Community Perspective”. Metabolomics. 2016;12(9):149. doi: 10.1007/s11306-016-1094-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Armitage EG, Southam AD. Monitoring cancer prognosis, diagnosis and treatment efficacy using metabolomics and lipidomics. Metabolomics. 2016;12(9):146. doi: 10.1007/s11306-016-1093-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Mastrangelo A, Armitage EG, et al. Metabolomics as a Tool for Drug Discovery and Personalised Medicine. Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry. 2014;14(23):2627–36. doi: 10.2174/1568026614666141215124956. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Kaddurah-Daouk R, Weinshilboum RM. Pharmacometabolomics: Implications for Clinical Pharmacology and Systems Pharmacology. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics. 2014;95(2):154–67. doi: 10.1038/clpt.2013.217. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Abu Aboud O, Weiss RH. New Opportunities from the Cancer Metabolome. Clinical Chemistry. 2013;59(1):138–46. doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2012.184598. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Burt T, Nandal S. Pharmacometabolomics in Early-Phase Clinical Development. Clinical and Translational Science. 2016;9(3):128–38. doi: 10.1111/cts.12396. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Siegel RL, Miller KD, et al. Colorectal Cancer Statistics, 2017. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians; 2017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Kuwata G, Hiramatsu K, et al. Increase of N (1), N (12)-diacetylspermine in tissues from colorectal cancer and its liver metastasis. Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology. 2013;139(6):925–32. doi: 10.1007/s00432-013-1405-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 120.Hiramatsu K, Takahashi K, et al. N(1), N(12)-Diacetylspermine as a sensitive and specific novel marker for early- and late-stage colorectal and breast cancers. Clinical Cancer Research. 2005;11(8):2986–90. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-2275. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 121.Obrien BL, Hankewych M, et al. Urinary N-1-Acetylspermidine and N-8-Acetylspermidine Excretion in Normal Humans and in Patients with Colorectal-Cancer. Digestive diseases and sciences. 1995;40(6):1269–74. doi: 10.1007/BF02065536. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 122.Halline A, Dudeja P, et al. Urinary N-1-Acetylspermidine and N-8-Acetylspermidine Excretion in Normal Humans and in Patients with Colorectal-Cancer. Cancer Research. 1989;49(17):4721–3. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 123.Loser C, Folsch UR, Paprotny C, Creutzfeldt W. Polyamines in Colorectal-Cancer - Evaluation of Polyamine Concentrations in the Colon Tissue, Serum, and Urine of 50 Patients with Colorectal-Cancer. Cancer. 1990;65(4):958–66. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19900215)65:4<958::aid-cncr2820650423>3.0.co;2-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 124.Takenoshita S, Matsuzaki S, Nakano G, Kimura H, Hoshi H, Shoda H, et al. Selective Elevation of the N-1-Acetylspermidine Level in Human Colorectal Adenocarcinomas. Cancer Research. 1984;44(2):845–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 125.Gerner EW, Meyskens FL., Jr Polyamines and cancer: old molecules, new understanding. Nature Reviews Cancer. 2004;4(10):781–92. doi: 10.1038/nrc1454. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 126.Leichtle AB, Nuoffer J-M, et al. Serum amino acid profiles and their alterations in colorectal cancer. Metabolomics. 2012;8(4):643–53. doi: 10.1007/s11306-011-0357-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 127.Zheng Y-F, Yang J, et al. Urinary nucleosides as biological markers for patients with colorectal cancer. World Journal of Gastroenterology. 2005;11(25):3871–6. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v11.i25.3871. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 128.Farshidfar F, Weljie AM, et al. A validated metabolomic signature for colorectal cancer: exploration of the clinical value of metabolomics. British Journal of Cancer. 2016;115(7):848–57. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2016.243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 129.Backshall A, Sharma R, et al. Pharmacometabonomic Profiling as a Predictor of Toxicity in Patients with Inoperable Colorectal Cancer Treated with Capecitabine. Clinical Cancer Research. 2011;17(9):3019. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-2474. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 130.Clayton TA, Baker D, et al. Pharmacometabonomic identification of a significant host-microbiome metabolic interaction affecting human drug metabolism. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2009;106(34):14728–33. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0904489106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 131.Abo R, Hebbring S, Ji Y, et al. Merging Pharmacometabolomics with Pharmacogenomics using “1000 Genomes” SNP Imputation: Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor Response Pharmacogenomics. Pharmacogenetics and Genomics. 2012;22(4):247–53. doi: 10.1097/FPC.0b013e32835001c9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 132.Chambliss AB, Chan DW. Precision medicine: from pharmacogenomics to pharmacoproteomics. Clinical Proteomics. 2016;13(1):25. doi: 10.1186/s12014-016-9127-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 133.Kantae V, Krekels EHJ, et al. Integration of pharmacometabolomics with pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics: towards personalized drug therapy. Metabolomics. 2016;13(1):9. doi: 10.1007/s11306-016-1143-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 134.Ji Y, Hebbring S, Zhu H, et al. Glycine and a glycine dehydrogenase (GLDC) SNP as citalopram/escitalopram response biomarkers in depression: pharmacometabolomics-informed pharmacogenomics. Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics. 2011;89(1):97–104. doi: 10.1038/clpt.2010.250. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 135.Sivan A, Corrales L, et al. Commensal Bifidobacterium promotes antitumor immunity and facilitates anti-PD-L1 efficacy. Science. 2015;350(6264):1084–9. doi: 10.1126/science.aac4255. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 136.Spratlin JL, Serkova NJ, Eckhardt GS. Clinical Applications of Metabolomics in Oncology: A Review. Clinical Cancer Research. 2009;15(2):431–40. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-1059. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 137.Lin L, Lin J-M. Development of cell metabolite analysis on microfluidic platform. Journal of Pharmaceutical Analysis. 2015;5(6):337–47. doi: 10.1016/j.jpha.2015.09.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 138.Miller GW. The Exposome, A Primer. Elsevier; 2014. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES