Phenobarbital and propiconazole toxicogenomic profiles in mice show major similarities consistent with the key role that constitutive androstane receptor (CAR) activation plays in their mode of action

Toxicology

Volumn 321, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 80-88

  Currie, Richard A ^a   Peffer, Richard C ^b   Goetz, Amber K ^b   Omiecinski, Curtis J ^c   Goodman, Jay I ^d  

^a JEALOTT S HILL INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CENTRE   (United Kingdom)

^b SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION   (United States)

^c PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Conazoles; Constitutive androstane receptor; Phenobarbital; Propiconazole; Toxicogenomics

Indexed keywords

CONSTITUTIVE ANDROSTANE RECEPTOR; PHENOBARBITAL; PROPICONAZOLE;

ADULT; ANIMAL CELL; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL MODEL; ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; CD-1 MOUSE; CELL PROLIFERATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOSE RESPONSE; DRUG CARCINOGENICITY; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; FEMALE; IN VIVO STUDY; LIVER; LIVER ADENOMA; LIVER CARCINOGENESIS; LIVER CELL; LIVER TUMOR; MALE; MAXIMUM TOLERATED DOSE; MOUSE; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPORTER GENE; SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION; TISSUE MICROARRAY; TOXICOGENETICS;

CONAZOLES; CONSTITUTIVE ANDROSTANE RECEPTOR; PHENOBARBITAL; PROPICONAZOLE; TOXICOGENOMICS;

ANIMALS; CARCINOGENICITY TESTS; CARCINOGENS; CELL PROLIFERATION; FEMALE; FUNGICIDES, INDUSTRIAL; GENES, REPORTER; HEPATOCYTES; HYPNOTICS AND SEDATIVES; MALE; MICE; NEOPLASMS, EXPERIMENTAL; ORGAN SIZE; PHENOBARBITAL; RECEPTORS, CYTOPLASMIC AND NUCLEAR; SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION; TOXICOGENETICS; TRIAZOLES; WEIGHT GAIN;

EID: 84899822044     PISSN: 0300483X     EISSN: 18793185     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tox.2014.03.003     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Brennan R. Genomic Analysis of Propiconazole and Phenobarbital-induced Mouse Liver Gene Expression Data: Supplemental Data - Appendix 3 2010, GeneGo, Inc., Encinitas, CA.
2. Currie R.A. Toxicogenomics: the challenges and opportunities to identify biomarkers, signatures and thresholds to support mode-of-action. Mutat. Res. 2012, 746:97-103.
3. Dewhurst I., Dellarco V. Propiconazole 2006, World Health Organization (WHO), Geneva.
4. Dezso Z., Nikolsky Y., Sviridov E., et al. A comprehensive functional analysis of tissue specificity of human gene expression. BMC Biol. 2008, 6:49.
5. Dunnett C.W. A multiple comparison procedure for comparing several treatments with a control. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1955, 50:1096-1121.
6. Elcombe C.R., Peffer R.C., Wolf D.C., et al. Mode of action and human relevance analysis for nuclear receptor-mediated liver toxicity: a case study with phenobarbital as a model constitutive androstane receptor (CAR) activator. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 2014, 44:64-82.
7. Goetz A.K., Singh B.P., Battalora M., et al. Current and future use of genomics data in toxicology: opportunities and challenges for regulatory applications. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2011, 61:141-153.
8. Holsapple M.P., Pitot H.C., Cohen S.M., et al. Mode of action in relevance of rodent liver tumors to human cancer risk. Toxicol. Sci. 2006, 89:51-56.
9. Huang W., Zhang J., Washington M., et al. Xenobiotic stress induces hepatomegaly and liver tumors via the nuclear receptor constitutive androstane receptor. Mol. Endocrinol. 2005, 19:1646-1653.
10. Ideker T., Galitski T., Hood L. A new approach to decoding life: systems biology. Annu. Rev. Genom. Hum. Genet. 2001, 2:343-372.
11. International Agency for Research on Cancer [IARC] Phenobarbital and its Sodium Salts. Some Thyrotropic Agents 2001, 161-288. IARC Press, Lyon, France.
12. Jones H.B., Orton T.C., Lake B.G. Effect of chronic phenobarbitone administration on liver tumour formation in the C57BL/10J mouse. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2009, 47:1333-1340.
13. Kawamoto T., Sueyoshi T., Zelko I., et al. Phenobarbital-responsive nuclear translocation of the receptor CAR in induction of the CYP2B gene. Mol. Cell Biol. 1999, 19. 6318-5322.
14. Kolaja K.L., Stevenson D.E., Johnson J.T., et al. Subchronic effects of dieldrin and phenobarbital on hepatic DNA synthesis in mice and rats. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 1996, 29:219-228.
15. Lake B.G. Species differences in the hepatic effects of inducers of CYP2B and CYP4A subfamily forms: relationship to rodent liver tumour formation. Xenobiotica 2009, 39:582-596.
16. MacLeod A.K., McMahon M., Plummer S.M., et al. Characterization of the cancer chemopreventive NRF2-dependent gene battery in human keratinocytes: demonstration that the KEAP1-NRF2 pathway, and not the BACH1-NRF2 pathway, controls cytoprotection against electrophiles as well as redox-cycling compounds. Carcinogenesis 2009, 30:1571-1580.
17. Mann H.B., Whitney D.R. On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Ann. Math. Stat. 1947, 18:50-60.
18. Nesnow S. Integration of toxicological approaches with omic and related technologies to elucidate mechanisms of carcinogenic action: propiconazole, an example. Cancer Lett. 2013, 334:20-27.
19. Nesnow S., Ward W., Moore T., et al. Discrimination of tumorigenic triazole conazoles from phenobarbital by transcriptional analyses of mouse liver gene expression. Toxicol. Sci. 2009, 110:68-83.
20. Omiecinski C.J., Coslo D.M., Chen T., et al. Multi-species analyses of direct activators of the constitutive androstane receptor. Toxicol. Sci. 2011, 123:550-562.
21. Peffer R.C., Moggs J.G., Pastoor T., et al. Mouse liver effects of cyproconazole, a triazole fungicide: role of the constitutive androstane receptor. Toxicol. Sci. 2007, 99:315-325.
22. Pennie W., Pettit S.D., Lord P.G. Toxicogenomics in risk assessment: an overview of an HESI collaborative research program. Environ. Health Perspect. 2004, 112:417-419.
23. Plummer S. Pathways Analysis of Liver Microarray Data Derived from Phenobarbital (PB)- and Propiconazole (PPZ)-treated Mice: Supplemental Data - Appendix 2. CXR Biosciences 2011, Dundee Technopole, Dundee, UK.
24. Shi L., Reid L.H., Jones W.D., et al. The microarray quality control (MAQC) project shows inter- and intraplatform reproducibility of gene expression measurements. Nat. Biotechnol. 2006, 24:1151-1161.
25. Swales K., Negishi M. CAR, driving into the future. Mol. Endocrinol. 2004, 18:1589-1598.
26. Tate E.W. Recent advances in chemical proteomics: exploring the post-translational proteome. J. Chem. Biol. 2008, 1:17-26.
27. Tojima H., Kakizaki S., Yamazaki Y., et al. Ligand dependent hepatic gene expression profiles of nuclear receptors CAR and PXR. Toxicol. Lett. 2012, 212:288-297.
28. United States Environmental Protection Agency [US EPA] Propiconazole: Phase 2, HED Chapter of the Re-registration Eligibility Decision Document (RED). Washington, DC 2006.
29. United States Environmental Protection Agency [US EPA] Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for Propiconazole. Washington, DC 2006.
30. Ward W.O., Delker D.A., Hester S.D., et al. Transcriptional profiles in liver from mice treated with hepatotumorigenic and nonhepatotumorigenic triazole conazole fungicides: propiconazole, triadimefon, and myclobutanil. Toxicol. Pathol. 2006, 34:863-878.
31. Whysner J., Ross P.M., Williams G.M. Phenobarbital mechanistic data and risk assessment: enzyme induction, enhanced cell proliferation, and tumor promotion. Pharmacol. Ther. 1996, 71:153-191.
32. Wilcoxon F. Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics 1945, 1:80-83.
33. Wilcoxon F. Probability tables for individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics 1947, 3:119-122.
34. Yamamoto Y., Moore R., Goldsworthy T.L., et al. The orphan nuclear receptor constitutive active/androstane receptor is essential for liver tumor promotion by phenobarbital in mice. Cancer Res. 2004, 64:7197-7200.