Cancer Prevention Research Prostate- No Abst
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online
Cancer Prevention Research 1, 80-83, July 1, 2008. Published Online First March 31, 2008;
doi: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-08-0047
© 2008 American Association for Cancer Research
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Related Articles
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
1940-6207.CAPR-08-0047v1
1/2/80    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Penning, T. M.
Right arrow Articles by Lerman, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Penning, T. M.
Right arrow Articles by Lerman, C.
Related Collections
Right arrowKey Articles

Perspectives

Genomics of Smoking Exposure and Cessation: Lessons for Cancer Prevention and Treatment

Trevor M. Penning1,2 and Caryn Lerman1,3

Authors' Affiliations: 1 Center of Excellence in Environmental Toxicology, Transdisciplinary Tobacco Use Research Center, Abramson Cancer Center, and Departments of 2 Pharmacology and 3 Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Requests for reprints: Trevor M. Penning, University of Pennsylvania, 3620 Hamilton Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6084. Phone: 215-898-9445; Fax: 215-573-2236; E-mail: penning{at}pharm.med.upenn.edu.


  
TOP
Significance for Cancer Etiology
 Significance for Cancer...
 Conclusion
 Disclosure of Potential...
 References
 
Tobacco use is the greatest preventable cause of cancer in the United States, accounting for almost one third of all cancer-related deaths and 90% of deaths from lung cancer. Despite widespread knowledge of these risks, tobacco use prevalence rates are 20% in the United States and up to 30% to 50% in the developing world (1, 2). Nicotine, the addictive chemical in tobacco, produces a biological dependence (3), and therefore, even with the most efficacious medications available, only one in four smokers is able to maintain long-term abstinence (4). Persistent tobacco use is common even following a diagnosis of tobacco-related cancer and is associated with poorer outcomes of radiation therapy and chemotherapy and with increased risk of second primary malignancies (5). Although smoking cessation is optimal, it may not be realistic for all patients. Therefore, it is essential to gain a better understanding of the cellular and molecular mechanisms through which tobacco exposure contributes to cancer pathogenesis and outcomes, and to develop targeted prevention and therapeutic approaches.

Toward this end, a study reported by Gumus et al. (6) in this issue of the journal characterized gene expression profiles in the oral mucosa of smokers and nonsmokers and validated their findings by examining the in vitro effects of tobacco smoke condensate on gene expression in an oral leukoplakia cell line. Another related study also reported in this issue of the journal was conducted by Zhang et al. (7), who compared gene expression in cells obtained from bronchial brushes from never, current, and former smokers. Smoking effects on global gene expression were common across these studies. Certain genes (CYP1A1 and CYP1B1) that were up-regulated in buccal oral specimens of smokers were part of a larger group (CYP1A1, CYP1B1, ALDH3A1, NQO1, and AKR1C1) up-regulated following in vitro exposure to tobacco smoke condensate (6) and in the airway cells of smokers (7). Zhang and colleagues provide further in vivo evidence that many of these genes are down-regulated in persons who reported quitting smoking at least 1 year before the assessment (CYP1B1, AKR1C1, AKR1C2, AKR1B10, and ALDH3A1). Many of these same genes were previously shown to be overexpressed in oral cancer cells exposed to tobacco smoke condensate (8), in bronchial epithelial cells of smokers, and in patients' non–small cell lung carcinoma cells (9, 10). The effects are also consistent with the effects of smoking on the airway transcriptome (11, 12). Taken together, these findings identify important tobacco smoke exposure response genes. The studies of Gumus et al. and Zhang et al. in this issue of the journal provide an elegant illustration of the value of cross-model (preclinical and clinical) validation in translational cancer prevention research.


   Significance for Cancer Etiology
TOP
Significance for Cancer Etiology
Significance for Cancer...
 Conclusion
 Disclosure of Potential...
 References
 
These findings are highly significant for our understanding of cancer etiology. Many of the altered enzymes play pivotal roles in the metabolism/activation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH; refs. 13–16), which are tobacco carcinogens. Their up-regulation likely results in increased metabolism of PAH to biologically reactive intermediates that can lesion DNA. Importantly, CYP1A1 and CYP1B1 are induced when PAH bind to the aryl hydrocarbon receptor, which turns on gene transcription via the xenobiotic response element (refs. 13, 17, 18; Fig. 1A). CYP1A1/CYP1B1 are ultimately responsible for the monoxygenation of PAH to yield diol-epoxides, which form covalent bulky adducts with DNA that lead to mutation (19, 20). Paradoxically, studies with CYP1A1 and CYP1B1 knockout mice show that these enzymes protect against benzo[a]pyrene (B[a]P) toxicity because in their absence, diol-epoxide DNA adduct levels are even higher (21–23). This outcome is evident in human bronchoalveolar (H358) cells where cells induced to express CYP1B1 produced less anti-B[a]P-diol epoxide-N2-dGuo adducts than uninduced cells (24). This suggests that in the absence of CYP1A1/CYP1B1, lower clearance of B[a]P leads to the formation of more diol-epoxide DNA adducts and that CYP1A1/CYP1B1 induction is protective.


Figure 1
View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Fig. 1. Significance of tobacco exposure response genes. A, up-regulation of CYP1A1/CYP1B1 and AKR genes leads to a decrease in diol-epoxide DNA adducts and an increase in oxidative DNA damage. B, up-regulation of CYP1A1/CYP1B1 and AKR genes leads to an increase in reactive oxygen species and lipid peroxidation, which is counteracted by induction of ALDH3A1 and the AKR gene battery. C, up-regulation of AKR1B10 via the antioxidant response element leads to a loss of retinoic acid signaling. D, up-regulation of CYP1A1/1B1 and AKR genes leads to an increase in cancer chemotherapeutic drug resistance. AhR, aryl hydrocarbon receptor; ARE, antioxidant response element; 4-HNE, 4-hydroxy-2-nonenal; ROS, reactive oxygen species; XRE, xenobiotic response element.

 
PAH trans-dihydrodiols formed en route to diol-epoxides are also oxidized by AKR1C1 or AKR1C2 to yield electrophilic and redox active PAH o-quinones (16, 25, 26). B[a]P-7,8-dione, because it is redox active, enters into futile redox cycles to amplify the formation of reactive oxygen species that results in oxidatively damaged DNA (e.g., 8-oxo-dGuo, a highly mutagenic lesion; refs. 27, 28). The AKR-generated B[a]P-7,8-dione is a ligand for the aryl hydrocarbon receptor and will induce CYP1A1 and CYP1B1 still further (29, 30). Moreover, the B[a]P-7,8-dione and the reactive oxygen species it generates induce AKR1C1-AKR1C3 genes via their antioxidant response elements (31, 32). Nrf2 the transcription factor that binds to the antioxidant response element also induces the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) gene (33). Thus, tobacco exposure leads to the induction of the CYP1A1 /CYP1B1 and AKR genes to stimulate B[a]P metabolism. On balance, this could result in less diol-epoxide DNA adducts and the formation of more B[a]P-7,8-dione and reactive oxygen species that will lead to mutagenic oxidative DNA damage.

Another gene that showed altered expression was ALDH3A1. When coupled with the overexpression of AKR1C1, AKR1C2, AKR1B10, and NQO1 genes, another outcome of chronic tobacco exposure is to mount a counter-response to oxidative stress (Fig. 1B). Tobacco smoke leads to oxidative stress due to the presence of benzoquinone and heavy metals and the production of redox-active PAH o-quinones, which is AKR mediated (see above). Each of these up-regulated genes contains an antioxidant response element in their gene promoters (32, 34, 35). A consequence of oxidative stress is the formation of lipid peroxides that can break down to form reactive bifunctional electrophiles (e.g., 4-hydroxy-2-nonenal and 4-oxo-2-nonenal; refs. 36, 37). Induction of these genes provides a route to the detoxification of these reactive lipid aldehydes.

One remaining gene that deserves comment is the altered expression of AKR1B10 (small intestine like aldose reductase; Fig. 1C). Whereas this gene can protect against the toxic effects of lipid aldehydes, it has another function (38–40). It is the most catalytically efficient of all the known all-trans-retinal reductases (40). Elimination of retinal as retinol prevents the conversion of retinal to retinoic acid. Retinoic acid is a ligand for retinoid acid receptor and retinoid X receptor, and activation of these nuclear receptors leads to cell differentiation (41). If retinoid acid receptor and retinoid X receptor are deprived of their ligand, this could lead to a pro-proliferative response. In fact, retinoid acid receptor and retinoid X receptor are often lost in lung cancer cell lines, suggesting that there is a coordinated loss of retinoic acid signaling (42).


   Significance for Cancer Prevention and Treatment
TOP
Significance for Cancer Etiology
 Significance for Cancer...
Conclusion
 Disclosure of Potential...
 References
 
Identification of tobacco exposure response genes has important implications for chemoprevention and chemotherapy of tobacco-related cancers in smokers. At first glance, inhibition of the CYP1A1/CYP1B1 genes might be anticipated to be beneficial because it could reduce the level of diol-epoxides. However, the phenotype of CYP1A1/CYP1B1 knockout mice indicates that this will increase PAH toxicity, and this should be avoided (21–23). Clearly, the overexpression of AKRs in smokers is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, this could lead to increased bioactivation of PAH and DNA mutation, and on the other hand, they are part of a counter-response to oxidative stress and lipid peroxidation. AKR genes are regulated by an antioxidant response element, and chemopreventive strategies that target this mechanism of gene induction (e.g., R-sulforaphane) should be considered with caution because it is uncertain that they will be harmful or beneficial in the context of lung cancer (43). Strategies aimed at the inhibition of AKRs may be more effective because although this will attenuate the detoxification of 4-hydroxy-2-nonenal, this may be compensated for by redundancy in the detoxifying enzymes (e.g., ALDH3A1 and glutathione S-transferases) that compete for 4-hydroxy-2-nonenal. Approved drugs that are potent inhibitors of the AKRs are the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (44).

If oxidative stress is a driving component of the lung carcinogenic process, antioxidant strategies may also be desirable. Two high profile clinical trials addressed the use of antioxidant vitamins: The Alpha-Tocopherol Beta-Carotene Prevention Study (45) and the Carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial (46). Both studies revealed that lung cancer risk was significantly increased in heavy smokers receiving β-carotene (47). The altered expression of AKR1B10, reported to be coupled with the high overexpression of AKR1B10 seen in non–small cell lung carcinoma by Fukumoto et al. (9), suggests why chemopreventive studies that target retinoid X receptor and retinoid acid receptor are likely to fail. AKR1B10 will rapidly eliminate retinal as retinol and prevent formation of retinoic acid. By contrast, in the Alpha-Tocopherol Beta-Carotene study, high serum {alpha}-tocopherol was associated with lower lung cancer incidence, although the effect was stronger in smokers with less cumulative tobacco exposure (48).

Overexpression of CYP1B1 and AKRs may also contribute to cancer chemotherapeutic drug resistance, and therefore chronic smokers with lung cancer may have lower response rates on these therapies (Fig. 1D). CYP1B1 is implicated in the metabolic clearance of docetaxel, gefitinib, and erlotinib (49, 50). In addition, AKR1C1 is overexpressed in HT29 colon cancer cells that are resistant to the glutathione S-transferase inhibitor ethacrynic acid (51). AKR1C1 and AKR1C2 genes are overexpressed in non–small cell lung carcinoma in patients with poor response to anti-pyrimidine therapy (52), and AKR1C1 and AKR1C2 are overexpressed in ovarian cancer cell lines resistant to cisplatin (53, 54). In the latter case, cisplatin resistance could be accomplished by transfection of AKR1C1. Because cisplatin is widely used for non–small cell lung carcinoma, this raises the prospect that its efficacy could be improved by the coadministration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, which are known inhibitors of AKR isozymes.

To increase our understanding of the molecular mechanisms through which tobacco smoke exposure influences the efficacy of cancer prevention and therapeutic agents, a more rigorous exposure measurement, beyond the traditional smoking pack-years assessment, is needed (5). This should include ongoing assessment of tobacco exposure following diagnosis, biochemical verification of self-reported use using biomarkers (e.g., cotinine, 3'-trans-hydroxycotinine, and 3-hydroxy-B[a]P), and use of pharmacotherapy to reduce tobacco exposure.


   Conclusion
TOP
Significance for Cancer Etiology
 Significance for Cancer...
 Conclusion
Disclosure of Potential...
 References
 
These emerging data raise exciting prospects for translation of genomics research on smoking exposure to practice. As shown by Beane et al. (55) in this issue, the integration of integrated clinical and genomic profiling information can provide a powerful risk assessment "clinicogenomic" tool that could be translated to the clinical setting. Genomic profiling strategies may also facilitate prevention of tobacco-related cancer by facilitating smoking cessation. For example, feedback to smokers about gene expression profiling of oral or airway cells may serve as a motivational intervention for smoking cessation (56). In addition, new data also support the potential application of profiling of inherited genomic variation to predict the risk of smoking relapse and to optimize smoking cessation therapy (57). Finally, the studies published in this issue identify genomic alterations associated with smoking exposure, and the mechanisms through which these genes alter therapeutic response will hopefully identify agents that can be used by smokers for cancer prevention and treatment.


   Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
TOP
Significance for Cancer Etiology
 Significance for Cancer...
 Conclusion
 Disclosure of Potential...
References
 
No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.


   Footnotes
 
Grant support: National Institute of Health grants P30-ES013507, R01-ES015807, and R01-CA39504 and Pennsylvania Department of Health grant SAP#4100038714 (T.M. Penning), and National Cancer Institute grant P50 CA/DA 84718 and the Pennsylvania Department of Health (C. Lerman).

Note: The Pennsylvania Department of Health specifically disclaims responsibility for any analyses, interpretations, or conclusions.

Received for publication February 29, 2008. Accepted March 5, 2008

   References
TOP
Significance for Cancer Etiology
 Significance for Cancer...
 Conclusion
 Disclosure of Potential...
 References
 

    1. CDCCigarette smoking among adults—United States, 2004. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2005;54:1121–4.[Medline]

    2. MacKay M Eriksen MThe tobacco atlas. World Health Organization; 2001.

    3. Lerman C, Lesage MG, Perkins KA et al Translational research in medication development for nicotine dependence. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2007;9:746–62.

    4. Schnoll R Lerman CCurrent and emerging pharmacotherapies for treating tobacco dependence. Expert Opin Emerg Drugs 2006;11:1–16.[CrossRef][Medline]

    5. Gritz E, Dresler C, Sarna LSmoking, the missing drug interaction in clinical trials: ignoring the obvious. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005;14:2287–93.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    6. Gumus ZH, Du B, Kacker A et al Effects of tobacco smoke on gene expression and cellular pathways in a cellular model of oral leukoplakia. Cancer Prev Res. In press.

    7. Zhang L, Lee JJ, Tang H et al Impact of smoking cessation on global gene expression in the bronchial epithelium of chronic smokers. Cancer Prev Res. In press.

    8. Nagaraj N, Beckers S, Meansh JK et al Cigarette smoke condensate induces cytochrome P450 and aldo keto reductases in oral cancer cells. Toxicol Lett 2006;165:182–94.[CrossRef][Medline]

    9. Fukumoto S-I, Yamauchi N, Moriguchi H et al Overexpression of the aldo-keto reductase family protein AKR1B10 is highly correlated with smokers' non-small cell lung carcinomas. Clin Cancer Res 2005;11:1776–85.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    10. Woenckhaus M, Klein-Hitpass L, Grepmeier U et al Smoking and cancer-related gene expression in bronchial epithelium and non-small cell lung cancer. J Pathol 2006;210:192–204.[CrossRef][Medline]

    11. Spira A, Beane J, Shah V et al Effects of cigarette smoke on the human airway epithelial cell transcriptome. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2004;101:10143–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    12. Beane J, Sebastiani P, Liu G et al Reversible and permanent effects of tobacco smoke exposure on airway epithelial gene expression. Genome Biol 2007;8:R201.[CrossRef][Medline]

    13. Till M, Riebniger D, Schmitz HJ et al Potency of various polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons as inducers of CYP1A1 in rat hepatocyte cultures. Chem Biol Interact 1999;117:135–50.[CrossRef][Medline]

    14. Sutter TR, Tang YM, Hayes CL et al Complete cDNA sequence of a human dioxin-inducible mRNA identifies a new gene subfamily of cytochrome P450 that maps to chromosome 2. J Biol Chem 1994;269:13092–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    15. Shimada T, Hayes CL, Yamazaki H et al Activation of chemically diverse procarcinogens by human cytochrome P450 1B1. Cancer Res 1996;56:2979–84.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    16. Palackal NT, Lee S-H, Harvey RG et al Activation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon trans-dihydrodiol proximate carcinogens by human aldo-keto reductase (AKR1C) enzymes and their functional overexpression in human lung carcinoma (A549) cells. J Biol Chem 2002;277:24799–808.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    17. Denison MS, Fisher JM, Whitlock JPThe DNA recognition site for the dioxin-Ah receptor complex. Nucleotide sequence and functional analysis. J Biol Chem 1988;263:17221–4.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    18. Denison MS, Fisher JM, Whitlock JPProtein-DNA interactions at recognition sites for the dioxin-Ah receptor complex. J Biol Chem 1989;264:16478–82.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    19. Conney AHInduction of microsomal enzymes by foreign chemicals and carcinogenesis by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. G.H.A. Clowes Memorial Lecture. Cancer Res 1982;42:4875–917.[Free Full Text]

    20. Gelboin HVBenzo[a]pyrene metabolism, activation and carcinogenesis: role and regulation of mixed function oxidases and related enzymes. Physiol Rev 1980;60:1107–66.[Free Full Text]

    21. Uno S, Dalton TP, Shertzer HG et al Benzo[a]pyrene-induced toxicity: paradoxical protection in Cyp1a1(–/–) knockout mice having increased heaptic B[a]P-DNA adduct levels. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2001;289:1049–56.[CrossRef][Medline]

    22. Uno S, Dalton TP, Derkenne S et al Oral exposure to benzo[a]pyrene in the mouse: detoxication by inducible cytochrome P450 is more important than metabolic activation. Mol Pharmacol 2004;65:1225–37.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    23. Uno S, Dalton TP, Dragin N et al Oral benzo[a]pyrene in Cyp1 knockout mouse lines: CYP1A1 important in detoxication, CYP1B1 metabolism required for immune damage independent of total body burden and clearance rate. Mol Pharmacol 2006;69:1103–14.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    24. Ruan Q, Gelhaus SL, Penning TM et al Aldo-keto reductase- and cytochrome P450-dependent formation of benzo[a]pyrene-derived DNA adducts in human bronchoalveolar cells. Chem Res Toxicol 2007;20:424–31.[CrossRef][Medline]

    25. Smithgall TE, Harvey RG, Penning TMSpectroscopic identification of ortho-quinones as the products of polycyclic aromatic trans-dihydrodiol oxidation catalyzed by dihydrodiol dehydrogenase. A potential route of proximate carcinogen metabolism. J Biol Chem 1988;263:1814–20.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    26. Burczynski ME, Harvey RG, Penning TMExpression and characterization of four recombinant human dihydrodiol dehydrogenase isoforms: oxidation of trans-7,8-dihydroxy-7,8-dihydrobenzo[a]pyrene to the activated o-quinone metabolite benzo[a]pyrene-7,8-dione. Biochemistry 1998;37:6781–90.[CrossRef][Medline]

    27. Park J-H, Troxel AB, Harvey RG et al Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) o-quinones produced by the aldo-keto reductases (AKRs) generate abasic sites, oxidized pyrimidines, and 8-oxo-dGuo via reactive oxygen species. Chem Res Toxicol 2006;19:719–28.[CrossRef][Medline]

    28. Nakabeppu Y, Sakumi K, Sakamoto K et al Mutagenesis and carcinogenesis by oxidized nucleic acids. Biol Chem 2006;387:373–9.[CrossRef][Medline]

    29. Burczynski ME Penning TMGenotoxic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon ortho-quinones generated by aldo-keto reductases induce CYP1A1 via nuclear translocation of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor. Cancer Res 2000;60:908–15.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    30. Jiang H, Vudathala DK, Blair IA et al Competing roles of aldo-keto reductase 1A1 and cytochrome P4501B1 in benzo[a]pyrene-7,8-diol activation in human bronchoalveolar H358 cells: role of AKRs in P4501B1 induction. Chem Res Toxicol 2006;19:68–78.[CrossRef][Medline]

    31. Burczynski ME, Lin H-K, Penning TMIsoform-specific induction of a human aldo-keto reductase by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), electrophiles, and oxidative stress: implications for the alternative pathway of PAH activation catalyzed by human dihydrodiol dehydrogenases. Cancer Res 1999;59:607–14.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    32. Lou H, Du S, Ji Q et al Induction of AKR1C2 by Phase II inducers: identification of a distal consensus antioxidant response element regulated by Nrf2. Mol Pharmacol 2006;69:1662–72.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    33. Shin S, Wakabayashi N, Misra V et al Nrf2 modulates aryl hydrocarbon receptor signaling: influence on adipogenesis. Mol Cell Biol 2007;27:7188–97.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    34. Penning TM Drury JHuman aldo-keto reductases. Function, gene regulation and single nucleotide polymorphisms. Arch Biochem Biophys 2007;464:241–50.[CrossRef][Medline]

    35. Sreerama L Sladek NEThree different stable human breast adenocarcinoma sublines that overexpress ALDH3A1 and certain other enzymes, apparently as a consequence of constititutively up-regulated gene transcription mediated by transactivated EpREs (electrophile responsive elements) present in the 5'-upstream regions of these genes. Chem Biol Interact 2001;130–2:247–69.

    36. Esterbauer HM, Schauer RJ, Zollner HChemistry and biochemistry of 4-hydroxynonenal, malondialdehyde and related aldehydes. Free Radic Biol Med 1991;11:81–128.[CrossRef][Medline]

    37. Esterbauer HCytotoxocity and genotoxicity of lipid oxidation products. Am J Clin Nutr 1993;57:779–85S.

    38. Cao D, Fan ST, Chung SSMIdentification and characterization of a novel human aldose reductase-like gene. J Biol Chem 1998;273:11429–35.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    39. Yan R, Zu X, Ma JAldo-keto reductase family 1 B10 gene silencing results in growth inhibition of colorectal cells: implication for cancer intervention. Int J Cancer 2007;121:2301–6.[CrossRef][Medline]

    40. Gallego O, Belyaeva OV, Porte S et al Comparative functional analysis of human medium chain dehydrogenasess, short-chain dehydrogenases and aldo-keto reductases with retinoids. Biochem J 2006;399:101–9.[CrossRef][Medline]

    41. Le Q, Dawson MI, Soprano DR, Soprano KJModulation of retinoic acid receptor function alters the growth inhibitory response of oral SCC cells to retinoids. Oncogene 2000;19:1457–65.[CrossRef][Medline]

    42. Brabender J, Danneberg KD, Metzger R et al The role of retinoid X receptor messenger RNA expression in curatively resected non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2002;8:438–43.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    43. Fahey JW Talalay PAntioxidant functions of sulforaphane: a potent inducer of phase II detoxication enzymes. Food Chem Toxicol 1999;37:973–9.[CrossRef][Medline]

    44. Penning TM Talalay PInhibition of a major NAD(P)-linked oxidoreductase from rat liver cytosol by steroidal and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents and by prostaglandins. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1983;80:4504–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    45. The {alpha} Tocopherol-β Carotene Cancer Prevention Study GroupThe effect of vitamin E and β carotene on the incidence of lung cancer and other cancers in male smokers. N Engl J Med 1994;330:1029–35.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    46. Omenn G, Goodman GE, Thronquist MD et al Effects of combination of β-carotene and vitamin A on lung cancer and cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med 1996;334:1150–5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    47. Mayne ST Lippman SMCigarettes: a smoking gun in cancer chemoprevention. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:1319–21.[Free Full Text]

    48. Woodson K, Tangrea JA, Barrett MJ et al Serum {alpha}-tocopherol and subsequent risk of lung cancer among male smokers. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:1738–43.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    49. Hamilton M, Wolf JL, Rusk J et al Effects of smoking on the pharmacokinetics of erlotinib. Clin Cancer Res 2006;12:2166–71.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    50. Li J, Zhao M, He P et al Differential metabolism of gefitinib and erlotinib by human cytochrome P450 enzymes. Clin Cancer Res 2007;13:3731–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    51. Ciaccio PJ, Shen H, Jaiswal AK et al Modulation of detoxification gene expression in human colon HT29 cells by glutathione-S-transferase inhibitors. Mol Pharmacol 1995;48:639–47.[Abstract]

    52. Hsu N-Y, Ho H-C, Chow K-C et al Overexpression of dihydrodiol dehydrogenase as a prognostic marker of non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Res 2001;61:2727–31.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    53. Deng HB, Parekh HK, Chow KC et al Increased expression of dihydrodiol dehydrogenase induces resistance to cisplatin in human ovarian carcinoma cells. J Biol Chem 2002;277:5035–43.

    54. Deng HB, Adikari M, Parekh HK et al Ubiquitous induction of resistance to platinum drugs in human ovarian, cervical, germ-cell and lung carcinoma tumor cells overexpressing isoforms 1 and 2 of dihydrodiol dehydrogenase. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2004;54:301–7.[Medline]

    55. Beane J, Sebastiani P, Whitfield TH et al A prediction model for lung cancer diagnosis that integrates genomic and clinical features. Cancer Prev Res. In press.

    56. McBride CM, Bepler G, Lipkus IM et al Incorporating genetic susceptibility feedback into a smoking cessation program for African-American smokers with low income. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2002;11:521–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    57. Uhl GR, Liu QR, Drgon T et al Molecular genetics of successful smoking cessation: convergent genome-wide association results. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2008 In press.


Key Articles

Impact of Smoking Cessation on Global Gene Expression in the Bronchial Epithelium of Chronic Smokers
Li Zhang, J. Jack Lee, Hongli Tang, You-Hong Fan, Lianchun Xiao, Hening Ren, Jonathan Kurie, Rodolfo C. Morice, Waun Ki Hong, and Li Mao
Cancer Prevention Research 2008 1: 112-118. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Effects of Tobacco Smoke on Gene Expression and Cellular Pathways in a Cellular Model of Oral Leukoplakia
Zeynep H. Gümüs, Baoheng Du, Ashutosh Kacker, Jay O. Boyle, Jennifer M. Bocker, Piali Mukherjee, Kotha Subbaramaiah, Andrew J. Dannenberg, and Harel Weinstein
Cancer Prevention Research 2008 1: 100-111. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

A Prediction Model for Lung Cancer Diagnosis that Integrates Genomic and Clinical Features
Jennifer Beane, Paola Sebastiani, Theodore H. Whitfield, Katrina Steiling, Yves-Martine Dumas, Marc E. Lenburg, and Avrum Spira
Cancer Prevention Research 2008 1: 56-64. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Related Articles
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
1940-6207.CAPR-08-0047v1
1/2/80    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Penning, T. M.
Right arrow Articles by Lerman, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Penning, T. M.
Right arrow Articles by Lerman, C.
Related Collections
Right arrowKey Articles

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online