Folic acid supplementation during early hepatocarcinogenesis: Cellular and molecular effects

Folic acid (FA) supplementation during carcinogenesis is controversial. Considering the impact of liver cancer as a public health problem and mandatory FA fortification in several countries, the role of FA supplementation in hepatocarcinogenesis should be elucidated. We evaluated FA supplementation...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inInternational journal of cancer Vol. 129; no. 9; pp. 2073 - 2082
Main Authors Chagas, Carlos Eduardo Andrade, Bassoli, Bruna Kempfer, de Souza, Camila Alexandre Soares, Deminice, Rafael, Júnior, Alceu Afonso Jordão, Paiva, Sérgio Alberto Rupp, Dagli, Maria Lúcia Zaidan, Ong, Thomas Prates, Moreno, Fernando Salvador
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Hoboken Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company 01.11.2011
Wiley-Blackwell
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Folic acid (FA) supplementation during carcinogenesis is controversial. Considering the impact of liver cancer as a public health problem and mandatory FA fortification in several countries, the role of FA supplementation in hepatocarcinogenesis should be elucidated. We evaluated FA supplementation during early hepatocarcinogenesis. Rats received daily 0.08 mg (FA8 group) or 0.16 mg (FA16 group) of FA/100 g body weight or water (CO group, controls). After a 2‐week treatment, animals were subjected to the “resistant hepatocyte” model of hepatocarcinogenesis (initiation with diethylnitrosamine, selection/promotion with 2‐acetylaminofluorene and partial hepatectomy) and euthanized after 8 weeks of treatment. Compared to the CO group, the FA16 group presented: reduced (p < 0.05) number of persistent and increased (p < 0.05) number of remodeling glutathione S‐transferase (GST‐P) positive preneoplastic lesions (PNL); reduced (p < 0.05) cell proliferation in persistent GST‐P positive PNL; decreased (p < 0.05) hepatic DNA damage; and a tendency (p < 0.10) for decreased c‐myc expression in microdissected PNL. Regarding all these parameters, no differences (p > 0.05) were observed between CO and FA8 groups. FA‐treated groups presented increased hepatic levels of S‐adenosylmethionine but only FA16 group presented increased S‐adenosylmethionine/S‐adenosylhomocysteine ratio. No differences (p > 0.05) were observed between experimental groups regarding apoptosis in persistent and remodeling GST‐P positive PNL, and global DNA methylation pattern in microdissected PNL. Altogether, the FA16 group, but not the FA8 group, presented chemopreventive activity. Reversion of PNL phenotype and inhibition of DNA damage and of c‐myc expression represent relevant FA cellular and molecular effects.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0020-7136
1097-0215
DOI:10.1002/ijc.25886