Study: low -dose chemical mixtures than carcinogenic
Study: low -dose chemical mixtures than carcinogenic
In this study, 11 teams of toxicology experts checked relevant data on the chemicals in our daily life in order to determine their carcinogenic effect in accordance with the "trademark of cancer".
This paper is part of our special environmental medicine. Read the entire issue below.
Reference
Goodson Wh 3rd, Lowe L, Carpenter Do, et al. Evaluation of the carcinogenic potential of low -dose exposure to chemical mixtures in the environment: the upcoming challenge. carcinogenesis. 2015; 36 Appendix 1: S254-S296.
Design
ELF teams from international toxicologists and biologists checked relevant data on ubiquitous chemicals and their possible influence on carcinogenesis based on the "trademark of cancer". 1 Every team should determine "prototypical" chemicals that are involved in the respective punch. The 11 teams were assigned to these categories: angiogenesis, dysregulated metabolism, bypass of anti -wax signals, genetic instability, bypass of the immune system, replicative immortality, resistance to cell death, persistent proliferative signal transmission, tissue and metastasis, tumor environment and tumor promotion inflammation.
Every team had the task of determining chemical compounds that influence the respective path and (1) omnipresent in the environment, (2) non -known carcinogenic, (3) not related to the "lifestyle" (e.g. fried food, smoking) and (4) "selectively disturbing" for the assigned characteristic of cancer. The teams were also commissioned to determine the level of exposure that is necessary to create effects on the given path and whether there is a linear or non -linear relationship with the effect of the given chemical.
important knowledge
A total of 85 chemicals were regarded as prototypical disruptors for one or more license plates of cancer. Fifty of the 85 chemicals (59 %) showed effects at low dose ("for concentrations that are considered relevant in view of the background exposure present in the environment"). Fifteen of these 50 had a non-linear dose of activity. Thirteen of the 85 prototypical active ingredients (15 %) had a dose-effect threshold. Twenty-two of the 85 active substances (26%) was missing sufficient information to define a dose-effect relationship.
Comment
There is an axiom in toxicology that "the dose makes the poison". The implication is that chemical is harmless until a certain swelling dose is reached where it can have toxic effects. When looking at carcinogenic, this makes sense for individual substances with proven threshold values (e.g. arsenic, asbestos). This type of direct dose-dependent effect enables the classification of chemicals according to carcinogenic potential. 2 This singular dose-dependent carcinogenic potential is relevant for professional exposures, contaminated floors/water and other high-dose exposure scenarios.
But what if there is a synergetic cancer -generating potential that results from hundreds of low doses of chemicals that remain unnoticed? What if dozens of chemicals work together on several molecular because of culminating in carcinogenesis? These are very practical questions when you consider that such exposure are the reality of our daily life. They are also of great importance because cancer in the United States is only the most common cause of death in the United States. However, the prevailing paradigm is still based on the old axiom "The dose makes the poison".
What if there is a synergetic carcinogenic potential that results from hundreds of low doses of chemicals that remain unnoticed? What if dozens of chemicals work together on several molecular because of culminating in carcinogenesis?
The state -funded agency for the tab of poisonous substances and diseases (ATSDR) has in its publication on the role of ubiquitous chemicals and the cause of cancer chemicals, cancer and . 4 The ATDR states: "More than 100,000 chemicals are used by Americans, and around 1,000 new chemicals are used every year Introduced. Later in the same document, there is a disturbing discrepancy between these facts and the conclusion of ATSDR that "[t] these everyday exposure are usually too low to cause Health problems." Of course, this is the old axiom of toxicology at work.
ATSDR is an official authority whose purpose is to "expand knowledge about toxic substances, reduce the health effects of toxic exposure and to protect public health". In his official publications, the idea of omnipresent is that carcinogenic are individual substances, which are believed to cause cancer with a certain threshold dose. 5 The conclusion that combinations of chemicals are harmless in low concentrations is based on a lack of research, not based on research that indicates the security of chemical mixtures. As the saying says: "The lack of evidence is not proof of the absence".
The paper discussed here postulates a means of systematic examining the effects of several chemicals that imitate the current environmental pollution more realistically. It is essentially a paradigm shift. Using the "trademark of cancer" as a framework for understanding the different properties of chemicals in relation to cancer -like processes, research can examine common environmental chemicals and recognize whether chemical influences one or more specific paths and in what dose. This leads to a better understanding of the synergistic effects on carcinogenic processes, even from chemicals that are regarded as non -carcinogenic individual fabrics.
of the 85 chemicals that influence the keys in connection with carcinogenesis, it was found that only 15 % (13/85) have a dose-effect threshold, the classic dose threshold model of toxicity. At 59 % (50/85) of the connections, low -dose effects. The authors conclude: "Our analysis suggests that the cumulative effects of individual (non -carcinogenic) chemicals that work in various ways and a large number of related systems, organs, tissue and cells could work together to create carcinogenic synergies."
Some of the chemicals that interfere with the key paths that contribute to the various trademarks are bisphenol A (BPA), phthalate, nickel, cadmium, diazinon and malathion. Avoiding chemicals - whether from water, air or food - is clearly the smartest option. Unfortunately, given the omnipresent of chemicals in our environment, this is not a practical option.
The present paper was not a small undertaking. It is the result of an ambitious project that began with a consortium of scientists from many disciplines that met for the first time in 2013 in Halifax, Nova Scotia. The organization Getting to Know Cancer was hosting. The guiding principle of "getting to know cancer" is: "to share holistic, scientific knowledge of cancer with important interest groups that have an interest in the disease, in a way that ultimately leads to social changes that reduce public exposure to disruptive environmental influences, which can have a concert with one another to accuse cancer." Environmental Health Science, a department of the National Institutes of Health, sponsored.
The consortium continues its ongoing work to lay the foundation for this emerging concept, namely the "low-dose carcinogenesis hypothesis". Perhaps the authors best summarize the benefits of the paper discussed here:
The chemicals that were selected for this review were not considered the most important, and they were not selected to somehow (based on current information) to imply that they endanger. Rather, we simply wanted to illustrate that many non -carcinogenic chemicals (which are omnipresent in the environment) also show effects at low doses that are of high relevance for the process of developing cancer.
note of the editorial office
The article reviewed here is not a clinical study; It is a paper written by a consortium by scientists who dealt with the evidence of the carcinogenic potential frequently used chemicals. Usually we only check studies in the "Abstracts & Commentary" section that use human dates, but since this is such an important work and represents a paradigm shift, the editorial team has made an exception.
- Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Cancer trademark: The next generation. cell. 2011; 144 (5): 646-674.
- World Health Organization. Agents classified by the IARC monographs, volumes 1-113. Available around: (link removed). Accessed on August 28, 2015.
- US centers for the control and prevention of diseases. Faststats: leading causes of death. Available around: (link removed). Updated on August 21, 2015. Access on August 28, 2015.
- agency for the tab of toxic substances and diseases, department of health assessment and advice. chemicals, cancer and you. available at: (link removed). Accessed on August 28, 2015.
- US Health Ministry, National Toxicology Program. Definition of carcinogenicity results. Available around: (link removed). Accessed on August 28, 2015. Get to know
- cancer. Mission. Available around: (link removed). Accessed on August 28, 2015.