Cited by 20Carcinogens and Genotoxicity AssessmentEpigenetics and DNA MethylationPharmacological Effects and Toxicity Studies

Epigenetic Regulation in Environmental Chemical Carcinogenesis and its Applicability in Human Health Risk Assessment

Kuppusamy, Senthilkumar P., Kaiser, J. Phillip, Wesselkamper, Scott C.·2015·International Journal of Toxicology

Abstract

Although several studies have shown that chemically mediated epigenetic changes are an etiological factor in several human disease conditions, the utility of epigenetic data, such as DNA methylation, in the current human health risk assessment paradigm is unclear. The objective of this study is to investigate the relationship between the points of departure (PODs) for cancer incidence and DNA methylation changes in laboratory animals exposed to the following environmental toxicants: bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane, chloroform, hydrazine, trichloroethylene, benzidine, trichloroacetic acid, and di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP; a known reproductive toxicant). The results demonstrate that the PODs for cancer incidence and altered DNA methylation are similar. Furthermore, based on the available data, the POD for DNA methylation appeared more sensitive compared to that for cancer incidence following the administration of DEHP to rats during different life stages. The high degree of correlation between PODs for cancer incidence and DNA methylation (for both total DNA and individual genes) suggests that DNA methylation end points could potentially be used as a screening tool in predicting the potential toxicity/carcinogenicity and in prioritizing large numbers of chemicals with sparse toxicity databases. The life stage during which treatment occurs is also an important consideration when assessing the potential application of epigenetic end points as a screening tool.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1091581815599350

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 58 · Cited by 20

Authors
Kuppusamy, S. P., Kaiser, J. P., & Wesselkamper, S. C.
Affiliations
Environmental Protection Agency (US)
Corresponding author
Wesselkamper, Scott C.
Venue
International Journal of Toxicology
Published
2015-08-12
Volume
34
Issue
5
Pages
384-392
ISSN
  • 1091-5818 (ISSN-L)
  • 1092-874X
OpenAlex
W1960677851
Cited by
20
References
58
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
0.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Toxicology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Carcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Epigenetics and DNA Methylation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pharmacological Effects and Toxicity Studies
Keywords
epigenetic regulation, DNA methylation, human health risk assessment, point of departure, cancer incidence, DEHP, trichloroethylene, chloroform, hydrazine, bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane, benzidine, trichloroacetic acid, carcinogenicity testing, chemical prioritization
MeSH terms
Animals, Benzidines, Carcinogens, Diethylhexyl Phthalate, Humans, Hydrazines, Hydrocarbons, Halogenated, Neoplasms, Risk Assessment, DNA Methylation, Epigenesis, Genetic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review