Previous metabolism and DNA-binding studies indicated that 5,6-dimethylchrysene (5,6-diMeC) is metabolically activated in mouse skin through formation of its 1,2-dihydrodiol (5,6-diMeC-1,2-diol) and bay region diol-epoxide (anti-5,6-diMeC-1,2-diol-3,4-epoxide). These metabolites were tested as tumor initiators on mouse skin. Included for comparison were syn-5,6-diMeC-1,2-diol-3,4-epoxide and anti-4,3-dihydroxy-2,1-epoxy- 4,3,2,1-tetrahydrobenzo[c]phenanthrene (anti-B[c]Ph-4,3-diol-2,1-epoxide). At an initiating dose of 100 nmol/mouse, 5,6-diMeC-1,2-diol and anti-5,6-diMeC-1,2-diol-3,4-epoxide were significantly more tumorigenic than 5,6-diMeC, inducing 7.1 and 3.9 skin tumors per mouse respectively compared to 1.1 induced by 5,6-diMeC. Similar results were obtained at an initiating dose of 33 nmol/mouse. This is the first example of a methylated polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon bay region diol-epoxide which is more tumorigenic than its parent hydrocarbon on mouse skin. syn-5,6-diMeC-1,2-diol-3,4-epoxide was only weakly tumorigenic. Comparisons of anti-5,6-diMeC-1,2-diol-3,4-epoxide and anti-B[c]Ph-4,3-diol-2,1-epoxide demonstrated that the latter was a stronger tumor initiator. The results of this study confirm the bay region diol-epoxide metabolic activation pathway of 5,6-diMeC but do not provide an explanation for the relatively weak tumorigenicity of this hydrocarbon on mouse skin.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Amin et al. (1993) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: