Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The effect of phorbol ester tumour promoters on the release of superoxide anion radicals .O2- by human peripheral leukocytes and the role of such radicals in tumour promotion of mouse skin was studied. No significant difference was found between complete [12-O-tetradecanoylphorbol-13-acetate (TPA)] as compared with incomplete [12-O-retinoylphorbol-13-acetate (RPA), 12-O-(2Z,4E,6,8)tetradecatetraenoylphorbol-13-acetate (Ti8), mezerein] tumour promoters upon induction of .O2- when measured by the reduction of ferricytochrome c. The semisynthetic phorbol esters 12-O-ethacrynylphorbol-13-acetate (EPA) and 4-O-methyl-TPA were less active, and phorbol diacetate, phorbol and ionophore A 23187 were found to be inactive in stimulating superoxide anion radicals. TPA-induced .O2- release from leukocytes was strongly inhibited by Cu(II)-(diisopropylsalicylate)2 (CuDIPS), and, to a lesser extent, by ethacrynic acid, nordihydroguaiaretic acid and quercetin. Retinoic acid exhibited only a moderate inhibitory effect. No .O2- release was observed in epidermal cell cultures upon TPA treatment. When analysed by the alkaline elution technique, TPA-induced .O2- release from leukocytes did not lead to measurable DNA damage in co-cultivated keratinocytes even in the presence of DNA repair inhibitors. In multi-stage-tumourigenesis experiments including two-stage promotion, retinoic acid, ethacrynic acid and CuDIPS were unable to inhibit tumour promotion in mouse skin when applied in combination with TPA in first stage promotion. gamma-Irradiation at a dose level shown to cause DNA damage in vitro could not replace TPA as a stage I-promoting agent. It is concluded that superoxide anion radicals--if related to promotion at all--may play a role in stage II rather than in stage I of mouse skin tumour promotion.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peres et al. (1984) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: