Comparison of the skin tumor-promoting potential of different organic peroxides in SENCAR mice

I. B. Gimenez-Conti, R. L. Binder, D. Johnston, Thomas J Slaga

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

24 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The skin tumor-promoting activities of three organic peroxides were evaluated and compared to the activity of benzoyl peroxide, a well-characterized tumor promoter. Two of the compounds (di-t-butyl peroxide and dicumyl peroxide) were dialkyl peroxides and the other (di-m-chlorobenzoyl peroxide) was a diacyl peroxide. These compounds were selected based on a previous study in which we evaluated their capacity to induce epidermal hyperplasia, ornithine decarboxylase activity, and dark basal keratinocytes, which have been reliable short-term markers of tumor promotion. Dicumyl peroxide was a weak tumor promoter despite its high activity in inducing hyperplasia. Like benzoyl peroxide, di-m-chlorobenzoyl peroxide generally had intermediate activity as an inducer of short-term markers of tumor promotion and was a moderately effective tumor promoter. However, compared to benzoyl peroxide, di-m-chlorobenzoyl peroxide was more toxic to the skin, which may have limited its tumor-promoting activity. The final compound, di-t-butyl peroxide, which was essentially inactive in short-term assays, was also totally inactive in promoting papillomas or carcinomas in initiated skin. Tumor-promoting efficacy generally showed an inverse association with thermal stability for the compounds tested, suggesting that the rate of formation of free radicals is a key factor contributing to tumor promotion by organic peroxides. However, a number of other factors can potentially affect the activity of different organic peroxides as tumor promoters. Each compound evaluated had a different spectrum of activities, and these compounds should be useful for studying mechanisms of organic peroxide-induced tumor promotion.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)73-79
Number of pages7
JournalToxicology and Applied Pharmacology
Volume149
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1998
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Inbred SENCAR Mouse
Peroxides
Tumors
Skin
Benzoyl Peroxide
Carcinogens
Neoplasms
Tumor Biomarkers
Hyperplasia
Ornithine Decarboxylase
Poisons
Papilloma
Keratinocytes
Free Radicals
Assays
Thermodynamic stability
Hot Temperature
Association reactions

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology
  • Toxicology

Cite this

Comparison of the skin tumor-promoting potential of different organic peroxides in SENCAR mice. / Gimenez-Conti, I. B.; Binder, R. L.; Johnston, D.; Slaga, Thomas J.

In: Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, Vol. 149, No. 1, 03.1998, p. 73-79.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{aec8c87f972f4a6697aef2df77a69613,
title = "Comparison of the skin tumor-promoting potential of different organic peroxides in SENCAR mice",
abstract = "The skin tumor-promoting activities of three organic peroxides were evaluated and compared to the activity of benzoyl peroxide, a well-characterized tumor promoter. Two of the compounds (di-t-butyl peroxide and dicumyl peroxide) were dialkyl peroxides and the other (di-m-chlorobenzoyl peroxide) was a diacyl peroxide. These compounds were selected based on a previous study in which we evaluated their capacity to induce epidermal hyperplasia, ornithine decarboxylase activity, and dark basal keratinocytes, which have been reliable short-term markers of tumor promotion. Dicumyl peroxide was a weak tumor promoter despite its high activity in inducing hyperplasia. Like benzoyl peroxide, di-m-chlorobenzoyl peroxide generally had intermediate activity as an inducer of short-term markers of tumor promotion and was a moderately effective tumor promoter. However, compared to benzoyl peroxide, di-m-chlorobenzoyl peroxide was more toxic to the skin, which may have limited its tumor-promoting activity. The final compound, di-t-butyl peroxide, which was essentially inactive in short-term assays, was also totally inactive in promoting papillomas or carcinomas in initiated skin. Tumor-promoting efficacy generally showed an inverse association with thermal stability for the compounds tested, suggesting that the rate of formation of free radicals is a key factor contributing to tumor promotion by organic peroxides. However, a number of other factors can potentially affect the activity of different organic peroxides as tumor promoters. Each compound evaluated had a different spectrum of activities, and these compounds should be useful for studying mechanisms of organic peroxide-induced tumor promotion.",
author = "Gimenez-Conti, {I. B.} and Binder, {R. L.} and D. Johnston and Slaga, {Thomas J}",
year = "1998",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1006/taap.1997.8355",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "149",
pages = "73--79",
journal = "Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology",
issn = "0041-008X",
publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of the skin tumor-promoting potential of different organic peroxides in SENCAR mice

AU - Gimenez-Conti, I. B.

AU - Binder, R. L.

AU - Johnston, D.

AU - Slaga, Thomas J

PY - 1998/3

Y1 - 1998/3

N2 - The skin tumor-promoting activities of three organic peroxides were evaluated and compared to the activity of benzoyl peroxide, a well-characterized tumor promoter. Two of the compounds (di-t-butyl peroxide and dicumyl peroxide) were dialkyl peroxides and the other (di-m-chlorobenzoyl peroxide) was a diacyl peroxide. These compounds were selected based on a previous study in which we evaluated their capacity to induce epidermal hyperplasia, ornithine decarboxylase activity, and dark basal keratinocytes, which have been reliable short-term markers of tumor promotion. Dicumyl peroxide was a weak tumor promoter despite its high activity in inducing hyperplasia. Like benzoyl peroxide, di-m-chlorobenzoyl peroxide generally had intermediate activity as an inducer of short-term markers of tumor promotion and was a moderately effective tumor promoter. However, compared to benzoyl peroxide, di-m-chlorobenzoyl peroxide was more toxic to the skin, which may have limited its tumor-promoting activity. The final compound, di-t-butyl peroxide, which was essentially inactive in short-term assays, was also totally inactive in promoting papillomas or carcinomas in initiated skin. Tumor-promoting efficacy generally showed an inverse association with thermal stability for the compounds tested, suggesting that the rate of formation of free radicals is a key factor contributing to tumor promotion by organic peroxides. However, a number of other factors can potentially affect the activity of different organic peroxides as tumor promoters. Each compound evaluated had a different spectrum of activities, and these compounds should be useful for studying mechanisms of organic peroxide-induced tumor promotion.

AB - The skin tumor-promoting activities of three organic peroxides were evaluated and compared to the activity of benzoyl peroxide, a well-characterized tumor promoter. Two of the compounds (di-t-butyl peroxide and dicumyl peroxide) were dialkyl peroxides and the other (di-m-chlorobenzoyl peroxide) was a diacyl peroxide. These compounds were selected based on a previous study in which we evaluated their capacity to induce epidermal hyperplasia, ornithine decarboxylase activity, and dark basal keratinocytes, which have been reliable short-term markers of tumor promotion. Dicumyl peroxide was a weak tumor promoter despite its high activity in inducing hyperplasia. Like benzoyl peroxide, di-m-chlorobenzoyl peroxide generally had intermediate activity as an inducer of short-term markers of tumor promotion and was a moderately effective tumor promoter. However, compared to benzoyl peroxide, di-m-chlorobenzoyl peroxide was more toxic to the skin, which may have limited its tumor-promoting activity. The final compound, di-t-butyl peroxide, which was essentially inactive in short-term assays, was also totally inactive in promoting papillomas or carcinomas in initiated skin. Tumor-promoting efficacy generally showed an inverse association with thermal stability for the compounds tested, suggesting that the rate of formation of free radicals is a key factor contributing to tumor promotion by organic peroxides. However, a number of other factors can potentially affect the activity of different organic peroxides as tumor promoters. Each compound evaluated had a different spectrum of activities, and these compounds should be useful for studying mechanisms of organic peroxide-induced tumor promotion.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031881802&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031881802&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1006/taap.1997.8355

DO - 10.1006/taap.1997.8355

M3 - Article

C2 - 9512729

AN - SCOPUS:0031881802

VL - 149

SP - 73

EP - 79

JO - Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology

JF - Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology

SN - 0041-008X

IS - 1

ER -