{"title":"Mechanistic aspects of initiation and promotion in C3H/10T1/2 cells.","authors":"C J Boreiko","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The transformation of C3H/10T1/2 cells can be made to proceed through discrete stages of initiation and promotion. Studies of the effect of cell density upon focus formation in cultures treated with MNNG and TPA suggest that initiation by MNNG is due to a relatively infrequent, irreversible event induced by a single carcinogen treatment. In contrast, promotion appears to be a reversible process requiring multiple treatments with TPA over a protracted period of time. Some evidence suggests that promotion may entail the induction of phenotypic changes which impart a growth advantage to phenotypically unstable \"initiated\" cell populations. The actual cellular mechanism(s) for most of the phenomena observed in C3H/10T1/2 cultures have eluded precise definition and widely divergent hypotheses have been advanced to explain transformation, initiation, and promotion. Conceivably there are multiple mechanisms responsible for each of these phenomenon. Some agents may transform by a multistage mechanism whereas others may exert their effects in a more direct fashion. Some of the foci produced by promotion may be the result of simple selective processes, others the product of more complex inductive events. Variations would thus be expected between laboratories working with different protocols and agents. As demonstrated by the possible involvement of an MCA residue in transformation, it is also apparent that fundamental technical aspects of this conceptually simple cell transformation system are poorly understood. While it is natural to develop mechanistic models based on quantitative observations of transformation, a limited understanding of the basic cell culture variables which modulate both the induction and expression of transformation dictate that caution be exercised in extrapolating the significance of such models to in vivo carcinogenesis.</p>","PeriodicalId":77688,"journal":{"name":"Carcinogenesis; a comprehensive survey","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1985-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Carcinogenesis; a comprehensive survey","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The transformation of C3H/10T1/2 cells can be made to proceed through discrete stages of initiation and promotion. Studies of the effect of cell density upon focus formation in cultures treated with MNNG and TPA suggest that initiation by MNNG is due to a relatively infrequent, irreversible event induced by a single carcinogen treatment. In contrast, promotion appears to be a reversible process requiring multiple treatments with TPA over a protracted period of time. Some evidence suggests that promotion may entail the induction of phenotypic changes which impart a growth advantage to phenotypically unstable "initiated" cell populations. The actual cellular mechanism(s) for most of the phenomena observed in C3H/10T1/2 cultures have eluded precise definition and widely divergent hypotheses have been advanced to explain transformation, initiation, and promotion. Conceivably there are multiple mechanisms responsible for each of these phenomenon. Some agents may transform by a multistage mechanism whereas others may exert their effects in a more direct fashion. Some of the foci produced by promotion may be the result of simple selective processes, others the product of more complex inductive events. Variations would thus be expected between laboratories working with different protocols and agents. As demonstrated by the possible involvement of an MCA residue in transformation, it is also apparent that fundamental technical aspects of this conceptually simple cell transformation system are poorly understood. While it is natural to develop mechanistic models based on quantitative observations of transformation, a limited understanding of the basic cell culture variables which modulate both the induction and expression of transformation dictate that caution be exercised in extrapolating the significance of such models to in vivo carcinogenesis.