EBM Email Content Delivery
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Huycke, M. M.
Right arrow Articles by Gaskins, H. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Huycke, M. M.
Right arrow Articles by Gaskins, H. R.
Experimental Biology and Medicine 229:586-597 (2004)
© 2004 Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine


MINIREVIEW

Commensal Bacteria, Redox Stress, and Colorectal Cancer: Mechanisms and Models

Mark M. Huycke*,1 and H. Rex Gaskins{dagger},1

* The Muchmore Laboratories for Infectious Diseases Research, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center and University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73104; and {dagger} Institute for Genomic Biology, Departments of Animal Sciences and Veterinary Pathobiology and Division of Nutritional Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801

1To whom requests for reprints should be addressed at The Muchmore Laboratories for Infectious Diseases Research, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center and University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK 73104 (E-mail: mark-huycke{at}ouhsc.edu); or Institute for Genomic Biology, Departments of Animal Sciences and Veterinary Pathobiology and Division of Nutritional Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801 (E-mail: hgaskins{at}uiuc.edu).


    Abstract
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Colorectal Carcinogenesis
 Animal Models Implicating...
 Activation of Procarcinogens by...
 Direct Production of Mutagens...
 Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria and...
 Summary
 References
 
The potential role for commensal bacteria in colorectal carcinogenesis is explored in this review. Most colorectal cancers (CRCs) occur sporadically and arise from the gradual accumulation of mutations in genes regulating cell growth and DNA repair. Genetic mutations followed by clonal selection result in the transformation of normal cells into malignant derivatives. Numerous toxicological effects of colonic bacteria have been reported. However, those recognized as damaging epithelial cell DNA are most easily reconciled with the currently understood genetic basis for sporadic CRC. Thus, we focus on mechanisms by which particular commensal bacteria may convert dietary procarcinogens into DNA damaging agents (e.g., ethanol and heterocyclic amines) or directly generate carcinogens (e.g., fecapentaenes). Although these and other metabolic activities have yet to be linked directly to sporadic CRC, several lines of investigation are reviewed to highlight difficulties and progress in the area. Particular focus is given to commensal bacteria that alter the epithelial redox environment, such as production of oxygen radicals by Enterococcus faecalis or production of hydrogen sulfide by sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB). Super-oxide-producing E. faecalis has conclusively been shown to cause colonic epithelial cell DNA damage. Though SRB-derived hydrogen sulfide (H2S) has not been reported thus far to induce DNA damage or function as a carcinogen, recent data demonstrate that this reductant activates molecular pathways implicated in CRC. These observations combined with evidence that SRB carriage may be genetically encoded evoke a working model that incorporates multifactorial gene-environment interactions that appear to underlie the development of sporadic CRC.

Key Words: colorectal cancer • chromosomal instability • colonic microbiota • redox stress • Enterococcus faecalis • sulfate-reducing bacteria


    Introduction
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Colorectal Carcinogenesis
 Animal Models Implicating...
 Activation of Procarcinogens by...
 Direct Production of Mutagens...
 Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria and...
 Summary
 References
 
Each year on a worldwide basis, approximately 940,000 persons are diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC), and of these more than 500,000 die from its complications (1). Although rare in developing countries, CRC is the second most frequent malignancy in affluent nations. Greater than 80% of CRCs occur sporadically, and these have convincingly been shown to arise from adenomatous polyps through the gradual accumulation of mutations in genes such as APC, K-ras, TP53, CTNNB1, MADH4/SMAD4, TGFBR2, and mismatch repair (25). Genetic mutations followed by clonal selection under environmental constraints result in the transformation of normal cells into malignant derivatives (2, 6). The mechanism(s) by which mutations occur for sporadic CRC remains a central question in the field of carcinogenesis.

The first attempts to associate commensal bacteria with CRC relied on cultures of fecal bacteria from people with differing risks for CRC (79). The goal was to characterize specific organisms that conferred an altered risk for CRC. This seemed reasonable because intestinal cancer occurs almost exclusively in the colon where metabolically active bacteria are in direct proximity to mucosal surfaces at densities of 1011 colony-forming units per gram of fecal material. Unfortunately, the studies proved difficult and provided, at best, equivocal results (7, 9, 10). Conceptual problems arose as the enormous complexity of the fecal microbiota was recognized with hundreds of species, many of which could not be recovered by cultivation (11, 12). In addition, distinct luminal and mucosal-associated habitats were recognized (13, 14) and previously unappreciated host-specific effects on the fecal microbiota were identified using molecular techniques (15, 16).

In this review, potential roles for commensal bacteria in colorectal carcinogenesis will be explored. Although this topic has previously been considered (1719), it has as yet to be placed in the context of genetic, enzymatic, and environmental factors associated with CRC. Genetically engineered animal models of CRC that implicate the colonic microbiota will be described along with mechanisms by which commensal bacteria might generate carcinogens, convert dietary procarcinogens into DNA damaging agents, or evoke endogenous redox stress. As tumor formation and progression may be independently regulated, sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB) will also be considered as a chronic proliferative stimulus. Although SRB are but one of several commensal bacteria that could contribute to proliferative, antiapoptotic, or toxic epithelial effects (1927), they are featured because their ability to modulate intestinal redox status and their potential role in CRC have not been previously reviewed.

Finally, although numerous toxicological effects of colonic commensal bacteria are known, we will focus on those capable of leading to epithelial cell DNA damage. This approach was chosen because bacterially induced mutagenesis easily reconciles with our current understanding of the genetic basis for sporadic CRC. If genetic mutation is considered essential to the initiation of sporadic colonic neoplasia (4, 5, 28), then the role for commensal bacteria will likely remain unclear until bacterially mediated mechanisms for DNA damage (or protection) are defined. For example, commensal bacteria can metabolize fecal steroids and generate short-chain fatty acids, but these activities are not known to damage eukaryotic cell DNA (19, 2227). Similarly, intestinal pathogens that are not commensals may have proliferative, antiapoptotic, or toxic epithelial effects (20, 21, 29) but are not considered promutagenic. Other pathogens, including strains of Escherichia coli that produce heat-stable enterotoxins, may exert antiproliferative effects that lower the risk for CRC (30), but mechanisms by which DNA might be protected from damage are not clear. Furthermore, viruses were not considered in order to focus on commensal bacteria, although the human polyomavirus JC virus has been associated with CRC and promotes chromosomal instability (CIN) in vitro (31, 32). The following discussion is limited to intestinal commensals that may promote mutagenesis or act in concert with promutagenic bacteria to drive the cellular evolution that leads to a malignant phenotype.


    Colorectal Carcinogenesis
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Colorectal Carcinogenesis
 Animal Models Implicating...
 Activation of Procarcinogens by...
 Direct Production of Mutagens...
 Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria and...
 Summary
 References
 
Essential features of neoplastic cells include self-sufficiency in growth signals, insensitivity to growth inhibition, evasion of apoptosis, limitless replicative capacity, angiogenesis, and tissue invasion (6, 33). Fundamental to the acquisition of these traits is genomic instability, a process that leads to cellular evolution and can result in CRC (28). Chromosomal instability is the most common form of somatic genomic instability and is typified by rearrangements, losses and gains of large DNA fragments, aneuploidy, and loss of heterozygosity (3, 28, 3436). This form of instability is found in >80% of sporadic CRC (3). The mechanism by which CIN develops remains unknown.

In contrast to most sporadic disease, inheritable forms of CRC, such as hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer, typically demonstrate microsatellite instability (MIN; Ref. 37). This form of genomic instability is distinct from CIN, defined by numerous mutations in repetitive DNA sequences, and results from defects in DNA mismatch repair. Colorectal tumors express CIN or MIN, but rarely both. Transforming growth factor ß- ßs) are potent inhibitors of normal cell growth, and mutations in TGFBR2 are found in 90% of MIN tumors (38). Conversely, Smad2, Smad3, and Smad4 are intracellular proteins that transduce TGF-ß signals and, at least for Smad4, appear more often mutated in microsatellite stable forms of sporadic CRC (39, 40).

Another unresolved issue concerning CRC involves the permissive role of type 2 cyclooxygenase (COX-2), an inducible enzyme whose expression is associated with a poor prognosis in CRC (41). Cyclooxygenase-2 catalyzes sequential reactions leading to the dioxygenation of polyunsaturated fatty acids (42). Prostaglandin (PG) H2 is the COX-2 product of arachidonic acid and a precursor for the family of prostaglandins that includes PGE2, PGF2{alpha}, PGI2 and thromboxane. In CRC and precursor adenomas, COX-2 is most often localized to submucosal dendritic cells or macrophages and not the epithelium (43, 44). The importance of COX-2 in CRC is evident from inhibitor studies that show effective chemoprevention (42). The mechanism for this effect, however, remains obscure. Recently, COX-independent effects were proposed as an explanation (45), but deletion and upregulation of Cox genes in animal models of intestinal neoplasia suggest these enzymes, independent of any effects caused by COX-inhibiting drugs, are directly important to colorectal carcinogenesis (46, 47). The ability of commensal bacteria to alter COX-2 expression remains largely unexplored.

Finally, environmental factors such as physical activity, diet, ethanol consumption, and bacterial catabolites or toxins are believed to play a significant role in CRC (48, 49). Colorectal cancer incidence varies more than 10-fold across the globe with rates increasing rapidly in groups that migrate from low- to high-incidence areas (50). It has been estimated that environmental factors, including diet, account for up to 90% of this variation (51). Although the most consistent dietary influence on CRC risk appears to be simple caloric restriction (49, 52), and possibly red meat intake (53), relationships among other environmental factors, genomic instability, COX-2 expression, and colonic bacteria remain to be determined.


    Animal Models Implicating Commensal Bacteria in CRC
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Colorectal Carcinogenesis
 Animal Models Implicating...
 Activation of Procarcinogens by...
 Direct Production of Mutagens...
 Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria and...
 Summary
 References
 
Gene inactivation studies have provided substantial insight into complex pathological processes like cancer. The first genetically engineered murine model for CRC was discovered by random mutation using an alkylating agent (54). Affected mice developed intestinal adenomas and were referred to by the acronym "in"for multiple intestinal neoplasia. Genetic analyses identified a mutation in the adenomatous polyposis coli gene (APC) whose product modulates oncogenic Wnt signal transduction through ß-catenin (55). Additional murine models with mutations in WNT signaling have been described, each of which also leads to intestinal adenomas (56). The Min model is analogous to familial adenomatous polyposis coli, a hereditary form of human CRC due to the germline inactivation of APC. The adenomatous polyposis coli gene is also often inactivated in sporadic CRC and considered a frequent early event in the progression of adenomas to cancer (55). The primary location of most adenomas in the Min model, however, is in the small intestine, unlike sporadic human CRC where tumors occur in the large intestine.

Other genetically engineered models of intestinal neoplasia include knockouts in mismatch repair genes, Smad3, Il-10, G{alpha}i2, Muc2 TCR{alpha} Cdx2 (5661); double knockouts in Smad4 with APC, Tgfß–1 with Rag2, Il-2 with ßm GPx1 with Gpx2, and TCRß with p53 (6265), and expression of cloned bone morphogenetic protein-4 inhibitor noggin (66). Of note, many, but not all, of these models exhibit inflammatory bowel disease. For a few models, the influence of commensal bacteria on inflammation and tumor formation has been investigated. Under germ-free conditions, intestinal inflammation was significantly decreased and tumors did not form for Il-10 knockout mice or double knockouts of Tgfß-1 with Rag2, TCRß with p53, or Gpx1 with Gpx2 (63, 6769). Although Min mice have little intestinal inflammation, germ-free animals showed a 50% reduction in the number of small intestinal adenomas suggesting commensal bacteria also potentiate tumor formation in this model (70).

These studies suggest that commensal colonic microbiota are important to the induction of inflammation and development of CRC, although not all bacteria appear equally capable of causing (or protecting against) pathology (69, 71). For example, Il-10 knockout mice monoassociated with Enterococcus faecalis, a human intestinal commensal, develop colitis and tumors, whereas numerous other commensal and pathogenic bacteria and yeast fail to produce any intestinal pathology (69). In contrast, Lactobacillus spp. appear to protect against inflammation and cancer in this same model (72, 73). In aggregate, these findings suggest a significant role for commensal bacteria in intestinal inflammation and tumor formation.

These genetically engineered models were all developed in mice, and the differences between rodent and human commensal microbiota have as yet to be well characterized. Several significant murine pathogens are not known to colonize humans. For example, Helicobacter hepaticus and Citrobacter rodentium are both associated with enterocolitis, intestinal hyperplasia, and tumor formation in mice (74), and have been linked to CRC in several animal models. H. hepaticus, which is known to cause necrotizing hepatitis that progresses to hepatocellular carcinoma, colonizes the murine intestine. In immunocompetent mice, this leads to mild intestinal inflammation and epithelial hyperplasia (75). Rag2 knockout mice colonized with H. hepaticus rapidly develop colitis and colon cancer (76), an effect largely ameliorated by IL-10 producing lymphocytes (77). Bacterial virulence traits responsible for colitis, however, remain to be defined. Another murine pathogen that causes proliferative colitis is C. rodentium (78). Min mice infected with C. rodentium at 1 month of age showed a 4-fold increase in the number of colonic adenomas after 6 months compared to uninfected Min mice (29). Colonic adenomas in infected mice were largely restricted to the distal colon where C. rodentium–induced hyperplasia occurred. The mechanism for epithelial cell hyperproliferation or carcinogenesis is not fully understood. B-cell–mediated immune responses appear important for control of C. rodentium infection, and the type IV pilus facilitates colonization (79, 80).

Unfortunately, no single animal model mimics human sporadic CRC or associated CIN (56). Many models, however, still need chromosomal analysis of tumors and evaluation under gnotobiotic conditions. The association of genetically engineered mice with defined commensals should permit examination of mechanisms by which commensal bacteria may provoke CIN, induce COX-2, or affect dietary factors implicated in colorectal carcinogenesis. For example, the effect of redox stress by commensal bacteria on COX-2 expression and induction of CIN could be evaluated using gnotobiotic Gpx1-Gpx2 or Muc2 knockout mice. Bacterial antigen stimulation leading to inflammation, COX-2 expression, or CIN might be addressed using IL-10, IL-2-ß2m, Tcrß, or G{alpha}i2 knockout models. Finally, investigation into the role of the intestinal microbiota on modulating Tgf-ß signaling could be approached using Tgfß1-Rag2 and Smad3 or Smad4 knockouts. These ideas represent only one of several potential areas for research focus (Table 1Go).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 1. Crucial Research Needs to Better Understand the Role of Commensal Bacteria in the Initiation or Progression of Colorectal Cancer
 

    Activation of Procarcinogens by Commensal Bacteria
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Colorectal Carcinogenesis
 Animal Models Implicating...
 Activation of Procarcinogens by...
 Direct Production of Mutagens...
 Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria and...
 Summary
 References
 
The colonic microbiota is composed of hundreds of microbial species that form a metabolically complex ecosystem. This milieu benefits the host by excluding exogenous pathogens, providing nutrients as by-products of metabolism, and inactivating toxins. Alternatively, the colonic microbiota may be detrimental by promoting inflammation or converting innocuous compounds into metabolites permissive to inflammation or tumorigenesis. It should be emphasized that specific food items or nutrients that might cause CRC have not been identified. Much information, however, is available concerning enzymatic activities that are expressed by colonic bacteria and might generate carcinogens. These activities include ß-glycosidases, ß-glucuronidases, azo- and nitroreductases, arylsulfatases, and alcohol dehydrogenases (18, 81). Despite many efforts, investigators have as yet to directly link these metabolic activities to sporadic CRC. Nor is there clear evidence to show how these activities might explain the epidemiology of CRC. Despite this, several lines of investigation are reviewed to highlight difficulties and progress in this area.

Ethanol, Acetaldehyde, and Folate.
Multiple epidemiological studies implicate two dietary factors, ethanol and folate, in an altered risk for CRC (49, 8285). The postulated mechanisms for folate deficiency increasing CRC risk are (i) altered gene promoter methylation (86, 87), (ii) increased single- and double-stranded DNA breaks (88), and (iii) misincorporation of uracil for thymine during DNA synthesis leading to mutations (89, 90). Ethanol directly interferes with folate availability and independently produces high concentrations of acetaldehyde, a known chemical carcinogen (91), in the colon via bacterial metabolism. Acetaldehyde is thought to promote mutagenesis by inactivating cellular proteins important to DNA repair such as O6-methylguanine transferase (92, 93), inhibiting methyltetrahydrofolate or methionine synthase to trap folate as 5-methyltetrahydrofolate, or by direct cleavage to reduce intestinal absorption of folate (94). Diets high in ethanol and low in folate (and methionine) are considered ‘‘methyl-poor’’ and confer a markedly greater risk for adenomas and CRC than ‘‘methyl-rich’’ diets (82, 95). Of note, the additive effects of ethanol and folate are negated by aspirin, an irreversible inhibitor of COX isoforms (95).

In addition to these issues, it is possible that folate status may not be entirely determined by dietary intake. Colonic bacteria can synthesize several vitamins de novo including folate. Some portion of bacterially derived folate can be absorbed (96). Estimates suggest <7% of tissue folate is derived from bacterial synthesis (97). Whether such a proportion is sufficient to protect against DNA damage after dietary restriction remains to be determined. Efforts to modulate bacterial folate synthesis through dietary fiber to augment colonic fermentation or by using sulfa derivatives to inhibit bacterial synthesis have yet to define fully the interplay between diet, fecal bacteria, host genotype, and folate (84, 98100).

Many colonic bacteria express alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH). This enzyme contributes to the fermentation of sugars into ethanol. However, if excess ethanol is present, as occurs after moderate alcohol consumption, microbial ADH activity can be reversed and lead to the production of acetaldehyde. This phenomenon has been observed in rats and piglets fed ethanol where increased concentrations of acetaldehyde are found in colonic contents (94, 101). These studies suggest sporadic CRC may occur, in part, at the convergence of environmental, genetic, and metabolic variables with the latter dictated by commensal bacteria. However, evidence to link folate depletion and ADH metabolism to epithelial cell mutations, genetic instability, or CRC is lacking.

Heterocyclic Amines.
Fish and beef generate promutagenic heterocyclic amines (HCAs) during cooking (102). These molecules are carcinogenic in mice, rats, and monkeys producing hepatic, intestinal, and mammary tumors (103, 104). The aminoimidazoazaarenes are a major group of heterocyclic amines in the human diet (102). As with other heterocyclic amines, these compounds are only genotoxic after activation to electrophilic derivatives that form DNA adducts (105). A variety of host drug-metabolizing enzymes can activate (and detoxify) heterocyclic amines including CYP1A2, N-acetyltransferase, sulfotransferase, prolyl tRNA synthetase, phosphorylase, and COX isomers (105, 106). In a recent case-control analysis, associations were not found between CRC risk and polymorphisms in these genes (107). This comprehensive study, however, failed to consider commensal bacteria and their potential impact on heterocyclic amine activation, an effect independent of host genotype.

One HCA, 2-amino-3-methyl-3H-imidazo[4,5-f]quino-line (IQ), is produced through the pyrolysis of creatinine with sugars. IQ is s a procarcinogen and becomes mutagenic in the presence of hepatic microsomes to generate 200–400 revertants per nanogram in the Salmonella typhimurium TA98 assay (108). Anaerobic colonic bacteria can convert IQ to 2-amino-3-methyl-3H-imidazo[4,5-f]quinoline-7-one (HOIQ), a direct-acting mutagen (109, 110). Eubacterium spp specifically metabolize IQ to HOIQ along with undefined commensal bacteria from mice, rats, and humans (111, 112). These commensal bacteria can strongly influence IQ-induced DNA damage for colonic cells (and hepatocytes) as measured by the alkaline single-cell gel electrophoresis assay (113). DNA from axenic rats exhibited significantly fewer alkaline-labile breaks than rats colonized with conventional murine or human commensal bacteria. In contrast, other intestinal commensals, including Bifidobacterium longum and lactobacilli, appear antagonistic to the mutagenic effects of IQ (114, 115). Mechanisms underlying these observations are unclear but may involve inactivation of IQ or direct binding of IQ to bacteria. Judgments about the significance of IQ or HOIQ in promoting CRC, however, still await appropriately designed clinical studies.


    Direct Production of Mutagens by Commensal Bacteria
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Colorectal Carcinogenesis
 Animal Models Implicating...
 Activation of Procarcinogens by...
 Direct Production of Mutagens...
 Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria and...
 Summary
 References
 
Fecapentaenes.
The fecapentaenes are a family of ether-linked polyunsaturated lipids with potent in vitro mutagenic effects (116). Fecapentaenes are produced by Bacteroides spp at detectable concentrations in the colon. The mechanisms for genotoxicity are unknown, but some evidence indicates oxidative damage to DNA can occur through radical mechanisms. Peroxidation by COX isoforms can also generate hydroxyl radical when iron is available as a catalyst (117, 118). Target cells with high concentrations of 7,8-dihydro-8-oxo-2'-deoxyguanosine (8-oxo-dG), a marker for oxidatively damaged DNA, support this hypothesis (119). Alternatively, fecapentaenes are reactive electrophiles that may alkylate DNA to form mutagenic adducts (116). In vitro and in vivo studies using the 12-carbon fecapentaene showed DNA damage in colonic epithelial cells and tumor promotion (120, 121). These and other suggestive data resulted in carefully designed case-control studies to test the hypothesis that increased excretion of mutagenic fecapentaenes might be a cause for sporadic CRC (122) or adenomatous polyps (123). Surprisingly, no association was found between fecal fecapentaenes and colonic tumors. Although investigators recognized other non-fecapentaene fecal mutagens may have confounded analyses (124), an explanation for these negative results was not apparent. Since this work, further study on fecapentaenes has been minimal. These results emphasize the need for well designed clinical trials to confirm or refute suggestive in vitro and animal data on fecal mutagens.

Oxygen Radicals.
Oxidative damage produced by endogenous redox sources is a potentially important mechanism for somatic mutations that give rise to cancer (125). Endogenous genomic stress originates from reactive oxygen intermediates that directly attack DNA or generate reactive intermediates. In biological systems, the most common reactive oxygen species are superoxide, hydrogen peroxide, hydroxyl radical, and peroxynitrite. Superoxide is a transient anionic radical generated by the univalent reduction of oxygen and, quite importantly, participates in the formation of other reactive oxygen species. Hydrogen peroxide is a two-electron reductant of oxygen and, therefore, not a true radical. Although hydrogen peroxide has a long half-life, in the presence of superoxide, iron, or copper it can readily generate hydroxyl radical (126). This three-electron reductant of oxygen is extremely reactive and usually damages the first molecule it encounters. Finally, peroxynitrite is produced when superoxide reacts with nitric oxide. This potent oxidant can decompose into other radicals and cause DNA strand breakage or oxidize and nitrate bases (127).

Although several reactive oxygen species can damage DNA, hydrogen peroxide is the only one that is stable enough to diffuse into cells where, in the presence of transition metals, hydroxyl radical can be generated (128). The abundant production of 8-oxo-dG in cells treated with hydrogen peroxide is an indicator of this facile process. Other biological targets besides DNA obviously exist for reactive oxygen species, most notably polyunsaturated fatty acids in eukaryotic phospholipid membranes. Bis-allelic hydrogens in these molecules are susceptible to radical abstraction, a process that can result in chain reactions and produce enormous numbers of oxidized fatty acids (129). Breakdown products include diffusible electrophilic aldehydes such as malondialdehyde, 4-hydroxy-2-nonenal, and 4-oxo-2-nonenal, all of which generate mutagenic etheno-DNA adducts (130, 131).

One potential mechanism for CIN involves oxygen radical generation by commensal bacteria leading to ongoing epithelial cell DNA damage. This hypothesis was formulated following ex vivo observations of abundant hydroxyl radical production by normal stool (132). Others subsequently confirmed these initial findings (133135). This concept is also consistent with genomic instability arising from dietary procarcinogens activated by colonic radicals (136, 137).

Several years ago, Enterococcus faecalis was found to produce extracellular superoxide (138). This oxidative phenotype depended on membrane-associated demethylmenaquinone and was the result of dysfunctional microbial respiration. Exogenous fumarate or hematin suppressed superoxide production by providing substrate for fumarate reductase or reconstituting cytochrome bd (139). Ex vivo analysis of colonic contents from rats colonized with E. faecalis revealed hydroxyl and sulfur-centered (or thiyl) radicals using electron spin resonance (ESR) spin trapping (139, 140). The in vivo production of hydroxyl radical by E. faecalis, which arises from superoxide, was confirmed by measuring the aromatic hydroxylation of phenylalanine and phenyl N-tertbutylnitrone in colonized rats (141). These compounds are targets for hydroxyl radical and form specific hydroxylated products that are easily detected. Rats colonized by superoxide-producing E. faecalis generate 15-to 25-fold greater concentrations of hydroxylated aromatic targets in urine than control rats colonized with an isogenic strain showing attenuated superoxide production (120).

These findings suggested endogenous reactive oxygen species formed by E. faecalis near the oxygenated luminal surface of colonocytes could be a source of CIN. In the mildly acidic environment of the colon, superoxide would spontaneously disproportionate to hydrogen peroxide and accumulate to micromolar concentrations (141, 142). Upon passive diffusion into epithelial cells, hydrogen peroxide can form hydroxyl radical near DNA through iron-catalyzed reactions and cause DNA-protein cross-linking, DNA breaks, and base modifications (128, 143). In a short-term model of intestinal colonization, the comet assay was used to demonstrate this effect on colonic epithelial cells by superoxide-producing E. faecalis (142). It remains to be determined whether commensal enterococci also oxidize cellular fatty acids to form secondary electrophiles and mutagenic DNA adducts. This would be another mechanism by which endogenous redox activity by commensal bacteria might promote CIN. Although the only human study to examine intestinal colonization by superoxide-producing enterococci failed to associate these bacteria with adenomas or CRC (16), colonization was not stable over time and likely confounded the findings. Proper examination of potential associations will likely require a long-term prospective study of relevant colonic bacteria using molecular-based approaches.


    Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria and Hydrogen Sulfide
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Colorectal Carcinogenesis
 Animal Models Implicating...
 Activation of Procarcinogens by...
 Direct Production of Mutagens...
 Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria and...
 Summary
 References
 
Sulfidogenic bacteria are often members of the normal colonic microbiota and can have a major impact on bacterial metabolism through their disposal of the H2 reducing equivalents generated from fermentation. Although morphologically diverse and metabolically versatile, SRB are considered a physiologically unified group because of their ability to use sulfate (SO42) as an oxidant (terminal electron acceptor) for the degradation of organic matter. An equivalent amount of sulfide (H2S) is formed per mole of sulfate reduced: 2CH2O + SO42– H2S + 2HCO3.

Eighteen genera of dissimilatory SRB are currently recognized and classified into two physiological-ecological subgroupings (144). The Group I genera, such as Desulfo-vibrio, Desulfomonas, Desulfotomaculum, and Desulfobulbus, use lactate, pyruvate, ethanol, or certain fatty acids as carbon and energy sources while reducing SO42 to H2S. The genera in Group II, including Desulfobacter, Desulfococcus, Desulfosarcina, and Desulfonema, specialize in the oxidation of fatty acids, particularly acetate while reducing SO42 to H2S. Phylogenetically, most SRB align closely with other gram-negative bacteria in the delta subdivision of the Proteobacteria, whereas Desulfotomaculum, consisting of endospore-forming rods, groups with the Clostridium subdivision of the gram-positive bacteria (145, 146). Relatively little is known about the diversity and ecology of colonic SRB genera for any mammalian species.

It has clearly been demonstrated in nonintestinal anaerobic environments that when sulfate is nonlimiting, SRB generally out-compete methanogens for common growth substrates (147). It appears that a competitive relationship also exists between intestinal methanogens and SRB (148150). In a study of 87 healthy human volunteers, three fecal SRB population groupings were recognized: Group 1 consisted of 21 persons who were strong methane (CH4) producers in which fecal SRB were completely absent (151). In Group 2 (n = 9), methanogenesis occurred and low numbers of SRB (ca. 105/g wet weight feces) were detected, although their metabolic activities were negligible. The final group consisted of 57 volunteers exhibiting high counts of fecal SRB (up to 1011/g wet weight) and complete absence of methanogenesis. The numerically predominant SRB were Desulfovibrio spp, which accounted for 67% to 91% of total SRB counts. Species belonging to the genera Desulfobacter (9% to 16%), Desulfobulbus (5% to 8%), and Desulfotomaculum (2%) were present in considerably lower numbers. Christl and co-workers (150) reported that approximately 50% of healthy human adults from European and North-American populations and 90% of rural black Africans were predominantly methane excreters and likely harbored low numbers of intestinal SRB. Cumulatively, these data indicate that SRB carriage may be genetically encoded. At the least, they demonstrate the importance of more rigorously assessing this possibility.

Hydrogen Sulfide, Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, and CRC.
Although limited, several clinical studies demonstrate an association between H2S and the development of the inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) and CRC (152156). For example, fecal samples from ulcerative colitis (UC) patients were shown to harbor a greater number of SRB (153). Also, H2S generation rates and concentrations in UC feces were significantly greater than control fecal samples (150, 152, 153, 155, 156). Kanazawa and colleagues (154) demonstrated that H2S concentrations were also significantly greater in 13 male patients who had previously undergone surgery for sigmoid colon cancer and who later developed new epithelial neoplasia of the colon, compared to 14 males of similar age with a healthy colon. However, it is not possible from the studies above to distinguish whether the increased sulfide concentrations preceded disease or reflect an alteration of the normal microbiota as a result of chronic inflammation or surgical manipulation.

Particularly intriguing is evidence that carriage of intestinal SRB appeared to segregate according to ethnic background in the Christl et al. (150) study, as that outcome is consistent with both IBD and sporadic CRC being more prevalent in white populations of Northern European descent than in populations of African descent (157160). These observations indicate that host genetic background may influence individual variation in SRB carriage rate, evoking working models that incorporate multifactorial gene-environment interactions that appear to underlie the development of both IBD and sporadic CRC (161).

Indeed, UC and colonic Crohn’s disease are associated with increased risk (approximately 5-fold) for CRC (162, 163), and it has been suggested that both IBD-associated and sporadic CRC might be the consequence of bacteria-induced inflammation (161). Both types of cancer arise from precancerous dysplastic mucosa and exhibit multistep development with multiple mutations. One obvious difference is that the majority of sporadic colon cancers arise from polyps, whereas IBD-associated cancers typically arise from flat dysplastic mucosa (161). The differential timing of mutations in APC versus p53 has been suggested to underlie these pathological differences (161).

Despite the clinical links between H2S and the development of UC or CRC, few studies have examined the impact of H2S on intestinal epithelial cell function. Roediger and colleagues reported decreased fatty acid oxidation in colonocytes exposed to H2S (164, 165). These H2S-induced oxidative changes closely resembled the impairment of ß-oxidation observed in colonocytes of UC patients. Christl et al. (166) observed a significant increase in the proliferation of cells residing in the upper crypt region of a colonic biopsy incubated for 4 hrs with 1 mM NaHS.

Deplancke and co-workers recently determined that H2S concentrations in the mouse large intestine range from 0.2 to 1 mM (167), which are similar to the 0.3 to 3.4 mM H2S concentrations reported for human feces (149, 168, 169). Intriguingly, these H2S concentrations are 6- to 60-fold greater than previously reported H2S concentrations (~50 µM), at which complete inhibition of oxidative phosphorylation occurs (170). That such sulfide concentrations are apparently tolerated by a significant proportion of the population indicates that mechanisms of sulfide detoxification must exist, though these are poorly understood. Colonic bicarbonate secretions significantly reduce exposure of the epithelium to H2S through conversion to anionic sulfide (171), although toxic H2S concentrations would still exist at a pH of 7.5. Epithelial sulfide detoxification via active oxidation to thiosulfate has also been demonstrated (136, 151) and may represent a functional detoxification mechanism; however, enzymic pathways have not been identified. The subsequent involvement of rhodanese (thiosulfate:cyanide sulfurtransferase; E.C. 2.8.1.1) in colonic sulfide detoxification has been demonstrated (172). Further elucidation of colonic mechanisms of sulfide detoxification will be important if polymorphic variation in these pathways were to contribute to multigenic susceptibility to IBD-associated or sporadic CRC.

Recent functional genomic and biochemical data indicate that H2S may perturb the precarious balance between apoptosis, proliferation, and differentiation in the intestinal epithelium (173). Deoxycholic acid, a naturally occurring modified bile acid, may contribute to colonic carcinogenesis via a similar mechanism (174). To date, H2S has not been reported to induce DNA damage or function as a carcinogen. However, the suggested involvement of extracellular activated kinase (ERK) in H2S-mediated mitogenic signaling and the upregulation of genes involved in mitogen activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling (173) indicate that H2S stimulates the Ras/Raf/MEK/ERK path-way, and the best characterized response to Ras activation is the promotion of entry into the S phase (175). It is well recognized that oncogenic activation of Ras is an important early event in colorectal tumorigenesis (176), and thus H2S may be tumor-promoting. Consistent with this idea is additional evidence of sulfide activation of several neo-plasia-associated genes, as well as the gene encoding VEGF (173). This gene plays an essential role in the progression and metastasis of numerous solid malignancies, including CRC (177). In addition, preliminary data demonstrate that sulfide stimulates NO production by the rat intestinal epithelial IEC-6 cell line (MA Ramos, HR Gaskins, unpublished). The variable mutagenic and apoptotic properties of NO are reasonably well characterized (178, 179). In contrast, the potential that intestinal sulfide may contribute to the generation of sulfur-centered radicals remains unexplored as does a potential link of the latter to carcinogenesis, despite an increasing recognition that the potent reactivity of sulfur-centered radicals renders them capable of damaging DNA under selected conditions (180, 181). Preliminary data suggest sulfur-centered radicals are a primary consequence of superoxide production by E. faecalis colonizing the rat colon (140). Clearly, it becomes crucial to better understand the biochemical and molecular pathways activated by sulfide in colonic epithelial cells given the combined evidence that SRB carriage may be genetically encoded and that sporadic CRC may be influenced by combinatorial polymorphisms in multiple genes responsive to environmental stimuli.


    Summary
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Colorectal Carcinogenesis
 Animal Models Implicating...
 Activation of Procarcinogens by...
 Direct Production of Mutagens...
 Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria and...
 Summary
 References
 
Commensal bacteria have long been suspected of contributing to CRC. Specific mechanisms, however, have proven elusive due to the complexity of the colonic microbiota and the multifactorial nature of gene-environment interactions that likely engender predisposition to CRC. Here, we have focused on mechanisms by which particular commensal bacteria may disrupt intracellular redox homeostasis and damage epithelial cell DNA. Also considered were bacterial activities that generate carcinogens or convert dietary procarcinogens into DNA-damaging agents. Although not featured, emerging molecular-based studies of the colonic microbiota indicate that its particular composition is stable within, but variable among, individuals (68, 69). Thus, host genetic background may, in some instances, contribute to CRC indirectly through its influence on the carriage of specific bacterial groups. In other words, the genetic component of gene-environment interactions contributing to sporadic CRC may represent the combined inheritance of polymorphisms in genes that influence bacterial colonization, redox homeostasis, and epithelial detoxification or defense. Although this working model imparts focus, the paucity of information on molecular mechanisms for epithelial interactions with commensal bacteria and their metabolic products presents a challenging future.


    References
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Colorectal Carcinogenesis
 Animal Models Implicating...
 Activation of Procarcinogens by...
 Direct Production of Mutagens...
 Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria and...
 Summary
 References
 

  1. Stewart BW, Kleihues P, Eds. Colorectal cancer. World Cancer Report. Lyon: IARC Press, pp163–166, 2003.
  2. Loeb LA, Loeb KR, Anderson JP. Multiple mutations and cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:776–781, 2003.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Lengauer C, Kinzler KW, Vogelstein B. Genetic instabilities in human cancers. Nature 396:643–649, 1998.[Medline]
  4. Anderson GR, Stoler DL, Brenner BM. Cancer: the evolved consequence of a destabilized genome. BioEssays 23:1037–1046, 2001.[Medline]
  5. Grady WM, Markowitz SD. Genetic and epigenetic alterations in colon cancer. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 3:101–128, 2002.[Medline]
  6. Gatenby RA, Vincent TL. An evolutionary model of carcinogenesis. Cancer Res 63:6212–6220, 2003.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Finegold SM, Flora DJ, Attebery HR, Sutter VL. Fecal bacteriology of colonic polyp patients and control patients. Cancer Res 35:3407–3417, 1975.[Medline]
  8. Benno Y, Suzuki K, Suzuki K, Narisawa K, Bruce WR, Mitsuoka T. Comparison of the fecal microflora in rural Japanese and urban Canadians. Microbiol Immunol 30:521–532, 1986.[Medline]
  9. Moore WEC, Moore LH. Intestinal floras of populations that have a high risk of colon cancer. Appl Environ Microbiol 61:3202–3207, 1995.[Abstract]
  10. Moore WEC, Holdeman LV. Human fecal flora: the normal flora of 20 Japanese-Hawaiians. Appl Microbiol 27:961–979, 1974.[Medline]
  11. Sghir A, Gramet G, Suau A, Rochet V, Pochart P, Dore J. Quantification of bacterial groups within human fecal flora by oligonucleotide probe hybridization. Appl Environ Microbiol 66:2263–2266, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Wilson KH, Blitchington RB. Human colonic biota studied by ribosomal DNA sequence analysis. Appl Environ Microbiol 62:2273–2278, 1996.[Abstract]
  13. Swidsinski A, Khilkin M, Kerjaschki D, Schreiber S, Ortner M, Weber J, Lochs H. Association between intraepithelial Escherichia coli and colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 115:281–286, 1998.[Medline]
  14. Zoetendal EG, von Wright A, Vilpponen-Salmela T, Ben-Amor K, Akkermans AD, de Vos WM. Mucosa-associated bacteria in the human gastrointestinal tract are uniformly distributed along the colon and differ from the community recovered from feces. Appl Environ Microbiol 68:3401–3407, 2002.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Zoetendal EG, Collier CT, Koike S, Gaskins HR, Mackie RI, Gaskins HR. Molecular ecological analysis of the gastrointestinal microbiota: a review. J Nutr 134:465–472, 2004.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Winters MD, Schlinke TL, Joyce WA, Glore WR, Huycke MM. Prospective case cohort control study of intestinal colonization with enterococci that produce extracellular superoxide and the risk for colorectal adenomas or cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 93:2491–2500, 1998.[Medline]
  17. Gorbach SL, Goldin BR. The intestinal microflora and the colon cancer connection. Rev Infect Dis 12(Suppl 2):S252–S261, 1990.
  18. Rowland IR. Toxicology of the colon: role of the intestinal microflora. In: Gibson GR, Macfarlane GT, Eds. Human Colonic Bacteria: Role in nutrition, physiology, and pathology. Boca Raton: CRC Press, pp155–174, 1995.
  19. Roberton AM. Roles of endogenous substances and bacteria in colorectal cancer. Mutat Res 290:71–78, 1993.[Medline]
  20. Newman JV, Kosaka T, Sheppard BJ, Fox JG, Schauer DB. Bacterial infection promotes colon tumorigenesis in ApcMin/+ mice. J Infect Dis 184:227–230, 2001.[Medline]
  21. Luperchio SA, Newman JV, Dangler CA, Schrenzel MD, Brenner DJ, Steigerwalt AG, Schauer DB. Citrobacter rodentium, the causative agent of transmissible murine colonic hyperplasia, exhibits clonality: synonymy of C. rodentium and mouse-pathogenic Escherichia coli. J Clin Microbiol 38:4343–4350, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. DeRubertis FR, Craven PA, Saito R. Bile salt stimulation of colonic epithelial proliferation: evidence for involvement of lipoxygenase products. J Clin Invest 74:1614–1624, 1984.
  23. Glinghammar B, Inoue H, Rafter JJ. Deoxycholic acid causes DNA damage in colonic cells with subsequent induction of caspases, COX-2 promoter activity and the transcription factors NF-kB and AP-1. Carcinogenesis 23:839–845, 2002.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Debruyne PR, Bruyneel EA, Li X, Zimber A, Gespach C, Mareel MM. The role of bile acids in carcinogenesis. Mutat Res 480–481:359–369, 2001.
  25. Washo-Stultz D, Hoglen N, Bernstein H, Bernstein C, Payne CM. Role of nitric oxide and peroxynitrite in bile salt-induced apoptosis: relevance to colon carcinogenesis. Nutr Cancer 35:180–188, 1999.[Medline]
  26. Scates DK, Spigelman AD, Venitt S. Bile acids do not form adducts when incubated with DNA in vitro. Carcinogenesis 15:2945–2948, 1994.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Augenlicht LH, Mariadason JM, Wilson A, Arango D, Yang W, Heerdt BG, Velcich A. Short chain fatty acids and colon cancer. J Nutr 132:3804S–3808S, 2002.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Nowak MA, Komarova NL, Sengupta A, Jallepalli PV, Shih IM, Vogelstein B, Lengauer C. The role of chromosomal instability in tumor initiation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99:16226–16231, 2002.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Wu S, Morin PJ, Maouyo D, Sears CL. Bacteroides fragilis enterotoxin induces c-Myc expression and cellular proliferation. Gastroenterology 124:392–400, 2003.[Medline]
  30. Pitari GM, Zingman LV, Hodgson DM, Alekseev AE, Kazerounian S, Bienengraeber M, Hajnoczky G, Terzic A, Waldman SA. Bacterial enterotoxins are associated with resistance to colon cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:2695–2699, 2003.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Shadan FF, Cunningham C, Boland CR. JC virus: a biomarker for colorectal cancer? Med Hypotheses 59:667–669, 2002.[Medline]
  32. Ricciardiello L, Baglioni M, Giovannini C, Pariali M, Cenacchi G, Ripalti A, Landini MP, Sawa H, Nagashima K, Frisque RJ, Goel A, Boland CR, Tognon M, Roda E, Bazzoli F. Induction of chromosomal instability in colonic cells by the human polyomavirus JC virus. Cancer Res 63:7256–7262, 2003.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Weinstein IB. Disorders in cell circuitry during multistage carcinogenesis: the role of homeostasis. Carcinogenesis 21:857–864, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Lindblom A. Different mechanisms in the tumorigenesis of proximal and distal colon cancers. Curr Opin Oncol 13:63–69, 2001.[Medline]
  35. Breivik J, Gaudernack G. Genomic instability, DNA methylation, and natural selection in colorectal carcinogenesis. Cancer Biol 9:245–254, 1999.
  36. Thiagalingam S, Laken S, Willson JKV, Markowitz SD, Kinzler KW, Vogelstein B, Lengauer C. Mechanisms underlying losses of heterozygosity in human colorectal cancers. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98:2698–2702, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. Boland CR, Thibodeau SN, Hamilton SR, Sidransky D, Eshleman JR, Burt RW, Meltzer SJ, Rodriguez-Bigas MA, Fodde R, Ranzani GN, Srivastava S. A National Cancer Institute workshop on microsatellite instability for cancer detection and familial predisposition: development of international criteria for the determination of microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer. Cancer Res 58:5248–5257, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Parsons R, Myeroff LL, Liu B, Willson JK, Markowitz SD, Kinzler KW, Vogelstein B. Microsatellite instability and mutations of the transforming growth factor beta type II receptor gene in colorectal cancer. Cancer Res 55:5548–5550, 1995.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Salovaara R, Roth S, Loukola A, Launonen V, Sistonen P, Avizienyte E, Kristo P, Järvinen H, Souchelnytskyi S, Sarlomo-Rikala M, Aaltonen LA. Frequent loss of SMAD4/DPC4 protein in colorectal cancers. Gut 51:56–59, 2002.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  40. Hadz ia MP, Kapitanovic S, Rados evic S, Cacev T, Mirt M, Kovacevic D, Hadz ija M, Spaventi R, Pavelic K. Loss of heterozygosity of DPC4 tumor suppressor gene in human sporadic colon cancer. J Mol Med 79:128–132, 2001.[Medline]
  41. Sheehan KM, Sheahan K, O’Donoghue DP, MacSweeney F, Conroy RM, Fitzgerald DJ, Murray FE. The relationship between cyclooxygenase-2 expression and colorectal cancer. JAMA 282:1254–1257, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  42. Marnett LJ, DuBois RN. COX-2: a target for colon cancer prevention. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 42:55–80, 2002.[Medline]
  43. Pavli P, Maxwell L, van de Pol E, Doe WF. Distribution of human colonic dendritic cells and macrophages. Clin Exp Immunol 104:124–132, 1996.[Medline]
  44. Chapple KS, Cartwright EJ, Hawcroft G, Tisbury A, Bonifer C, Scott N, Windsor ACJ, Buillou PJ, Markham AF, Coletta PL, Hull MA. Localization of cyclooxygenase-2 in human sporadic colorectal adenomas. Am J Pathol 156:545–553, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  45. Tegeder I, Pfeilschifter J, Geisslinger G. Cyclooxygenase-independent actions of cyclooxygenase inhibitors. FASEB J 15:2057–2072, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  46. Oshima M, Dinchuk JE, Kargman SL, Oshima H, Hancock B, Kwong E, Trzaskos JM, Evans JF, Taketo MM. Suppression of intestinal polyposis in Apc.716 knockout mice by inhibition of cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2). Cell 87:803–809, 1996.[Medline]
  47. Chulada PC, Thompson MB, Mahler JF, Doyle CM, Gaul BW, Lee C, Tianpo HF, Morham SG, Smithies O, Langenbach R. Genetic disruption of Ptgs-1, as well as of Ptgs-2, reduces intestinal tumorigenesis in Min mice. Cancer Res 60:4705–4708, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  48. Balkwill F, Mantovani A. Inflammation and cancer: back to Virchow? Lancet 357:539–545, 2001.[Medline]
  49. Willett WC. Diet and cancer: one view at the start of the millennium. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 10:3–8, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  50. Armstrong B, Doll R. Environmental factors and cancer incidence and mortality in different countries, with special reference to dietary practices. Int J Cancer 15:617–631, 1975.[Medline]
  51. Doll R, Peto R. Avoidable risks of cancer in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst 66:1196–1265, 1981.
  52. Giovannucci E, Ascherio A, Rimm EB, Colditz GA, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC. Physical activity, obesity, and risk for colon cancer and adenoma in men. Ann Intern Med 122:327–334, 1995.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  53. Norat T, Riboli E. Meat consumption and colorectal cancer: a review of epidemiologic evidence. Nutr Rev 59:37–47, 2001.[Medline]
  54. Moser AR, Pitot HC, Dove WF. A dominant mutation that predisposes to multiple intestinal neoplasia in the mouse. Science 247:322–324, 1990.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  55. Goss KH, Groden J. Biology of the adenomatous polyposis coli tumor suppressor. J Clin Oncol 18:1967–1979, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  56. Boivin GP, Washington K, Yang K, Ward JM, Pretlow TP, Russell R, Besselsen DG, Godfrey VL, Doetschman T, Dove WF, Pitot HC, Halberg RB, Itzkowitz SH, Groden J, Coffey RJ. Pathology of mouse models of intestinal cancer: consensus report and recommendations. Gastroenterology 124:762–777, 2003.[Medline]
  57. Zhu Y, Richardson JA, Parada LF, Graff JM. Smad3 mutant mice develop metastatic colorectal cancer. Cell 94:703–714, 1998.[Medline]
  58. Rudolph U, Finegold MJ, Rich SS, Harriman GR, Srinivasan Y, Brabet P, Boulay G, Bradley A, Birnbaumer L. Ulcerative colitis and adenocarcinoma of the colon in G{alpha}i2-deficient mice. Nat Genet 10:143–150, 1995.[Medline]
  59. Velcich A, Yang W, Heyer J, Fragale A, Nicholas C, Viani S, Kucherlapati R, Lipkin M, Yang K, Augenlicht L. Colorectal cancer in mice genetically deficient in the mucin Muc2. Science 295:1726–1729, 2002.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  60. Berg DJ, Davidson N, Kühn R, Müller W, Menon S, Holland G, Thompson-Snipes L, Leach MW, Rennick D. Enterocolitis and colon cancer in interleukin-10-deficient mice are associated with aberrant cytokine production and CD4+TH1-like responses. J Clin Invest 98:1010–1020, 1996.[Medline]
  61. Chawengsaksophak K, James R, Hammond VE, Kontgen F, Beck F. Homeosis and intestinal tumours in Cdx2 mutant mice. Nature 386:84–87, 1997.[Medline]
  62. Takaku K, Oshima M, Miyoshi H, Matsui M, Seldin MF, Taketo MM. Intestinal tumorigenesis in compound mutant mice of both Dpc4 (Smad4) and Apc genes. Cell 92:645–656, 1998.[Medline]
  63. Chu F-F, Esworthy RS, Chu PG, Longmate JA, Huycke MM, Wilczynski S, Doroshow JH. Bacteria-induced intestinal cancer in mice with disrupted Gpx1 and Gpx2 genes. Cancer Res 64:962–8, 2004.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  64. Sohn KJ, Shah SA, Reid S, Choi M, Carrier J, Comiskey M, Terhorst C, Kim YI. Molecular genetics of ulcerative colitis-associated colon cancer in the interleukin 2- and ß2-microglobulin-deficient mouse. Cancer Res 61:6912–6917, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  65. Funabashi H, Uchida K, Kado S, Matsuoka Y, Ohwaki M. Establishment of a Tcrß and Trp53 genes deficient mouse strain as an animal model for spontaneous colorectal cancer. Exp Anim 50:41–47, 2001.[Medline]
  66. Haramis AP, Begthel H, van den Born M, van Es J, Jonkheer S, Offerhaus GJ, Clevers H. De novo crypt formation and juvenile polyposis on BMP inhibition in mouse intestine. Science 303:1684–1686, 2004.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  67. Engle SJ, Ormsby I, Pawlowski S, Boivin GP, Croft J, Balish E, Doetschman T. Elimination of colon cancer in germ-free transforming growth factor beta 1-deficient mice. Cancer Res 62:6362–6366, 2002.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  68. Kado S, Uchida K, Funabashi H, Iwata S, Nagata Y, Ando M, Onoue M, Matsuoka Y, Ohwaki M, Morotomi M. Intestinal microflora are necessary for development of spontaneous adenocarcinoma of the large intestine in T-cell receptor beta chain and p53 double-knockout mice. Cancer Res 61:2395–2398, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  69. Balish E, Warner T. Enterococcus faecalis induces inflammatory bowel disease in interleukin-10 knockout mice. Am J Pathol 160:2253–2257, 2002.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  70. Dove WF, Clipson L, Gould KA, Luongo C, Marshall DJ, Moser AR, Newton MA, Jacoby RF. Intestinal neoplasia in the ApcMin mouse: independence from the microbial and natural killer (beige locus) status. Cancer Res 57:812–814, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  71. Chu FF, Esworthy RS, Chu PG, Longmate JA, Huycke MM, Wilczynski S, Doroshow JH. Bacteria-induced intestinal cancer in mice with disrupted Gpx1 and Gpx2 genes. Cancer Res 64:962–968, 2004.
  72. Madsen KL, Doyle JS, Jewell LD, Tavernini MM, Fedorak RN. Lactobacillus species prevents colitis in interleukin 10 gene-deficient mice. Gastroenterology 116:1107–1114, 1999.[Medline]
  73. O’Mahony L, Feeney M, O’Halloran S, Murphy L, Kiely B, Fitzgibbon J, Lee G, O’Sullivan G, Shanahan F, Collins JK. Probiotic impact on microbial flora, inflammation and tumour development in IL-10 knockout mice. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 15:1219–1225, 2001.[Medline]
  74. Solnick JV, Schauer DB. Emergence of diverse Helicobacter species in the pathogenesis of gastric and enterohepatic diseases. Clin Microbiol Rev 14:59–97, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  75. Fox JG, Yan L, Shames B, Campbell J, Murphy JC, Li X. Persistent hepatitis and enterocolitis in germfree mice infected with Helicobacter hepaticus. Infect Immun 64:3673–3681, 1996.[Abstract]
  76. Erdman SE, Poutahidis T, Tomczak M, Rogers AB, Cormier K, Plank B, Horwitz BH, Fox JG. CD4+ CD25+ regulatory T lymphocytes inhibit microbially induced colon cancer in Rag2-deficient mice. Am J Pathol 162:691–702, 2003.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  77. Erdman SE, Rao VP, Poutahidis T, Ihrig MM, Ge Z, Feng Y, Tomczak M, Rogers AB, Horwitz BH, Fox JG. CD4+ CD25+ regulatory lymphocytes require interleukin 10 to interrupt colon carcinogenesis in mice. Cancer Res 63:6042–6050, 2003.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  78. Barthold SW, Coleman GL, Jacoby RO, Livestone EM, Jonas AM. Transmissible murine colonic hyperplasia. Vet Pathol 15:223–236, 1978.[Abstract]
  79. Vallance BA, Deng W, Jacobson K, Finlay BB. Host susceptibility to the attaching and effacing bacterial pathogen Citrobacter rodentium. Infect Immun 71:3443–3453, 2003.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  80. Mundy R, Pickard D, Wilson RK, Simmons CP, Dougan G, Frankel G. Identification of a novel type IV pilus gene cluster required for gastrointestinal colonization of Citrobacter rodentium. Mol Microbiol 48:795–809, 2003.[Medline]
  81. McBain AJ, MacFarlane GT. Ecological and physiological studies on large intestinal bacteria in relation to production of hydrolytic and reductive enzymes involved in formation of genotoxic metabolites. J Med Microbiol 47:407–416, 1998.[Abstract]
  82. Giovannucci E. Epidemiologic studies of folate and colorectal neoplasia: a review. J Nutr 132:2350S–2355S, 2002.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  83. Kune GA, Vitetta L. Alcohol consumption and the etiology of colorectal cancer: a review of the scientific evidence from 1957 to 1991. Nutr Cancer 18:97–111, 1992.[Medline]
  84. Little J, Sharp L, Duthie S, Narayanan S. Colon cancer and genetic variation in folate metabolism: the clinical bottom line. J Nutr 133:3758S–3766S, 2003.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  85. Choi SW, Mason JB. Folate status: effects on pathways of colorectal carcinogenesis. J Nutr 132:2413S–2418S, 2002.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  86. Duthie SJ, Narayanan S, Blum S, Pirie L, Brand GM. Folate deficiency in vitro induces uracil misincorporation and DNA hypomethylation and inhibits DNA excision repair in immortalized normal human colon epithelial cells. Nutr Cancer 37:245–251, 2000.[Medline]
  87. van Engeland M, Weijenberg MP, Roemen GM, Brink M, de Bruine AP, Goldbohm RA, van den Brandt PA, Baylin SB, de Goeij AF, Herman JG. Effects of dietary folate and alcohol intake on promoter methylation in sporadic colorectal cancer: the Netherlands cohort study on diet and cancer. Cancer Res 63:3133–3137, 2003.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  88. Fenech M. The role of folic acid and Vitamin B12 in genomic stability of human cells. Mutat Res 475:57–67, 2001.[Medline]
  89. Martinez ME, Maltzman T, Marshall JR, Einspahr J, Reid ME, Sampliner R, Ahnen DJ, Hamilton SR, Alberts DS. Risk factors for Kiras protooncogene mutation in sporadic colorectal adenomas. Cancer Res 59:5181–5185, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  90. Slattery ML, Curtin K, Anderson K, Ma KN, Edwards S, Leppert M, Potter J, Schaffer D, Samowitz WS. Associations between dietary intake and Kiras mutations in colon tumors: a population-based study. Cancer Res 60:6935–6941, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  91. Obe G, Anderson D. International commission for protection against environmental mutagens and carcinogens. ICPEMC working paper no. 15/1. Genetic effects of ethanol. Mutat Res 186:177–200, 1987.[Medline]
  92. Espina N, Lima V, Lieber CS, Garro AJ. In vitro and in vivo inhibitory effect of ethanol and acetaldehyde on O6-methylguanine transferase. Carcinogenesis 9:761–766, 1988.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  93. Povey AC, Badawi AF, Cooper DP, Hall CN, Harrison KL, Jackson PE, Lees NP, O’Connor PJ, Margison GP. DNA alkylation and repair in the large bowel: animal and human studies. J Nutr 132:3518S–3521S, 2002.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  94. Homann N, Tillonen J, Salaspuro M. Microbially produced acetaldehyde from ethanol may increase the risk of colon cancer via folate deficiency. Int J Cancer 86:169–173, 2000.[Medline]
  95. Giovannucci E, Rimm EB, Ascherio A, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA, Willett WC. Alcohol, low-methionine–low-folate diets, and risk of colon cancer in men. J Natl Cancer Inst 87:265–273, 1995.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  96. Rong N, Selhub J, Goldin BR, Rosenberg IH. Bacterially synthesized folate in rat large intestine is incorporated into host tissue folyl polyglutamates. J Nutr 121:1955–1959, 1991.
  97. Sepehr E, Peace RW, Storey KB, Jee P, Lampi BJ, Brooks SP. Folate derived from cecal bacterial fermentation does not increase liver folate stores in 28-d folate-depleted male Sprague-Dawley rats. J Nutr 133:1347–1354, 2003.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  98. Krause LJ, Forsberg CW, O’Connor DL. Feeding human milk to rats increases Bifidobacterium in the cecum and colon which correlates with enhanced folate status. J Nutr 126:1505–1511, 1996.
  99. Semchuk GM, Allen OB, O’Connor DL. Folate bioavailability from milk containing diets is affected by altered intestinal biosynthesis of folate in rats. J Nutr 124:1118–1125, 1994.
  100. Houghton LA, Green TJ, Donovan UM, Gibson RS, Stephen AM, O’Connor DL. Association between dietary fiber intake and the folate status of a group of female adolescents. Am J Clin Nutr 66:1414–1421, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  101. Jokelainen K, Matysiak-Budnik T, Mäkisalo H, Höckerstedt K, Salaspuro M. High intracolonic acetaldehyde values produced by a bacteriocolonic pathway for ethanol oxidation in piglets. Gut 39:100–104, 1996.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  102. Schut HA, Snyderwine EG. DNA adducts of heterocyclic amine food mutagens: implications for mutagenesis and carcinogenesis. Carcinogenesis 20:353–368, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  103. Sugimura T. Nutrition and dietary carcinogens. Carcinogenesis 21:387–395, 2000.