ArticleCancer science2006
DNA damage and altered gene expression of enzymes for metabolism and DNA repair by tamoxifen and toremifene in the female rat liver.
Article in Cancer science, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chlorogenic acid abates oxido-inflammatory and apoptotic responses in the liver and kidney of Tamoxifen-treated rats.Toxicology research · 2021Article
- Influence of gender on tamoxifen-induced biochemical changes in serum of rats.Molecular and cellular biochemistry · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Effects of hepatocarcinogenic TAM and non-hepatocarcinogenic TOR on the formation of hepatic DNA adducts and on the gene expression of hepatic drug-metabolizing enzymes and DNA repair enzymes/proteins were comparatively examined in female Sprague-Dawley rats treated with TAM (20 or 40 mg/kg/day, i.g.) or TOR (40 mg/kg/day, i.g.) for 1, 2 or 8 weeks. Hepatic TAM-DNA adducts were formed even after 1 week of treatment with TAM at either dose, and the adduct levels increased in a dose- and treatment period-dependent manner, whereas no DNA adducts were detected in any of the TOR-treated rats. Conversely, TAM and TOR showed almost the same capacity for increasing the gene expression of drug-metabolizing enzymes responsible for metabolic activation and detoxification, at least up to the 2-week treatment mark. Accordingly, differences in DNA adduct formation between TAM- and TOR-treated rats would not be primarily dependent on the capacity for inducing hepatic drug-metabolizing enzymes. In addition, a drastic increase in the gene expression of cytochrome P4503A2 (CYP3A2), an activation enzyme of TAM, by the 8-week treatment with TAM might have contributed to the increased formation of DNA adducts. Gene expressions of DNA repair enzymes/proteins responsible for a nucleotide excision repair system were not significantly changed in any of the rats treated with either drug. The present findings suggest that the difference between TAM and TOR in hepatocarcinogenic potency is dependent on the capacity to form DNA adducts rather than modulating the expression of drug-metabolizing enzymes and DNA repair enzymes/proteins.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.