Carcinogenicity of aromatic compounds
Allen Smith
allens at yang.earlham.edu
Sat Apr 18 14:20:25 EST 1992
In article <009593F1.30B0890C.10723 at NTDOC.NCTNET.GOV>, wmelchior at NTDOC.NCTNET.GO
V ("Bill Melchior, NCTR/FDA") writes:
>> I've received a few letters and have seen a brief discussion
>> without any sort of resolution on the rumour I posted sbout
>> DMAE, it's solvent and cancer. A reader contacted twinlabs
>> (tm) and stated the nervous operator shakily confirmed that
>> the only solvent that they used with their DMAE was water.
>>
>> I recently found a DMAE bottle in a healthfood store and
>> found the DMAE in TWinlabs to be in a PABA (para-amino ben-
>> zoic acid) base. The solvent is indeed water.
>>
>> So I checked out the biomed libraries' reports on PABA. I
>> found a few reports of similar substances being
>> carcinogenic. I'm an amateur and I don't have these
>> articles handy, but I believe these were pyrridines. I
>> found Peter Alex the med student on the shuttle today and
>> he suggested the benzoic acid was the problem. He
>> said that it is hypothesized that benzene itself is the
>> culprit in causing cancer. We talked a little about the
>> chemical structure and the floating electrons of the
>> benzene ring and the efficacy of this structure in fucking
>> with DNA replication. Benzene is the same thing responsible
>> for the potent carcinogenic activities of burnt barbeque
>> meterial which is basically just a clump of benzene riings.
>>
>> The journals were mostly unreadable to this novice but
>> by the availability of benzocaine, sunscreens containing
>> benzene-type chemicals (which react with UV light to create
>> free raqdicals) that this issue is either unresolved or
>> not yet critical (as the journals seemed to suggest- in-
>> conclusive.) PATMS (peter alex the med student) believed
>> the necessity of these products in medical practices
>> currently outweighs their dangers. This didn't make sense
>> to me, aS the use in suncreen is to PREVENT cancer while
>> he claimed these same substances CAUSED cancer.
>
>
> Although the carcinogenicity of aromatic hydrocarbons is not my field,
> perhaps I can shed some light on this problem.
>
> First, there is a big difference between benzene, C6H6, and the much
> larger "polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons" ("PAH"s), which have multiple
> rings joined together along their edges. The mechanisms by which PAHs
> damage DNA have been extensively studied. Such damage depends on
> metabolism of the compounds to oxidized species which can react with
> groups on the DNA. The degree of metabolism, first, and the amount and
> type of damage to DNA, second, depend on several details of the
> structure of the molecule, such as the geometric layout of the rings
> and the presence of other side chains attached to the rings. The DNA
> damage, with resulting mutations and tumor formation, are well characterized.
>
> Benzene, on the other hand, has been associated with leukemia, but
> experimental studies are mostly lacking. This means that the interaction
> with DNA is not well characterized, either as to the nature of the
> reacting compound or the type of the resulting damage. Oxidation has been
> proposed as playing a role here, also, but benzene is much less reactive
> than PAHs, so experiments are less informative.
>
> A couple of points should be kept in mind. 1) The majority of chemicals that
> react with DNA do so after being metabolized -- changed into more reactive
> compounds -- by enzymes in the body. 2) Caution is needed in proposing
> that a chemical may cause cancer merely because an apparently similar one
> does; simply moving methyl group from one place to another on a molecule
> may change its carcinogenecity by orders of magnitude. (Remember that common
> salt, NaCl, is made up of sodium and chlorine atoms. Both sodium and chlorine
> are dangerous in their elemental state, but NaCl is not only harmless in
> reasonable amounts, but absolutely vital to life.) Thus it is totally
> wrong to say something like
>> Benzene is the same thing responsible
>> for the potent carcinogenic activities of burnt barbeque
>> meterial which is basically just a clump of benzene rings.
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
__
> The opinions stated are mine, not those of NCTR or its sponsoring organization
s.
>
> Bill Melchior || Evolution, as described in
> National Center for Toxicological Research || J. A. Paulos' _Innumeracy_:
> Jefferson, AR 72079 ||
> (501) 543-7206 || "Eventually, primitive life
> || develops, and then shopping
> wmelchior at ntdoc.nctnet.gov || malls."
I thought I'd repost this to alt.drugs, since the original query
came from there. It's somewhat unsurprising that Bill didn't leave the
cross-postings where they were; NCTR (so far as I can tell) is sponsored
by the FDA.
-Allen
More information about the Bioforum
mailing list