DNA Adducts as Biomarkers for Carcinogenesis Analysed by Capillary Electrophoresis and Laser-Induced-Fluorescence Detection

  • Oliver J. Schmitz


DNA adducts are the direct products of damage by endogenous or exogenous reactive agents to a critical macromolecular target such as DNA (Figure 17.1). Approximately 90% of the chemicals considered carcinogenic for humans form DNA adducts (Stiborovà et al. 1998). Although the majority of such DNA damage is eliminated by DNA repair processes, some persistent adducts often cause permanent mutations in important growth-controlling genes or loci, resulting in aberrant cellular growth and cancer (Hemminki et al. 2000). The amount of these reflects an integration of both the toxicokinetic properties of a genotoxic compound and the cellular DNA repair. Measurements of endogenous and exogenous DNA adducts are thus of interest in that they provide molecular, mechanism-based bridges between carcinogen exposure and disease end-points and can serve as biomarkers for carcinogenesis. In practice, investigations of such DNA damage can be viewed as a supplementary test that may, in some instances, help to facilitate the assessment of a compound with an unusual or puzzling profile of activity in statutory genotoxicity assays, animal bioassays, or both (Phillips et al. 2000).


Capillary Electrophoresis Migration Time Photoinduced Electron Transfer Aristolochic Acid Dansyl Chloride 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Al-Deen AN, Cecchini DC, Abdel-Baky S, Abdel Moneam NM, Giese RW (1990) Preparation of ethylenediaminephosphoramidates of nucleotides and derivatization with fluorescein isothiocyanate. J. Chromatogr. 512: 409–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apruzzese WA, Vouros P (1998) Analysis of DNA adducts by capillary methods coupled to mass spectrometry: A perspective. J. Chromatogr. A 794: 97–108Google Scholar
  3. Baylin SB, Herman JG (2000) DNA hypermethylation in tumorigenesis: epigenetics joins genetics. Trends Genet. 16: 168–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chien RL, Burgi DS (1992) Sample stacking of an extremely large injection volume in high-performance capillary electrophoresis. Anal. Chem. 64: 1046–1050Google Scholar
  5. Chu BCF, Wahl GM, Orgel LE (1983) Derivatisation of unprotected polynucleotides. Nucl. Acids Res. 11: 6513–6529Google Scholar
  6. Costello JF, Plass C (2001) Methylation matters. J. Med. Genet. 38: 285–303Google Scholar
  7. Esmans EL, Broes D, Hoes I, Lemiere F, Vanhoutte K (1998) Liquid chromatography mass spectrometry in nucleoside, nucleotide and modified nucleotide characterization. J. Chromatogr. A 794: 109–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gupta RC, Reddy MV, Randerath K (1982) 32P-postlabelling analysis of non-radioactive aromatic carcinogen-DNA adducts. Carcinogenesis 3: 1081–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hemminki K, Koskinen M, Rajaniemi H, Zhao C (2000) DNA adducts, mutations, and cancer 2000. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 32: 264–275Google Scholar
  10. Jones PA, Buckley JD (1990) The role of DNA methylation in cancer. Adv. Cancer Res. 54: 1–23Google Scholar
  11. Kelman DJ, Kenneth TL, Sharma M (1988) Synthesis and application of fluorescent labeled nucleotides to assay DNA damage. Chem. Biol. Interact. 66: 85–100Google Scholar
  12. Lan ZH, Wang P, Giese RW (1999a) Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionisation mass spectrometry of deoxynucleotides labeled with an IMI dye. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 13: 1454–1457Google Scholar
  13. Lan ZH, Qian X, Giese RW (1999b) Preparation of an IMI dye (imidazole functional group) containing a 4-(N,N-dimethylaminosulfonyl)-2,1,3-benzoxadiazole fluorophore for labeling of phosphormonoesters. J. Chromatogr. A 831: 325–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lee T, Yeung ES, Sharma M (1991) Micellar electrokinetic capillary chromatographic separation and laser-induced fluorescence detection of 2’-deoxynucleoside-5’monophosphates of normal and modified bases. J. Chromatogr. 565: 197–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Li W, Moussa A, Giese RW (1992) Capillary electrophoresis of fluorescein-ethylendiamine-5’-deoxynucleotides. J. Chromatogr. 608: 171–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lieberwirth U, Arden-Jakob J, Drexhage KH, Herten DP, Müller R, Neumann M, Schulz A, Siebert S, Sagner G, Klingel S, Sauer M, Wolfrum J (1998) Multiplex dye DNA-sequencing in capillary gel-electrophoresis by diode laser-based time-resolved fluorescence detection. Anal. Chem. 70: 4771–4779Google Scholar
  17. Nortier JL, Muniz Martinez MC, Schmeiser HH, Arlt VM, Bieler CA, Petein M, Depierreux MF, de Pauw L, Abramowicz D, Vereerstraeten P, Vanherweghem JL (2000) Urothelial carcinoma associated with the use of a chinese herb (Aristolochia Fangchi). N. Engl. J. Med. 342: 1686–1692Google Scholar
  18. Phillips DH, Castegnaro M (1999) Standardization and validation of DNA adduct postlabelling methods: report of interlaboratory trials and production of recommended protocols. Mutagenesis 14: 301–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Phillips DH, Farmer PB, Beland FA, Nath RG, Poirier MC, Reddy MV, Turteltaub KW (2000) Methods of DNA adduct determination and their application to testing compounds for genotoxicity. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 35: 222–233Google Scholar
  20. Poirier MC (1993) Antisera specific for carcinogen-DNA adducts and carcinogen-modified DNA: Application for detection of xenobiotics in biological samples. Mutat. Res. 288: 31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Poirier MC, Santella RM, Weston A (2000) Carcinogen macromolecular adducts and their measurement. Carcinogenesis 21: 353–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Randerath K, Reddy MV, Gupta RC (1981) 32P-labelling test for DNA damage. PNAS 78: 6126–6129Google Scholar
  23. Reddy MV, Gupta RC, Randerath E, Randerath K (1984) 32P-postlabeling test for covalent DNA binding of chemicals in vivo. Carcinogenesis 5: 231–243Google Scholar
  24. Reddy MV (2000) Methods for testing compounds for DNA adduct formation. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 32: 256–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schmeiser HH, Pool BL, Wießler M (1994) Identification and mutagenicity of metabolites of aristolochia acid formed by rat liver. Carcinogenesis 7: 59–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schmitz OJ, Wörth CCT, Stach D, Wießler M (2002) Capillary electrophoresis analysis of DNA adducts as biomarkers for carcinogenesis. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 41: 445–448Google Scholar
  27. Seidel CAM, Schulz A, Sauer M (1996) Nucleobase-specific quenching of fluorescent dye: 1. Nucleobase one-electron redox potentials and their correlation with static and dynamic quenching efficiencies. J. Phys. Chem. 100: 5541–5553Google Scholar
  28. Sharma M, Jain R, Isac TV (1991) A novel technique to assay adducts of DNA induced by anticancer agent cis-diaminedichloroplatinum (II). Bioconjug. Chem. 2: 403–406Google Scholar
  29. Soglia JR, Turesky RJ, Paehler A, Vouros P (2001) Quantification of the heterocyclic aromatic amine DNA adduct N-(deoxyguanosin-8-yl)-2-amino-3methylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoline in livers of rats using capillary liquid chromatography/microelectrospray mass spectrometry: a dose-response study. Anal. Chem. 73: 2819–2827Google Scholar
  30. Stiborovà M, Frei E, Bieler CA, Schmeiser HH (1998) 32P-postlabelling: A sensitive technique for the detection of DNA adducts. Chem. Listy 92: 661–668Google Scholar
  31. Sugimura T, Ushijima T (2000) Genetic and epigenetic alterations in carcinogenesis. Mutat. Res. 462: 235–246Google Scholar
  32. Sweetman GMA, Shuker DEG, Glover RP, Farmer PB (1998) Mass spectrometry in carcinogenesis research. Adv. Mass Spectrom. 14: 343–376Google Scholar
  33. Torimura M, Kurata S, Yamada K, Yokomaku T, Kamagata Y, Kanagawa T, Kurane R (2001) Fluorescence-quenching phenomenon by photoinduced electron transfer between a fluorescent dye and a nucleotide base. Analytical Sciences 17: 155–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vanhaelen M, Vanhaelen-Fastre R, But P, Vanherweghem JL (1994) Identification of aristolochic acid in Chinese herbs. The Lancet 343: 174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vanherweghem JL, Depierreux M, Tielemans C, Abramowicz D, Dratwa M, Jadoul M, Richard C, Vandervelde D, Verbeelen D, Vanhaelen-Fastre R, Vanhaelen M (1993) Rapidly progressive interstitial renal fibrosis in young women: association with slimming regimen including Chinese herbs. The Lancet 341: 387–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wang P, Giese RW (1993) Phosphate-specific fluorescence labeling under aqueous conditions. Anal. Chem. 65: 3518–3520Google Scholar
  37. Wang P, Giese RW (1998) Phosphate-specific fluorescence labeling with BO-IMI: reaction details. J. Chromatogr. A 809: 211–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oliver J. Schmitz

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations