4.7 Article

Low-dose dietary chlorophyll inhibits multi-organ carcinogenesis in the rainbow

Journal

FOOD AND CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGY
Volume 46, Issue 3, Pages 1014-1024

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2007.10.034

Keywords

chlorophyll; dibenzo[a,l]pyrene; tumor incidence; bioavailability; liver cancer; stomach cancer

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P01 CA090890, CA 90890, P01 CA090890-04] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIEHS NIH HHS [P30 ES000210-40, P30 ES003850-15, P30 ES000210, P30 ES003850, ES 00210, ES 03850] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We recently reported that chlorophyll (Chi) strongly inhibits aflatoxin 131 preneoplasia biomarkers in rats when administered by co-gavage (Simonich et at., 2007. Natural chlorophyll inhibits aflatoxin B I-induced multi-organ carcinogenesis in the rat. Carcinogenesis 28,1294-1302.). The present study extends this by examining the effects of dietary Chi on tumor development, using rainbow trout to explore ubiquity of mechanism. Duplicate groups of 140 trout were fed diet containing 224 ppm dibenzo[a,l]pyrene (DBP) alone, or with 1000-6000 ppm Chi, for 4 weeks. DBP induced high tumor incidences in liver (51%) and stomach (56%), whereas Chi co-fed at 2000, 4000 or 6000 ppm reduced incidences in stomach (to 29%, 23% and 19%, resp., P < 0.005) and liver (to 21%, 28% and 26%, resp., P < 0.0005). Chlorophyllin (CHL) at 2000 ppm gave similar protection. Chi complexed with DBP in vitro (2Chl:DBP, K-d1 = 4.44 +/- 0.46 mu M, K-d2 = 3.30 +/- 0.18 mu M), as did CHL (K-d1= 1.38 +/- 0.32 mu M, K-d2 = 1.17 +/- 0.05 mu M), possibly explaining their ability to inhibit DBP uptake into the liver by 61-63% (P < 0.001). This is the first demonstration that dietary Chi can reduce tumorigenesis in any whole animal model, and that it may do so by a simple, species-independent mechanism. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available