It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Inorganic arsenic oxides have been identified as carcinogens in several human tissues, including epidermis. Due to the chemical similarity between trivalent inorganic arsenic (arsenite) and antimony (antimonite), we hypothesized that common intracellular targets lead to similarities in cellular responses. Indeed, transcriptional and proteomic profiling revealed remarkable similarities in differentially expressed genes and proteins resulting from exposure of cultured human epidermal keratinocytes to arsenite and antimonite in contrast to comparisons of arsenite with other metal compounds. These data were analyzed to predict upstream regulators and affected signaling pathways following arsenite and antimonite treatments. A majority of the top findings in each category were identical after treatment with either compound. Inspection of the predicted upstream regulators led to previously unsuspected roles for oncostatin M, corticosteroids and ephrins in mediating cellular response. The influence of these predicted mediators was then experimentally verified. Together with predictions of transcription factor effects more generally, the analysis has led to model signaling networks largely accounting for arsenite and antimonite action. The striking parallels between responses to arsenite and antimonite indicate the skin carcinogenic risk of exposure to antimonite merits close scrutiny.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 University of California, Department of Environmental Toxicology, Davis, USA (GRID:grid.27860.3b) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 9684)
2 University of Guelph, Centre for Genetic Improvement of Livestock, Department of Animal Biosciences, Guelph, Canada (GRID:grid.34429.38) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8198)
3 Universidad Autónoma Querétaro, Department of Chemistry, Querétaro, Mexico (GRID:grid.412861.8) (ISNI:0000 0001 2207 2097)
4 University of California, Department of Animal Science, Davis, USA (GRID:grid.27860.3b) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 9684)
5 University of California, Division of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health Sciences, Clinical and Translational Science Center Biostatistics Core, Davis, USA (GRID:grid.27860.3b) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 9684)