Endotoxina e câncer

Endotoxin and cancer

REVIEW REVISÃO

Endotoxin and cancer

Endotoxina e câncer

Jessica I. Lundin; Harvey Checkoway

Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, School of Public Health, Office E-179E, Box 357234, 1959 NE Pacific St., Seattle, WA 98195 USA. jlundin2@.u.washington.edu

ABSTRACT

Exposure to endotoxin, a component of gram-negative bacterial cell walls, is widespread in many industrial settings and in the ambient environment. Heavy-exposure environments include livestock farms, cotton textile facilities, and saw mills. In this article, we review epidemiologic, clinical trial, and experimental studies pertinent to the hypothesis that endotoxin prevents cancer. Since the 1970s, epidemiologic studies of cotton textile and other endotoxin-exposed occupational groups have consistently demonstrated reduced lung cancer risks. Experimental animal toxicology research and some limited therapeutic trials in cancer patients offer additional support for an anticarcinogenic potential. The underlying biological mechanisms of anticarcinogenesis are not entirely understood but are thought to involve the recruitment and activation of immune cells and proinflammatory mediators (e.g., tumor necrosis factor α and interleukin-1 and - 6). In view of the current state of knowledge, it would be premature to recommend endotoxin as a cancer-chemopreventive agent. However, further epidemiologic and experimental investigations that can clarify further dose-effect and exposure-timing relations could have substantial public health and basic biomedical benefits.

Key words: Cancer, Carcinogenesis, Endotoxin, Epidemiology, Lipopolysaccharide, LPS, Lung cancer, Occupational epidemiology

RESUMO

A exposição à endotoxina, componente de paredes celulares bacterianas gram-negativas, é muito comum em plantas industriais e no meio ambiente. Ambientes de alta exposição incluem fazendas de criação de animais, instalações têxteis de algodão e moinhos. Neste artigo, revemos estudos experimentais, epidemiológicos e ensaios clínicos sobre a hipótese de que a endotoxina previne o câncer. Desde os anos 70, estudos epidemiológicos em têxteis de algodão e outros grupos ocupacionais expostos à endotoxina demonstram redução no risco de câncer de pulmão. Pesquisa experimental de toxicologia animal e ensaios terapêuticos limitados em pacientes com câncer dão suporte para um potencial anticarcinogênico. Os mecanismos biológicos anticarcinogênicos de base ainda não são completamente compreendidos, mas acredita-se que incluem recrutamento e ativação de células imunológicas e mediadores pró-inflamatórios (ex.: fator de necrose tumoral α e interleucina-1 e - 6). Devido ao estágio atual de conhecimento, seria prematuro recomendar a endotoxina como agente quimiopreventivo. Porém, pesquisas epidemiológicas e experimentais que esclareçam relações de dosagem-efeito e exposição-relações temporais podem trazer benefícios para a saúde pública e a biomedicina básica.

Palavras-chave: Câncer, Carcinogênese, Endotoxina, Epidemiologia, Lipopolissacarídeo, LPS, Câncer de pulmão, Epidemiologia ocupacional

Endotoxins are integral components of the outer membrane of gram-negative bacteria cell walls, composed of proteins, lipids, and lipopolysaccharide (LPS), which are released when bacteria lyse¹. LPS is considered to be responsible for most of the biological properties of bacterial endotoxins, particularly the lipid component (lipid A, a phosphoglycolipid)^2,3. Endotoxins are a conta minant of various organic dusts and other environmental media that support gram-negative bacterial growth^4-7. The bacterial constituents are continuously shed into our surrounding environment; consequently, exposure to endotoxin is extremely widespread.

The Limulus amoebocyte lysate (LAL) assay for environmental endotoxin levels was adopted as the standard assay of endotoxin detection by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in the 1980s⁶. This assay is based on the activation of a clotting enzyme in the lysate. Endotoxin levels are often expressed as endotoxin units (EU; 1 EU 0.1 ng, depending on the reference standard), or as concentration of endotoxin per milligram of dust or per cubic meter of air. Of note, LAL tests are not internationally standardized, and measurements may vary among laboratories⁶.

Of particular interest from a health effects perspective are the more intense exposures experienced in numerous manufacturing and agricultural settings throughout the world. Substantial endotoxin exposure occurs in agricultural work, garbage handling, sewage treatment, and incineration industries, textile industries (particularly cotton products factories), and saw mills, and to a lesser degree in occupations with exposures to certain types of water-based metal working fluids and in cigarette factories, fiberglass production facilities, and paper mills, among others^6,8-13. Cotton factories in the Shanghai textile industry have been documented to have high endotoxin exposure concentrations⁸. By way of illustration, the mean of the endotoxin levels that have been measured in representative cotton factories was 366 EU/m3 (range, 44–1,871 EU/m3)¹⁴. Additionally, reported mean endotoxin concentrations of 40 and 48 EU/m3 have been reported among municipal waste management workers^15,16. In the agricultural industry, an overall mean endotoxin concentration of 230 EU/m3 has been reported, with mean measurements of 2,700 EU/m3 (range, 96–42,300 EU/m3) in the grain, seeds, and legume primary production sector and 1,190 EU/m3 (range, 62–8,120 EU/m3) in the primary animal production sector¹⁵. Other studies have reported endotoxin levels for livestock farmers ranging from 11 to 159 EU/m3 and field crop and fruit farming exposure levels ranging from low to > 1,500 EU/m3¹², and an exposure concentration of 140 EU/m3 among swine farmers¹⁷.

Endotoxin is ubiquitous in the environment, although the exposure in occupational settings, frequently > 100 ng/m3, is more intense than exposure in the home, < 1 ng/m3¹⁸. Nonetheless, adverse health effects have been observed at endotoxin levels as low as 0.2 ng/m3¹⁹. The human health effects of acute exposure to endotoxin include sepsis; clinical symptoms such as fever, shaking chills, and septic shock; and, at lower doses, toxic pneumonitis, lung function decrements, and respiratory symptoms, such as byssinosis ("Monday morning chest tightness")^20,21. Chronic exposures have been related to the risk of developing nonatopic chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases^19,22,23 and to the severity of asthma²⁴. In contrast, numerous studies have demonstrated seemingly protective effects of environmental endotoxin exposure on atopic asthma risk and allergy development in early childhood^25,26, and atopy in adults^5,27,28. As we discuss in some detail in this article, an inverse association with endotoxin exposure and the risk of cancer of the lung, and potentially other cancer end points, has consistently been demonstrated.

More than a century of clinical, laboratory, and epidemiologic research demonstrates that endotoxin has antitumor properties^29,30, but an understanding of the underlying mechanisms, and the subsequent development of an effective therapeutic application of endotoxin, has yet to be elucidated. We reviewed current and historical literature identified in Medline³¹ electronic database, 1973-2008, using combinations of search key words such as endotoxin, LPS, epidemiology, lung, cancer, farmer, textile, and cotton. The text and citations of all identified supporting articles were reviewed with a particular focus on lung cancer, cotton textile workers [studies of textile workers that did not specify type of textile (i.e., cotton) were not reviewed], and studies of farmers by type of farming (dairy, crop, etc.). In addition a Medline search of publications from 1990 to 2008 was performed that reviewed the underlying mechanism of action so as to best describe the paradoxical understanding and association of the immune system response to endotoxin exposure and cancer.

In this review we discuss the historical and current understanding of the association of endotoxin exposure and cancer, therapeutic uses/treatment of cancer with LPS, epidemiologic studies of endotoxin exposure, and the underlying mechanisms to explain the human studies.

Endotoxin and cancer

Early experiments

In the late 19th century, William B. Coley, with the assistance of established anecdotal theories of the beneficial effect of fever on tumors³², recognized regression and, in some cases, necrosis of tumors in advanced cancer patients suffering concomitant bacterial infections. Coley went on to successfully treat cancer in terminally ill patients by injecting mixed bacterial toxins in and around the tumors³³. Despite the successes, this treatment was discontinued because the anticancer effect in patients was not consistent and repeated injections caused severe side effects, such as high fever and chills, that were not yet understood³⁴. In the early 1940s, LPS was identified as the active ingredient in Coley's "bacterial vaccine", and the antitumor effects of the bacterial polysaccharide were successfully demonstrated in vivo^35,36. When isolated LPS was found to be ineffective as an antitumor agent in culture, it was determined that the effects were mediated by host-dependent mechanisms. Almost three decades later, tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) was determined to be the effective agent with antitumor properties³⁷. By the mid-1980s therapeutic uses of TNF-α were being tested, but the therapy was less effective than hoped and caused undesired side effects, such as headache, nausea, vomiting, fever, hypotension, and diarrhea^34,38,39. Around this same time, it was discovered that TNF-α was identical to cachectin, a mediator responsible for cachexia associated with sepsis^38,40. The adverse effects of TNF-α were quickly accepted as limita tions to its direct use as an antitumor agent^34,40.

Treatment of cancer with LPS

Laboratory studies have successfully demonstrated therapeutic effects when administering LPS, or synthetic lipid A molecule, including inhibition of tumor size and growth^41-44. Morita et al.⁴⁴ demonstrated this effect to be dose dependent. Additionally, an increased survival time has been noted for mice infected with cancer cells that have been inoculated with LPS^41,45. An inverse dose-response association was demonstrated on the survival of cancer-bearing rats that were administered a synthetic analogue of lipid A⁴³. Furthermore, antigenic memory has been demonstrated on mice with tumor cells planted intracranially; the mice with previous LPS-eradicated tumors showed increased survival compared with those without previous tumors⁴⁶.

Subsequently small clinical trials administering LPS, or a lipid A analog, have been performed. Cancer remission and disease stabilization have been demonstrated in cancer patients^47-50. However, clinical toxicities have been unavoidable, even with the pretreatment of ibuprofen^47,48,50.

Epidemiologic studies of endotoxin exposure and cancer risk Lung cancer

Cancer risks, particularly lung cancer, have been investigated in relation to occupational endotoxin exposures (Table 1). Cotton textile and farming industries have been a particular focus of epidemiologic research because of the substantial endotoxin exposure in these occupational settings, so we review these two industries in detail. Findings from early occupational cohort studies demonstrated reduced risks for lung cancer among cotton textile workers in the United States^51,52 and the United Kingdom⁵³, particularly in those with longer durations of employment. These results were regarded as somewhat surprising when first observed. Lower than expected lung cancer risks were subsequently reported from a cohort study conducted among women textile workers in Shanghai^8,54, a separate, unrelated, case-control study of both men and women in the cotton textile industry in Shanghai⁵⁵, cotton textile workers in Poland⁵⁶, and a study of Italian cotton mill workers⁵⁷. Slightly elevated lung cancer risks were noted in Lithuanian and Finnish cohorts of cotton textile workers^10,58; however, extended follow-up of the Lithuanian cohort, by 5 years, indicated significantly reduced lung cancer risk among male workers employed for at least 10 years⁵⁹, and the reported risk in the Finnish cohort was based on three cases. In a meta-analysis of studies of cotton workers published during or before 1990, and of studies published during or before 2002, lung cancer risk was significantly reduced⁶⁰. Of note, the risk estimate for lung cancer was closer to unity when the more recent studies were included. The authors of the meta-analysis hypothesized this may be due to a lowering of dust concentration in the workplace in recent years.

Protection for lung cancer has been demonstrated to be similar among different types of farming^61,62, although most studies reviewed demonstrated a greater protective effect in livestock farmers, specifically dairy farmers, compared with orchard/crop farmers^63-68; Lange et al.⁶⁴ demonstrated that the risk difference was statistically significant. Additionally, crop farmer exposures are predominantly during warmer harvest months (~ 4 months) and may not be representative of the actual annual dose, whereas the exposure experience of livestock farmers occurs 12 months a year^12,15,64. For these reasons, and for simplification of discussion by selecting a homogeneous population, studies of dairy farmers are the focus of this review.

Inverse associations with respiratory cancers have consistently been observed among dairy farmers^63,66-71 (Table 1). In a cohort of Italian dairy farmers, an inverse association with increased number of dairy cattle on the farm was demonstrated; a significant inverse trend (p = 0.001) was reported for farmers with more recent exposures^66,69. Lung and bronchus cancer risks were significantly lower among Finnish dairy farmers who continued farming at the time of follow-up (~ 20-year lag time) than for those that had quit farming, and risk of lung cancer was elevated for farmers who changed their production type to a crop or to beef cattle from the beginning of the study to follow-up, compared with those who continued as dairy farmers⁶³. An earlier follow-up from this same Finnish Farm Register base cohort also demonstrated a significant decrease in lung and bronchus cancer mortalities among dairy farmers and reported the risk was lowest among farmers with at least 10 dairy cows⁶⁷. Lung cancer mortality and incidence has also been shown to be significantly reduced in livestock farmers in the U.S. and Iceland, respectively^64,72.

Only limited epidemiologic evidence is available from investigations of lung cancer risks in nontextile and nonfarming occupations that entail endotoxin exposure, yet the findings are generally consistent with an anticarcinogenic effect. Reduced lung cancer risks have been observed in U.S. automotive workers exposed to endotoxin from water-based metalworking fluids⁷³. The associations were primarily attributable to exposures within 10 years of death. Markedly reduced lung cancer incidence was also observed among pesticide applicators in the Agricultural Health Study cohort in the United States, which was attributed to a low prevalence of smoking habits^61,74. Pesticides were the principal focus of that study; endotoxin has not yet been investigated as a possible explanatory factor for the lung cancer deficit. A deficit in lung cancer risk was also observed in a study of more than a million Finnish men based on their self-reported longest held occupation in the 1970 national census, lagged by 20 years, with endotoxin exposure determined by an occupational exposure matrix⁷⁵; a deficit was not observed in women. In contrast, a study of occupational exposures in Leningrad Province, Russia, reported a > 2-fold greater risk of lung cancer in subjects ever occupationally exposed to cotton dust⁷⁶. Of note, the risk estimate was based on six cases, and the evaluation of cumulative exposure to cotton dust in males resulted in a protective effect.

Among the studies of endotoxin exposure and lung cancer, quantitative estimates of historical endotoxin exposures have been reconstructed for the Lithuanian⁵⁹ and Shanghai^8,77 cohorts, and qualitative estimates of exposure have been estimated for Italian dairy farmers⁶⁹, to enable dose–response estimations of numerous site-specific cancers. All cohorts demonstrated a significant inverse dose response trend when evaluating endotoxin exposure by dust exposure category, cumulative cotton dust exposure, and number of dairy cattle on the farm, respectively, and lung cancer.

Other cancers

The findings to date for endotoxin exposure and risks for malignancies other than lung cancer have been limited and inconsistent. Much of the risk information on industrial exposures has been derived from the Shanghai cohort study of female textile workers. The first publication of this cohort described the occupational cancer risk for all textile workers, with select cancer outcomes evaluated by textile sector⁵⁴. A decreased risk of most cancers was reported, with a significant decrease for esophageal, stomach, rectal, cervical, ovarian, and bladder cancers. Subsequent publications of this cohort evaluated the association of cumulative quantitative endotoxin exposure, as well as duration of occupational exposure classified by a job exposure matrix, and individual cancer end points, including liver, esophagus, stomach, rectum, pancreas, breast, brain, ovary, nasopharynx, and thyroid^78-86. Notable findings from these studies include a decreased risk for cancer of the esophagus [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.5; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.2–1.1] and increased risk for cancer of the nasopharynx (HR = 2.5; 95% CI, 1.1–5.4)^82,84.

Other cotton textile industry cohorts have been evaluated for the association of occupational endotoxin exposure and cancers other than the lung. Szeszenia-Dabrowska⁵⁶ reported a decreased risk of digestive cancers for men and women working in spinning and weaving departments. When considering individual cancers in men, there was a suggested increased risk of colon and liver cancers in weavers and stomach cancer in spinners, although these individual assessments were based on small numbers. Individual cancers in women showed a suggested decrease risk of rectal/anal and liver cancers and a suggested increase in gallbladder and ovarian cancers. In a Lithuanian cohort of textile workers, female workers in the spinning and weaving departments demonstrated increased risks for most individual cancers evaluated, with significant findings for breast and cervical cancers¹⁰. Other studies of cotton textile factory cohorts that defined exposure as employment in the production facility reported a decrease in breast and digestive cancers^51,53 and an increase in bladder, pharyngeal, and digestive cancers^51,57. In a meta-analysis of 15 studies of cotton workers published during or before 1990, a nonsignificant increased risk of bladder cancer and decreased risk of digestive cancer were reported⁶⁰.

Among Finnish dairy farmers that continued farming at the time of follow-up (~ 20-year lag time), the risks of colon, liver, breast, bladder, and skin cancers were significantly decreased, and risk of lip cancer was significantly increased⁶³. Mastrangelo⁶⁹ reported a decreased risk of mortality associated with most cancers evaluated in a cohort of Italian dairy farmers, with a significant decrease in esophageal, pancreatic, and bladder cancers. In a cohort of predominantly dairy farmers, female and male, in New York State, a decrease in risk was reported for most cancers, with significant decreases in risk for colon/rectum and ovarian cancers in females and cancers of the oral cavity, large intestine, and bladder in males^70,71.

Physiologic response to endotoxin exposure and cancer risk

Various mechanistic arguments have been advanced regarding endotoxin and carcinogenesis, focusing largely on complex interactions between the innate and adaptive immune systems^87,88. Once internalized, LPS is bound by LPS-binding protein (LBP) and then transferred to CD14 protein (Figure 1). The CD14–LPS complex binds to and activates the Toll-like receptors (TLRs), which are cell membrane signaling proteins located on cell surfaces of macrophages and other cells. TLR4 is the predominant receptor for endotoxin and is required for endotoxin recognition⁸⁹. Upon recognition of LPS, the innate inflammatory response is initiated and proinflammatory cytokines are released, including TNF-α, interleukin (IL)-1, and IL-6, which recruit immune cells to the site of exposure and induce the acute-phase response^3,88. This host response is important for an effective immune system; however, overproduction of proinflammatory factors can cause endotoxic shock. In addition, TLR activation induces the expression of CD80 and CD86 on the surface of antigen-presenting cells that interact with the adaptive immune system to activate naive T-lymphocyte cells (T cells)^2,90,91. The maturation of helper T cells (TH) results in cell-mediated (TH1) and humoral (TH2) subpopulations. The cytokines released by each of these cells have unique profiles and suppress the proliferation of the other subpopulation⁸⁸. The immune reaction to LPS primarily activates TH1 cells, which maximize the killing efficiency of macrophages and induce up-regulation of proinflammatory mediators^90-92. Notably, antitumor activity has been related to the cytokine profile associated with a TH1 response, whereas the TH2 profile has been shown to be ineffective in eradicating tumors^93,94.

Lung cancer

It has been postulated that bacterial endotoxin, through immunologic mechanisms, can be protective against lung cancer. Insofar as the route of endotoxin exposure is predominantly inhalation, the lung is one of the initial sites of immune stimulation⁶. Additionally, Klein et al.⁹⁵ showed in a rat model that 5 min after injection of Escherichia coli, the 20% of bacteria not taken up by the liver were found in the lungs, spleen, and blood. The TH1 response favored by LPS-activated immune cells may be a conjectured benefit to this initial site of exposure in that the TH1 immune response tends to be more localized than the TH2 response⁸⁸. Moreover, the lung has been shown to produce or up-regulate the production of cofactors involved in the host response, including LBP, CD14, and TLR4, after LPS exposure^96-98. It is generally accepted that LBP is produced in the liver, but it has been shown that significant levels of LBP could be produced elsewhere in the body under induced conditions, such as an inflammatory response⁹⁸. In the presence of LBP, approximately 15-fold less LPS have been reported to be required to trigger an inflammatory response, as measured using TNF-α ^99,100. There is also consistent experimental evidence for an increase in TNF in the bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid in guinea pigs after cotton dust exposure¹⁰¹, and an increase in TNF in the BAL fluid of humans after endotoxin exposure^102-104. Likewise, Michel et al.¹⁰⁵ reported a dose-dependent increase in TNF in the sputum of LPS-exposed subjects.

Other cancers

Other cancer end points have been studied, including cancers of the liver, esophagus, stomach, rectum, pancreas, breast, brain, ovary, thyroid, and nasopharynx, but not as extensively as the lung, and the findings have been inconsistent^{10,51-54,56,57,70,71,75,78-81,83-86}. Nonetheless, subsequent effects in other organ systems are plausible because cells with TLR4 receptors are widely disseminated, and elevation of systemic inflammatory mediators, including TNF-α, IL-1, IL-6, and IL-8, has been shown after inhalation of LPS or media contaminated with endotoxin^2,3,105-109. Additionally, a dose-related systemic response to inhaled LPS in human subjects after bronchial challenges with pure LPS has been demonstrated¹⁰⁵.

Discussion: future research needs

The individual immune response to endotoxin is a complicated result of dose, timing, potential additive or synergistic effects, and genetically determined responsiveness²⁹. The health effects, including cancer outcomes associated with exposure, remain paradoxical.

Underlying biological mechanisms need to be elucidated

Insofar as endotoxin provokes an inflammatory response^{105,106,108,110}, it might reasonably be anticipated that inflammation would enhance, rather than prevent, carcinogenesis^111-113. A sizable proportion of cancer deaths has been postulated to be attributable to infectious agents in which inflammation, mediated by recruitment of cytokines and growth factors to infected sites, may influence susceptibility to carcinogenesis through DNA damage and the simultaneous promotion of tissue destruction and repair¹¹³. The roles of H. pylori(which generates endotoxin) in the etiology of adenocarcinoma of the stomach, human papillomavirus in the etiology of anogenital carcinoma, and hepatitis B or C virus in hepatocellular carcinoma are cases in point^113-114. Additionally, overstimulation of inflammatory responses can lead to severe clinical symptoms, often termed sepsis, which can lead to progressive organ failure and death¹¹⁵. However, in lesser doses, which may relate best to chronic low-dose occupational and environmental endotoxin exposure, the proinflammatory mediators have been shown to inhibit tumor growth and retard tumor progression^37,116-118.

Exposure to LPS has been demonstrated to induce pathologic hyperactivity¹¹⁹, but a mechanism of protection from this lethal reactivity, termed endotoxin tolerance, has been speculated. Endotoxin tolerance is the unresolved phenomenon defined as an altered capacity to respond to LPS activation immediately after a first exposure; that is, when exposed to continual small doses of LPS, the same TNF response of the initial exposure does not necessarily occur with subsequent exposure^{48,50,105,109,120,121}. This tolerance has been shown to vary by dose as well as by length of time between treatments, and is theorized to allow the host more time to rid the pathogen^48,120. Because this tolerance has been related to allowing a body system to endure continuous small doses without adverse symptoms, a better understanding of this mechanism may bring clarity to the relationships between endotoxin sensitivity (including acute toxic effects) and sepsis, and, possibly, between carcinogenesis and protection against cancer¹²⁰.

Epidemiologic corroboration

Experimental evidence from both animal models and therapeutic trials regarding the effects of endotoxin on carcinogenic processes has not been consistent^122,123, which indicates the importance of epidemiologic observations for guiding mechanistic and clinical research. Difficulties in studying endotoxin epidemiologically include the very large degree of exposure variability over time and among study subjects, and uncertainties in the measurement, or proxy measure, of exposure¹²⁴. The general pattern of endotoxin exposure and cancer that emerges from existing epidemiologic research is one suggestive of an anticarcinogenic effect of endotoxin exposure that occurs in the lung and, perhaps, other organs. This consistency of findings has been maintained when using job history as a proxy of exposure^{51-54,57,59,63,64,70,71}, incorporating a cumulative endotoxin exposure matrix variable^8,59,73, and using number of dairy cattle on the farm⁶⁹. Nonetheless, with a few exceptions, most epidemiologic studies of endotoxin and cancer have not incorporated quantitative estimates of endotoxin exposure, which would strengthen causal arguments.

Although not unique to epidemiologic studies of endotoxin and cancer, absence of data on potentially confounding factors has been a limitation of most studies to date. Smoking status was incorporated in select analyses of endotoxin exposure and cancer and was shown to not account for the whole reduction in lung cancer risk, although the effect was exaggerated in those with low smoking habits^{8,53,61,64,66,69}. Specifically, in the study of lung cancer among Shanghai textile workers, the inverse dose-response relation was not confounded by smoking, and importantly, the apparent protective effect was seen among both smokers and nonsmokers⁸. The very low prevalence of smoking in this cohort of Chinese women workers precludes generalizability of these observations⁵⁴, thus underscoring the importance of obtaining pertinent data on smoking and other cancer risk factors in future research.

Concluding remarks

Exposure to endotoxin is ubiquitous in the environment at levels that have been shown to have physiologic effects and, in some instances, demonstrable health consequences. There is very consistent epidemiologic evidence that endotoxin is dose-related to risk reductions for lung cancer, and provocative evidence that risks for other cancers may be similarly reduced. Animal experimental research and limited therapeutic trial data are generally supportive of an anticarcinogenesis effect, and plausible biological mechanisms have been described. The public health implications of findings to date could be substantial. Nevertheless, a more extensive assessment of the role of endotoxin in the etiology of cancers of the lung and other organs is needed. Future epidemiologic and toxicologic research to elucidate more precisely dose-response relations and underlying mechanisms will need to be conducted before endotoxin, an agent with established noncancer toxic health effects, could be considered for widespread chemoprevention uses¹²⁵.

Received 1 December 2008

Accepted 7 May 2009

This article was originally published by Environ Health Perspect 117:1344-1350 (2009).doi:10.1289/ehp.0800439 available via http://dx.doi.org/ [Online 7 May 2009] and is part of the scientific collaboration between Cien Saude Colet and EHP.

• 1. Campbell NA, Reece JB, Urry LA, Cain ML, Wasserman SA, Minorsky PV, Jackson RB. Biology 8^th ed. San Francisco, CA: Benjamin Cummings; 2008.
• 2. Hodgson JC. Endotoxin and mammalian host responses during experimental disease. J Comp Pathol2006; 135(4):157-175.
• 3. Reisser D, Pance A, Jeannin JF. Mechanisms of the antitumoral effect of lipid A. Bioessays 2002; 24(3):284-289.
• 4. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Health concerns associated with mold in water-damaged homes after hurricanes Katrina and Rita New Orleans area, Louisiana, October 2005. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep2006; 55(2):41-44.
• 5. Gehring U, Bischof W, Schlenvoigt G, Richter K, Fahlbusch B, Wichmann HE, Heinrich J. Exposure to house dust endotoxin and allergic sensitization in adults. Allergy 2004; 59(9):946-952.
• 6. Liebers V, Bruning T, Raulf-Heimsoth M. Occupational endotoxin-exposure and possible health effects on humans. Am J Indust Med 2006; 49(6):474-491.
• 7. Park JH, Cox-Ganser J, Rao C, Kreiss K. Fungal and endotoxin measurements in dust associated with respiratory symptoms in a water-damaged office building. Indoor Air 2006; 16(3):192-203.
• 8. Astrakianakis G, Seixas NS, Ray R, Camp JE, Gao DL, Feng Z, Li W, Wernli KJ, Fitzgibbons ED, Thomas DB, Checkoway H. Lung cancer risk among female textile workers exposed to endotoxin. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007; 99(5):357-364.
• ⁹
  CDC. What you need to know about occupational exposure to metalworking fluids. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 98-116 Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 1998.
• 10. Kuzmickiene I, Didziapetris R, Stukonis M. Cancer incidence in the workers cohort of textile manufacturing factory in Alytus, Lithuania. J Occup Environ Med2004; 46(2):147-153.
• 11. Mandryk J, Alwis KU, Hocking AD. Work-related symptoms and dose-response relationships for personal exposures and pulmonary function among woodworkers. Am J Indust Med 1999; 35(5):481-490.
• 12. Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Noderer KS, Schenker MB, Vallyathan V, Olenchock S. Personal exposure to dust, endotoxin and crystalline silica in California agriculture. Ann Occup Hygiene1999; 43(1):35-42.
• 13. Rapiti E, Sperati A, Fano V, Dell'Orco V, Forastiere F. Mortality among workers at municipal waste incinerators in Rome: a retrospective cohort study. Am J Ind Med 1997; 31(5):659-661.
• 14. Astrakianakis G, Seixas N, Camp J, Smith TJ, Bartlett K, Checkoway H. Cotton dust and endotoxin levels in three Shanghai textile factories: a comparison of samplers. J Occup Environ Hygiene 2006; 3(8):418-427.
• 15. Spaan S, Wouters IM, Oosting I, Doekes G, Heederik D. Exposure to inhalable dust and endotoxins in agricultural industries. J Environ Monit 2006; 8(1):63-72.
• 16. Wouters IM, Spaan S, Douwes J, Doekes G, Heederik D. Overview of personal occupational exposure levels to inhalable dust, endotoxin, b(1g3)-glucan and fungal extracellular polysaccharides in the waste management chain. Ann Occup Hygiene 2006; 50(1):39-53.
• 17. Chang CW, Chung H, Huang CF, Su HJ. Exposure assessment to airborne endotoxin, dust, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide in open style swine houses. Ann Occup Hygiene 2001; 45(6):457-465.
• 18. Rylander R, Sorenson S, Gotoo H, Yusao K, Tanaka S. The importance of endotoxin and glucan for symptoms in sick buildings. In: Bieva CJ, Courtois Y, Govaerts M, eds. Present and future of indoor air quality. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science; 1989. p. 219-226.
• 19. Smid T, Heederik D, Houba R, Quanjer PH. Dust- and endotoxin-related respiratory effects in the animal feed industry. Am Rev Respir Dis 1992; 146(6):1474-1479.
• 20. Rylander R. Endotoxin in the environment: exposure and effects. J Endotoxin Res 2002; 8(4):241-252.
• 21. Rylander R. Endotoxin and occupational airway disease. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 2006; 6(1):62-66.
• 22. Schwartz DA, Donham KJ, Olenchock SA, Popendorf WJ, Van Fossen DS, Burmeister LF, Merchant JA. Determinants of longitudinal changes in spirometric function among swine confinement operators and farmers. Am J Respir Crit Care Med1995; 151(1):47-53.
• 23. Wang XR, Zhang HX, Sun BX, Dai HL, Hang JQ, Eisen EA, Wegman DH, Olenchock SA, Christiani DC. A 20-year follow-up study on chronic respiratory effects of exposure to cotton dust. Eur Respir J2005; 26(5):881-886.
• 24. Michel O, Kips J, Duchateau J, Vertongen F, Robert L, Collet H, Pauwels R, Sergysels R. Severity of asthma is related to endotoxin in house dust. Am J Respir Crit Care Med1996; 154(6 pt 1):1641-1646.
• 25. Remes ST, Iivanainen K, Koskela H, Pekkanen J. Which factors explain the lower prevalence of atopy amongst farmers' children? Clin Exp Allergy 2003; 33(4):427-434.
• 26. Von Mutius E, Braun-Fahrlander C, Schierl R, Riedler J, Ehlermann S, Maisch S, Waser M, Nowak D. Exposure to endotoxin or other bacterial components might protect against the development of atopy. Clin Exp Allergy 2000; 30(9):1230-1234.
• 27. Eduard W, Omenaas E, Bakke PS, Douwes J, Heederik D. Atopic and non-atopic asthma in a farming and a general population. Am J Indust Med2004; 46(4):396-399.
• 28. Portengen L, Preller L, Tielen M, Doekes G, Heederik D. Endotoxin exposure and atopic sensitization in adult pig farmers. J Allergy Clin Immunol2005; 115(4):797-802.
• 29. Liebers V, Raulf-Heimsoth M, Bruning T. Health effects due to endotoxin inhalation. Arch Toxicol 2008; 82(4):203-210.
• 30. Liu AH. Endotoxin exposure in allergy and asthma: reconiling a paradox. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2002; 109(3):379-392.
• ³¹
  National Library of Medicine. Medline; 2006. [accessed 2009 July 16]. Available: http://www.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez
  » link
• 32. McCarthy EF. The toxins of William B. Coley and the treatment of bone and soft-tissue sarcomas. Iowa Orthop J2006; 26:154-158.
• 33. Coley WB. Treatment of inoperable malignant tumors with the toxins of erysipelas and the Bacillus prodigiosus. Trans Am Surg Assn 1894; (12):183-212.
• 34. Mueller H. Tumor necrosis factor as an antineoplastic agent: pitfalls and promises. Cell Mol Life Sci 1998; 54(12):1291-1298.
• 35. Shear MJ, Perrault A. Reactions of mice with primary subcutaneous tumors to the injection of a hemorrhage-producing bacterial polysaccharide. J Natl Cancer Inst 1944; 4:461-468.
• 36. Shear MJ, Turner FC. Chemical treatment of tumours; isolation of hemorrhagic-producing fraction from Serratia marcescens(Bacillus prodigious) culture filtrate. J Natl Cancer Inst 1943; 4:81-87.
• 37. Carswell EA, Old LJ, Kassel RL, Green S, Fiore N, Williamson B. An endotoxin-induced serum factor that causes necrosis of tumors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1975; 72(9):3666-3670.
• 38. Clark IA. How TNF was recognized as a key mechanism of disease. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev 2007; 18(3-4):335-343.
• 39. Spriggs DR, Sherman ML, Michie H, Arthur KA, Imamura K, Wilmore D, Frei E, 3rd, Kufe DW. Recombinant human tumor necrosis factor administered as a 24-hour intravenous infusion: a phase 1 and pharmacologic study. J Natl Cancer Inst 1988; 80:1039-1044.
• 40. Ghezzi P, Cerami A. Tumor necrosis factor as a pharmacological target. Mol Biotechnol 2005; 31(3):239-244.
• 41. Andreani V, Gatti G, Simonella L, Rivero V, Maccioni M. Activation of Toll-like receptor 4 on tumor cells in vitro inhibits subsequent tumor growth in vivo Cancer Res 2007; 67(21):10519-10527.
• 42. Chicoine MR, Won EK, Zahner MC. Intratumoral injection of lipopolysaccharide causes regression of sub cutaneously implanted mouse glioblastoma multiforme. Neurosurgery 2001; 48(3):607-615.
• 43. Kuramitsu Y, Nishibe M, Ohiro Y, Matsushita K, Yuan L, Obara M, Kobayashi M, Hosokawa, M. A new synthetic lipid A analog, ONO-4007, stimulates the production of tumor necrosis factor-alpha in tumor tissues, resulting in the rejection of transplanted rat hepatoma cells. Anticancer Drugs 1997; 8(5):500-508.
• 44. Morita S, Yamamoto M, Kamigaki T, Saitoh Y. Synthetic lipid A produces antitumor effect in a hamster pancreatic carcinoma model through production of tumor necrosis factor from activated macrophages. Kobe J Med Sci 1996; 42(4):219-231.
• 45. Lange JH. An experimental study of anti-cancer properties of aerosolized endotoxin: application to human epidemiological studies. J Occup Med Toxicol 1992; (1):377-382.
• 46. Won EK, Zahner MC, Grant EA, Gore P, Chicoine MR. Analysis of the antitumoral mechanisms of lipopolysaccharide against glioblastoma multiforme. Anticancer Drugs 2003; 14(6):457-466.
• 47. De Bono JS, Dalgleish AG, Carmichael J, Diffley J, Lofts FJ, Fyffe D, Ellard S, Gordon RJ, Brindley CJ, Evans TR. Phase I study of ONO-4007, a synthetic analogue of the lipid A moiety of bacterial lipopolysaccharide. Clin Cancer Res 2000; 6(2):397-405.
• 48. Engelhardt R, Mackensen A, Galanos C. Phase I trial of intravenously administered endotoxin (Salmonella abortus equi) in cancer patients. Cancer Res 1991; 51(10):2524-2530.
• 49. Goto S, Sakai S, Kera J, Suma Y, Soma GI, Takeuchi S. Intradermal administration of lipopolysaccharide in treatment of human cancer. Cancer Immunol Immunother 1996; 42(4):255-261.
• 50. Otto F, Schmid P, Mackensen A, Wehr U, Seiz A, Braun M, Galanos C, Mertelsmann R, Engelhardt R. Phase II trial of intravenous endotoxin in patients with colorectal and non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Cancer 1996; 32A(10):1712-1718.
• 51. Henderson V, Enterline PE. An unusual mortality experience in cotton textile workers. J Occup Med 1973; 15(9):717-719.
• 52. Merchant JA, Ortmeyer C. Mortality of employees of two cotton mills in North Carolina. Chest 1981; 79(4 Suppl):6S-11S.
• 53. Hodgson JT, Jones RD. Mortality of workers in the British cotton industry in 1968-1984. Scand J Work Environ Health 1990; 16(2):113-120.
• 54. Wernli KJ, Ray RM, Gao DL, Thomas DB, Checkoway H. Cancer among women textile workers in Shanghai, China: overall incidence patterns, 1989-1998. Am J Indust Med2003; 44(6):595-599.
• 55. Levin LI, Gao YT, Blot WJ, Zheng W, Fraumeni JF Jr. Decreased risk of lung cancer in the cotton textile industry of Shanghai. Cancer Res 1987; 47(21):5777-5781.
• 56. Szeszenia-Dabrowska N, Wilczynska U, Strzelecka A, Sobala W. Mortality in the cotton industry workers: results of a cohort study. Int J Occup Med Environ Health 1999; 12(2):143-158.
• 57. Mastrangelo G, Fadda E, Rylander R, Milan G, Fedeli U, Rossi di Schio M, Lange JH. Lung and other cancer site mortality in a cohort of Italian cotton mill workers. Occup Environ Med 2008; 65(10):697-700.
• 58. Koskela RS, Klockars M, Järvinen E. Mortality and disability among cotton mill workers. Br J Ind Med 1990; 47(6):384-391.
• 59. Kuzmickiene I, Stukonis M. Lung cancer risk among textile workers in Lithuania. J Occup Med Toxicol 2007; 2:14; doi:10.1186/1745-6673-2-14 [Online 16 Nov 2007]
• 60. Mastrangelo G, Fedeli U, Fadda E, Milan G, Lange JH. Epidemiologic evidence of cancer risk in textile industry workers: a review and update. Toxicol Ind Health2002; 18(4):171-181.
• 61. Blair A, Sandler DP, Tarone R, Lubin J, Thomas K, Hoppin JA, Samanic C, Coble J, Kamel F, Knott C, Dosemeci M, Zahm SH, Lynch CF, Rothman N, Alavanja MCR. Mortality among participants in the agricultural health study. Ann Epidemiol 2005; 15(4):279-285.
• 62. Lee E, Burnett CA, Lalich N, Cameron LL, Sestito JP. Proportionate mortality of crop and livestock farmers in the United States, 1984-1993. Am J Ind Med 2002; 42(5):410-420.
• 63. Laakkonen A, Pukkala E. Cancer incidence among Finnish farmers, 1995-2005. Scand J Work Environ Health 2008; 34(1):73-79.
• 64. Lange JH, Mastrangelo G, Fedeli U, Fadda E, Rylander R, Lee E. Endotoxin exposure and lung cancer mortality by type of farming: is there a hidden dose-response relationship? Ann Agric Environ Med 2003; 10(2):229-232.
• 65. Mastrangelo G, Marzia V, Marcer G. Reduced lung cancer mortality in dairy farmers: is endotoxin exposure the key factor? Am J Ind Med 1996; 30(5):601-609.
• 66. Mastrangelo G, Marzia V, Milan G, Fadda E, Fedeli U, Lange JH. An exposure-dependent reduction of lung cancer risk in dairy farmers: a nested case-referent study. Indoor Built Environ 2004; 13:35-43.
• 67. Pukkala E, Notkola V. Cancer incidence among Finnish farmers, 1979-93. Cancer Causes Control 1997; 8(1):25-33.
• 68. Reif J, Pearce N, Fraser J. Cancer risks in New Zealand farmers. Int J Epidemiol 1989; 18(4):768-774.
• 69. Mastrangelo G, Grange JM, Fadda E, Fedeli U, Buja A, Lange JH. Lung cancer risk: effect of dairy farming and the consequence of removing that occupational exposure. Am J Epidemiol2005; 161(11):1037-1046.
• 70. Stark AD, Chang HG, Fitzgerald EF, Riccardi K, Stone RR. A retrospective cohort study of cancer incidence among New York State Farm Bureau members. Arch Environ Health 1990; 45(3):155-162.
• 71. Wang Y, Lewis-Michl EL, Hwang SA, Fitzgerald EF, Stark AD. Cancer incidence among a cohort of female farm residents in New York State. Arch Environ Health2002; 57(6):561-567.
• 72. Gunnarsdóttir H, Rafnsson V. Cancer incidence among Icelandic farmers 1977-1987. Scand J Soc Med 1991; 19(3):170-173.
• 73. Schroeder JC, Tolbert PE, Eisen EA, Monson RR, Hallock MF, Smith TJ, Woskie SR, Hammond SK, Milton DK. Mortality studies of machining fluid exposure in the automobile industry. IV: A case-control study of lung cancer. Am J Indust Med1997; 31(5):525-533.
• 74. Alavanja MC, Dosemeci M, Samanic C, Lubin J, Lynch CF, Knott C, Barker J, Hoppin J, Sandler D, Coble J, Thomas K, Blair A. Pesticides and lung cancer risk in the agricultural health study cohort. Am J Epidemiol 2004; 160(9):876-885.
• 75. Laakkonen A, Verkasalo PK, Nevalainen A, Kauppinen T, Kyyronen P, Pukkala EI. Moulds, bacteria and cancer among Finns: an occupational cohort study. Occup Environ Med 2008; 65(7):489-493.
• 76. Baccarelli A, Khmelnitskii O, Tretiakova M, Gorbanev S, Lomtev A, Klimkina I, Tchibissov V, Averkina O, Rice C, Dosemeci M. Risk of lung cancer from exposure to dusts and fibers in Leningrad Province, Russia. Am J Ind Med2006; 49(6):460-467.
• 77. Astrakianakis G, Seixas NS, Camp JE, Christiani DC, Feng Z, Thomas DB, Checkoway H. Modeling, estimation and validation of cotton dust and endotoxin exposures in Chinese textile operations. Ann Occup Hygiene 2006; 50(6):573-582.
• 78. Chang CK, Astrakianakis G, Thomas DB, Seixas NS, Ray RM, Gao DL, Wernli KJ, Fitzgibbons ED, Vaughan TL, Checkoway H. Occupational exposures and risks of liver cancer among Shanghai female textile workers: a case-cohort study. Int J Epidemiol2006; 35(2):361-369.
• 79. De Roos AJ, Ray RM, Gao DL, Wernli KJ, Fitzgibbons ED, Ziding F, Astrakianakis G, Thomas DB, Checkoway H. Colorectal cancer incidence among female textile workers in Shanghai, China: a case-cohort analysis of occupational exposures. Cancer Causes Control 2005; 16(10):1177-1188.
• 80. Gold LS, De Roos AJ, Ray RM, Wernli K, Fitzgibbons ED, Gao DL, Astrakianakis G, Feng Z, Thomas D, Checkoway H. Brain tumors and occupational exposures in a cohort of female textile workers in Shanghai, China. Scand J Work Environ Health 2006; 32(3):178-184.
• 81. Li W, Ray RM, Gao DL, Fitzgibbons ED, Seixas NS, Camp JE, Wernli KJ, Astrakianakis G, Feng Z, Thomas DB, Checkoway H. Occupational risk factors for pancreatic cancer among female textile workers in Shanghai, China. Occup Environ Med 2006; 63(12):788-793.
• 82. Li W, Ray RM, Gao DL, Fitzgibbons ED, Seixas NS, Camp JE, Wernli KJ, Astrakianakis G, Feng Z, Thomas DB, Checkoway H. Occupational risk factors for nasopharyngeal cancer among female textile workers in Shanghai, China. Occup Environ Med2006; 63(1):39-44.
• 83. Ray RM, Gao DL, Li W, Wernli KJ, Astrakianakis G, Seixas NS, Camp JE, Fitzgibbons ED, Feng Z, Thomas DB, Checkoway H. Occupational exposures and breast cancer among women textile workers in Shanghai. Epidemiology 2007; 18(3):383-392.
• 84. Wernli KJ, Fitzgibbons ED, Ray RM, Gao DL, Li W, Seixas NS, Camp JE, Astrakianakis G, Feng Z, Thomas DB, Checkoway H. Occupational risk factors for esophageal and stomach cancers among female textile workers in Shanghai, China. Am J Epidemiol 2006; 163(8):717-725.
• 85. Wernli KJ, Ray RM, Gao DL, Fitzgibbons ED, Camp JE, Astrakianakis G, Seixas N, Wong EY, Li W, De Roos AJ, Feng Z, Thomas DB, Checkoway H. Occupational exposures and ovarian cancer in textile workers. Epidemiology 2008; 19(2):244-250.
• 86. Wong EY, Ray R, Gao DL, Wernli KJ, Li W, Fitzgibbons ED, Feng Z, Thomas DB, Checkoway H. Reproductive history, occupational exposures, and thyroid cancer risk among women textile workers in Shanghai, China. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2006; 79(3):251-258.
• 87. Schmidt C. Immune system's Toll-like receptors have good opportunity for cancer treatment.J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 98(9):574-575.
• 88. Tzianabos AO, Wetzler LM. Cellular communication. In: Pier GB, Lyczak JB, Wetzler LM, editors.Immunology, infection, and immunity. Washington, DC: ASM Press; 2004. p. 343-369.
• 89. Poltorak A, He X, Smirnova I, Liu MY, Van Huffel C, Du X, Birdwell D, Alejos E, Silva M, Galanos C, Freudenberg M, Ricciardi-Castagnoli P, Layton B, Beutler B. Defective LPS signaling in C3H/HeJ and C57BL/10ScCr mice: mutations in Tlr4 gene. Science 1998; 282(5396):2085-2088.
• 90. Heine H, Rietschel ET, Ulmer AJ. The biology of endotoxin. Mol Biotechnol 2001; 19(3):279-296.
• 91. Werling D, Jungi TW. TOLL-like receptors linking innate and adaptive immune response. Vet Immunol Immunopathol 2003; 91(1):1-12.
• 92. Lapa e Silva JR, Possebon da Silva MD, Lefort J, Vargaftig BB. Endotoxins, asthma, and allergic immune responses. Toxicology 2000; 152(1-3):31-35.
• 93. Hong S, Qian J, Yang J, Li H, Kwak LW, Yi Q. Roles of idiotype-specific T cells in myeloma cell growth and survival: Th1 and CTL cells are tumoricidal while Th2 cells promote tumor growth. Cancer Res 2008; 68(20):8456-8464.
• 94. Maraveyas A, Baban B, Kennard D, Rook GA, Westby M, Grange JM, Lydyard P, Stanford JL, Jones M, Selby P, Dalgleish AG. Possible improved survival of patients with stage IV AJCC melanoma receiving SRL 172 immunotherapy: correlation with induction of increased levels of intracellular interleukin-2 in peripheral blood lymphocytes. Ann Oncol 1999; 10(7):817-824.
• 95. Klein A, Zhadkewich M, Margolick J, Winkelstein J, Bulkley G. Quantitative discrimination of hepatic reticuloendothelial clearance and phagocytic killing. J Leukocyte Biol 1994; 55(2):248-252.
• 96. Fearns C, Kravchenko VV, Ulevitch RJ, Loskutoff DJ. Murine CD14 gene expression in vivo: extramyeloid synthesis and regulation by lipopolysaccharide. J Exp Med 1995; 181(3):857-866.
• 97. Matsumura T, Ito A, Takii T, Hayashi H, Onozaki K. Endotoxin and cytokine regulation of Toll-like receptor (TLR) 2 and TLR4 gene expression in murine liver and hepatocytes. J Interferon Cytokine Res 2000; 20(10):915-921.
• 98. Su GL, Freeswick PD, Geller DA, Wang Q, Shapiro RA, Wan YH, Billiar TR, Tweardy DJ, Simmons RL, Wang SC. Molecular cloning, characterization, and tissue distribution of rat lipopolysaccharide binding protein: evidence for extrahepatic expression. J Immunol 1994; 153(2):743-752.
• 99. Martin TR, Mathison JC, Tobias PS, Leturcq DJ, Moriarty AM, Maunder RJ, Billiar TR, Tweardy DJ, Simmons RL, Wang SC. Lipopolysaccharide binding protein enhances the responsiveness of alveolar macrophages to bacterial lipopolysaccharide: implications for cytokine production in normal and injured lungs. J Clin Invest 1992; 90(6):2209-2219.
• 100. Schumann RR, Leong SR, Flaggs GW, Gray PW, Wright SD, Mathison JC, Tobias PS, Ulevitch, RJ. Structure and function of lipopolysaccharide binding protein. Science 1990; 249(4975):1429-1431.
• 101. Ryan LK, Karol MH. Release of tumor necrosis factor in guinea pigs upon acute inhalation of cotton dust.Am J Resp Cell Mol Biol 1991; 5(1):93-98.
• 102. Jagielo PJ, Thorne PS, Watt JL, Frees KL, Quinn TJ, Schwartz DA. Grain dust and endotoxin inhalation challenges produce similar inflammatory responses in normal subjects. Chest 1996; 110(1):263-270.
• 103. O'Grady NP, Preas HL, Pugin J, Fiuza C, Tropea M, Reda D, Banks SM, Suffredini AF. Local inflammatory responses following bronchial endotoxin instillation in humans. Am J Respir Crit Care Med2001; 163(7):1591-1598.
• 104. Wang Z, Larsson K, Palmberg L, Malmberg P, Larsson P, Larsson L. Inhalation of swine dust induces cytokine release in the upper and lower airways. Eur Respir J 1997; 10(2):381-387.
• 105. Michel O, Nagy AM, Schroeven M, Duchateau J, Neve J, Fondu P, Sergysels R. Dose-response relationship to inhaled endotoxin in normal subjects. Am J Respir Crit Care Med1997; 156(4 pt 1):1157-1164.
• 106. Larsson KA, Eklund AG, Hansson LO, Isaksson BM, Malmberg PO. Swine dust causes intense airways inflammation in healthy subjects. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1994; 150(4):973-977.
• 107. Mackensen A, Galanos C, Wehr U, Engelhardt R. Endotoxin tolerance: regulation of cytokine production and cellular changes in response to endotoxin application in cancer patients. EurCytokine Netw 1992; 3(6):571-579.
• 108. Mattsby I, Rylander R. Clinical and immunological findings in workers exposed to sewage dust. J Occup Med1978; 20(10):690-692.
• 109. Palmberg L, Larssson BM, Malmberg P, Larsson K. Airway responses of healthy farmers and nonfarmers to exposure in a swine confinement building. Scand J Work Environ Health 2002; 28(4):256-263.
• 110. Gordon T. Dose-dependent pulmonary effects of inhaled endotoxin in guinea pigs. Environ Res 1992; 59(2):416-426.
• 111. Bohnhorst J, Rasmussen T, Moen SH, Flottum M, Knudsen L, Borset M, Espevik T, Sundan A. Toll-like receptors mediate prolifration and survival of multiple myeloma cells. Leukemia 2006; 20(6):1138-1144.
• 112. Puntoni M, Marra D, Zanardi S, Decensi A. Inflammation and cancer prevention. Ann Oncol 2008; 19(Suppl 7):vii225-vii229.
• 113. Schottenfeld D, Beebe-Dimmer J. Chronic inflammation: a common and important factor in the pathogenesis of neoplasia. CA Cancer J Clin 2006; 56(2):69-83.
• 114. Britton S, Papp-Szabo E, Simala-Grant J, Morrison L, Taylor DE, Monteiro MA. A novel Helicobacter pylori cell-surface polysaccharide. Carbohydr Res 2005; 340(9):1605-1611.
• 115. Bosshart H, Heinzelmann M. Targeting bacterial endotoxin: two sides of a coin. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2007; 1096:1-17.
• 116. Dranoff G. Cytokines in cancer pathogenesis and cancer therapy. Nat Rev 2004; 4(1):11-22.
• 117. Lin WW, Karin M. A cytokine-mediated link between innate immunity, inflammation, and cancer. J Clin Invest 2007; 117(5):1175-1183.
• 118. Manda T, Shimomura K, Mukumoto S, Kobayashi K, Mizota T, Hirai O, Matsumoto S, Oku T, Nishigaki F , Mori J, Kikuchi H. Recombinant human tumor necrosis factor-alpha: evidence of an indirect mode of antitumor activity. Cancer Res 1987; 47(14):3707-3711.
• 119. Suter E, Kirsanow EM. Hyperreactivity to endotoxin in mice infected with Mycobacterium: induction and elicitation of the reaction. Immunology 1961; 4:354-365.
• 120. Cross AS. Endotoxin tolerance-current concepts in historical perspective. J Endotoxin Res 2002; 8(2):83-98.
• 121. Gioannini TL, Teghanemt A, Zarember KA, Weiss JP. Regulation of interactions of endotoxin with host cells. J Endotoxin Res 2003; 9(6):401-408.
• 122. Chen R, Alvero AB, Silasi DA, Mor G. Inflammation, cancer and chemoresistance: taking advantage of the Toll-like receptor signaling pathway. Am J Reprod Immunol 2007; 57(2):93-107.
• 123. Mumm JB, Oft M. Cytokine-based transformation of immune surveillance into tumor-promoting inflammation. Oncogene 2008; 27(45):5913-5919.
• 124. Spaan S, Schinkel J, Wouters IM, Preller L, Tielemans E, Nij ET, Heekerik D. Variability in endotoxin exposure levels and consequences for exposure assessment. Ann Occup Hyg 2008; 52(5):303-316.
• 125. Boffetta P. Endotoxins in lung cancer prevention. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007; 99(5):339.

Datas de Publicação

• Publicação nesta coleção
  28 Set 2010
• Data do Fascículo
  Set 2010

Histórico

• Recebido
  01 Dez 2008
• Aceito
  07 Maio 2009