Back

Genome-scale multi-organ analysis of mutagenic effects of ethanol and acetaldehyde in Sprague Dawley rats

Chavanel, B.; Tibaldi, E.; Virard, F.; Carreira, C.; Senkin, S.; Abedi-Ardekani, B.; Cahais, V.; Korenjak, M.; Herceg, Z.; Balbo, S.; Mandrioli, D.; Zavadil, J.

2025-09-07 cancer biology
10.1101/2025.09.01.673482 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Alcohol consumption is a major cancer risk factor, particularly for head and neck cancers, including the oral cavity. Acetaldehyde, the primary genotoxic metabolite of ethanol, may play key roles in oral carcinogenesis, though the mechanisms remain unclear. While mutational signatures SBS16, DBS4, and ID11 have been tentatively linked to alcohol use, they are not exclusive to alcohol-related cancers. In this study, we examined the genome-wide in vivo mutagenic effects of ethanol and acetaldehyde by analyzing tumors from the cheek, Zymbal gland, larynx, forestomach, and liver of rats chronically exposed to these compounds. Signature analysis revealed exposure-specific, early-onset formation of SBS17 in [~]28% of head and neck tumors, suggesting inflammation and/or oxidative damage as potential mediators of carcinogenesis. Cancer driver gene analysis identified a relative enrichment of exposed tumors with mutations in the Tp53 and Mtor genes. No notable exposure-specific changes were observed in doublet-base substitutions, indel signatures, or copy number variants. Notably, SBS16, DBS4, and ID11 were absent. Our findings suggest direct mutagenicity may not be the main driver of alcohol-related cancer. Other harmful cellular effects, undetectable by whole genome sequencing, may be involved. Our findings suggest that SBS17 could function as a potential exposure-specific molecular marker of alcohol-related cancers in humans.

Matching journals

The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.