Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-zzw9c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-27T02:56:18.847Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Organ-specific exposure and response to sulforaphane, a key chemopreventive ingredient in broccoli: implications for cancer prevention

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2012

Omkara L. Veeranki
Affiliation:
Department of Cancer Prevention and Control, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Elm and Carlton Streets, Buffalo, NY14263, USA
Arup Bhattacharya
Affiliation:
Department of Cancer Prevention and Control, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Elm and Carlton Streets, Buffalo, NY14263, USA
James R. Marshall
Affiliation:
Department of Cancer Prevention and Control, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Elm and Carlton Streets, Buffalo, NY14263, USA
Yuesheng Zhang*
Affiliation:
Department of Cancer Prevention and Control, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Elm and Carlton Streets, Buffalo, NY14263, USA
*
*Corresponding author: Y. Zhang, fax +1 716 845 1144, email yuesheng.zhang@roswellpark.org
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Naturally occurring sulforaphane (SF) has been extensively studied for cancer prevention. However, little is known as to which organs may be most affected by this agent, which impedes its further development. In the present study, SF was administered to rats orally either in a single dose or once daily for 7 d. Tissue distribution of SF was measured by a HPLC-based method. Glutathione S-transferase (GST) and NAD(P)H:quinone oxidoreductase 1 (NQO1), two well-known cytoprotective phase 2 enzymes, were measured using biochemical assays to assess tissue response to SF. SF was delivered to different organs in vastly different concentrations. Tissue uptake of SF was the greatest in the stomach, declining rapidly in the descending gastro-intestinal tract. SF was rapidly eliminated through urinary excretion, and urinary concentrations of SF equivalents were 2–4 orders of magnitude higher than those of plasma. Indeed, tissue uptake level of SF in the bladder was second only to that in the stomach. Tissue levels of SF in the colon, prostate and several other organs were very low, compared to those in the bladder and stomach. Moreover, induction levels of GST and NQO1 varied by 3- to 6-fold among the organs of SF-treated rats, though not strictly correlated with tissue exposure to SF. Thus, there is profound organ specificity in tissue exposure and response to dietary SF, suggesting that the potential chemopreventive benefit of dietary SF may differ significantly among organs. These findings may provide a basis for prioritising organs for further chemopreventive study of SF.

Information

Type
Full Papers
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2012
Figure 0

Table 1 Tissue distribution of orally dosed sulforaphane (SF)* in rats (Mean values with their standard errors)

Figure 1

Table 2 Plasma and urine levels of sulforaphane (SF) equivalents in SF-treated rats (Mean values with their standard errors)

Figure 2

Fig. 1 Induction of glutathione S-transferase (GST, □) and NAD(P)H:quinone oxidoreductase 1 (NQO1, ■) by dietary sulforaphane (SF) in rat tissues in vivo. Groups of five male F344 rats were given vehicle (soya oil) or SF (150 μmol/kg) by oral administration once daily for 7 d. The animals were killed 24 h after the last dose. Tissue enzymatic activities of GST (1-chloro-2,4-dinitrobenzene as a substrate) and NQO1 (menadione-mediated and dicumoral-inhibitable 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) reduction) were measured and calculated as relative specific enzyme activity. Values are means, with their standard errors represented by vertical bars. The specific GST activity (pmol/min per mg protein) in the control tissues ranged from 12·1 (sem 2·9) in the heart to 352·9 (sem 58·0) in the liver. The specific NQO1 activity (pmol/min per mg protein) in the control tissues ranged from 2·6 (sem 0·8) in the pancreas to 181·4 (sem 70·5) in the stomach. The NQO1 value in the bladder was significantly different from those in any other organ. The GST value in the bladder was not significantly different from those in the duodenum, jejunum and colon, but significantly different from those in other organs.