The use of bisphenol A (BPA) in manufacturing of plastics is being gradually replaced by presumably safer analogues such as bisphenol S (BPS), bisphenol F (BPF) and bisphenol AF (BPAF). Despite their ...widespread occurrence in the environment, there is a knowledge gap in their toxicological profiles. We investigated cytotoxic/genotoxic effects as well as changes in the expression of selected genes involved in the xenobiotic metabolism, response to oxidative stress and DNA damage upon exposure to BPs and their mixtures in human hepatocellular carcinoma HepG2 cells.
BPS and BPF slightly decreased the viability of HepG2 cells, while BPAF was the most cytotoxic compound tested. BPA, BPF and BPAF induced the formation of DNA double strand breaks determined with γH2AX assay, while BPS was inactive (5–20 μg/mL). All four BPs up-regulated the expression of CYP1A1 and UGT1A1, while BPS up-regulated and BPAF down-regulated also the expression of GST1A. Only BPA up-regulated oxidative stress responsive gene GCLC, while BPAF up-regulated the expression of CDKN1A and GADD45a.
At concentrations relevant for human exposure (ng/mL range) BPA and its analogues as individual compounds and in mixtures did not exert genotoxic activity, whereas BPA and BPAF as well as the mixtures up-regulated the expressions of CYP1A1 and UGT1A1.
Display omitted
•BPF and BPAF showed higher cytotoxic/genotoxic potential than BPA in HepG2 cells.•BPS showed the lowest cytotoxic/genotoxic potential compared to BPA.•At low environmentally relevant concentrations, BPs did not induce DNA damage.•At combined exposure, BPs induced additive effects in the expression of specific genes.•Not all BPA analogues present safer replacement for BPA.
Arsenic is a well-established human carcinogen and is ubiquitous in the environment. For decades, arsenic has been considered to be a nongenotoxic carcinogen because it is only weakly active or, more ...often, completely inactive in bacterial and mammalian cell mutation assays. In this review, evidence is presented that when assayed using model systems in which both intragenic and multilocus mutations can readily be detected, arsenic is, indeed, found to be a strong, dose-dependent mutagen which induces mostly multilocus deletions. Furthermore, the roles of reactive oxygen and reactive nitrogen species in mediating the genotoxic response are presented in a systematic and logical fashion in support of a working model. The data suggest that antioxidants may be a useful interventional treatment in reducing the deleterious effects of arsenic.
The occurrence of cyanobacterial blooms has increased significantly in many regions of the world in the last century due to water eutrophication. These blooms are hazardous to humans, animals, and ...plants due to the production of cyanotoxins, which can be classified in five different groups: hepatotoxins, neurotoxins, cytotoxins, dermatotoxins, and irritant toxins (lipopolysaccharides). There is evidence that certain cyanobacterial toxins are genotoxic and carcinogenic; however, the mechanisms of their potential carcinogenicity are not well understood. The most frequently occurring and widespread cyanotoxins in brackish and freshwater blooms are the cyclic heptapeptides, i.e., microcystins (MCs), and the pentapeptides, i.e., nodularins (NODs). The main mechanism associated with potential carcinogenic activity of MCs and NOD is the inhibition of protein phosphatases, which leads to the hyperphosphorylation of cellular proteins, which is considered to be associated with their tumor-promoting activity. Apart from this, MCs and NOD induce increased formation of reactive oxygen species and, consequently, oxidative DNA damage. There is also evidence that MCs and NOD induce micronuclei, and NOD was shown to have aneugenic activity. Both cyanotoxins interfere with DNA damage repair pathways, which, along with DNA damage, is an important factor involved in the carcinogenicity of these agents. Furthermore, these toxins increase the expression of TNF-α and early-response genes, including proto-oncogenes, genes involved in the response to DNA damage, cell cycle arrest, and apoptosis. Rodent studies indicate that MCs and NOD are tumor promotors, whereas NOD is thought to have also tumor-initiating activity. Another cyanobacterial toxin, cylindrospermopsin (CYN), which has been neglected for a long time, is lately being increasingly found in the freshwater environment. The principal mechanism of its toxicity is the irreversible inhibition of protein synthesis. It is pro-genotoxic, and metabolic activation by cytochrome P-450 enzymes is needed for its genotoxic activity. In metabolically competent cells, it induces DNA strand breaks and exerts clastogenic and aneugenic activity. In addition, CYN increased the expression of p53 regulated genes involved in cell cycle arrest, DNA damage repair, and apoptosis. It also has cell transforming potential, and limited preliminary rodent studies indicate that CYN could have tumor-initiating activity. In 2010, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified MCLR as possible human carcinogen (Group 2B). Although there is not enough available information for the classification of other cyanobacterial toxins, the existing data from
in vitro and
in vivo studies indicate that NOD and especially CYN may be even more hazardous than MCLR to human and animal health. In addition in the environment, cyanobacterial toxins occur in complex mixtures as well as together with other anthropogenic contaminants, and numerous studies showed that the toxic/genotoxic potential of the extracts from cyanobacterial scums is higher than that of purified toxins. This means that the mixtures of toxins to which humans are exposed may pose higher health risks than estimated from the toxicological data of a single toxin. Future research efforts should focus on the elucidation of the carcinogenic potential of NOD, CYN, and the mixture of cyanobacterial extracts, as well as on the identification of possible novel toxins.
Anticancer drugs enter aquatic environment predominantly via hospital and municipal wastewater effluents where they may, due to their genotoxic potential, cause adverse environmental effects even at ...very low doses. In this study we evaluated cytotoxic and genotoxic potential of two widely used anticancer drugs, cyclophosphamide (CP) and ifosfamide (IF) as individual compounds and in a complex mixture together with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and cisplatin (CDDP) because these four drugs have been frequently detected in an oncological ward effluents. As an experimental model we used zebrafish liver cell (ZFL) line. The cytotoxicity was determined with the MTS assay and genotoxicity with the comet assay and cytokinesis block micronucleus (CBMN) assay that measure the formation of DNA strand breaks and genomic instability, respectively. CP and IF exerted low cytotoxicity towards ZFL cells. Both compounds induced DNA strand breaks and genomic instability, however at relatively high concentrations that are not relevant for the contamination of aquatic environment. The mixture of CP, IF, 5-FU and CDDP was tested at maximal detected concentrations of each drug as determined in the effluents from the oncological ward. The mixture was not cytotoxic and did not induce genomic instability, but it induced significant increase in the formation of DNA strand breaks at concentrations of individual compounds that were several orders of magnitude lower from those that were effective when tested as individual compounds. The results indicate that such mixtures of anticancer drugs may pose a threat to aquatic organisms at environmentally relevant concentrations and contribute to the accumulating evidence that it is not always possible to predict adverse effects of complex mixtures based on the toxicological data for individual compounds.
Display omitted
•Cyclophosphamide and ifosfamide induce genotoxic effects at high concentrations in ZFL cells.•Mixture of anticancer drugs induces DNA damage at environmentally relevant concentrations.•DNA damaging potential of the mixture was higher than that of single drugs.•Mixtures of anticancer drugs may pose threat to aquatic organisms.
The residues of anti-neoplastic drugs are new and emerging pollutants in aquatic environments. This is not only because of their increasing use, but also because due to their mechanisms of action, ...they belong to a group of particularly dangerous compounds. However, information on their ecotoxicological properties is very limited. We tested the toxicities of four anti-neoplastic drugs with different mechanisms of action (5-fluorouracil 5-FU, cisplatin CDDP, etoposide ET, and imatinib mesylate IM), and some of their binary mixtures, against two phytoplankton species: the alga Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata, and the cyanobacterium Synechococcus leopoliensis. These four drugs showed different toxic potential, and the two species examined also showed differences in their susceptibilities towards the tested drugs and their mixtures. With P. subcapitata, the most toxic of these drugs was 5-FU (EC50, 0.13 mg/L), followed by CDDP (EC50, 1.52 mg/L), IM (EC50, 2.29 mg/L), and the least toxic, ET (EC50, 30.43 mg/L). With S. leopoliensis, the most toxic was CDDP (EC50, 0.67 mg/L), followed by 5-FU (EC50, 1.20 mg/L) and IM (EC50, 5.36 mg/L), while ET was not toxic up to 351 mg/L. The toxicities of the binary mixtures tested (5-FU + CDDP, 5-FU + IM, CDDP + ET) were predicted by the concepts of 'concentration addition' and 'independent action', and are compared to the experimentally determined toxicities. The measured toxicity of 5-FU + CDDP with P. subcapitata and S. leopoliensis was higher than that predicted, while the measured toxicity of CDDP + ET with both species was lower than that predicted. The measured toxicity of 5-FU + IM with P. subcapitata was higher, and with S. leopoliensis was lower, than that predicted. These data show that these mixtures can have compound-specific and species-specific synergistic or antagonistic effects, and they suggest that single compound toxicity data are not sufficient for the prediction of the aquatic toxicities of such anticancer drug mixtures.
The evaluation of genotoxicity plays an important role within hazard identification and risk assessment of chemicals and consumer products. For genotoxicity assessment, in vitro hepatic cells are ...often used as they have retained certain level of xenobiotic metabolic activity. However, current protocols are designed for the use on 2D monolayer models that are associated with several limitations due to the lack of numerous biological functions, which results in the loss of many hepatic properties. In this respect, an attractive alternative are three-dimensional (3D) models. The aim of our study was to develop physiologically more relevant 3D cell model (spheroids) from the human hepatocellular carcinoma (HepG2) cell line for genotoxicity testing. The spheroids were prepared by the forced floating method, which had been optimized for the production of a large number of uniform spheroids. The sensitivity of the spheroids to detect genotoxicity was determined by the comet assay after the exposure of spheroids to non-cytotoxic concentrations of model indirect acting genotoxic compounds, namely polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (B(a)P), mycotoxin (AFB1), two heterocyclic aromatic amines (PhIP and IQ) and a direct acting etoposide (ET). All five tested compounds concentration dependently induced DNA damage. Higher sensitivity of 3D cell model compared to 2D monolayer culture was noticed particularly for detection of the genotoxicity of the heterocyclic aromatic amines and BaP. Deregulation of mRNA expression (qPCR) by genotoxic compounds revealed that HepG2 cells in 3D express important genes encoding phase I and II metabolic enzymes, as well as DNA damage responsive genes in an inducible form. The newly developed HepG2 3D model shows improved sensitivity for detecting genotoxic compounds compared to 2D cultures and can provide a suitable experimental model for genotoxicity assessment.
In the present study we evaluated cytotoxic and genotoxic activities of endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs), including dimethyl phthalate (DMP), diethyl phthalate (DEP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), ...benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP), di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), bisphenol A (BPA), and nonylphenol (NP), which have been previously identified in effluents from two paper mills with different paper production technologies (virgin or recycled fibres). Moreover, we evaluated genotoxic activity of the effluents from these two paper mills and compared it to the activity of artificial complex mixtures consisting of the seven EDCs at concentrations detected in corresponding paper mill effluents. None of the EDCs was genotoxic in Salmonella typhimurium (SOS/umuC assay), while all induced DNA damage in human hepatocellular carcinoma (HepG2) cells (comet assay). After 4 h of exposure genotoxic effects were determined at concentrations ≥ 1 μg/L for BBP and DEHP, ≥10 μg/L for DMP, DEP, DBP, and BPA, and ≥100 μg/L for NP, while after 24 h of exposure DNA damage occurred at ≥10 μg/L for DBP, BPA and NP, and ≥100 μg/L for DMP, DEP, BBP and DEHP. The effluents and corresponding artificial mixtures of EDCs from paper mill that uses virgin fibres did not induce DNA damage in HepG2 cells, while the effluents and corresponding artificial mixtures for the paper mill that uses recycled fibres were genotoxic. Genotoxic activity of effluents was significantly higher compared to corresponding artificial mixtures suggesting the presence of further unknown compounds contributing to the effect. Wastewater monitoring based on chemical analysis is limited to determination of targeted compounds and does not take into account possible interactions between chemicals in mixtures. Therefore, it alone cannot provide an adequate information on potential toxic effects required for the assessment of genotoxic activity of real environmental samples and their potential threats to the environment and human health.
Display omitted
•DMP, DEP, DBP, BBP, DEHP, BPA and NP did not induce genotoxic effects in bacteria.•DMP, DEP, DBP, BBP, DEHP, BPA and NP induced DNA damage in HepG2 cells.•Artificial mixtures of studied EDCs induced DNA damage to a lesser extent than corresponding real paper mill effluents.•Effect-based assays provide comprehensive response of complex environmental samples.
3D spheroids developed from HepG2 cells were used as a biosensor-like system for the detection of (geno)toxic effects induced by chemicals. Benzo(a)pyrene (B(a)P) and ...amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo4,5-bpyridine (PhIP) with well-known mechanisms of action were used for system validation. HepG2 spheroids grown for 3 days were exposed to BaP and PhIP for 24 and 72 h. The growth and viability of spheroids were monitored by planimetry and Live/Dead staining of cells. Multi-parametric flow cytometric analysis was applied for simultaneous detection of specific end-effects including cell cycle analysis (Hoechst staining), cell proliferation (KI67 marker), and DNA double-strand breaks (ℽH2AX) induced by genotoxic compounds. Depending on the exposure concentration/time, BaP reduced spheroid growth, affected cell proliferation by arresting cells in S and G2 phase and induced DNA double-strand breaks (DSB). Simultaneous staining of ℽH2AX formation and cell cycle analysis revealed that after BaP (10 μM; 24 h) exposure 60% of cells in G0/G1 phase had DNA DSB, while after 72 h only 20% of cells contained DSB indicating efficient repair of DNA lesions. PhIP did not influence the spheroid size whereas accumulation of cells in the G2 phase occurred after both treatment times. The evaluation of DNA damage revealed that at 200 μM PhIP 50% of cells in G0/G1 phase had DNA DSB, which after 72-h exposure dropped to 40%, showing lower repair capacity of PhIP-induced DSB compared to BaP-induced. The developed approach using simultaneous detection of several parameters provides mechanistic data and thus contributes to more reliable genotoxicity assessment of chemicals as a high-content screening tool.
Display omitted
•HepG2 spheroids can be used as a biosensor-like system for genotoxicity evaluation.•Flow cytometry allows simultaneous detection of multiple endpoints in the same cell.•HepG2 spheroids in combination with flow cytometry enable high-content analysis.
•Fish cell lines are of growing importance in eco/genotoxicology.•Comet assay in fish cell lines is a sensitive tool for the assessment of toxicity.•The most often used fish cell lines in comet assay ...are RTG-2, RTgill-W1 and RTL-W1.
The use of fish models has been proven to be an effective and sensitive tool for the evaluation of genotoxicity of pure compounds and complex mixtures of chemicals in the context of environmental screening of pollutants and hazard assessment in aquatic toxicology. In particular, fish cell lines have been successfully introduced for detection of genotoxic effects and can serve as an alternative to animal testing in preliminary eco-/genotoxicological studies. For this purpose comet assay has been extensively used in fish cell lines for the evaluation of genotoxic potential of chemicals and complex environmental matrices. The most often used fish cell lines in the comet assay are RTG-2, RTgill-W1 and RTL-W1 derived from rainbow trout (Onchorhynchus mykiss) gonads, gills and liver, respectively, and ZFL and ZF4 cells established from zebrafish (Danio rerio) liver and embryos, respectively. The present review gives an overview of the most often-used permanent fish cell lines in genotoxicology and discusses their application in the comet assay.
Cylindrospermopsin (CYN) is an emerging cyanotoxin increasingly being found in freshwater cyanobacterial blooms worldwide. Humans and animals are exposed to CYN through the consumption of ...contaminated water and food as well as occupational and recreational water activities; therefore, it represents a potential health threat. It exhibits genotoxic effects in metabolically active test systems, thus it is considered as pro-genotoxic. In the present study, the advanced 3D cell model developed from human hepatocellular carcinoma (HepG2) cells was used for the evaluation of CYN cyto-/genotoxic activity. Spheroids were formed by forced floating method and were cultured for three days under static conditions prior to exposure to CYN (0.125, 0.25 and 0.5 μg/mL) for 72 h. CYN influence on spheroid growth was measured daily and cell survival was determined by MTS assay and live/dead staining. The influence on cell proliferation, cell cycle alterations and induction of DNA damage (γH2AX) was determined using flow cytometry. Further, the expression of selected genes (qPCR) involved in the metabolism of xenobiotics, proliferation, DNA damage response, apoptosis and oxidative stress was studied. Results revealed that CYN dose-dependently reduced the size of spheroids and affected cell division by arresting HepG2 cells in G1 phase of the cell cycle. No induction of DNA double strand breaks compared to control was determined at applied conditions. The analysis of gene expression revealed that CYN significantly deregulated genes encoding phase I (CYP1A1, CYP1A2, CYP3A4, ALDH3A) and II (NAT1, NAT2, SULT1B1, SULT1C2, UGT1A1, UGT2B7) enzymes as well as genes involved in cell proliferation (PCNA, TOP2α), apoptosis (BBC3) and DNA damage response (GADD45a, CDKN1A, ERCC4). The advanced 3D HepG2 cell model due to its more complex structure and improved cellular interactions provides more physiologically relevant information and more predictive data for human exposure, and can thus contribute to more reliable genotoxicity assessment of chemicals including cyanotoxins.
Display omitted
•Toxic effects of cylindrospermopsin were assessed in hepatic 3D cell model.•Cylindrospermopsin affected the viability and division of cells in HepG2 spheroids.•Cylindrospermopsin did not induce yH2AX foci in spheroids after 72 h exposure.•Cylindrospermopsin deregulated genes encoding phase I and phase II metabolic enzymes.•Cylindrospermopsin affected genes involved in DNA-damage response.
CYN influenced the growth of HepG2 spheroids and deregulated the expression of several metabolic genes and genes involved in cell cycle regulation, DNA damage response and apoptosis.
PDF
