Literature DB >> 16919864

Chromosomal changes: induction, detection methods and applicability in human biomonitoring.

R Mateuca1, N Lombaert, P V Aka, I Decordier, M Kirsch-Volders.   

Abstract

The objective of this state of the art paper is to review the mechanisms of induction, the fate, the methodology, the sensitivity/specificity and predictivity of two major cytogenetic endpoints applied for genotoxicity studies and biomonitoring purposes: chromosome aberrations and micronuclei. Chromosomal aberrations (CAs) are changes in normal chromosome structure or number that can occur spontaneously or as a result of chemical/radiation treatment. Structural CAs in peripheral blood lymphocytes (PBLs), as assessed by the chromosome aberration (CA) assay, have been used for over 30 years in occupational and environmental settings as a biomarker of early effects of genotoxic carcinogens. A high frequency of structural CAs in lymphocytes (reporter tissue) is predictive of increased cancer risk, irrespective of the cause of the initial CA increase. Micronuclei (MN) are small, extranuclear bodies that arise in dividing cells from acentric chromosome/chromatid fragments or whole chromosomes/chromatids that lag behind in anaphase and are not included in the daughter nuclei in telophase. The cytokinesis-block micronucleus (CBMN) assay is the most extensively used method for measuring MN in human lymphocytes, and can be considered as a "cytome" assay covering cell proliferation, cell death and chromosomal changes. The key advantages of the CBMN assay lie in its ability to detect both clastogenic and aneugenic events and to identify cells which divided once in culture. Evaluation of the mechanistic origin of individual MN by centromere and kinetochore identification contributes to the high sensitivity of the method. A number of findings support the hypothesis of a predictive association between the frequency of MN in cytokinesis-blocked lymphocytes and cancer development. Recent advances in fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and microarray technologies are modifying the nature of cytogenetics, allowing chromosome and gene identification on metaphase as well as in interphase. Automated scoring by flow cytometry and/or image analysis will enhance their applicability.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16919864     DOI: 10.1016/j.biochi.2006.07.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biochimie        ISSN: 0300-9084            Impact factor:   4.079


  54 in total

1.  Genetic stability of bone marrow-derived human mesenchymal stromal cells in the Quantum System.

Authors:  Mark Jones; Marileila Varella-Garcia; Margaret Skokan; Steven Bryce; Jeffrey Schowinsky; Rebecca Peters; Boah Vang; Michelle Brecheisen; Thomas Startz; Nathan Frank; Brian Nankervis
Journal:  Cytotherapy       Date:  2013-08-28       Impact factor: 5.414

2.  A missense variant in NUF2, a component of the kinetochore NDC80 complex, causes impaired chromosome segregation and aneuploidy associated with microcephaly and short stature.

Authors:  Daniela Tiaki Uehara; Hiroshi Mitsubuchi; Johji Inazawa
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2021-03-15       Impact factor: 4.132

3.  Stable and unstable chromosome aberrations measured after occupational exposure to ionizing radiation and ultrasound.

Authors:  Aleksandra Fucić; Davor Zeljezić; Vilena Kasuba; Nevenka Kopjar; Ruzica Rozgaj; Ruzica Lasan; August Mijić; Vlasta Hitrec; Joe Nathan Lucas
Journal:  Croat Med J       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 1.351

4.  Mechanisms leading to the formation of micronuclei containing sex chromosomes differ with age.

Authors:  Kimberly H Jones; Timothy P York; Colleen Jackson-Cook
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  2012-05-18       Impact factor: 2.433

5.  Investigation of genome instability in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis.

Authors:  Hatice Karaman; Ahmet Karaman; Hamiyet Donmez-Altuntas; Nazmiye Bitgen; Zuhal Hamurcu; Arzu Oguz; Cigdem Karakukcu
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-08-28       Impact factor: 5.742

6.  Double-endpoint Genotoxicity Quantification and PAHs Characterization of Drinking Water Source alongside Polluted Yinghe River with High Tumor Mortality.

Authors:  Wei Zhang; Chen Guo; Xiao-Li Wang; Zhan-Lu Lv; Lin Fan; Yu-Yan Yang; Xu Li; Jing Qi; Shu-Li Zhao; Xian-Liang Wang
Journal:  Curr Med Sci       Date:  2021-04-20

7.  In vitro cytogenetic assessment and comparison of vildagliptin and sitagliptin.

Authors:  Ceren Börçek Kasurka; Mehmet Elbistan; Ayşegül Atmaca; Zülal Atlı Şekeroğlu
Journal:  Cytotechnology       Date:  2019-09-25       Impact factor: 2.058

Review 8.  Evaluation of in vitro assays for assessing the toxicity of cigarette smoke and smokeless tobacco.

Authors:  Michael D Johnson; Jodi Schilz; Mirjana V Djordjevic; Jerry R Rice; Peter G Shields
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  Genotoxicity of carbon nanofibers: are they potentially more or less dangerous than carbon nanotubes or asbestos?

Authors:  E R Kisin; A R Murray; L Sargent; D Lowry; M Chirila; K J Siegrist; D Schwegler-Berry; S Leonard; V Castranova; B Fadeel; V E Kagan; A A Shvedova
Journal:  Toxicol Appl Pharmacol       Date:  2011-02-17       Impact factor: 4.219

10.  Micronucleus analysis in patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma and colorectal polyps.

Authors:  Ali Karaman; Doğan Nasir Binici; Mehmet Eşref Kabalar; Züleyha Calikuşu
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-11-28       Impact factor: 5.742

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.