| Literature DB >> 18505595 |
Pritha Ghosh1, Arindam Basu, Keshav K Singh, Ashok K Giri.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cytogenetic biomarkers are essential for assessing environmental exposure, and reflect adverse human health effects such as cellular damage. Arsenic is a potential clastogen and aneugen. In general, the majority of the studies on clastogenic effects of arsenic are based on frequency of micronuclei (MN) study in peripheral lymphocytes, urothelial and oral epithelial cells. To find out the most suitable cell type, here, we compared cytogenetic damage through MN assay in (a) various populations exposed to arsenic through drinking water retrieved from literature review, as also (b) arsenic-induced Bowen's patients from our own survey.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2008 PMID: 18505595 PMCID: PMC2430711 DOI: 10.1186/1476-4598-7-45
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mol Cancer ISSN: 1476-4598 Impact factor: 27.401
Micronuclei in three different cell types for all the studies included in the review
| Effect size [Exposed; vs. Unexposed; Mean (SE)] | |||||
| Sl no. | Author, Year [Ref No.] | Sample Size N (Exposed; Unexposed) | Lymphocyte | Urothelial | Buccal |
| 1 | Warner et al., 1994. [23] | 36 (18,18) | - | 2.79 (0.73) vs. 1.57 (0.28) | - |
| 2 | Moore et al., 1996 [24] | 36 (18,18) | - | 2.8 (NA) vs. 1.67 (NA) | - |
| 3 | Dolout et al., 1996 [9] | 44 (22; 22) | 38 (3.2) vs 6.9 (1.7) | ||
| 4 | Moore et al., 1997 [25] | 125 (70; 55) | - | 3.2 (NA) vs. 2.6 (NA) | - |
| 5 | Biggs et al., 1997 [26] | 104 (83; 21) | - | 3.34 (NA) vs. 1.61 (NA) | - |
| 6 | Gonsebatt et al., 1997 [7] | 69 (35; 34) | - | 2.23 (0.99) vs. 0.48 (0.10) | 2.21 (0.47) vs. 0.58 (0.13) |
| 7 | Tian et al., 2001 [27] | 32 (19; 13) | 1.44 (0.37) vs. 0.53 (0.14) | 2.21 (0.36) vs. 0.65 (0.21) | |
| 8 | Basu et al., 2002 [22] | 65 (45; 21) | 6.39 (0.25) vs. 0.53 (0.07) | 5.74 (0.27) vs. 0.56 (0.1) | 5.15 (0.3) vs. 0.77 (0.11) |
| 9 | Basu et al., 2004 [15] | 317 (163; 154) | 9.34 (0.153) vs. 1.66 (0.061) | 6.65 (0.13) vs. 1.41 (0.05) | 5.94 (0.15) vs. 1.28 (0.05) |
| 10 | Martinez et al., 2004 [21] | 217 (106; 111) | 14.44 (0.99) vs. 11.96 (1.02) | - | - |
| 11 | Martinez et al., 2005 [28] | 207 (105; 102) | - | - | 3.14 (0.32) vs. 2.74 (0.26) |
| 12 | Chakraborty et al., 2006 [29] | 70 (45; 25) | - | - | 9.8 (0.7) vs. 2.9 (0.1) |
| 13 | Ghosh et al., 2006 [16] | 306 (204; 102) | 7.76 (0.17) vs. 2.03 (0.08) | 5.13 (0.13) vs. 1.70 (0.07) | 4.62 (0.15) vs. 1.67 (0.06) |
Wilcoxon rank sum test for the pairwise comparison for median effect size (based on MN counts) in three cell types for the full set of studies
| Median value of the effect size of MN countsa | ||||
| Lymphocytes | Urothelial cells | Buccal Mucosa cells | Comparison | Significance |
| 5.86 | 1.73 | Lymphocytes vs Urothelium | 0.04 | |
| 5.86 | 2.95 | Lymphocytes vs Buccal cells | 0.11 | |
| 1.73 | 2.95 | Buccal cells vs Urothelium | 0.48 | |
a Effect size = MN count of cases – MN count of controls.
Wilcoxon rank sum test for the pairwise comparison for median effect size (based on MN counts) in three cell types for the studies conducted by our group
| Median value of the effect size of MN countsa | ||||
| Lymphocytes | Urothelial cells | Buccal Mucosa cells | Comparison | Significance |
| 5.86 | 5.18 | Lymphocytes vs Urothelium | 0.05 | |
| 5.86 | 4.38 | Lymphocytes vs Buccal cells | 0.05 | |
| 5.18 | 4.38 | Buccal cells vs Urothelium | 0.10 | |
a Effect size = MN count of cases – MN count of controls.
Figure 1Comparison of median effect size (with error bar) based on micronuclei counts among lymphocytes, urothelial, and buccal mucosa for all the studies in the review.
Figure 2Comparison of median effect size (with error bar) based on micronuclei counts among lymphocytes, urothelial, and buccal mucosa for the subset data (set of studies from our group).
Comparison of Micronuclei in three different cell types in arsenic exposed cases (Bowen's patients) and control (individuals with non- cancerous arsenic induced skin lesions)
| Variable | Case (N = 25) | Control (N = 25) | Significance |
| Matched | |||
| Matched | |||
| Age in years | 47.4 | 46.7 | Matched |
| Smoker | 12 | 12 | Matched |
| Mean MN count in lymphocyte (SD) | 11.30 (3.48) | 9.10 (2.61) | < 0.01 |
| Mean MN count in urothelial cells (SD) | 7.11 (2.44) | 5.80 (1.86) | < 0.05 |
| Mean MN count in oral cells (SD) | 5.85 (2.12) | 4.74 (1.75) | < 0.04 |