Literature DB >> 23863314

A combination of in vitro comet assay and micronucleus test using human lymphoblastoid TK6 cells.

Aoi Kimura1, Atsuro Miyata, Masamitsu Honma.   

Abstract

The comet assay has been widely used as a genotoxicity test for detecting primary DNA damage in individual cells. The micronucleus (MN) test is also a well-established assay for detecting clastogenicity and aneugenicity. A combination of the comet assay (COM) and MN test is capable of detecting a variety of genotoxic potentials as an in vitro screening system. Although the in vitro MN test has a robust protocol and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) test guideline, the in vitro COM does not. To establish a robust protocol for the COM and to compare its sensitivity with that of the MN, we conducted COM and MN concurrently for five genotoxic agents (ethyl methanesulfonate, methyl methanesulfonate, hydrogen peroxide, gamma-rays and mitomycin C) and one non-genotoxic agent (triton X-100), using human lymphoblastoid TK6 cells. Relative cell count (RCC), relative population doubling (RPD), relative increase in cell count (RICC) and relative cell viability determined by trypan blue dye-exclusion assay (TBDE) were employed as cytotoxic measurements. However, the relative cell viability determined by TBDE just after the treatment was not an appropriate parameter of cytotoxicity for the genotoxic agents because it remained constant even at the highest doses, which showed severe cytotoxicity by RCC, RPD and RICC. The results of the COM showed qualitative agreement (positive or negative) with those of the MN except for mitomycin C, which is an interstrand cross-linker. The COM always required higher doses than the MN to detect the genotoxic potential of the genotoxic agents under the test conditions applied here. The doses that induced a comet tail always yielded <50% RICC, and do not accord to the OECD test guideline for MN because of their high cytotoxicity. These results are helpful for interpreting the results of the COM and MN in in vitro genotoxic hazard assessments. Further investigation is required to standardise the COM.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23863314     DOI: 10.1093/mutage/get036

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mutagenesis        ISSN: 0267-8357            Impact factor:   3.000


  12 in total

1.  Engineering safer-by-design, transparent, silica-coated ZnO nanorods with reduced DNA damage potential.

Authors:  Georgios A Sotiriou; Christa Watson; Kimberly M Murdaugh; Thomas H Darrah; Georgios Pyrgiotakis; Alison Elder; Joseph D Brain; Philip Demokritou
Journal:  Environ Sci Nano       Date:  2014-04

2.  A systematic assessment of genotoxicity on pivaloylacylation-7ADCA-a wide existing antibiotic impurity.

Authors:  Qingying Luo; Yang Li; Zunzhen Zhang
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2014-11-15

3.  Evaluating the potential genotoxicity of phthalates esters (PAEs) in perfumes using in vitro assays.

Authors:  Iman Al-Saleh; Tahreer Al-Rajudi; Ghofran Al-Qudaihi; Pulicat Manogaran
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2017-09-05       Impact factor: 4.223

4.  Interlaboratory evaluation of a multiplexed high information content in vitro genotoxicity assay.

Authors:  Steven M Bryce; Derek T Bernacki; Jeffrey C Bemis; Richard A Spellman; Maria E Engel; Maik Schuler; Elisabeth Lorge; Pekka T Heikkinen; Ulrike Hemmann; Véronique Thybaud; Sabrina Wilde; Nina Queisser; Andreas Sutter; Andreas Zeller; Melanie Guérard; David Kirkland; Stephen D Dertinger
Journal:  Environ Mol Mutagen       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 3.216

5.  Predictions of genotoxic potential, mode of action, molecular targets, and potency via a tiered multiflow® assay data analysis strategy.

Authors:  Stephen D Dertinger; Andrew R Kraynak; Ryan P Wheeldon; Derek T Bernacki; Steven M Bryce; Nikki Hall; Jeffrey C Bemis; Sheila M Galloway; Patricia A Escobar; George E Johnson
Journal:  Environ Mol Mutagen       Date:  2019-02-27       Impact factor: 3.216

6.  Genotoxic mode of action predictions from a multiplexed flow cytometric assay and a machine learning approach.

Authors:  Steven M Bryce; Derek T Bernacki; Jeffrey C Bemis; Stephen D Dertinger
Journal:  Environ Mol Mutagen       Date:  2016-01-13       Impact factor: 3.216

Review 7.  Comparison of methods used for evaluation of mutagenicity/genotoxicity of model chemicals - parabens.

Authors:  J Chrz; B Hošíková; L Svobodová; D Očadlíková; H Kolářová; M Dvořáková; K Kejlová; L Malina; G Jírová; A Vlková; M Mannerström
Journal:  Physiol Res       Date:  2020-12-31       Impact factor: 1.881

8.  Analysis of DNA Double-Strand Breaks and Cytotoxicity after 7 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Isolated Human Lymphocytes.

Authors:  Annika Reddig; Mahsa Fatahi; Björn Friebe; Karina Guttek; Roland Hartig; Frank Godenschweger; Dirk Roggenbuck; Jens Ricke; Dirk Reinhold; Oliver Speck
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-07-15       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  High-throughput screening platform for engineered nanoparticle-mediated genotoxicity using CometChip technology.

Authors:  Christa Watson; Jing Ge; Joel Cohen; Georgios Pyrgiotakis; Bevin P Engelward; Philip Demokritou
Journal:  ACS Nano       Date:  2014-03-11       Impact factor: 15.881

10.  Effects of Laser Printer-Emitted Engineered Nanoparticles on Cytotoxicity, Chemokine Expression, Reactive Oxygen Species, DNA Methylation, and DNA Damage: A Comprehensive in Vitro Analysis in Human Small Airway Epithelial Cells, Macrophages, and Lymphoblasts.

Authors:  Sandra V Pirela; Isabelle R Miousse; Xiaoyan Lu; Vincent Castranova; Treye Thomas; Yong Qian; Dhimiter Bello; Lester Kobzik; Igor Koturbash; Philip Demokritou
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2015-06-16       Impact factor: 9.031

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.