| Literature DB >> 25264678 |
Thiago Aley Brites de Freitas1, Roberta Passos Palazzo2, Fabiana Michelsen de Andrade3, César Luis Reichert4, Flávio Pechansky5, Félix Kessler6, Caroline Brunetto de Farias7, Gisele Gomes de Andrade8, Sandra Leistner-Segal9, Sharbel Weidner Maluf10.
Abstract
Recent research suggests that crack cocaine use alters systemic biochemical markers, like oxidative damage and inflammation markers, but very few studies have assessed the potential effects of crack cocaine at the cellular level. We assessed genome instability by means of the comet assay and the cytokinesis-block micronucleus technique in crack cocaine users at the time of admission to a rehabilitation clinic and at two times after the beginning of withdrawal. Thirty one active users of crack cocaine and forty control subjects were evaluated. Comparison between controls and crack cocaine users at the first analysis showed significant differences in the rates of DNA damage (p = 0.037). The frequency of micronuclei (MN) (p < 0.001) and nuclear buds (NBUDs) (p < 0.001) was increased, but not the frequency of nucleoplasmic bridges (NPBs) (p = 0.089). DNA damage decreased only after the end of treatment (p < 0.001). Micronuclei frequency did not decrease after treatment, and nuclear buds increased substantially. The results of this study reveal the genotoxic and mutagenic effects of crack cocaine use in human lymphocytes and pave the way for further research on cellular responses and the possible consequences of DNA damage, such as induction of irreversible neurological disease and cancer.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25264678 PMCID: PMC4210963 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph111010003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Sample profile.
| Crack Cocaine Users | Controls | |
|---|---|---|
| N * | 31 | 40 |
| Age | 26.13 ± 6.190 | 29.91 ± 9.135 |
| Duration of crack cocaine use (months) | 47.096 ± 30.48 | 0 |
| Doses of crack cocaine/day ** | 12.98 ± 16.69 | 0 |
| Last use before first blood sampling | 66.7 ± 24.63 | 0 |
| Cocaine use | 10 (32.3%) | 0 (0%) |
| Cannabis use | 22 (71%) | 0 (0%) |
| Tobacco use | 21 (67.7%) | 14 (35%) |
| Alcohol intake | 19 (61.3%) | 22 (55%) |
| 13 (41.9%) | 31 (77,5%) |
* Number of individuals. All subjects (test and control) were male, as crack consumption is more prevalent amongst this gender. ** Number of crack rocks that the user is said to consume.
Frequency of micronuclei (MN), nucleoplasmic bridges (NPBs) and nuclear buds (NBUDs) and DNA damage scores (comet assay) in samples collected at admission (Time Point 1), 48 h later (Time Point 2) and at the end of treatment (Time Point 3).
| Controls | Time Point 1 | Time Point 2 | Time Point 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comet | 13.05 ± 11.79 | 29.81 ± 19.34 | 22.29 ± 19.95 | 10.39 ± 8.95 |
| MN | 2.62 ± 2.26 | 7.67 ± 4.92 | - | 7.90 ± 3.32 |
| NPBs | 0.76 ± 1.70 | 1.51 ± 1.52 | - | 1.95 ± 2.87 |
| Buds | 1.59 ± 1.88 | 6.27 ± 4.24 | - | 16.86 ± 27.56 |
Statistically significant differences: * versus the control group; ** versus Time Point 1; *** versus Time Point 2. The GEE settings were distribution = binomial, link = probit and working correlation matrix = unstructured for the micronucleus assay; distribution = gamma, link = log and working correlation matrix = unstructured for the comet assay. Bonferroni correction was employed.
Figure 1Distribution of MN (A), NPB (B) and NBUD (C) values at Time Points 1 and 3 and comparison with the control group; ● outliers: values that lie more than one and a half times the length of the box from the end of the box; statistically significant differences: * versus the control group; ** versus Time Point 1; Time 1: beginning of withdrawal; Time 3: at the end of the treatment period (21 to 30 days after withdrawal).
Figure 2Damage index at each of the three time points of assessment and comparison with the control group; ● outliers: values that lie more than one and a half times the length of the box from the end of the box; statistically significant differences: * versus the control group; ** versus Time Point 1; *** versus Time Point 2. Time 1: beginning of withdrawal; Time 2: 48 h after withdrawal; Time 3: at the end of the treatment period (21 to 30 days after withdrawal).
Figure 3Comparison of the frequency of damaged cells of each comet class between Time Points 1, 2, and 3; Class 0: no damage; Class 1: with a tail lower than the diameter of the head (nucleus); Class 2: with a tail length from one- to two-times the diameter of the head; Class 3: with a tail greater than two-times the diameter of the head; Class 4: small head (with tail width greater than the nucleus diameter); Time 1: beginning of withdrawal; Time 2: 48 h after withdrawal; Time 3: at the end of the treatment period (21 to 30 days after withdrawal).
Statistically significant correlations between nuclear changes and other factors that might have an impact on DNA damage markers.
| Correlation | N | |
|---|---|---|
| 13 | ||
| Duration of tobacco use (years) × DI (time point 2) | 19 | |
| Duration of tobacco use (years) × MN (time point 1) | 17 | |
| Duration of tobacco use (years) × NPBs (time point 3) | 13 | |
| Duration of cocaine use × MN (time point 3) | 9 |
p, significance level; N, number of individuals included; MN, micronuclei frequency; DI, damage index from comet assay; NPB, nucleoplasmatic bridges. Mann–Whitney U-test (for Ilex paraguariensis consumption) and Spearman rank correlation (for the quantitative factors; the other four correlations) were used.