| Literature DB >> 26339603 |
Carlos Alvarez-Moya1, Mónica Reynoso-Silva1, Alejandro A Canales-Aguirre2, José O Chavez-Chavez3, Hugo Castañeda-Vázquez4, Alfredo I Feria-Velasco1.
Abstract
The comet assay can be used to assess genetic damage, but heterogeneity in the length of the tails is frequently observed. The aims of this study were to evaluate genetic damage and heterogeneity in the cervical nuclei and lymphocytes from patients with different levels of dysplasia and to determine the risk factors associated with the development of cervical cancer. The study included 97 females who presented with different levels of dysplasia. A comet assay was performed in peripheral blood lymphocytes and cervical epithelial cells. Significant genetic damage (P ≤ 0.05) was observed only in patients diagnosed with nuclei cervical from dysplasia III (NCDIII) and lymphocytes from dysplasia I (LDI). However, the standard deviations of the tail lengths in the cervical nuclei and lymphocytes from patients with dysplasia I were significantly different (P ≤ 0.0001) from the standard deviations of the tail lengths in the nuclei cervical and lymphocytes from patients with DII and DIII (NCDII, NCDIII and LDII, LDIII), indicating a high heterogeneity in tail length. Results suggest that genetic damage could be widely present but only manifested as increased tail length in certain cell populations. This heterogeneity could obscure the statistical significance of the genetic damage.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26339603 PMCID: PMC4538336 DOI: 10.1155/2015/293408
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Distribution of the average tail length of cervical nuclei and lymphocytes from women with different degrees of dysplasia. On the x-axis the number women screened is displayed. The color refers to the cell type studied and the level of dysplasia. The y-axis indicates the average tail length of lymphocytes or cervical nucleus in each of women.
Correlation coefficients between the average tail length of cervical nuclei and lymphocytes from women with different levels of dysplasia. The bold numbers indicate correlation coefficients between lymphocytes and cervical cells in the same grade of dysplasia.
| NCDI | NCDII | NCDIII | NCNC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LD I |
| 0.9039 | 0.7473 | 0.8996 |
| LD II | 0.9080 |
| 0.9090 | 0.9793 |
| LD III | 0.8284 | 0.9579 |
| 0.8751 |
| LNC | 0.9115 | 0.8632 | 0.7311 |
|
Figure 2Average tail length (genetic damage) of cervical nuclei and lymphocytes from women with different grades of dysplasia. The number in the bars corresponds to the average tail length of cervical cells or nuclei from women with a certain level of dysplasia. Cervical cells and nuclei were placed separately. The negative control is also visualized. * P ≤ 0.05. *Bartlett's test suggests that the SD in both cervical tissue nuclei and lymphocytes from cervical dysplasia I are significantly different (P ≤ 0.0001) from those of lymphocytes and cervical tissue nuclei from dysplasia II and III.
Cumulative percentage of women exposed to one (first-line) or more (second-line) onward risk factors for cervical cancer. Percentages of women exposed to more risk factors were obtained by adding individual percentages of exposure.
| Smoker (S) | Living with a smoker (LS) | Takes medications (TM) | Recent exposure to X-ray (RERX) | Family history of cancer (FHC) | Occupational exposure to chemicals (OECH) | Home exposure to chemicals (HECH) | Environmental exposure to chemicals (EECH) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Smoker | 56.7** | 45.3** | 18** | 36.2** | 22.6** | 86** | 38.5** | |
| Living with a smoker | 70.4** | 43.1** | 61.3** | 47.7** | 111.3** | 63.6** | ||
| Takes medications | 31.7** | 49.9** | 30.3** | 99.9** | 52.2** | |||
| Recent exposure to X-ray | 22.6** | 9** | 72.6** | 24.9** | ||||
| Family history cancer | 27.2** | 90.8** | 43.1** | |||||
| Occupational exposure to chemicals | 77.2** | 29.5** | ||||||
| Home exposure to chemicals | 93.1** |
Note: percentages correspond to the responses of the women studied regarding the types of exposure to cancer risk factors. Clearly, there is simultaneous exposure to more than one risk factor.
*Refer to exposure to an agent.
**Refer to the simultaneous exposure to two or more agents.