Literature DB >> 27908385

The mutagenic assessment of an electronic-cigarette and reference cigarette smoke using the Ames assay in strains TA98 and TA100.

D Thorne1, I Crooks2, M Hollings3, A Seymour3, C Meredith2, M Gaca2.   

Abstract

Salmonella typhimurium strains TA98 and TA100 were used to assess the mutagenic potential of the aerosol from a commercially available, rechargeable, closed system electronic-cigarette. Results obtained were compared to those for the mainstream smoke from a Kentucky reference (3R4F) cigarette. Two different test matrices were assessed. Aerosol generated from the e-cigarette was trapped on a Cambridge filter pad, eluted in DMSO and compared to cigarette smoke total particulate matter (TPM), which was generated in the same manner for mutagenicity assessment in the Salmonella assay. Fresh e-cigarette and cigarette smoke aerosols were generated on the Vitrocell® VC 10 smoking robot and compared using a modified scaled-down 35mm air agar interface (AAI) methodology. E-cigarette aerosol collected matter (ACM) was found to be non-mutagenic in the 85mm plate incorporation Ames assay in strains TA98 and TA100 conducted in accordance with OECD 471, when tested up to 2400μg/plate. Freshly generated e-cigarette aerosol was also found to be negative in both strains after an AAI aerosol exposure, when tested up to a 1L/min dilution for up to 3h. Positive control responses were observed in both strains, using benzo[a]pyrene, 2-nitrofluorene, sodium azide and 2-aminoanthracene in TA98 and TA100 in the presence and absence of metabolic activation respectively. In contrast, cigarette smoke TPM and aerosol from 3R4F reference cigarettes were found to be mutagenic in both tester strains, under comparable test conditions to that of e-cigarette exposure. Limited information exists on the mutagenic activity of captured e-cigarette particulates and whole aerosol AAI approaches. With the lower toxicant burden of e-cigarette aerosols compared to cigarette smoke, it is clear that a more comprehensive Ames package of data should be generated when assessing e-cigarettes, consisting of the standard OECD-five, TA98, TA100, TA1535, TA1537 (or TA97) and E. coli (or TA102). In addition, TA104 which is more sensitive to the carbonyl based compounds found in e-cigarette aerosols under dry-wicking conditions may also prove a useful addition in a testing battery. Regulatory standard product testing approaches as used in this study will become important when determining whether e-cigarette aerosols are in fact less biologically active than cigarette smoke, as this study suggests. Future studies should be supported by in vitro dosimetry approaches to draw more accurate comparisons between cigarette smoke, e-cigarette aerosol exposure and human use. Copyright Â
© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ACM; Aerosol exposure; Ames; Cigarette smoke; E-cigarettes; TA100; TA98; TPM; VC 10

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27908385     DOI: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2016.10.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mutat Res        ISSN: 0027-5107            Impact factor:   2.433


  20 in total

1.  A Microcontroller Operated Device for the Generation of Liquid Extracts from Conventional Cigarette Smoke and Electronic Cigarette Aerosol.

Authors:  Chastain A Anderson; Rachael E Bokota; Andrew E Majeste; Walter L Murfee; Shusheng Wang
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2018-01-18       Impact factor: 1.355

2.  Alternative approaches for acute inhalation toxicity testing to address global regulatory and non-regulatory data requirements: An international workshop report.

Authors:  Amy J Clippinger; David Allen; Annie M Jarabek; Marco Corvaro; Marianna Gaça; Sean Gehen; Jon A Hotchkiss; Grace Patlewicz; Jodie Melbourne; Paul Hinderliter; Miyoung Yoon; Dongeun Huh; Anna Lowit; Barbara Buckley; Michael Bartels; Kelly BéruBé; Daniel M Wilson; Ian Indans; Mathieu Vinken
Journal:  Toxicol In Vitro       Date:  2017-12-22       Impact factor: 3.500

Review 3.  A Review of Pulmonary Toxicity of Electronic Cigarettes in the Context of Smoking: A Focus on Inflammation.

Authors:  Peter G Shields; Micah Berman; Theodore M Brasky; Jo L Freudenheim; Ewy Mathe; Joseph P McElroy; Min-Ae Song; Mark D Wewers
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2017-06-22       Impact factor: 4.254

4.  Comparative Genotoxicity and Mutagenicity of Cigarette, Cigarillo, and Shisha Tobacco Products in Epithelial and Cardiac Cells.

Authors:  Carmen S Tellez; Daniel E Juri; Loryn M Phillips; Kieu Do; Cindy L Thomas; Randy Willink; Wendy W Dye; Guodong Wu; Yue Zhou; Hammad Irshad; Shosei Kishida; Tohru Kiyono; Steven A Belinsky
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2021-10-27       Impact factor: 4.109

5.  Epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition of A549 lung cancer cells exposed to electronic cigarettes.

Authors:  Atena Zahedi; Rattapol Phandthong; Angela Chaili; Guadalupe Remark; Prue Talbot
Journal:  Lung Cancer       Date:  2018-06-15       Impact factor: 5.705

6.  Limited mutagenicity of electronic cigarettes in mouse or human cells in vitro.

Authors:  Stella Tommasi; Steven E Bates; Rachel Z Behar; Prue Talbot; Ahmad Besaratinia
Journal:  Lung Cancer       Date:  2017-08-03       Impact factor: 5.705

7.  Health impact of electronic cigarettes and heated tobacco systems.

Authors:  Riccardo Polosa; Konstantinos Farsalinos; Domenico Prisco
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2019-08-14       Impact factor: 3.397

8.  Comparative potency analysis of whole smoke solutions in the bacterial reverse mutation test.

Authors:  Fanxue Meng; Nan Mei; Jian Yan; Xiaoqing Guo; Patricia A Richter; Tao Chen; Mamata De
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  2021-08-27       Impact factor: 3.000

9.  A randomized controlled study in healthy participants to explore the exposure continuum when smokers switch to a tobacco heating product or an E-cigarette relative to cessation.

Authors:  Michael McEwan; Nathan Gale; James K Ebajemito; Oscar M Camacho; George Hardie; Christopher J Proctor; James Murphy
Journal:  Toxicol Rep       Date:  2021-05-08

10.  A novel clinical method to measure skin staining reveals activation of skin damage pathways by cigarette smoke.

Authors:  Annette Dalrymple; Michael McEwan; Marianne Brandt; Stephan Bielfeldt; Emma-Jayne Bean; Alain Moga; Steven Coburn; George Hardie
Journal:  Skin Res Technol       Date:  2021-11-10       Impact factor: 2.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.