| Literature DB >> 28117734 |
Petronela Imreova1, Jana Feruszova2, Stanislav Kyzek3, Kristina Bodnarova4, Martina Zduriencikova5, Katarina Kozics6, Pavel Mucaji7, Eliska Galova8, Andrea Sevcovicova9, Eva Miadokova10, Ivan Chalupa11.
Abstract
Hyperforin (HF), a substance that accumulates in the leaves and flowers of Hypericum perforatum L. (St. John's wort), consists of a phloroglucinol skeleton with lipophilic isoprene chains. HF exhibits several medicinal properties and is mainly used as an antidepressant. So far, the antigenotoxicity of HF has not been investigated at the level of primary genetic damage, gene mutations, and chromosome aberrations, simultaneously. The present work is designed to investigate the potential antigenotoxic effects of HF using three different experimental test systems. The antigenotoxic effect of HF leading to the decrease of primary/transient promutagenic genetic changes was detected by the alkaline comet assay on human lymphocytes. The HF antimutagenic effect leading to the reduction of gene mutations was assessed using the Ames test on the standard Salmonella typhimurium (TA97, TA98, and TA100) bacterial strains, and the anticlastogenic effect of HF leading to the reduction of chromosome aberrations was evaluated by the in vitro mammalian chromosome aberration test on the human tumor cell line HepG2 and the non-carcinogenic cell line VH10. Our findings provided evidence that HF showed antigenotoxic effects towards oxidative mutagen zeocin in the comet assay and diagnostic mutagen (4-nitroquinoline-1-oxide) in the Ames test. Moreover, HF exhibited an anticlastogenic effect towards benzo(a)pyrene and cisplatin in the chromosome aberration test.Entities:
Keywords: Ames test; MTT assay; antigenotoxicity; chromosome aberrations test; comet assay; hyperforin
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28117734 PMCID: PMC6155625 DOI: 10.3390/molecules22010167
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Determination of HF cytotoxic effects towards HepG2 cells using the MTT assay. Data shown are mean ± SD of three repeated experiments. NC = negative control. Comparison with negative control: ** 0.001 < p <0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Figure 2Determination of HF antigenotoxic effects on human lymphocytes using the alkaline comet assay. Data shown are mean ± SD of three repeated experiments. NC = negative control; ZEOCIN = positive control. Comparison with positive control (ZEOCIN): *** p < 0.001.
Figure 3Determination of HF antimutagenic effects using the Ames test—strain Salmonella typhimurium TA97. Data shown are mean ±SD of three repeated experiments. NC = negative control; PC/M = positive control = mutagen = (9-aminoacridine). Comparison with positive control (PC/M): * 0.01 < p < 0.05; ** 0.001 < p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Figure 4Determination of HF antimutagenic effects using the Ames test—strain S. typhimurium TA98. Data shown are mean ±SD of three repeated experiments. NC = negative control; PC/M = positive control = mutagen = (4-nitroquinoline-1-oxide). Comparison with positive control (PC): * 0.01 < p < 0.05; ** 0.001 < p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Figure 5Determination of HF antimutagenic effects using the Ames test—strain S. typhimurium TA100. Data shown are mean ±SD of three repeated experiments. NC = negative control; PC/M = positive control = mutagen = (sodium azide).
Determination of HF anticlastogenic effect towards benzo(a)pyrene using the chromosome aberration test on HepG2 cells.
| HF/B(a)P Concentration (µM) | Number of Aberrant Metaphases | Number of Chromosome Aberrations | Total Number of CA | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chromatid | Isochromatid | Exchange | |||||||||
| g | b/f | g | b/f | ring | dic | qr | tr | dmin | |||
| HepG2 | |||||||||||
| IC | 4 | 1 | 3 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | 4 |
| SC | 3 | 1 | 3 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 3 |
| HF 0.75 | 2 | 1 | 2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2 |
| HF 1.5 | 2 | - | 2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2 |
| PC B(a)P 1.7 | 35 *** | - | 33 | 1 | 5 | - | 1 | - | - | - | 39 *** |
| HF 0.75 + B(a)P 1.7 | 8 ### | 1 | 7 | - | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | 8 ### |
| HF 1.5 + B(a)P 1.7 | 8 ### | 1 | 8 | - | - | - | 1 | - | - | - | 9 ### |
IC—intact control; SC—solvent control (DMSO); HF—hyperforin; PC B(a)P—positive control (benzo(a)pyrene); CA—chromosome aberrations; g—gap; b/f—break and/or fragment; dic—dicentric; qr—quadriradial; tr—triradial. Comparison with solvent control (SC): *** p < 0.001. Comparison with positive control (PC): ###p < 0.001.
Determination of HF anticlastogenic effect towards cisplatin using the chromosome aberration test on HepG2 and VH10 cells.
| HF/cisPt Concentration (µM) | Number of Aberrant Metaphases | Number of Chromosome Aberrations | Total Number of CA | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chromatid | Isochromatid | Exchange | |||||||||
| g | b/f | g | b/f | ring | dic | qr | tr | dmin | |||
|
| |||||||||||
| IC | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2 |
| SC | 3 | 1 | 2 | - | - | - | 1 | - | - | - | 3 |
| HF 0.75 | 1 | 1 | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 |
| HF 1.5 | 3 | - | 2 | - | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | 3 |
| PC cisPt 0.5 | 38 *** | 2 | 36 | - | 8 | - | 2 | 1 | - | - | 47 *** |
| HF 0.75+ cisPt 0.5 | 10 *,### | 2 | 5 | - | 4 | - | 2 | - | - | - | 11 *,### |
| HF 1.5 + cisPt 0.5 | 14 **,### | 2 | 10 | - | 3 | - | 1 | - | - | - | 14 **,### |
|
| |||||||||||
| IC | 2 | - | 2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2 |
| SC | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | - | - | 1 | - | - | - | 2 |
| HF 0.75 | 1 | - | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 |
| HF 1.5 | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | - | - | - | 1 |
| PC cisPt 0.75 | 33 *** | 2 | 26 | - | 9 | - | - | 4 | 5 | - | 44 *** |
| HF 0.75 + cisPt 0.75 | 12 **,### | 1 | 8 | - | 3 | - | 1 | 1 | 1 | - | 14 ***,### |
| HF 1.5 + cisPt 0.75 | 11 **,### | 3 | 8 | - | - | - | 1 | - | 2 | - | 11 **,### |
IC—intact control; SC—solvent control (PBS); HF—hyperforin; PC cisPt—positive control (cisplatin); CA—chromosome aberrations; g—gap; b/f—break and/or fragment; dic—dicentric; qr—quadriradial; tr—triradial. Comparison with solvent control (SC): * 0.01 < p < 0.05; ** 0.001 < p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. Comparison with positive control (PC): ###p < 0.001.