S Bunk1, L Übelacker1, A Scherzad1, J Hochstöger2, N Poier2, S Hackenberg1, N Kleinsasser3. 1. Klinik und Poliklinik für Hals‑, Nasen- und Ohrenheilkunde, plastische und ästhetische Operationen, Universitätsklinikum Würzburg, Würzburg, Deutschland. 2. Hals-Nasen-Ohrenklinik, Kepler Universitätsklinikum Linz, Krankenhausstraße 9, 4021, Linz, Österreich. 3. Hals-Nasen-Ohrenklinik, Kepler Universitätsklinikum Linz, Krankenhausstraße 9, 4021, Linz, Österreich. norbert.kleinsasser@kepleruniklinikum.at.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While an abundant number of studies concerning tobacco smoke and chewing tobacco show carcinogenic potential, there is little data on the consequences of snuff, especially on the cellular level. Therefore, the mutagenic effect of snuff is difficult to estimate and the WHO assessment of snuff being not carcinogenic is based on very limited data. OBJECTIVES: This paper investigates the potential cytotoxic and genotoxic effects of snuff on human lymphocytes and nasal mucosa cells. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two types of snuff were used: one without menthol and one with a high degree of menthol. The necessary nasal mucosa cells and lymphocytes were collected from 10 subjects undergoing nasal obstruction surgery and incubated for one hour with a snuff-DMSO mixture (range 0.01-2000 µg/ml). Methods included the trypan blue test, the comet assay, and the micronucleus test. RESULTS: The trypan blue test showed no decrease in cell viability for either cell type. The comet assay revealed a significant increase in the Olive Tail Moment for lymphocytes starting at 100 µg/ml and at 1000 µg/ml for nasal mucosa cells. There was no significant increase in micronuclei according to the micronucleus test. No differences between these two types of tobacco were observed. CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrated genotoxic damage, such as DNA strand breaks, which may be repaired, but no non-repairable elevated micronuclei. The present findings cast doubts on the WHO assessment that snuff is not carcinogenic. However, for a sound assessment of the risk potential of snuff, further research on various genotoxic endpoints in human cells is warranted.
BACKGROUND: While an abundant number of studies concerning tobacco smoke and chewing tobacco show carcinogenic potential, there is little data on the consequences of snuff, especially on the cellular level. Therefore, the mutagenic effect of snuff is difficult to estimate and the WHO assessment of snuff being not carcinogenic is based on very limited data. OBJECTIVES: This paper investigates the potential cytotoxic and genotoxic effects of snuff on human lymphocytes and nasal mucosa cells. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two types of snuff were used: one without menthol and one with a high degree of menthol. The necessary nasal mucosa cells and lymphocytes were collected from 10 subjects undergoing nasal obstruction surgery and incubated for one hour with a snuff-DMSO mixture (range 0.01-2000 µg/ml). Methods included the trypan blue test, the comet assay, and the micronucleus test. RESULTS: The trypan blue test showed no decrease in cell viability for either cell type. The comet assay revealed a significant increase in the Olive Tail Moment for lymphocytes starting at 100 µg/ml and at 1000 µg/ml for nasal mucosa cells. There was no significant increase in micronuclei according to the micronucleus test. No differences between these two types of tobacco were observed. CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrated genotoxic damage, such as DNA strand breaks, which may be repaired, but no non-repairable elevated micronuclei. The present findings cast doubts on the WHO assessment that snuff is not carcinogenic. However, for a sound assessment of the risk potential of snuff, further research on various genotoxic endpoints in human cells is warranted.
Authors: Norbert Kleinsasser; Peter Dirschedl; Rainer Staudenmaier; Ulrich Harréus; Barbara Wallner Journal: Int J Environ Health Res Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Andrew R Collins; Amaia Azqueta Oscoz; Gunnar Brunborg; Isabel Gaivão; Lisa Giovannelli; Marcin Kruszewski; Catherine C Smith; Rudolf Stetina Journal: Mutagenesis Date: 2008-02-17 Impact factor: 3.000
Authors: Christian Ginzkey; Gudrun Friehs; Christian Koehler; Stephan Hackenberg; Rudolf Hagen; Norbert H Kleinsasser Journal: Mutat Res Date: 2012-11-28 Impact factor: 2.433