| Literature DB >> 32539833 |
Tuukka Ihantola1, Sebastiano Di Bucchianico2, Mikko Happo3,4, Mika Ihalainen3, Oskari Uski3, Stefanie Bauer2, Kari Kuuspalo3,5, Olli Sippula3, Jarkko Tissari3, Sebastian Oeder2, Anni Hartikainen3, Teemu J Rönkkö3, Maria-Viola Martikainen3, Kati Huttunen3, Petra Vartiainen3, Heikki Suhonen3, Miika Kortelainen3, Heikki Lamberg3, Ari Leskinen3,6, Martin Sklorz2,7, Bernhard Michalke8, Marco Dilger9, Carsten Weiss9, Gunnar Dittmar10, Johannes Beckers11,12,13, Martin Irmler11, Jeroen Buters14, Joana Candeias14, Hendryk Czech3,2, Pasi Yli-Pirilä3, Gülcin Abbaszade2, Gert Jakobi2, Jürgen Orasche2, Jürgen Schnelle-Kreis2, Tamara Kanashova7,15, Erwin Karg2, Thorsten Streibel2,7, Johannes Passig7, Henri Hakkarainen3, Jorma Jokiniemi3, Ralf Zimmermann2,7, Maija-Riitta Hirvonen3, Pasi I Jalava3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Wood combustion emissions have been studied previously either by in vitro or in vivo models using collected particles, yet most studies have neglected gaseous compounds. Furthermore, a more accurate and holistic view of the toxicity of aerosols can be gained with parallel in vitro and in vivo studies using direct exposure methods. Moreover, modern exposure techniques such as air-liquid interface (ALI) exposures enable better assessment of the toxicity of the applied aerosols than, for example, the previous state-of-the-art submerged cell exposure techniques. <br> METHODS: We used three different ALI exposure systems in parallel to study the toxicological effects of spruce and pine combustion emissions in human alveolar epithelial (A549) and murine macrophage (RAW264.7) cell lines. A whole-body mouse inhalation system was also used to expose C57BL/6 J mice to aerosol emissions. Moreover, gaseous and particulate fractions were studied separately in one of the cell exposure systems. After exposure, the cells and animals were measured for various parameters of cytotoxicity, inflammation, genotoxicity, transcriptome and proteome. <br> RESULTS: We found that diluted (1:15) exposure pine combustion emissions (PM1 mass 7.7 ± 6.5 mg m- 3, 41 mg MJ- 1) contained, on average, more PM and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) than spruce (PM1 mass 4.3 ± 5.1 mg m- 3, 26 mg MJ- 1) emissions, which instead showed a higher concentration of inorganic metals in the emission aerosol. Both A549 cells and mice exposed to these emissions showed low levels of inflammation but significantly increased genotoxicity. Gaseous emission compounds produced similar genotoxicity and a higher inflammatory response than the corresponding complete combustion emission in A549 cells. Systems biology approaches supported the findings, but we detected differing responses between in vivo and in vitro experiments. <br> CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive in vitro and in vivo exposure studies with emission characterization and systems biology approaches revealed further information on the effects of combustion aerosol toxicity than could be achieved with either method alone. Interestingly, in vitro and in vivo exposures showed the opposite order of the highest DNA damage. In vitro measurements also indicated that the gaseous fraction of emission aerosols may be more important in causing adverse toxicological effects. Combustion aerosols of different wood species result in mild but aerosol specific in vitro and in vivo effects.Entities:
Keywords: Air liquid-interface (ALI); Genotoxicity; Inhalation toxicology; Particulate matter (PM); Transcriptome, proteome; Wood combustion
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32539833 PMCID: PMC7296712 DOI: 10.1186/s12989-020-00355-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Part Fibre Toxicol ISSN: 1743-8977 Impact factor: 9.400
Fig. 1Schematic overview of in vivo and in vitro combustion emission exposure. Combustion aerosols emitted from the stove are led to a diluting sampling setup in which the final dilution ratio is set to 1:15 for toxicological exposures and 1:150 for online sampling of the aerosol composition. Diluted emission was directed into three different ALI systems, OMICS-ALI (two ALI systems) and Tox-ALI, as well as a mouse whole-body inhalation chamber, a gaseous online emission analyser (FTIR), and offline filter samplers. Exposure units are indicated in green and aerosol characterization processes in blue
Fig. 5Viability of the lung cells in single-cell suspension a. DNA damage in the BALF cells b and the pulmonary cells of the lung tissue c after 3 exposures (4 h each) of healthy C57BL/6 J mice to combustion emission of spruce, pine or corresponding untreated mice (mean values ± SEM). A single asterisk indicates a statistically significant difference compared to untreated mice (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01), n = 6
Fig. 2Physical properties of the diluted exposure exhaust for spruce a-b and pine c-d experiments. Parts A and C show the average over 3 experimental days of total suspended particulate mass (TSP; TEOM), lung deposited surface area (LDSA; NSAM) and particle number concentration (PNC, ELPI) during exposures, with Tox-ALI exposure times indicated with grey areas. Grey lines denote batch starting times, whereas size distribution during each exposure is shown in parts B and D
Physical properties of the particles and concentrations of gaseous emissions in spruce and pine combustion aerosols following 4 h of exposure and Tox-ALI
| Spruce | Pine | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| parameter | Unit | 4 h average | Tox-ALI | 4 h average | Tox-ALI |
| NO | ppm | 1.9 ± 1.2 | 1.9 ± 1.2 | 1.7 ± 0.8 | 1.7 ± 0.7 |
| NO2 | ppm | 0.2 ± 1.1 | 0.2 ± 0.5 | 0.2 ± 0.4 | 0.2 ± 0.7 |
| THC | ppm | 12.3 ± 28.2 | 16.1 ± 27.8 | 9.3 ± 18.8 | 9.4 ± 23.8 |
| CO | ppm | 122 ± 141 | 142 ± 149 | 84 ± 94 | 67 ± 88 |
| CO2 | ppm | 4500 ± 1700 | 4600 ± 1900 | 4300 ± 1400 | 4300 ± 1300 |
| PM1 mass (SMPS) | mg m− 3 | 4.3 ± 5.1 | 4.9 ± 6.0 | 6.2 ± 5.1 | 7.7 ± 6.5 |
| TSP mass (TEOM) | mg m− 3 | 6.0 ± 7.8 | 7.4 ± 9.1 | 9.6 ± 7.6 | 12.3 ± 10.2 |
| PNC (SMPS) | 1 × 106 cm− 3 | 2.1 ± 1.5 | 2.4 ± 1.8 | 2.1 ± 1.3 | 2.1 ± 1.5 |
| PNC (ELPI) | 1 × 106 cm− 3 | 2.7 ± 3.8 | 3.2 ± 3.5 | 2.9 ± 2.2 | 3.1 ± 2.1 |
| LDSA (NSAM) | 1 × 106 μm2 cm− 3 | 16.9 ± 18.1 | 20.5 ± 22.7 | 21.7 ± 15.6 | 24.8 ± 17.9 |
| MMD (SMPS) | nm | 304 ± 167 | 322 ± 168 | 365 ± 146 | 414 ± 102 |
| GMD (SMPS) | nm | 91 ± 29.2 | 94.3 ± 32.3 | 110 ± 32.7 | 120 ± 27.9 |
| OC | μg m− 3 | 570 ± 160* | 2100 ± 320 | 790 ± 340 | 850 ± 80* |
| EC | μg m− 3 | 4100 ± 1300* | 4500 ± 1200 | 7900 ± 1500 | 6600 ± 3700* |
| OC/EC | 0.14 ± 0.01 | 0.47 ± 0.05 | 0.10 ± 0.03 | 0.20 ± 0.12* | |
| ECF | m3 of exposure aerosol /MJ fuel energy | 11.0 ± 1.2 | 11.0 ± 1.4 | 11.3 ± 0.2 | 11.4 ± 0.3 |
THC total hydrocarbon, PM particulate matter < 1 μm, TSP total suspended particles, PNC particle number concentration, LDSA lung deposited surface area, MMD mass median mobility diameter, GMD geometric mean mobility diameter, OC organic carbon, EC element carbon, ECF approximate emission conversion factor.
The values shown are calculated as averages from three test cycles ± standard deviation. Note that standard deviations have been calculated on the online data. Approximate emission conversion factor (mean of experiment-wise averages ± standard error of the mean) enables conversion to correspond emission factor. *Denotes only 2 days of measurements
Organic compounds from wood combustion emissions. Organic compounds were sampled over 4-h exposure. Concentrations are calculated as averages from three test cycles ± standard deviation
| Parameter | TEF | spruce (μg m-3) | TEQ | pine (μg m-3) | TEQ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Benzo [a]pyrene | 1 | 2.10 ± 0.79 | 2.1 | 6.6 ± 3.4 | 6.6 |
| Dibenz [ah]anthracene | 1 | 0.13 ± 0.039 | 0.13 | 0.42 ± 0.043 | 0.42 |
| Dibenzo [al]pyrene | 10 | 1 ± 0.48 | 10 | 2.7 ± 1.4 | 27 |
| Dibenzo [ae]pyrene | 1 | 0.33 ± 0.21 | 0.33 | 0.76 ± 0.67 | 0.76 |
| Dibenzo [ai]pyrene | 10 | 0.13 ± 0.06 | 1.3 | 0.36 ± 0.37 | 3.6 |
| Dibenzo [ah]pyrene | 10 | 0.091 ± 0.051 | 0.91 | 0.2 ± 0.21 | 2 |
| 9-Methylphenanthrene | 0.29 ± 0.42 | 0.41 ± 0.58 | |||
| 3,6-Dimethylphenanthrene | 0.005 ± 0.008 | 0.006 ± 0.009 | |||
| Retene | 0.26 ± 0.21 | 0.61 ± 0.03 | |||
| 7,12-Dimethyl-Benzo [a]anthracene | 0.14 ± 0.075 | 0.21 ± 0.3 | |||
| 1-Methylbenzo [a]anthracene | 0.018 ± 0.011 | 0.033 ± 0.047 | |||
| 9H-Fluoren-9-one | 12 ± 6.6 | 38 ± 27 | |||
| 1H-Phenalen-1-one | 85 ± 22 | 180 ± 130 | |||
| formaldehyde | 377 ± 49 | 311 ± 28 | |||
| acetaldehyde | 206 ± 64 | 152 ± 21 | |||
| acrolein | 16.6 ± 1.2 | 14.9 ± 0.7 | |||
| Galactose | 0.095 ± 0.04 | 0.35 ± 0.15 | |||
| Mannose | 0.28 ± 0.053 | 0.62 ± 0.13 | |||
| Levoglucose | 3.5 ± 1.9 | 4.9 ± 3.6 | |||
| Isopimaric acid | 0.005 ± 0.006 | 0.003 ± 0.002 | |||
| Dehydroabietic acid, methyl ester | 0.029 ± 0.029 | 0.049 ± 0.007 | |||
| Dehydroabietic acid | 1.1 ± 1 | 1.4 ± 0.25 | |||
| Abietic acid | 0.012 ± 0.004 | 0.024 ± 0.006 | |||
TEF Toxic Equivalency Factor, TEQ Toxic Equivalents.
Estimations of deposited concentrations of PM1, TSP and LDSA in the in vivo, OMICS-ALI and Tox-ALI exposures
| Spruce | Pine | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| parameter | Unit | device | In vivo | OMICS-ALI | Tox-ALI | In vivo | OMICS-ALI | Tox-ALI | ||
| Normal deposition | Enhanced deposition | Normal deposition | Enhanced deposition | |||||||
| PM1 | ng cm−2 | ELPI | 18.6 ± 22.0 | 380 ± 462 | 1480 ± 1800 | 470 ± 95.3 | 32.1 ± 26.4 | 590 ± 500 | 2300 ± 1950 | 690 ± 360 |
| TSP | ng cm− 2 | TEOM | 25.9 ± 34 | 570 ± 701 | 2220 ± 2730 | 660 ± 180 | 50.0 ± 39.0 | 950 ± 790 | 3710 ± 3080 | 1100 ± 640 |
| LDSA | 1x106μm2cm− 3 | NSAM | 73.0 ± 78 | 1.6 ± 1.7 | 6.2± 6.6 | 1.84 ± 0.41 | 110 ± 81.0 | 1.91 ± 1.38 | 7.4 ± 5.4 | 2.23 ± 0.01 |
PM Particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter < 1 μm, TSP total suspended particles, LDSA lung deposited surface area.
The values shown are calculated as averages from three test cycles ± standard deviations
Fig. 3Viability a, comet assay b and IL-8 secretion c of A549 cells after exposure for 1 h at Tox-ALI to spruce, pine or clean air. Each bar shows the mean ± SEM, n = 3 for cell exposure. CCA = complete combustion aerosol, HFA = HEPA-filtered aerosol-exposed cells
Fig. 4Cytotoxicity measured via LDH release of OMICS-ALI-exposed RAW264.7 a and A549 cell lines b following exposure to the combustion emission of spruce, the combustion emission of pine, or clean air. * Denotes a significant difference (p < 0.05) from clean air-exposed cells, CA clean air control, AS aerosol deposition, HV enhanced deposition with high voltage. Each bar shows the mean ± SEM, n = 3
Number of cells and cytokines from C57BL/6 J mice (n = 6) in the BALF and serum
| Parameter | Unit | BALF | Serum | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Untreated | Spruce | Pine | Untreated | Spruce | Pine | ||
| Total cell number | 104 cells mL− 1 | 50 ± 5.2 | 42 ± 7.1 | 117.6 ± 48.8 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. |
| Viability | % | 82.5 ± 3.6 | 89.3 ± 3.4 | 92 ± 2 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. |
| Macrophages | 104 cells mL−1 | 49.4 ± 5.2 | 41.3 ± 7.1 | 117.1 ± 48.7 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. |
| Neutrophils | 104 cells mL−1 | 0.05 ± 0 | 0.3 ± 0.01 | 0.04 ± 0 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. |
| Lymphocytes | 104 cells mL−1 | 0.4 ± 0.2 | 0.4 ± 0.01 | 0.4 ± 0.2 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. |
| Total protein | μg mL−1 | 94.3 ± 5.2 | 67.4 ± 2.4 | 85.3 ± 10.5 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. |
| IFN-γ | Norm. pg mL−1 | 0.30 ± 0.06 | 0.45 ± 0.12 | 0.43 ± 0.17 | 1 ± 0.24 | 0.7 ± 0.07 | 3.2 ± 2.69 |
| IL-10 | Norm. pg mL− 1 | 2.37 ± 0.29 | 0.97 ± 0.47 | 3.05 ± 0.51 | 18 ± 0.97 | 14 ± 1.99 | |
| IL-12p70 | Norm. pg mL− 1 | 15.30 ± 9.64 | 20.05 ± 4.74 | 17.12 ± 5.60 | 15 ± 4.26 | 21 ± 6.16 | 21 ± 5.6 |
| IL-1b | Norm. pg mL−1 | 0.85 ± 0.18 | 1.39 ± 0.12 | 0.88 ± 0.14 | 2 ± 0.15 | 2 ± 0.1 | 2 ± 0.1 |
| IL-2 | Norm. pg mL− 1 | 2.15 ± 0.46 | 3.53 ± 0.45 | 1.88 ± 0.50 | 2.4 ± 0.32 | 1.6 ± 0.21 | 1.7 ± 0.14 |
| IL-4 | Norm. pg mL− 1 | 0.93 ± 0.33 | 2.03* ± 0.16 | 1.20* ± 0.20 | 0.4 ± 0.06 | 0.8 ± 0.32 | 0.4 ± 0.16 |
| IL-5 | Norm. pg mL−1 | 1.68 ± 0.55 | 2.15* ± 0.36 | 0.86* ± 0.11 | 3.5 ± 1.48 | 2.2 ± 0.51 | 1.2 ± 0.12 |
| IL-6 | Norm. pg mL− 1 | 8.22 ± 1.68 | 7.87* ± 1.52 | 6.2 ± 0.8 | 5.1 ± 0.52 | 5.3 ± 0.42 | |
| TNFα | Norm. pg mL− 1 | 4.30 ± 0.55 | 5.03* ± 0.51 | 15 ± 0.96 | 11 ± 1.1 | ||
| KC | Norm. pg mL−1 | 14.74 ± 2.10 | 28.46* ± 4.21 | 64 ± 4.18 | 56 ± 3.12 | 59 ± 3.44 | |
Values are presented as the mean value ± SEM. Bold-faced number indicates a statistically significant difference from untreated mice (p < 0.05), * indicates a statistically significant difference between CCA exposures. Norm. pg mL-1 indicates standardization to the corresponding total protein amount; n.a. indicates not applicable
Fig. 6The numbers of significantly regulated genes and canonical pathways are shown in the tables. Venn diagrams of shared regulated genes following spruce a and pine b CCA exposures. The heat map shows fold-change values for the commonly regulated genes. AS aerosol deposition, HV enhanced deposition with high voltage
Comparison of common regulated canonical pathways in vitro and in vivo as analysed by IPA software
| Canonical Pathways | Spruce | Pine | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [−log( | A549 | RAW264.7 | BALF | A549 | RAW264.7 | BALF | ||||
| Normal | Enhanced | Normal | Enhanced | Normal | Enhanced | Normal | Enhanced | |||
| Glucocorticoid receptor signaling | 1.28 | 1.60 | 0.58 | 1.13 | 2.19 | 2.42 | 2.31 | 2.12 | 2.37 | 2.79 |
| Role of Macrophages, Fibroblasts and Endothelial Cells in Rheumatoid Arthritis | 1.85 | 1.85 | 0.31 | 2.79 | 1.04 | 1.62 | 2.60 | 1.81 | 4.62 | – |
| NRF2-mediated Oxidative Stress Response | 1.49 | 1.90 | 1.82 | 1.26 | 1.55 | 2.23 | 1.54 | 3.57 | 2.19 | 0.62 |
| TNFR2 Signaling | 1.55 | 0.98 | 1.19 | 4.64 | 0.30 | 1.54 | 1.08 | 1.75 | 3.83 | 1.00 |
| Aryl Hydrocarbon Receptor Signaling | 1.03 | 1.82 | 1.45 | 2.23 | 1.10 | 3.13 | 3.21 | 0.85 | 2.30 | 0.69 |
| IL-17A Signaling in Fibroblast | 1.20 | 1.52 | 2.30 | 3.57 | 0.28 | 1.19 | 1.68 | 1.64 | 3.62 | 0.36 |
| Role of PKR in Interferon Induction and Antiviral Response | 2.84 | 3.22 | – | 2.24 | – | 2.82 | 2.30 | – | 2.92 | – |
| IL-17A Signaling in Gastric Cells | 0.84 | 1.20 | 3.20 | 3.90 | 0.40 | 0.83 | 1.32 | 0.99 | 2.25 | 1.24 |
| p38 MAPK Signaling | 2.04 | 1.77 | 0.96 | 1.39 | 0.61 | 3.10 | 2.42 | 1.23 | 1.79 | 0.23 |
| p53 Signaling | 1.15 | 1.49 | 2.08 | 2.64 | 1.01 | 1.70 | 1.45 | 1.65 | 1.55 | 0.24 |
| GADD45 Signaling | 0.70 | 1.10 | 2.66 | 3.39 | 1.18 | 1.20 | 1.83 | 2.54 | 0.54 | |
| Il-6 Signaling | 0.68 | 1.11 | 1.15 | 2.63 | 0.74 | 1.06 | 0.89 | 2.50 | 3.59 | 0.38 |
| Aldosterone Signaling in Epithelial Cells | 1.03 | 1.96 | 0.50 | 1.44 | 1.09 | 2.90 | 2.66 | 1.66 | 0.57 | 0.78 |
| IL-10 Signaling | 0.95 | 0.83 | 1.73 | 1.55 | 0.35 | 1.25 | 0.97 | 2.71 | 3.70 | 0.48 |
| Unfolded Protein Response | 1.47 | 1.70 | 1.68 | 1.51 | 0.88 | 1.45 | 1.91 | 1.20 | 2.03 | 0.20 |
| PPAR Signaling | 1.24 | 1.63 | 0.92 | 1.38 | 0.42 | 1.84 | 1.56 | 2.38 | 2.21 | 0.29 |
Fig. 7Top 15 regulated Gene Ontology (GO) biological processes in RAW264.7 cells at the proteome level after exposure to pine and spruce CCA (red) and to pine and spruce CCA with enhanced deposition at high voltage on ALI (blue)
Fig. 8RAW264.7 cell IPA comparison analysis of biological processes a, canonical pathways b and diseases and biofunctions c of transcriptome and proteome data from both aerosol (AS) and aerosol enhanced deposition (HV) following pine and spruce exposure. Red indicates high, yellow intermediate and blue slight regulation