Literature DB >> 3338441

Genotoxicity of acrylic acid, methyl acrylate, ethyl acrylate, methyl methacrylate, and ethyl methacrylate in L5178Y mouse lymphoma cells.

M M Moore1, A Amtower, C L Doerr, K H Brock, K L Dearfield.   

Abstract

A series of monomeric acrylate/methacrylate esters (methyl acrylate, ethyl acrylate, methyl methacrylate, and ethyl methacrylate) as well as acrylic acid were examined for genotoxic activity in L5178Y mouse lymphoma cells without exogenous activation. All five compounds induced concentration-dependent increases in mutant frequency. Small-colony, trifluorothymidine-resistant mutants were primarily induced, which suggests that these compounds may act via a clastogenic mechanism. This prediction was confirmed by the finding that all five compounds produced gross chromosome aberrations in mouse lymphoma cells. The two acrylates were much more potent in their response than acrylic acid. Methyl acrylate (22 micrograms/ml, survival = 18%) induced 385 mutants/10(6) survivors (total mutant frequency less the spontaneous mutant frequency) and 45 chromosome aberrations/100 cells analyzed (total aberrations less the spontaneous background). Ethyl acrylate (37.5 micrograms/ml, survival = 15%) induced 683 mutants/10(6) survivors and 48 aberrations/50 cells analyzed. Acrylic acid (500 micrograms/ml, survival = 22%) induced 245 mutants/10(6) survivors and 37 aberrations/100 cells analyzed. The two methacrylates required higher concentrations to induce a positive response. Methyl methacrylate (2,799 micrograms/ml, survival = 11%) induced 230 mutants/10(6) survivors and 29 aberrations/200 cells analyzed. Ethyl methacrylate was extremely difficult to test because of a plateau in the dose response, over which the toxicity fluctuated from 2% to 37% survival. Positive responses (twice the spontaneous background) were only obtained at toxicity levels with less than approximately 20% survival. A concentration of 1,626 micrograms/ml (survival = 16%) induced 83 mutants/10(6) survivors and 11 aberrations/200 cells analyzed. The evidence suggests that the genotoxicity of these compounds is most likely due to a clastogenic mechanism.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3338441     DOI: 10.1002/em.2850110107

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Mol Mutagen        ISSN: 0893-6692            Impact factor:   3.216


  5 in total

1.  Comparative in vitro cytotoxicity of ethyl acrylate and tripropylene glycol diacrylate to normal human skin and lung cells.

Authors:  L A Nylander-French; J E French
Journal:  In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Anim       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 2.416

2.  Quantitative evaluation of the effects of human carcinogens and related chemicals on human foreskin fibroblasts.

Authors:  P Kurian; S Nesnow; G E Milo
Journal:  Cell Biol Toxicol       Date:  1990-04       Impact factor: 6.691

Review 3.  A Review on the Biocompatibility of PMMA-Based Dental Materials for Interim Prosthetic Restorations with a Glimpse into their Modern Manufacturing Techniques.

Authors:  Silviu Mirel Pituru; Maria Greabu; Alexandra Totan; Marina Imre; Mihaela Pantea; Tudor Spinu; Ana Maria Cristina Tancu; Nicoleta Olivia Popoviciu; Iulia-Ioana Stanescu; Ecaterina Ionescu
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2020-06-28       Impact factor: 3.623

4.  Genotoxicity of methyl acrylate and ethyl acrylate and its relationship with glutathione.

Authors:  F Oesch; N Honarvar; E Fabian; L Finch; S Hindle; K Wiench; R Landsiedel
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2022-06-15       Impact factor: 6.168

5.  Cellular exposure to muscle relaxants and propofol could lead to genomic instability in vitro.

Authors:  Allen Edward Coleman; Nicole McNeil; Alexander Leonidovich Kovalchuck; Dara Wangsa; Thomas Ried; Hong Wang
Journal:  J Biomed Res       Date:  2012-03
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.