Literature DB >> 33646007

Comparison of methods used for evaluation of mutagenicity/genotoxicity of model chemicals - parabens.

J Chrz1, B Hošíková, L Svobodová, D Očadlíková, H Kolářová, M Dvořáková, K Kejlová, L Malina, G Jírová, A Vlková, M Mannerström.   

Abstract

Growing worldwide efforts to replace (reduce) animal testing and to improve alternative in vitro tests which may be more efficient in terms of both time, cost and scientific validity include also genotoxicity/mutagenicity endpoints. The aim of the review article was to summarize currently available in vitro testing approaches in this field, their regulatory acceptance and recommended combinations for classification of chemicals. A study using the combination of Comet Assay performed on two cell lines and the Chromosomal Aberration test on human peripheral lymphocytes was performed with the aim to predict the genotoxic potential of selected paraben esters, serving as a model chemical group. Parabens are widely used in consumer products as preservatives and have been reported to exhibit inconclusive results in numerous genotoxicity studies. The Comet Assay identified Ethylparaben and Benzylparaben as potentially genotoxic. The Chromosomal Aberration test revealed weak genotoxic potential in case of Ethylparaben and positive genotoxicity in case of Butylparaben, Propylparaben and Isopropylparaben. The main reasons for variability seem to be limited water solubility of parabens, determining their bioavailability at the cellular level, and absence of metabolic activation in the Comet Assay. The results confirmed that the Comet Assay should serve as a screening test and should not be used as a stand-alone method for classification of genotoxicity. The weight of evidence approach in risk assessment should be supported with data generated with the use of human relevant in vitro methods based on cells / tissues of human origin.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33646007      PMCID: PMC8603696          DOI: 10.33549/physiolres.934615

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Physiol Res        ISSN: 0862-8408            Impact factor:   1.881


  86 in total

1.  An adaptation of the human HepaRG cells to the in vitro micronucleus assay.

Authors:  Rozenn Jossé; Alexandra Rogue; Elisabeth Lorge; André Guillouzo
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  2011-11-03       Impact factor: 3.000

2.  A combination of in vitro comet assay and micronucleus test using human lymphoblastoid TK6 cells.

Authors:  Aoi Kimura; Atsuro Miyata; Masamitsu Honma
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  2013-07-17       Impact factor: 3.000

3.  Developing microphysiological systems for use as regulatory tools--challenges and opportunities.

Authors:  Melvin E Andersen; Kellyn Betts; Yvonne Dragan; Suzanne Fitzpatrick; Jesse L Goodman; Thomas Hartung; Jonathan Himmelfarb; Donald E Ingber; Abigail Jacobs; Robert Kavlock; Kyle Kolaja; James L Stevens; Dan Tagle; D Lansing Taylor; Douglas Throckmorton
Journal:  ALTEX       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 6.043

4.  The Three Rs--opportunities for improving animal welfare and the quality of scientific research.

Authors:  Robert D Combes; Michael Balls
Journal:  Altern Lab Anim       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 1.303

Review 5.  Biology-inspired microphysiological system approaches to solve the prediction dilemma of substance testing.

Authors:  Uwe Marx; Tommy B Andersson; Anthony Bahinski; Mario Beilmann; Sonja Beken; Flemming R Cassee; Murat Cirit; Mardas Daneshian; Susan Fitzpatrick; Olivier Frey; Claudia Gaertner; Christoph Giese; Linda Griffith; Thomas Hartung; Minne B Heringa; Julia Hoeng; Wim H de Jong; Hajime Kojima; Jochen Kuehnl; Marcel Leist; Andreas Luch; Ilka Maschmeyer; Dmitry Sakharov; Adrienne J A M Sips; Thomas Steger-Hartmann; Danilo A Tagle; Alexander Tonevitsky; Tewes Tralau; Sergej Tsyb; Anja van de Stolpe; Rob Vandebriel; Paul Vulto; Jufeng Wang; Joachim Wiest; Marleen Rodenburg; Adrian Roth
Journal:  ALTEX       Date:  2016-05-15       Impact factor: 6.043

Review 6.  Evaluation of short-term tests for carcinogenicity.

Authors:  D R Stoltz; L A Poirier; C C Irving; H F Stich; J H Weisburger; H C Grice
Journal:  Toxicol Appl Pharmacol       Date:  1974-08       Impact factor: 4.219

Review 7.  Safety assessment of esters of p-hydroxybenzoic acid (parabens).

Authors:  M G Soni; I G Carabin; G A Burdock
Journal:  Food Chem Toxicol       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 6.023

Review 8.  Estimating the carcinogenic potency of chemicals from the in vivo micronucleus test.

Authors:  Lya G Soeteman-Hernández; George E Johnson; Wout Slob
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  2015-07-10       Impact factor: 3.000

Review 9.  Safety assessment of propyl paraben: a review of the published literature.

Authors:  M G Soni; G A Burdock; S L Taylor; N A Greenberg
Journal:  Food Chem Toxicol       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 6.023

Review 10.  Paraben esters: review of recent studies of endocrine toxicity, absorption, esterase and human exposure, and discussion of potential human health risks.

Authors:  Philippa D Darbre; Philip W Harvey
Journal:  J Appl Toxicol       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 3.446

View more
  1 in total

1.  Comparative Analysis of Transcriptional Responses to Genotoxic and Non-Genotoxic Agents in the Blood Cell Model TK6 and the Liver Model HepaRG.

Authors:  Katrin Kreuzer; Heike Sprenger; Albert Braeuning
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2022-03-22       Impact factor: 5.923

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.