Literature DB >> 7615650

Long-term exposure to chromium(VI) oxide leads to defects in sulfate transport system in Chinese hamster ovary cells.

Y Y Lu1, J L Yang.   

Abstract

Chromium(VI) resistant Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cell lines were established in this study by exposing parental CHO-K1 cells to sequential increases in CrO3 concentration. The final concentration of CrO3 used for selection was 7 microM for Cr7 and 16 microM for Cr16 cells. Cr16-1 was a subclone derived from Cr16 cells. Next, these resistant cells were cultured in media without CrO3 for more than 6 months. The resistance of these cells to CrO3 was determined by colony-forming ability following a 24-h treatment. The LD50 of CrO3 for chromium(VI) resistant cells was at least 25-fold higher than that of the parental cells. The cellular growth rate, chromosome number, and the hprt mutation frequency of these chromium(VI) resistant cells were quite similar to their parental cells. The glutathione level, glutathione S-transferase, catalase activity, and metallothionine mRNA level in Cr7 and Cr16-1 cells were not significantly different from their parental cells. Furthermore, Cr16-1 cells were as sensitive as CHO-K1 cells to free-radical generating agents, including hydrogen peroxide, nickel chloride, and methanesulfonate methyl ester, and emetine, i.e., a protein synthesis inhibitor. The uptake of chromium(VI) and the remaining amount of this metal in these resistant and the parental cell lines were assayed by atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Experimental results indicated that a vastly smaller amount of CrO3 entered the resistant cell lines than their parental cells did. A comparison was made of the sulfate uptake abilities of CHO-K1 and chromium(VI) resistant cell lines. These results revealed that the uptake of sulfate anion was substantially reduced in Cr7 and Cr16-1 cells. Extracellular chloride reduced sulfate uptake in CHO-K1 but not in Cr16-1 cells. Therefore, the major causative for chromium(VI) resistance in these resistant cells could possibly be due to the defects in SO4(2-)/C1- transport system for uptake chromium(VI).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7615650     DOI: 10.1002/jcb.240570410

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cell Biochem        ISSN: 0730-2312            Impact factor:   4.429


  5 in total

Review 1.  Chromium genotoxicity: A double-edged sword.

Authors:  Kristen P Nickens; Steven R Patierno; Susan Ceryak
Journal:  Chem Biol Interact       Date:  2010-04-27       Impact factor: 5.192

2.  Acquisition of mitochondrial dysregulation and resistance to mitochondrial-mediated apoptosis after genotoxic insult in normal human fibroblasts: a possible model for early stage carcinogenesis.

Authors:  Kristen P Nickens; Ying Han; Harini Shandilya; Ashley Larrimore; Gary F Gerard; Eric Kaldjian; Steven R Patierno; Susan Ceryak
Journal:  Biochim Biophys Acta       Date:  2011-10-25

Review 3.  Assessment of the mode of action underlying development of rodent small intestinal tumors following oral exposure to hexavalent chromium and relevance to humans.

Authors:  Chad M Thompson; Deborah M Proctor; Mina Suh; Laurie C Haws; Christopher R Kirman; Mark A Harris
Journal:  Crit Rev Toxicol       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 5.635

4.  Chromium(III)-induced 8-hydroxydeoxyguanosine in DNA and its reduction by antioxidants: comparative effects of melatonin, ascorbate, and vitamin E.

Authors:  W Qi; R J Reiter; D X Tan; J J Garcia; L C Manchester; M Karbownik; J R Calvo
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 9.031

5.  Optimization of chromium and tannic acid bioremediation by Aspergillus niveus using Plackett-Burman design and response surface methodology.

Authors:  Prachi Chaudhary; Vinod Chhokar; Pragati Choudhary; Anil Kumar; Vikas Beniwal
Journal:  AMB Express       Date:  2017-11-14       Impact factor: 3.298

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.