Correlation between the genotoxicity endpoints measured by two different genotoxicity assays: comet assay and CBMN assay

Abstract

Event Abstract Back to Event Correlation between the genotoxicity endpoints measured by two different genotoxicity assays: comet assay and CBMN assay Carina Ladeira1, 2*, Susana Viegas1, 3, Elisabete Carolino1, 2, Manuel C. Gomes4 and Miguel Brito2 1 Environment and Health Research Group, Escola Superior de Tecnologia da Saúde de Lisboa – IPL, Portugal 2 Grupo de Investigação em Genética e Metabolismo, Escola Superior de Tecnologia da Saúde de Lisboa – IPL, Portugal 3 Centro de Malária e Doenças Tropicais – Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal 4 Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal The cytokinesis-block micronucleus cytome (CBMN) assay is a comprehensive system for measuring DNA damage; cytostasis and cytotoxicity-DNA damage events are scored specifically in once-divided binucleated cells. The endpoints possible to be measured are micronuclei (MN), a biomarker of chromosome breakage and/or whole chromosome loss, nucleoplasmic bridges (NPB), a biomarker of DNA misrepair and/or telomere end-fusions, and nuclear buds (NBUD), a biomarker of elimination of amplified DNA and/or DNA repair complexes. Cytostatic effects are measured via the proportion of mono-, bi- and multinucleated cells and cytotoxicity via necrotic and/or apoptotic cell ratios (Fenech, 2006, 2007). The CBMN assay has become one of the most commonly used methods for assessing chromosome breakage and loss in human lymphocytes both in vivo and ex vivo (Fenech et al., 1999a; 1999b). Because of its reliability and good reproducibility, the CBMN assay has become one of the standard cytogenetic tests for genetic toxicology testing in human and mammalian cells (Fenech & Crott, 2002; Fenech, 2007) and has been extensively used to evaluate the presence and the extent of chromosome damage in human populations exposed to genotoxic agents in various occupational settings, in the environment, or as a consequence of lifestyles (Bonassi et al., 2011). The use of the CBMN assay in in vitro genetic toxicology testing is well established and in fact it has become an accepted standard method to assess the genotoxic hazard of chemicals which led to the development of a special guideline by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the OECD 487 guideline (Kirsch-Volders et al., 2014). The CBMN assay is an effective tool for the study of cellular and nuclear dysfunction caused by in vitro or in vivo aging, micronutrient deficiency or excess, genotoxins exposure and genetic defects in genome maintenance. It is also fruitful in the emerging fields of nutrigenomics and toxicogenomics and their combinations, as it becomes increasingly clear that nutrient status also impacts on sensitivity to exogenous genotoxins (Fenech, 2005, 2007). Many results obtained by this assay indicate the potential predictive value of the CBMN assay with respect to cancer risk and validate its use as a test for detecting nutritional, environmental and genetic factors that are potentially carcinogenic. Also it is used by pharmaceutical industry, human biomonitoring of genotoxic exposures and its increasing application in preventive medicine and nutrition and the increased investment in the automation of the CBMN assay are indicative of the increasing importance of this test (Fenech, 2007). The comet assay or single-cell gel electrophoresis (SCGE) is a simple, sensitive method for detecting DNA-strand breaks. Cells embedded in agarose on a microscope slide are lysed with detergent and 2.5 M NaCl and fresh Triton X-100 to remove membranes and soluble cell constituents, including most histones, leaving the DNA, still supercoiled and attached to a nuclear matrix, as a nucleoid. A break in one strand of a DNA loop is enough to release the supercoiling, and during electrophoresis the relaxed loops are able to extend towards the anode (Fairbairn et al., 1995; Collins et al., 1997; Moller et al., 2000; Azqueta et al., 2009; Collins & Dusinska, 2009). Electrophoresis causes DNA loops containing breaks to move towards the anode, forming “comets” when stained and visualised by fluorescence microscopy. The relative content of DNA in the tail indicates the frequency of breaks (Gedik et al., 2002; Kumaravel & Jha, 2006; Collins & Dusinska, 2009). DNA strand breaks can originate from the direct modification of DNA by chemical agents or their metabolites; from the processes of DNA excision repair, replication, and recombination; or from the process of apoptosis. Direct breakage of the DNA strands occurs when ROS interact with DNA. In what refers to alkaline labile sites, those can be generated by depurination of an adducted base of the nucleotide and a subsequent conversion of the abasic site to a strand break detected by alkaline treatment (pH above 13.1) (Moller et al., 2000). This assay was adapted to measure oxidised purines and oxidised pyrimidines by the incubation of the nucleoids with bacterial DNA repair enzymes (Azqueta et al., 2009), including formamidopyrimidine DNA glycosylase (FPG), which recognizes the oxidised purine 8-OHdG, Endonuclease III do detect oxidised pyrimidines, T4 endonuclease V to detect UV-induced pyrimidines dimmers, AlkA (3-methyladenine DNA glycosylase) for alkylated bases, or uracil DNA glycosylase, which removes misincorporated uracil from DNA (Collins & Dusinska, 2009). Comet assay has become one of the standard methods for assessing DNA damage, with a wide range of applications, namely in genotoxicity testing, human biomonitoring and molecular epidemiology, as well as fundamental research in DNA damage and repair (Collins, 2004, 2009). This assay is useful for evaluating xenobiotic impacts based on its use of small cell samples, and its ability to evaluate DNA damage in non-proliferation cells such as lymphocytes. In addition, the ability to obtain sufficient numbers of cells for analysis from different tissues, for instance lymphocytes and buccal cells provides a relatively non-invasive procedure for analysis (Valverde & Rojas, 2009a). Two samples were formed – the group of those occupationally exposed to antineoplastic drugs (n=46) and the non-exposed group (n=46). Significant differences (Mann-Whitney test, p <0.05) were observed between subjects exposed and non-exposed to antineoplastic drugs, namely in mean MN, respectively (9.83±1.28 vs 5.09±0.89), NPB (0.65±0.14 vs 0.11±0.05), and NBUD (2.43±0.37 vs 1.37±0.32), for the genotoxicity biomarkers measured by CBMN assay. The odds ratios of binary logistic regression indicate an significant increased risk for the presence of biomarkers in those exposed to antineoplastic drugs, compared to non-exposed, and they were significant (p<0.05) for MN (OR=6.67, CI=2.37-18.76), NPB (OR=5.77, CI=1.92-17.31), and NBUDs (OR=2.89, IC=1.14-7.37). In what concern to comet assay, the measured parameters were higher in the exposed group in comparison with the non-exposed, respectively for % DNA Tail (15.18±1.40 vs 12.41±1.24) and oxidative DNA damage (5.32±0.54 vs 4.59±0.59). However, no statiscally significant differences (Mann-Whitney test, p>0.05) were found between subjects with and without exposure. There were positive significant correlations between endpoints evaluated by the same technique. Regarding CBMN assay results, there was a positive correlation between NPB and NBUDs (r=0.362, p=0.013). As for the comet assay, % DNA in the tail and DNA oxidative damage, were correlated (r = 0.325, p=0.002). However, correlations across the two assays – CBMN and comet assays –were not significant. The comet assay and the CBMN assay detect genotoxic effects caused by different mechanisms. The comet assay identifies still reparable injuries such as single and double-strand DNA breaks, alkali labile lesions that are converted to strand breaks under alkaline conditions and single-strand breaks associated with incomplete excision repair sites; whereas the CBMN assay detects injuries that survive at least one mitotic cycle and reflect unrepaired fixed DNA damage (Villarini et al., 2012). It is considered that, for chronic exposures, micronuclei test express cumulative facts whereas comet assay provides information on recent exposures (Laffon et al., 2005). Comet assay used in biomonitoring studies reflect the current exposure (over the previous few weeks) and the actual levels of DNA damage present in white blood cells at the moment of blood sampling. The comet assay is able to sensitively reveal early, still repairable, moderate DNA damage, and can therefore furnish useful information on early effects induced by occupational exposure to low doses of xenobiotics (Kopjar et al., 2009) being recommended to monitor population chronically exposed to genotoxic agents combined with CBMN assay (Maluf & Erdtmann, 2000; Kopjar & Garaj-Vrhovac, 2001; Rekhadevi et al., 2007; Cornetta et al., 2008; Cavallo et al., 2009; Kopjar et al., 2009). A combination of cytogenetic tests and the comet assay in biomonitoring studies makes it possible to compare the relative sensitivities of the two test systems and, therefore, gives us a possible clue about the fraction of the DNA damage detected by the comet assay that will lead to fixed mutations (Milic et al., 2010). The results concerning of positive findings by micronuclei and non significant ones by comet assay, are corroborated by Deng et al. (2005) study performed in workers occupationally exposed to methotrexate, also a cytostatic drug. According to Cavallo et al. (2009), the comet assay seems to be more suitable for the prompt evaluation of the genotoxic effects, for instance, of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons mixtures containing volatile substances, whereas the micronucleus test seems more appropriate to evaluate the effects of exposure to antineoplastic agents. However, there are studies that observed an increase in both the comet assay and the micronucleus test in nurses handling antineoplastic drugs, although statistical significance was only seen in the comet assay, quite the opposite of our results (Maluf & Erdtmann, 2000; Laffon et al. 2005). Acknowledgements ACT Project n.º 036AP/09 grant e Professor A. Collins for the FPG enzyme. References Azqueta A., Shaposhnikov S. & Collins A. (2009). Detection of oxidised DNA using DNA repair enzymes. In: The Comet Assay in Toxicology. [Online]. Royal Society of Chemistry, pp. 58–63. Available from: www.rsc.org. Bonassi, S., Coskun, E., Ceppi, M., Lando, C., Bolognesi, C., Burgaz, S., Holland, N., Kirsh-Volders, M., Knasmueller, S., Zeiger, E., Carnesoltas, D., Cavallo, D., da Silva, J., de Andrade, V.M., Demircigil, G.C., Odio, A.D., Donmez-Altuntas, H., Gattas, G., Giri, A., Giri, S., Gómez-Meda, B., Gómez-Arroyo, S., Hadjidekova, V., Haveric, A., Kamboj, M., Kurteshi, K., Martino-Roth, M.G., Montoya, R.M., Nersesyan, A., Pastor-Benito, S., Salvadori, D.M.F., Shaposhnikova, A., Stopper, H., Thomas, P., Torres-Bugarín, O., Yadav, A.S., González, G.Z. & Fenech, M. (2011). The HUman MicroNucleus project on eXfoLiated buccal cells (HUMNXL): The role of life-style, host factors, occupational exposures, health status, and assay protocol. Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research. 728 (3). p.pp. 88–97. Collins, A.R. (2004). The comet assay for DNA damage and repair: principles, applications, and limitations. Molecular biotechnology. 26 (3). p.pp. 249–261. Collins, A.R. (2009). Investigating oxidative DNA damage and its repair using the comet assay. Mutation Research. 681 (1). p.pp. 24–32. Cavallo, D., Ursini, C.L., Rondinone, B. & Iavicoli, S. (2009). Evaluation of a suitable DNA damage biomarker for human biomonitoring of exposed workers. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis. 50 (9). p.pp. 781–790. Collins, A., Dusinská, M., Franklin, M., Somorovská, M., Petrovská, H., Duthie, S., Fillion, L., Panayiotidis, M., Raslová, K. & Vaughan, N. (1997). Comet assay in human biomonitoring studies: reliability, validation, and applications. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis. 30 (2). p.pp. 139–146. Collins A. & Dusinska M. (2009). Applications of the Comet Assay in Human Biomonitoring. In: The Comet Assay in Toxicology. [Online]. Royal Society of Chemistry, pp. 201 – 202. Available from: www.rsc.org. Cornetta, T., Padua, L., Testa, A., Ievoli, E., Festa, F., Tranfo, G., Baccelliere, L. & Cozzi, R. (2008). Molecular biomonitoring of population of nurses handling antineoplastic drugs. Mutation Research. 638. p.pp. 75 – 82. Deng, H., Zhang, M., He, J., Wu, W., Jin, L., Zheng, W., Lou, J. & Wang, B. (2005). Investigating genetic damage in workers occupationally exposed to methotrexate using three genetic endpoints. Mutagenesis 20, 351 – 357. Dusinska, M. & Collins, A.R. (2008). The comet assay in human biomonitoring: gene–environment interactions. Mutagenesis. 23 (3). p.pp. 191–205. Fairbairn, D.W., Olive, P.L. & O’Neill, K.L. (1995). The comet assay: a comprehensive review. Mutation Research. 339 (1). p.pp. 37–59. Fenech, M. (2005). The Genome Health Clinic and Genome Health Nutrigenomics concepts: diagnosis and nutritional treatment of genome and epigenome damage on an individual basis. Mutagenesis. 20 (4). p.pp. 255–269. Fenech, M. (2006). Cytokinesis-block micronucleus assay evolves into a ‘cytome’ assay of chromosomal instability, mitotic dysfunction and cell death. Mutation Research. 600 (1-2). p.pp. 58–66. Fenech, M. (2007). Cytokinesis-block micronucleus cytome assay. Nature Protocols. 2 (5). p.pp. 1084–1104. Fenech, M. & Crott, J.W. (2002). Micronuclei, nucleoplasmic bridges and nuclear buds induced in folic acid deficient human lymphocytes-evidence for breakage-fusion-bridge cycles in the cytokinesis-block micronucleus assay. MutationRresearch. 504 (1-2). p.pp. 131–136. Fenech, M., Crott, J., Turner, J. & Brown, S. (1999a). Necrosis, apoptosis, cytostasis and DNA damage in human lymphocytes measured simultaneously within the cytokinesis-block micronucleus assay: description of the method and results for hydrogen peroxide. Mutagenesis. 14 (6). p.pp. 605–612. Fenech, M., Holland, N., Chang, W.P., Zeiger, E. & Bonassi, S. (1999b). The HUman MicroNucleus Project—An international collaborative study on the use of the micronucleus technique for measuring DNA damage in humans. Mutation Research/Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis. 428 (1–2). p.pp. 271–283. Gedik, C.M., Boyle, S.P., Wood, S.G., Vaughan, N.J. & Collins, A.R. (2002). Oxidative stress in humans: validation of biomarkers of DNA damage. Carcinogenesis. 23 (9). p.pp. 1441–1446. Kirsch-Volders, M., Bonassi, S., Knasmueller, S., Holland, N., Bolognesi, C. & Fenech, M.F. (2014). Commentary: Critical questions, misconceptions and a road map for improving the use of the lymphocyte cytokinesis-block micronucleus assay for in vivo biomonitoring of human exposure to genotoxic chemicals-A HUMN project perspective. Mutation Research. 759. p.pp. 49 – 58. Kopjar, N. & Garaj-Vrhovac, V. (2001). Application of the alkaline comet assay in human biomonitoring for genotoxicity: a study on Croatian medical personnel handling antineoplastic drugs. Mutagenesis. 16(1).p.pp. 71-8. Kopjar, N., Garaj-Vrhovac, V., Kašuba, V., Rozgaj, R., Ramić, S., Pavlica, V. & Želježić, D. (2009). Assessment of genotoxic risks in Croatian health care workers occupationally exposed to cytotoxic drugs: A multi-biomarker approach. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health. 212 (4). p.pp. 414–431. Kumaravel, T. & Jha, A. (2006). Reliable Comet assay measurements for detecting DNA damage induced by ionising radiation and chemicals. Mutat Res. 605 (1-2) p.pp. 7-16. Laffon, B., Teixeira, J.P., Silva, S., Loureiro, J., Torres, J., Pásaro, E., Méndez, J. & Mayan, O. (2005). Genotoxic effects in a population of nurses handling antineoplastic drugs, and relationship with genetic polymorphisms in DNA repair enzymes. American Journal of Industrial Medicine. 48 (2). p.pp. 128–136. Maluf, S. & Erdtmann, B. (2000). Follow-up study of the genetic damage in lymphocytes of pharmacists and nurses handling antineoplastic drugs evaluated by cytokinesis-block micronuclei analysis and single cell gel electrophoresis. Mutation Research 471: 21 – 27. Milić, M., Rozgaj, R., Kašuba, V., Oreščanin, V., Balija, M. & Jukić, I. (2010). Correlation between folate and vitamin B₁₂ and markers of DNA stability in healthy men: preliminary results. Acta Biochimica Polonica. 57 (3). p.pp. 339–345. Moller, P., Knudsen, L.E., Loft, S. & Wallin, H. (2000). The comet assay as a rapid test in biomonitoring occupational exposure to DNA-damaging agents and effect of confounding factors. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention: A Publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, Cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology. 9 (10). p.pp. 1005–1015. Rekhadevi, P.V., Sailaja, N., Chandrasekhar, M., Mahboob, M., Rahman, M.F. & Grover, P. (2007). Genotoxicity assessment in oncology nurses handling anti-neoplastic drugs. Mutagenesis. 22 (6). p.pp. 395–401. Valverde, M. & Rojas, E. (2009a). Environmental and occupational biomonitoring using the Comet assay. Mutation Research. 681 (1). p.pp. 93–109. Valverde M & Rojas E (2009b). The Comet assay in human biomonitoring. In: The Comet Assay in Toxicology. [Online]. Royal Society of Chemistry, pp. 227 – 251. Available from: www.rsc.org. Villarini, M., Dominici, L., Piccinini, R., Fatigoni, C., Ambrogi, M., Curti, G., Morucci, P., Muzi, G., Monarca, S. & Moretti, M. (2011). Assessment of primary, oxidative and excision repaired DNA damage in hospital personnel handling antineoplastic drugs. Mutagenesis. 26 (3). p.pp. 359–369. Keywords: Comet Assay, CYTOKINESIS BLOCKED MICRONUCLEUS ASSAY, Genotoxicity, CORRELATION BETWEEN TECHNIQUES., biomarkers Conference: ICAW 2015 - 11th International Comet Assay Workshop, Antwerpen, Belgium, 1 Sep - 4 Sep, 2015. Presentation Type: Poster Presentation Topic: Environmental exposure and Biomonitoring Citation: Ladeira C, Viegas S, Carolino E, Gomes MC and Brito M (2015). Correlation between the genotoxicity endpoints measured by two different genotoxicity assays: comet assay and CBMN assay. Front. Genet. Conference Abstract: ICAW 2015 - 11th International Comet Assay Workshop. doi: 10.3389/conf.fgene.2015.01.00027 Copyright: The abstracts in this collection have not been subject to any Frontiers peer review or checks, and are not endorsed by Frontiers. They are made available through the Frontiers publishing platform as a service to conference organizers and presenters. The copyright in the individual abstracts is owned by the author of each abstract or his/her employer unless otherwise stated. Each abstract, as well as the collection of abstracts, are published under a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 (attribution) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) and may thus be reproduced, translated, adapted and be the subject of derivative works provided the authors and Frontiers are attributed. For Frontiers’ terms and conditions please see https://www.frontiersin.org/legal/terms-and-conditions. Received: 03 May 2015; Published Online: 23 Jun 2015. * Correspondence: Dr. Carina Ladeira, Environment and Health Research Group, Escola Superior de Tecnologia da Saúde de Lisboa – IPL, Lisboa, Portugal, carina.ladeira@estesl.ipl.pt Login Required This action requires you to be registered with Frontiers and logged in. To register or login click here. Abstract Info Abstract The Authors in Frontiers Carina Ladeira Susana Viegas Elisabete Carolino Manuel C Gomes Miguel Brito Google Carina Ladeira Susana Viegas Elisabete Carolino Manuel C Gomes Miguel Brito Google Scholar Carina Ladeira Susana Viegas Elisabete Carolino Manuel C Gomes Miguel Brito PubMed Carina Ladeira Susana Viegas Elisabete Carolino Manuel C Gomes Miguel Brito Related Article in Frontiers Google Scholar PubMed Abstract Close Back to top Javascript is disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser settings in order to see all the content on this page.