Enhancement and inhibition of benzo[a]pyrene-induced SOS function in E. coli by synthetic antioxidants

Guidance for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring anti-genotoxicity

Since DNA damage can occur spontaneously or be produced by the environmental genotoxins in living cells, it is important to investigate compounds that can reverse or protect DNA damage. An appropriate methodology is essential for the responsive identification of protection offered against DNA damage. This review includes information on the current state of knowledge on prokaryotic cell-based assays (SOS chromotest, umu test, vitotox assay) and cytogenetic techniques (micronucleus assay, chromosome aberration test and sister chromatid exchange assay) with an emphasis on the possibility to explore genoprotective compounds. Throughout the last decade, studies have extrapolated the scientific methodologies utilized for genotoxicity to assess genoprotective compounds. Therefore, shortcomings of genotoxicity studies are also mirrored in antigenotoxicity studies. While regulatory authorities around the world (OECD, US-EPA and ICH) continue to update diverse genotoxic assay strategies, there are still no clear guidelines/approaches for efficient experimental design to screen genoprotective compounds. As a consequence, non-synergetic and inconsistent implementation of the test method by the researchers to execute such simulations has been adopted, which inevitably results in unreliable findings. The review has made the first attempt to collect various facets of experimentally verified approaches for evaluating genoprotective compounds, as well as to acknowledge potential significance and constraints, and further focus on the assessment of end points which are required to validate such action. Henceforth, the review makes an incredible commitment by permitting readers to equate several components of their test arrangement with the provided simplified information, allowing the selection of convenient technique for the predefined compound from a central repository.

The influence of organic solvents on estimates of genotoxicity and antigenotoxicity in the SOS chromotest

In this work, the toxicity and genotoxicity of organic solvents (acetone, carbon tetrachloride, dichloromethane, dimethylsulfoxide, ethanol, ether and methanol) were studied using the SOS chromotest. The influence of these solvents on the direct genotoxicity induced by the mutagens mitomycin C (MMC) and 4-nitroquinoline-1-oxide (4-NQO) were also investigated. None of the solvents were genotoxic in Escherichia coli PQ37. However, based on the inhibition of protein synthesis assessed by constitutive alkaline phosphatase activity, some solvents (carbon tetrachloride, dimethylsulfoxide, ethanol and ether) were toxic and incompatible with the SOS chromotest. Solvents that were neither toxic nor genotoxic to E. coli (acetone, dichloromethane and methanol) significantly reduced the genotoxicity of MMC and 4-NQO. When these solvents were used to dissolve vitamin E they increased the antigenotoxic activity of this compound, possibly through additive or synergistic effects. The relevance of these results is discussed in relation to antigenotoxic studies. These data indicate the need for careful selection of an appropriate diluent for the SOS chromotest since some solvents can modulate genotoxicity and antigenotoxicity.

Final report on the safety assessment of BHT(1)

BHT is the recognized name in the cosmetics industry for butylated hydroxytoluene. BHT is used in a wide range of cosmetic formulations as an antioxidant at concentrations from 0.0002% to 0.5%. BHT does penetrate the skin, but the relatively low amount absorbed remains primarily in the skin. Oral studies demonstrate that BHT is metabolized. The major metabolites appear as the carboxylic acid of BHT and its glucuronide in urine. At acute doses of 0.5 to 1.0 g/kg, some renal and hepatic damage was seen in male rats. Short-term repeated exposure to comparable doses produced hepatic toxic effects in male and female rats. Subchronic feeding and intraperitoneal studies in rats with BHT at lower doses produced increased liver weight, and decreased activity of several hepatic enzymes. In addition to liver and kidney effects, BHT applied to the skin was associated with toxic effects in lung tissue. BHT was not a reproductive or developmental toxin in animals. BHT has been found to enhance and to inhibit the humoral immune response in animals. BHT itself was not generally considered genotoxic, although it did modify the genotoxicity of other agents. BHT has been associated with hepatocellular and pulmonary adenomas in animals, but was not considered carcinogenic and actually was associated with a decreased incidence of neoplasms. BHT has been shown to have tumor promotion effects, to be anticarcinogenic, and to have no effect on other carcinogenic agents, depending on the target organ, exposure parameters, the carcinogen, and the animal tested. Various mechanism studies suggested that BHT toxicity is related to an electrophillic metabolite. In a predictive clinical test, 100% BHT was a mild irritant and a moderate sensitizer. In provocative skin tests, BHT (in the 1% to 2% concentration range) produced positive reactions in a small number of patients. Clinical testing did not find any depigmentation associated with dermal exposure to BHT, although a few case reports of depigmentation were found. The Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel recognized that oral exposure to BHT was associated with toxic effects in some studies and was negative in others. BHT applied to the skin, however, appears to remain in the skin or pass through only slowly and does not produce systemic exposures to BHT or its metabolites seen with oral exposures. Although there were only limited studies that evaluated the effect of BHT on the skin, the available studies, along with the case literature, demonstrate no significant irritation, sensitization, or photosensitization. Recognizing the low concentration at which this ingredient is currently used in cosmetic formulations, it was concluded that BHT is safe as used in cosmetic formulations.

The SOS chromotest: a review

The SOS chromotest is reviewed through over 100 publications corresponding to the testing of 751 chemicals. 404 (54%) of these chemicals present a genotoxic activity detectable in the SOS chromotest. Their SOS inducing potencies span more than 8 orders of magnitude. For 452 compounds, the results obtained in the SOS chromotest could be compared to those obtained in the Ames test. It was found that 373 (82%) of these compounds give similar responses in both tests (236 positive and 137 negative responses). Thus the discrepancies between both tests concern 79 compounds (18%). A case by case analysis shows that many of these compounds are at the same time very weak SOS inducers and very weak mutagens. Thus we think that, most of the time, the discrepancies between the two tests may be accounted for by differences in the interpretation of the results rather than by the experimental results themselves. However, there are some compounds which are clearly SOS inducers but devoid of mutagenic activity in the Ames test (such as quinoline-1-oxide) and to a larger extent, clearly mutagenic compounds which do not induce the SOS response in the SOS chromotest (such as benzidine, cyclophosphamide, acridines, ethidium bromide). We also analyzed the correlation between SOS induction, mutagenesis and carcinogenesis according to the classification of Lewis. For 65 confirmed carcinogens (class 1), the sensitivity, i.e., the capacity to identify carcinogens, was 62% with the SOS chromotest and 77% with the Ames test. For 44 suspected carcinogens (class 2), the sensitivity was 66% with the SOS chromotest and 68% with the Ames test. Thus, we confirmed previous observations made on 83 compounds that there is a close correlation between the results given by both bacterial tests. The capacity of the Ames test to identify carcinogens is higher than that of the SOS chromotest. However, because the number of false positive compounds was lower in the SOS chromotest, the specificity, i.e., the capacity to discriminate between carcinogens and non-carcinogens of the SOS chromotest, appeared higher than that of the Ames test. Thus, the results of the SOS chromotest and of the Ames test can complement each other. The SOS chromotest is one of the most rapid and simple short-term test for genotoxins and is easily adaptable to various conditions, so that it could be used as an early--perhaps the earliest--test in a battery.

Review of the mutagenicity/genotoxicity of butylated hydroxytoluene

Butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) is an effective, widely used, low cost antioxidant. A host of studies examining the potential of BHT to cause point mutations have been published. They include in vitro studies on various bacterial species and strains and on various types of mammalian cell lines as well as in vivo studies on Drosophila melanogaster, silk worms and also the mouse specific locus test (involving long-term exposure). Together these studies convincingly show the absence of a potential for BHT to cause point mutations. A great number of studies on many cell types and species have also been carried out to examine the potential of BHT to cause chromosome aberrations. In vitro studies have been published using plant cells and the WI-38, CHL, CHO, and V79 mammalian cell lines. In vivo studies have been carried out on somatic and/or germ cells of Drosophila melanogaster, rats and mice. Nearly all studies, especially those using validated test systems, indicate that BHT lacks clastogenic potential. In vitro studies on bacterial, yeast and various mammalian cell lines including DON, CHO, CHL cells and primary hepatocytes demonstrate the absence of interactions with or damage to DNA. Taking all the existing data into account, the weight of evidence suggests that BHT does not represent a relevant mutagenic/genotoxic risk to man.

Studies on the effect of ascorbic acid and selenium on the genotoxicity of nitrofurans: nitrofurazone and furazolidone

The genotoxic properties of nitrofurazone and furazolidone were studied using the Ames test and SOS-chromotest. Both compounds were found to act as strong mutagens on the TA97 and TA102 strains of S. typhimurium and to induce the SOS-repair system in the PQ37 strain of E. coli. A good concordance was found between the mutagenic activity and the ability to induce the SOS system. Ascorbic acid and sodium selenite only very slightly lowered the genotoxic effect of the 2 nitrofurans studied both in the Ames test and in the SOS-chromotest.