Antimutagenicity of Maillard reaction products from amino acid/sugar model systems against 2-amino-3-methylimidazo-[4,5-f]quinoline: the role of pyrazines

Safety assessment of 2-ethyl-3,(5 or 6) dimethylpyrazine as a food ingredient

2-Ethyl-3,(5 or 6)-dimethylpyrazine (CAS No. 27043-05-6), a heterocyclic, nitrogen-containing compound, is used in the food industry as a flavor ingredient for its characteristic roasted odor and flavor, reminiscent of roasted cocoa or nuts. Pyrazines, including 2-ethyl-3,(5 or 6)-dimethylpyrazine, are widely distributed in foods and because of their natural unavoidable occurrence in cooked food; therefore, pyrazine compounds, including 2-ethyl-3,(5 or 6)-dimethylpyrazine, are commonly consumed in the daily diet. 2-Ethyl-3,(5 or 6)-dimethylpyrazine is oxidized in rats almost exclusively via its aliphatic side-chain to carboxylic acid derivatives. The LD(50) of 2-ethyl-3,(5 or 6)-dimethylpyrazine in rats was reported as 460 mg/kg and it is reported to be irritating to the skin, eyes and the upper respiratory tract. Two 90-day rat feeding studies have been conducted on 2-ethyl-3,(5 or 6)-dimethylpyrazine, with the one reporting a no effect level of 12.5mg/kg/day (both sexes) and a second study reporting a NOAEL of 2-ethyl-3,(5 or 6)-dimethylpyrazine 17 and 18 mg/kg/day for male and female rats, respectively. Although no genotoxicity studies were found on 2-ethyl-3,(5 or 6)-dimethylpyrazine, structurally similar pyrazine derivatives were reported as clastogenic in mammalian cells and non-mutagenic in bacterial assays. The relevance of the positive results in assays with Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Chinese hamster ovary cells in vitro is unclear. The data and information available, including a prolonged history of safe use, indicate that at the current level of intake, the food flavoring use of 2-ethyl-3,(5 or 6)-dimethylpyrazine is safe.

Biological Effects of Maillard Browning Products That May Affect Acrylamide Safety in Food

The heat-induced reaction of amino groups of amino acids, peptides, and proteins with carbonyl groups of reducing sugars such as glucose results in the concurrent formation of so-called Maillard browning products and acrylamide. For this reason, reported studies of adverse biological effects of pure acrylamide may not always be directly relevant to acrylamide in processed food, which may contain Maillard and other biologically active products. These may either antagonize or potentiate the toxicity of acrylamide. To stimulate progress, this paper presents an overview of selected reported studies on the antiallergenic/allergenic, antibiotic, anticarcinogenic/carcinogenic antimutagenic/mutagenic, antioxidative/oxidative, clastogenic (chromosome-damaging), and cytotoxic activities of Maillard products, which may adversely or beneficially impact the toxicity of acrylamide. The evaluation of biological activities of Maillard products and of other biologically active food ingredients suggests that they could both enhance and/or ameliorate acrylamide toxicity, especially carcinogenicity, but less so neurological or reproductive manifestations. Future studies should be directed to differentiate the individual and combined toxicological relationships among acrylamide and the Maillard products, define individual and combined potencies, and develop means to prevent the formation of both acrylamide and the most toxic Maillard products. Such studies should lead to safer foods.

Search for compounds that inhibit the genotoxic and carcinogenic effects of heterocyclic aromatic amines

Over the last 30 years approximately 160 reports have been published on dietary compounds that protect from the mutagenic and carcinogenic effects of heterocyclic aromatic amines (HAAs). In the first section of this review, the current state of knowledge is briefly summarized. Based on the evaluation of the available data, various protective mechanisms are described, and the use of different methodologies for the detection of protective effects is critically discussed. In most antimutagenicity studies (>70%) bacterial indicators (predominantly Salmonella strain TA98) were used, and about 600 individual compounds and complex mixtures have been identified that attenuate the effects of HAAs. The most frequently used in vivo method to detect protective effects are adduct measurements; anticarcinogenic dietary factors were identified by aberrant crypt foci assays and liver foci tests with rats. The mechanisms of protection include inactivation of HAAs and their metabolites by direct binding, inhibition of enzymes involved in the metabolic activation of the amines, induction of detoxifying enzymes, and interaction with DNA repair processes. The detection spectrum of conventional in vitro mutagenicity assays with metabolically incompetent indicator cells is limited. These procedures reflect only simple mechanisms such as direct binding of the HAAs to pyrroles and fibers. It has been shown that these compounds are also effective in rodents. More complex mechanisms, namely, interactions with metabolic activation reactions are not adequately represented in in vitro assays with exogenous enzyme homogenates, and false-negative as well as false-positive results may be obtained. More appropriate approaches for the detection of protective effects are recently developed test systems with metabolically competent cells such as the human Hep G2 line or primary hepatocytes. SCGE tests and DNA adduct measurements with laboratory rodents enable the detection of antigenotoxic effects in different organs, including those that are targets for tumor induction by the amines. Medium term assays based on aberrant crypt foci in colon and liver foci tests have been used to prove that certain compounds that prevented DNA damage by HAAs also reduced their carcinogenic effects. These experiments are costly and time consuming and, due to the weak induction capacity of the amines, only pronounced anticarcinogenic effects can be detected. Over the years, a large bulk of data on HAA protective compounds has accumulated, but only for a few (e.g., fibers, pyrroles, constituents of teas, and lactic acid bacteria) is there sufficient evidence to support the assumption that they are protective in humans as well.