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

Quintero, Nathalia; Stashenko, Elena E.; Fuentes, Jorge Luı́s

doi:10.1590/s1415-47572012000300018

Cited by 18 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The use of the SOS‐inducing factor is a common metric that controls for cytotoxicity when measuring genotoxicity by the current method. It is generally regarded that an SOS‐inducing factor of 2.0 or higher can be considered a positive result for genotoxicity in this test, whereas a result of 1.5 or less is not considered genotoxic . The SOS‐inducing factor was as high as 8× to 10× in whole OSPW AEOs; however, the concomitant high cytotoxicity at these doses nevertheless raises some questions about the relevance of the result.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 91%

Screening of genotoxicity and mutagenicity in extractable organics from oil sands process–affected water

Zetouni

Siraki

Weinfeld

et al. 2016

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large volumes of oil sands process-affected water (OSPW) are produced by the oil sands surface mining industry during alkaline hot-water extraction of bitumen. It is well documented that the acid extractable organics (AEOs) in OSPW, a highly complex mixture of acidic and polar neutral substances, are acutely toxic; but few studies have examined the genotoxicity or mutagenicity of this mixture. In the present study, the in vitro SOS Chromotest and the Ames test (TA98 and TA100 strains) were used to evaluate genotoxicity and mutagenicity for whole OSPW AEOs in the presence and absence of biotransformation by rat S9 liver enzymes. Two subfractions were also examined in the same assays: neutral extractable fraction (F1-NE), and the subsequent acid extractable fraction (F2-AE). In the SOS assay, whole AEO was cytotoxic when concentrated 2× (i.e., twice as concentrated as the environmental sample) and showed increasing genotoxic response above 6×. Co-exposure with S9 had a protective effect on the cell SOS-inducing factor and survival but did not eliminate genotoxicity above 6× concentrations. Most of the cytotoxicity was attributable to F2-AE, but both F1-NE and F2-AE had similar genotoxic dose-responses above 6×. In the Ames test without S9, whole AEO was mutagenic in both strains above 10× concentrations. Co-incubation with S9 had little effect on the TA100 strain but with TA98 resulted in bioactivation at midlevel doses (1.5-6.3×) and protection at higher doses (10-25×). The 2 subfractions were mutagenic in both strains but with different dose-responses. Further research in vivo or in more relevant cells is warranted to investigate the carcinogenic risks of OSPW. Environ Toxicol Chem 2017;36:1397-1404. © 2016 SETAC.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 91%

Screening of genotoxicity and mutagenicity in extractable organics from oil sands process–affected water

Zetouni

Siraki

Weinfeld

et al. 2016

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Genotoxicity of the EO and their major constituents were evaluated using the SOS Chromotest as previously described by Quillardet & Hofnung . As organic solvents can affect genotoxicity and antigenotoxicity estimates in the SOS Chromotest , we always used distilled water as dissolvent and ultrasonic bath E30H Elmasonic (Elma‐Hans Schmidbauer GmbH & Co., Singen, Germany) to dissolve EO and pure compounds. Briefly, cultures in exponential phase (DO 600 nm = 0.4) were 10‐fold diluted and dispensed into microcentrifuge tubes containing different EO dilutions (between 0.05 and 1.66%) or compounds at concentrations (between 10 and 2423 μg mL −1 ) which varied depending on the solubility of each compound.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Antigenotoxic Effect Against Ultraviolet Radiation‐induced DNA Damage of the Essential Oils from Lippia Species

Ruiz

Campo

Stashenko

et al. 2017

Photochem & Photobiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The antigenotoxicity against ultraviolet radiation (UV)-induced DNA damage of essential oils (EO) from Lippia species was studied using SOS Chromotest. Based on the minimum concentration that significantly inhibits genotoxicity, the genoprotective potential of EO from highest to lowest was Lippia graveolens, thymol-RC ≈ Lippia origanoides, carvacrol-RC ≈ L. origanoides, thymol-RC > Lippia alba, citral-RC ≈ Lippia citriodora, citral-RC ≈ Lippia micromera, thymol-RC > L. alba, myrcenone-RC. EO from L. alba, carvone/limonene-RC, L. origanoides, α-phellandrene-RC and L. dulcis, trans-β-caryophyllene-RC did not reduce the UV genotoxicity at any of the doses tested. A gas chromatography with flame ionization detection analysis (GC-FID) was conducted to evaluate the solubility of the major EO constituents under our experimental conditions. GC-FID analysis showed that, at least partially, major EO constituents were water-soluble and therefore, they were related with the antigenotoxicity detected for EO. Constituents such as p-cymene, geraniol, carvacrol, thymol, citral and 1,8-cineole showed antigenotoxicity. The antioxidant activity of EO constituents was also determined using the oxygen radical antioxidant capacity (ORAC) assay. The results showed that the antigenotoxicity of the EO constituents was unconnected with their antioxidant activity. The antigenotoxicity to different constituent binary mixtures suggests that synergistic effects can occur in some of the studied EO.

show abstract

“…Before extract antigenotoxic effects were assayed, their genotoxicities were investigated using the SOS Chromotest [ 72 ], as was described previously by Quintero et al [ 73 ]. The antigenotoxicity assay was conducted using a co-incubation procedure as described by Fuentes et al [ 74 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flower Extracts from Ornamental Plants as Sources of Sunscreen Ingredients: Determination by In Vitro Methods of Photoprotective Efficacy, Antigenotoxicity and Safety

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plants are sources of sunscreen ingredients that prevent cellular mutations involved in skin cancer and aging. This study investigated the sunscreen properties of the extracts from some ornamental plants growing in Colombia. The UV filter capability of the flower extracts obtained from Rosa centifolia L., Posoqueria latifolia (Rudge) Schult, and Ipomoea horsfalliae Hook. was examined. Photoprotection efficacies were evaluated using in vitro indices such as sun protection factor and critical wavelength. UVB antigenotoxicity estimates measured with the SOS Chromotest were also obtained. Extract cytotoxicity and genotoxicity were studied in human fibroblasts using the trypan blue exclusion and Comet assays, respectively. Major compounds of the promising flower extracts were identified by UHPLC–ESI+–Orbitrap–MS. The studied extracts showed high photoprotection efficacy and antigenotoxicity against UVB radiation, but only the P. latifolia extract showed broad-spectrum photoprotection at non-cytotoxic concentrations. The P. latifolia extract appeared to be safer for human fibroblast cells and the R. centifolia extract was shown to be moderately cytotoxic and genotoxic at the highest assayed concentrations. The I. horsfalliae extract was unequivocally cytotoxic and genotoxic. The major constituents of the promising extracts were as follows: chlorogenic acid, ecdysterone 20E, rhamnetin-rutinoside, cis-resveratrol-diglucoside, trans-resveratrol-diglucoside in P. latifolia; quercetin, quercetin-glucoside, quercetin-3-rhamnoside, kaempferol, kaempferol-3-glucoside, and kaempferol-rhamnoside in R. centifolia. The potential of the ornamental plants as sources of sunscreen ingredients was discussed.

show abstract

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

Cited by 18 publications

References 51 publications

Screening of genotoxicity and mutagenicity in extractable organics from oil sands process–affected water

Screening of genotoxicity and mutagenicity in extractable organics from oil sands process–affected water

Antigenotoxic Effect Against Ultraviolet Radiation‐induced DNA Damage of the Essential Oils from Lippia Species

Flower Extracts from Ornamental Plants as Sources of Sunscreen Ingredients: Determination by In Vitro Methods of Photoprotective Efficacy, Antigenotoxicity and Safety

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About