Prediction and classification of the modes of genotoxic actions using bacterial biosensors specific for DNA damages

Ahn, Joo Myung; Hwang, Ee Taek; Youn, Chul Hee; Banu, Danusia L.; Kim, Byoung Chan; Niazi, Javed H.; Gu, Man Bock

doi:10.1016/j.bios.2009.08.025

Cited by 34 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…11 Genotoxicity can not only initiate cancer development, but also has an impact on fertility and the health of subsequent generations, and contributes to the potential heritable changes in eco-systems after long-term accumulation. 10,12 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…14−16 Most in vitro assays only detect one or limited types of damage, which may lead to false negative results, or can be overly sensitive. 12,17 One uniquely challenging aspect of nanotoxicology is that it is highly property- and structure-dependent. 5,18 The challenges in evaluating the large number of ENMs and their complex variations using resource-intensive and time-consuming in vivo assays motivate research in developing faster, more economical, and reliable genotoxicity assays.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…19 Particularly, toxicogenomics that monitor many biomarkers simultaneously have been proven to be rapid and sensitive for genotoxicity testing with mechanism identification and adverse health effects prediction. 12,19−21 Major challenges in application of these molecular assays are the needs to employ battery and/or tiered in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity assays in order to reliably detect all genotoxic effects and, to derive quantitative molecular endpoints that can be linked to meaningful in vivo phenotypic adverse effects. 22 Despite the degree of biological organizational level, cells respond to potential DNA damage through a common architecture with a number of rather conserved specific response and repair pathways in an effort to repair the DNA damage to restore homeostasis.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparative and Mechanistic Genotoxicity Assessment of Nanomaterials via a Quantitative Toxicogenomics Approach across Multiple Species

Lan

Gou

Gao

et al. 2014

Environ. Sci. Technol.

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study reports a comparative and mechanistic genotoxicity assessment of four engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) across three species, including E. coli, yeast, and human cells, with the aim to reveal the distinct potential genotoxicity mechanisms among the different nanomaterials and their association with physiochemical features. Both the conventional phenotypic alkaline comet test and the newly developed quantitative toxicogenomics assay, that detects and quantifies molecular level changes in the regulation of six DNA damage repair pathways, were employed. The proposed molecular endpoints derived from the toxicogenomics assays, namely TELI (Transcriptional Effect Level Index) and PELI (Protein Effect Level Index), correlated well with the phenotypic DNA damage endpoints from comet tests, suggesting that the molecular genotoxicity assay is suitable for genotoxicity detection. Temporal altered gene or protein expression profiles revealed various potential DNA damage types and relevant genotoxic mechanisms induced by the tested ENMs. nTiO2_a induced a wide spectrum of DNA damage consistently across three species. Three carbon-based ENMs, namely carbon black, single wall carbon nanotube (SWCNT) and fullerene, exhibited distinct, species and ENM property-dependent DNA damage mechanisms. All carbon based ENMs induced relatively weak DNA damage repair response in E. coli, but more severe DNA double strand break in eukaryotes. The differences in cellular structure and defense systems among prokaryotic and eukaryotic species lead to distinct susceptibility and mechanisms for ENM uptake and, thus, varying DNA damages and repair responses. The observation suggested that eukaryotes, especially mammalian cells, are likely more susceptible to genotoxicity than prokaryotes in the ecosystem when exposed to these ENMs.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparative and Mechanistic Genotoxicity Assessment of Nanomaterials via a Quantitative Toxicogenomics Approach across Multiple Species

Lan

Gou

Gao

et al. 2014

Environ. Sci. Technol.

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It can also be used as a preclinical safety assessment tool to screen newly synthesized drug candidates based on the detection of potential carcinogenicity and heritable mutations based on their responses to genotoxic actions. 34 Intercalation has been observed with planar aromatic molecules, such as daunomycin, ethidium bromide, acridine dyes, etc. [35][36][37] Arylamines are known carcinogens that occur both naturally and in synthetic form.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disposable electrochemical DNA biosensor for environmental monitoring of toxicant 2-aminoanthracene in the presence of chlorine in real samples

Mazhabi

Arvand

2014

J Chem Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A simple procedure for the voltammetric detection of the DNA damage using a disposable electrochemical DNA biosensor is reported. The DNA biosensor is assembled by immobilizing the double stranded calf thymus DNA (dsDNA) on the surface of a disposable carbon screen-printed electrode. The interaction of 2-aminoanthracene (2-AA) with calf thymus dsDNA was studied electrochemically based on the oxidation signals of guanine (G) and adenine (A) by using square wave voltammetry (SWV) at screen printed electrode (SPE). The oxidation signals of the guanine and adenine bases, obtained by a square wave voltammetric scan, were used as analytical signal to detect the DNA damage. The presence of this aromatic amine compound with affinity for nucleic acids was measured by its effect on the guanine and adenine oxidation peaks. The response was obtained in the range of 0.05-20 mg L −1 for 2-AA concentration on dsDNA-modified SPE. This test has been used due to its rapid, easy handling and cost effective responses for the toxicity assessment in real water and bleach solution samples.

show abstract

“…estradiol, T 3 , triac, tamoxifen, GC-1, diethylstilbestrol, KB-141, daidzein, DPN and genistein Escherichia coli (Gawrys et al, 2009;Hartman et al, 2009;Skretas et al, 2007;Skretas & Wood, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c Escherichia coli (Ahn et al, 2009) Microgravity and space radiation bacterial biosensors Analysis of the level of radiation exposure on human body by bacterial detection Salmonella typhimurium (Rabbow et al, 2003) Stress-responsive bacterial biosensors DNA damage by oxidative and genotoxic conditions Escherichia coli (Mitchell & Gu, 2004) …”

Section: Hormones Pharmaceuticals Endocrine Disruptorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Engineered Nuclear Hormone Receptor-Biosensors for Environmental Monitoring and Early Drug Discovery

Gierach¹,

Wood²

2011

Biosensors for Health, Environment and Biosecurity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prediction and classification of the modes of genotoxic actions using bacterial biosensors specific for DNA damages

Cited by 34 publications

References 35 publications

Comparative and Mechanistic Genotoxicity Assessment of Nanomaterials via a Quantitative Toxicogenomics Approach across Multiple Species

Comparative and Mechanistic Genotoxicity Assessment of Nanomaterials via a Quantitative Toxicogenomics Approach across Multiple Species

Disposable electrochemical DNA biosensor for environmental monitoring of toxicant 2-aminoanthracene in the presence of chlorine in real samples

Engineered Nuclear Hormone Receptor-Biosensors for Environmental Monitoring and Early Drug Discovery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About