4.7 Article

Genotoxic activity of bisphenol A and its analogues bisphenol S, bisphenol F and bisphenol AF and their mixtures in human hepatocellular carcinoma (HepG2) cells

Journal

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
Volume 687, Issue -, Pages 267-276

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.486

Keywords

Bisphenol A; Bisphenol A analogues; Genotoxic; Gene expression; Combined exposure

Funding

  1. Slovenian Research Agency [P1-0245, P1-0208, L1-7544, MR36321]
  2. University of Seville (VI PPIT) [I.3A1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The use of bisphenol A (BPA) in manufacturing of plastics is being gradually replaced by presumably safer analogues such as bisphenol S (BPS), bisphenol F (BPF) and bisphenol AF (BPAF). Despite their widespread occurrence in the environment, there is a knowledge gap in their toxicological profiles. We investigated cytotoxic/ genotoxic effects as well as changes in the expression of selected genes involved in the xenobiotic metabolism, response to oxidative stress and DNA damage upon exposure to BPs and their mixtures in human hepatocellular carcinoma HepG2 cells. BPS and BPF slightly decreased the viability of HepG2 cells, while BPAF was the most cytotoxic compound tested. BPA, BPF and BPAF induced the formation of DNA double strand breaks determined with yH2AX assay, while BPS was inactive (5-20 pg/mL). All four BPs up -regulated the expression of CYPIAI and UGT1A1, while BPS up regulated and BPAF down -regulated also the expression of GST1A. Only BPA up -regulated oxidative stress responsive gene GCLC, while BPAF up -regulated the expression of CDKN1A and GADD45a. At concentrations relevant fur human exposure (ng/mL range) BPA and its analogues as individual compounds and in mixtures did not exert genotoxic activity, whereas BPA and BPAF as well as the mixtures up -regulated the expressions of CYP1A1 and UGT1A1. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available