4.5 Article

Comparative genotoxic potential of 27 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in three human cell lines

Journal

TOXICOLOGY LETTERS
Volume 326, Issue -, Pages 99-105

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2020.03.007

Keywords

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; Modelization; Toxic equivalent factor; Genotoxicity; H2AX; In vitro

Categories

Funding

  1. ANSES PNREST program
  2. Institut National Contre le cancer [2010-371]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) form a family of compounds that are generally found in complex mixtures. PAHs can lead to the development of carcinogenesis. The Toxicity Equivalent Factor (TEF) approach has been suggested for estimating the toxicity of PAHs, however, due to the relative weakness of available data, TEF have not been applied for the risk characterization of PAHs as food contaminants in Europe. The determination of new TEFs for a large number of PAHs could overcome some limitations of the current method and improve cancer risk assessment. The present investigation aimed at deriving new TEFs for PAHs, based on their genotoxic effect measured in vitro and analyzed with mathematical models. For this purpose, we used a genotoxicity assay (gamma H2AX) with three human cell lines to analyze the genotoxic properties of 27 selected PAHs after 24 h treatment. For 11 compounds, we did not detect any genotoxic potential. For the remaining 16 PAHs, the concentration-response for genotoxic effect was modelled with the Hill equation; equivalency between PAHs at low dose was assessed by applying constraints to the model parameters. We developed for each compound, in each cell line, Genotoxic Equivalent Factor (GEF). Calculated GEF for the tested PAHs were similar in all cell lines and generally higher than the TEF usually used. These new equivalent factors for PAHs should improve cancer risk assessment.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available