4.5 Article

Lung inflammation and genotoxicity in mice lungs after pulmonary exposure to candle light combustion particles

Journal

TOXICOLOGY LETTERS
Volume 276, Issue -, Pages 31-38

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2017.04.015

Keywords

Comet assay; DNA damage; Inflammation; Oxidative stress; SRM2975; A-DEP; Candle light combustion particles

Categories

Funding

  1. Laege Sofus Carl Emil Friis og hustru Olga Doris Friis Legat
  2. Danish Council of Independent Research [12-126262]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Candle burning produces a large amount of particles that contribute substantially to the exposure to indoor particulate matter. The exposures to various types of combustion particles, such as diesel exhaust particles, have been associated with increased risk of lung cancer by mechanisms that involve oxidative stress, inflammation and genotoxicity. The aim of this study was to compare pulmonary effects of candle light combustion particles (CP) with two benchmark diesel exhaust particles (A-DEP and SRM2975). Intratracheal (i.t.) instillation of CP (5 mg/kg bodyweight) in C57BL/6n mice produced a significant influx of alveolar macrophages and polymorphonuclear leukocytes and increased concentrations of proteins and lactate dehydrogenase activity in bronchoalveolar fluid. Lower levels of these markers of inflammation and cytotoxicity were observed after i.t. instillation of the same dose of A-DEP or SRM2975. The i.t. instillation of CP did not generate oxidative damage to DNA in lung tissue, measured as DNA strand breaks and human 8-oxoguanine glycosylase-sensitive sites by the comet assay. The lack of genotoxic response was confirmed in lung epithelial (A549) cells, although the exposure to CP increased intracellular levels of reactive oxygen species. In conclusion, pulmonary exposure to particles from burning candles is associated with inflammation and cytotoxicity in the lungs.

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