4.7 Article

Evaluating the genotoxic effects of workers exposed to lead using micronucleus assay, comet assay and TCR gene mutation test

期刊

TOXICOLOGY
卷 223, 期 3, 页码 219-226

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tox.2006.03.016

关键词

lead; genotoxic; micronucleus assays; comet assay; TCR gene mutation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To evaluate the genotoxic effects of lead (Pb) exposure, 25 workers in a workplace producing storage battery were monitored for three genetic end-points using micronucleus (MN) assay, comet assay and TCR gene mutation test. Twenty-five controls were matched with workers according to age, gender and smoking. The air Pb concentration in the workplace was 1.26 mg/m(3). All subjects were measured for Pb concentration of blood by atom absorption spectrophotometry. The mean Pb concentration of blood in workers (0.32 mg/l) was significantly higher than that in controls (0.02 mg/l). The results of MN test showed that the mean micronuclei rate (MNR) and mean micronucleated cells rate (MCR) in workers were 9.04 +/- 1.51 parts per thousand and 7.76 +/- 1.23 parts per thousand, respectively, which were significantly higher than those (2.36 +/- 0.42%, and 1.92 +/- 0.31 parts per thousand) in controls (P < 0.01). It was found in the comet assay that the mean tail length (MTL) of 25 workers and 25 controls were 2.42 +/- 0.09 and 1.02 +/- 0.08 mu m, respectively, there was significant difference between workers and controls for MTL (P < 0,01), also the difference of the mean tail moment (MTM) between workers (0.85 +/- 0.05) and controls (0.30 +/- 0.09) was very significant (P < 0.01). However, in TCR gene mutation assay Mfs-TCR of workers and controls were 1.69 +/- 0.15 x 10(-4) and 1.74 +/- 0.17 x 10-4, respectively, there was no significant difference between workers and controls (P > 0.05). The results of our study indicated that the genetic damage was detectable in 25 workers occupationally exposed to lead. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据