4.1 Article

Vanadate induces DNA strand breaks in cultured human fibroblasts at doses relevant to occupational exposure

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S1383-5718(02)00138-9

关键词

vanadium; comet assay; oxidative DNA damage; sister chromatid exchange

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To study possible genotoxic effects of occupational exposure to vanadium pentoxide, we determined DNA strand break's (with alkaline cornet assay), 8-hydroxy-2'deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG) and the frequency of sister chromatid exchange (SCE) in whole blood leukocytes or lymphocytes of 49 male workers employed in a vanadium factory in comparison to 12 non-exposed controls. In addition, vanadate has been tested in vitro to induce DNA strand breaks in whole blood cells, isolated lymphocytes and cultured human fibroblasts of healthy donors at concentrations comparable to the observed levels of vanadium in vivo. To investigate the impact of vanadate on the repair of damaged DNA, co-exposure to UV or bleomycin was used in fibroblasts, and DNA migration in the alkaline and neutral comet assay was determined. Although, exposed workers showed a significant vanadium uptake (serum: median 5.38 mug/l, range 2.18-46.35 mug/l) no increase in cytogenetic effects or oxidative DNA damage in leukocytes could be demonstrated. This was consistent with the observation that in vitro exposure of whole blood leukocytes and lymphocytes to vanadate caused no significant changes in DNA strand breaks below concentrations of 1 muM (50 mug/l). In contrast, vanadate clearly induced DNA fragmentation in cultured fibroblasts at relevant concentrations. Combined exposure of fibroblasts to vanadate/UV or vanadate/bleomycin resulted in non-repairable DNA double strand breaks (DSBs) as seen in the neutral comet assay. We conclude that exposure of human fibroblasts to vanadate effectively causes DNA strand breaks, and co-exposure of cells to other genotoxic agents may result in persistent DNA damage. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. 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

4.1
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