应用Ames波动试验比较4种马兜铃酸组分的致突变作用

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-616x.2016.05.013

癌变·畸变·突变 ›› 2016, Vol. 28 ›› Issue (5): 398-402.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-616x.2016.05.013

应用Ames波动试验比较4种马兜铃酸组分的致突变作用

曹易懿¹, 刘倩², 奚晶¹, 马雷雷¹, 刘晓健³, 栾洋¹

1. 上海交通大学医学院虹桥国际医学研究院/公共卫生学院, 上海 200025;
2. 上海诗丹德生物技术有限公司, 上海 201203;
3. 复旦大学附属肿瘤医院肿瘤内科, 复旦大学上海医学院肿瘤学系, 上海 200032

收稿日期:2016-01-06 修回日期:2016-07-05 出版日期:2016-09-30 发布日期:2016-09-30
通讯作者: 栾洋,E-mail:yluan@sjtu.edu.cn;刘晓健,E-mail:lxj068@hotmail.com E-mail:yluan@sjtu.edu.cn;lxj068@hotmail.com
作者简介:曹易懿,E-mail:yycao@shsmu.edu.cn

Comparative evaluation of mutagenicity of four aristolochic acids components using the Ames fluctuation test

CAO Yiyi¹, LIU Qian², XI Jing¹, MA Leilei¹, LIU Xiaojian³, LUAN Yang¹

1. Hongqiao International Institute of Medicine, Faculty of Public Health, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025;
2. Shanghai Nature Standard R & D and Biotech Co. Ltd., Shanghai 201203;
3. Department of Medical Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China

Received:2016-01-06 Revised:2016-07-05 Online:2016-09-30 Published:2016-09-30

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的：比较4种马兜铃酸组分（AA-I、AA-Ⅱ、AA-Ⅲ和AA-IV）的致突变作用，初步考察其毒性作用与分子结构之间的关系。方法：应用鼠伤寒沙门氏菌TA98和TA100菌株对马兜铃酸4个组分采用Ames波动试验方法在非代谢活化（-S9）和代谢活化（+S9）条件下进行细菌回复突变试验。结果：试验结果显示，AA-I与AA-Ⅱ在-S9和+S9条件下对TA98和/或TA100菌株的回复突变孔数与阴性对照组相比明显增加，差异具有统计学意义（P<0.05）。AA-Ⅱ的回复突变孔数呈剂量依赖性增加，且在多个剂量下回复突变孔数超过基线值的倍数大于AA-I。AA-Ⅲ和AA-IV对2株菌株的回复突变孔数未见明显增加，但AA-IV在+S9条件下对TA100菌株在各个剂量下的回复突变孔数呈剂量依赖性增加。结论：AA-I和AA-Ⅱ均显示出较强的致突变作用，且AA-Ⅱ致突变作用强于AA-I。AA-IV在+S9条件下可能有潜在的致突变作用；AA-Ⅲ对2株菌株均未见致突变作用。4种马兜铃酸组分的致突变毒性程度不同，认为可能与其化学结构及代谢特征不同有关。

关键词: 马兜铃酸, Ames波动试验, 遗传毒性, 致突变

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To compare the mutagenicity among four components of aristolochic acid (AA-I,AA-Ⅱ,AA-Ⅲ and AA-IV) using the Ames fluctuation test,and to evaluate the relationship between toxicity mechanisms and molecular structures of aristolochic acid. METHODS: Two Salmonella typhimurium tester strains (TA98 and TA100) were employed to perform the Ames fluctuation test in the absence and presence of the S9 exogenous metabolic activation system. RESULTS: The mean number of revertant wells of AA-I and AA-Ⅱ were significantly increased in tester strains TA98 and/or TA100,with and without S9 (P<0.05). AA-Ⅱ showed a clear dose-response increase and the fold inductions in mean number of revertant wells over the baseline of AA-Ⅱ and more than AA-I. Both AA-Ⅲ and AA-IV did not induce significant increase with the two test strains,but AA-IV showed a trend of dose-response increase. CONCLUSION: AA-I and AA-Ⅱ were mutagenic with or without metabolic activation,and the mutagenicity of AA-Ⅱ was stronger than that of AA-I. AA-IV demonstrated mutagenicity with metabolic activation. AA-Ⅲ did not show mutagenicity in the two tester strains. The four aristolochic acids exhibited different levels of mutagenicity which might be due to their different structural and metabolic characteristics.

Key words: aristolochic acid, Ames fluctuation test, genotoxicity, mutagenicity

中图分类号:

R394.6

曹易懿, 刘倩, 奚晶, 马雷雷, 刘晓健, 栾洋. 应用Ames波动试验比较4种马兜铃酸组分的致突变作用[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2016, 28(5): 398-402.

CAO Yiyi, LIU Qian, XI Jing, MA Leilei, LIU Xiaojian, LUAN Yang. Comparative evaluation of mutagenicity of four aristolochic acids components using the Ames fluctuation test[J]. Carcinogenesis, Teratogenesis & Mutagenesis, 2016, 28(5): 398-402.

参考文献

[1] Lord GM,Tagore R,Cook T,et al.Nephropathy caused by Chinese herbs in the UK[J].The Lancet,1999,354(9177):481-482.
[2] Okada M.Chinese-herb nephropathy[J].The Lancet,1999,354(9191):1732.
[3] Laing C,Hamour S,Sheaff M,et al.Chinese herbal uropathy and nephropathy[J].The Lancet,2006,368(9532):338.
[4] Grant A,Ma B-Y,Chen HY. "Chinese herbal uropathy and nephropathy"?[J].The Lancet,2006,368(9545):1416.
[5] Debelle FD,Vanherweghem JL,Nortier JL.Aristolochic acid nephropathy:a worldwide problem[J].Kidney Int,2008,74(2):158-169.
[6] Grollman AP,Jelakovic B.Role of environmental toxins in endemic (Balkan) nephropathy.October 2006,Zagreb,Croatia[J].J Am Soc Nephrol,2007,18(11):2817-2823.
[7] Stiborova M,Frei E,Arlt VM,et al.Metabolic activation of carcinogenic aristolochic acid,a risk factor for Balkan endemic nephropathy[J].Mutat Res,2008,658(1-2):55-67.
[8] De Broe ME.Chinese herbs nephropathy and Balkan endemic nephropathy:toward a single entity,aristolochic acid nephro-pathy[J].Kidney Int,2012,81(6):513-515.
[9] Chen CH,Dickman KG,Moriya M,et al.Aristolochic acid-associated urothelial cancer in Taiwan[J].Proc Natl Acad Sci USA,2012,109(21):8241-8246.
[10] Chen CH,Dickman KG,Huang CY,et al.Aristolochic acid-induced upper tract urothelial carcinoma in Taiwan:clinical characteristics and outcomes[J].Int J Cancer,2013,133(1):14-20.
[11] Attaluri S,Bonala RR,Yang IY,et al.DNA adducts of aristolochic acid Ⅱ:total synthesis and site-specific muta-genesis studies in mammalian cells[J].Nucleic Acids Res,2010,38(1):339-352.
[12] Nortier JL,Martinez MC,Schmeiser HH,et al.Urothelial carcinoma associated with the use of a Chinese herb (Aristolochia fangchi)[J].New Engl J Med,2000,342(23):1686-1692.
[13] Arlt VM,Alunni-Perret V,Quatrehomme G,et al.Aristolochic acid (AA)-DNA adduct as marker of AA exposure and risk factor for AA nephropathy-associated cancer[J].Int J Cancer,2004,111(6):977-980.
[14] Mei N,Arlt VM,Phillips DH,et al.DNA adduct formation and mutation induction by aristolochic acid in rat kidney and liver[J].Mutat Res,2006,602(1/2):83-91.
[15] Wooltorton E.Several Chinese herbal products may contain toxic aristolochic acid[J].CMAJ,2004,171(5):449.
[16] Shibutani S,Dong H,Suzuki N,et al.Selective toxicity of aristolochic acids I and Ⅱ[M].Drug Metab Dispos,2007:1217-1222.
[17] Wu K,Jiang L,Cao J,et al.Genotoxic effect and nitrative DNA damage in HepG2 cells exposed to aristolochic acid[J].Mutat Res,2007,630(1/2):97-102.
[18] Yeh YH,Lee YT,Hsieh HS,et al.Short-term toxicity of aristolochic acid,aristolochic acid-I and aristolochic acid-Ⅱ in rats[J].Food Chem Toxicol,2008,46(3):1157-1163.
[19] Zhao ZZ,Liang ZT,Jiang ZH,et al.Comparative study on the aristolochic acid I content of Herba Asarifor safe use[J].Phytomedicine,2008,15(9):741-748.
[20] Fluckiger-Isler S,Baumeister M,Braun K,et al.Assessment of the performance of the Ames Ⅱ assay:a collaborative study with 19 coded compounds[J].Mutat Res,2004,558(1/2):181-197.
[21] Kamber M,Fluckiger-Isler S,Engelhardt G,et al.Comparison of the Ames Ⅱ and traditional Ames test responses with respect to mutagenicity,strain specificities,need for metabolism and correlation with rodent carcinogenicity[J].Mutagenesis,2009,24(4):359-366.
[22] Piegorsch WW,Simmons SJ,Margolin BH,et al.Statistical modeling and analyses of a base-specific Salmonella mutagenicity assay[J].Mutat Res,2000,467(1):11-19.
[23] Bougeard C,Gallampois C,Brack W.Passive dosing:an approach to control mutagen exposure in the Ames fluctuation test[J].Chemosphere,2011,83(4):409-414.
[24] Reifferscheid G,Maes HM,Allner B,et al.International round-robin study on the Ames fluctuation test[J].Environ Mol Mutagen,2012,53(3):185-197.
[25] 邹琳,潘秀颉,吴维佳,等.微量波动Ames试验在卷烟烟气毒理学评价中的应用研究.[J].湖南农业科学,2010,11:8-48.
[26] 宋芬,李彤,徐良品,等.微量波动试验方法的研究[J].中国公共卫生学报,1990,9(1):39-40.
[27] International Organization for Standardization.ISO 113502012:Water quality-determination of the genotoxicity of water and waste water-Salmonella/microsome fluctuation test (Ames fluctuation test)[S/OL].[2016-07-05].http://www.iso.org.
[28] Jelakovic B,Karanovic S,Vukovic-Lela I,et al.Aristolactam-DNA adducts are a biomarker of environmental exposure to aristolochic acid[J].Kidney Int,2012,81(6):559-567.
[29] Sidorenko VS,Yeo JE,Bonala RR,et al.Lack of recognition by global-genome nucleotide excision repair accounts for the high mutagenicity and persistence of aristolactam-DNA adducts[J].Nucleic Acids Res,2012,40(6):2494-2505.
[30] Slade N,Moll UM,Brdar B,et al.p53 mutations as fingerprints for aristolochic acid:an environmental carcinogen in endemic (Balkan) nephropathy[J].Mutat Res,2009,663(1/2):1-6.
[31] Xing G,Qi X,Chen M,et al.Comparison of the mutagenicity of aristolochic acid I and aristolochic acid Ⅱ in the gpt delta transgenic mouse kidney[J].Mutat Res,2012,743(1/2):52-58.
[32] ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline (M7).Assessment and control of DNA reactive (mutagenic) impurities in pharma-ceuticals to limit potential carcinogenic risk[EB/OL].[2014-07-23].htte://www.ich.org.

应用Ames波动试验比较4种马兜铃酸组分的致突变作用

Comparative evaluation of mutagenicity of four aristolochic acids components using the Ames fluctuation test

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	杨玉, 黄雅理, 林飞, 汤龙. 抗肿瘤血清胸腺因子9肽的急性毒性和遗传毒性[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2022, 34(1): 57-61.
[2]	杜秀明, 洪丽玲, 徐灵芝, 周庆云. 采用体外染色体畸变试验检测锐钛型纳米二氧化钛的遗传毒性[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2022, 34(1): 67-71.
[3]	葛宪民, 李彬, 黄超培, 高玉秋, 罗海兰, 杨慧, 王彦武, 温平镜, 蓝光华, 陈欢欢, 孟琴, 罗柳红, 邓月琴, 刘帅凤, 吴秀玲. 抗HIV药物齐夫多定、拉夫米定和克力芝联合用药的急性经口毒性和致突变作用[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2021, 33(6): 466-469,474.
[4]	蔡绮, 高德煜, 史建峰, 于浩, 韩妍, 杨柳, 赵蕾, 王召旭. 以树鼩为微核试验新型动物模型的初步研究[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2021, 33(5): 370-374,382.
[5]	敬海明, 李国君, 宁钧宇. 苯丙(a)蒽的毒性研究进展[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2021, 33(2): 149-152.
[6]	黄超培, 覃辉艳, 张陆娟, 王彦武, 何励, 傅伟忠. 黑果腺肋花楸提取物的急性毒性和致突变性研究[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2020, 32(6): 474-476.
[7]	周长慧, 韩天娇, 黄鹏程, 马璟, 常艳. 大鼠多器官彗星试验方法的验证研究[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2020, 32(3): 233-237.
[8]	霍娇, 朱雪娇, 曾珠, 刘运杰, 陈锦瑶, 张立实. 定量遗传毒性风险评估研究进展[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2020, 32(2): 155-158,161.
[9]	曹易懿, 刘维映, 尤馨悦, 奚晶, 陈瑞雪, 张新宇, 栾洋. 多溴联苯醚BDE-3、BDE-47和BDE-209的体外遗传毒性评价[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2020, 32(1): 15-20,28.
[10]	王全凯, 谢广云, 马顺鹏, 郭浩然, 乌瀚宝栎尔, 宋佳阳, 许建宁. 甲基丙烯酸环氧丙酯的遗传毒性评价[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2019, 31(6): 479-482.
[11]	郑凯, 王冰玉, 徐新云, 耿红, 黄海燕, 刘威, 龙鼎新. 深圳和太原PM_2.5样品致突变作用研究[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2019, 31(6): 483-487.
[12]	陈高峰, 王亚楠, 王丹, 毛志慧, 黄芝瑛, 文海若, 王雪. Pig-a基因突变试验研究进展[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2019, 31(6): 492-497.
[13]	唐娇, 杨颖, 李庆, 赵敏, 杨杏芬. 利用中国仓鼠肺细胞体外微核试验评价三七提取液的遗传毒性[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2019, 31(5): 397-400.
[14]	王亚楠, 文海若, 王雪. 遗传毒性基因突变评价方法的研究进展[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2019, 31(5): 406-411.
[15]	李若婉, 周长慧, 黄鹏程, 常艳. 基于TK6细胞的体外PIG-A基因突变检测方法的建立[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2019, 31(3): 242-248.