Different DNA damage response of cis and trans isomers of commonly used UV filter after the exposure on adult human liver stem cells and human lymphoblastoid cells
Language English Country Netherlands Media print-electronic
Document type Journal Article
PubMed
28340478
DOI
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.043
PII: S0048-9697(17)30547-8
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- Keywords
- Adult human liver stem cells, Genotoxicity, High-throughput comet assay, Human risk assessment, Isomerization, trans/cis-EHMC,
- MeSH
- Cell Line MeSH
- Cinnamates adverse effects MeSH
- Risk Assessment MeSH
- Liver cytology MeSH
- Stem Cells drug effects MeSH
- Cosmetics adverse effects MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Lymphocytes drug effects MeSH
- DNA Damage * MeSH
- Sunscreening Agents adverse effects MeSH
- Sunlight MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Names of Substances
- Cinnamates MeSH
- ethyl 4-methoxycinnamate MeSH Browser
- Cosmetics MeSH
- Sunscreening Agents MeSH
2-ethylhexyl 4-methoxycinnamate (EHMC), used in many categories of personal care products (PCPs), is one of the most discussed ultraviolet filters because of its endocrine-disrupting effects. EHMC is unstable in sunlight and can be transformed from trans-EHMC to emergent cis-EHMC. Toxicological studies are focusing only on trans-EHMC; thus the toxicological data for cis-EHMC are missing. In this study, the in vitro genotoxic effects of trans- and cis-EHMC on adult human liver stem cells HL1-hT1 and human-derived lymphoblastoid cells TK-6 using a high-throughput comet assay were studied. TK-6 cells treated with cis-EHMC showed a high level of DNA damage when compared to untreated cells in concentrations 1.56 to 25μgmL-1. trans-EHMC showed genotoxicity after exposure to the two highest concentrations 12.5 and 25μgmL-1. The increase in DNA damage on HL1-hT1 cells induced by cis-EHMC and trans-EHMC was detected at the concentration 25μgmL-1. The No observed adverse effect level (NOAEL, mg kg-1bwday-1) was determined using a Quantitative in vitro to in vivo extrapolation (QIVIVE) approach: NOAELtrans-EHMC=3.07, NOAELcis-EHMC=0.30 for TK-6 and NOAELtrans-EHMC=26.46, NOAELcis-EHMC=20.36 for HL1-hT1. The hazard index (HI) was evaluated by comparing the reference dose (RfD, mgkg-1bwday-1) obtained from our experimental data with the chronic daily intake (CDI) of the female population. Using comet assay experimental data with the more sensitive TK-6 cells, HIcis-EHMC was 7 times higher than HItrans-EHMC. In terms of CDI, relative contributions were; dermal exposure route>oral>inhalation. According to our results we recommend the RfDtrans-EHMC=0.20 and RfDcis-EHMC=0.02 for trans-EHMC and cis-EHMC, respectively, to use for human health risk assessment. The significant difference in trans-EHMC and cis-EHMC response points to the need for toxicological reevaluation and application reassessment of both isomers in PCPs.
References provided by Crossref.org