» Articles » PMID: 33646007

Comparison of Methods Used for Evaluation of Mutagenicity/genotoxicity of Model Chemicals - Parabens

Overview
Journal Physiol Res
Specialty Physiology
Date 2021 Mar 1
PMID 33646007
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Growing worldwide efforts to replace (reduce) animal testing and to improve alternative in vitro tests which may be more efficient in terms of both time, cost and scientific validity include also genotoxicity/mutagenicity endpoints. The aim of the review article was to summarize currently available in vitro testing approaches in this field, their regulatory acceptance and recommended combinations for classification of chemicals. A study using the combination of Comet Assay performed on two cell lines and the Chromosomal Aberration test on human peripheral lymphocytes was performed with the aim to predict the genotoxic potential of selected paraben esters, serving as a model chemical group. Parabens are widely used in consumer products as preservatives and have been reported to exhibit inconclusive results in numerous genotoxicity studies. The Comet Assay identified Ethylparaben and Benzylparaben as potentially genotoxic. The Chromosomal Aberration test revealed weak genotoxic potential in case of Ethylparaben and positive genotoxicity in case of Butylparaben, Propylparaben and Isopropylparaben. The main reasons for variability seem to be limited water solubility of parabens, determining their bioavailability at the cellular level, and absence of metabolic activation in the Comet Assay. The results confirmed that the Comet Assay should serve as a screening test and should not be used as a stand-alone method for classification of genotoxicity. The weight of evidence approach in risk assessment should be supported with data generated with the use of human relevant in vitro methods based on cells / tissues of human origin.

Citing Articles

Exposure Profile and Characteristics of Parabens and Alkylphenols in Plasma among Rural Adults in Central China.

Gao Q, Huan C, Song Y, Jia Z, Cao Q, Wang C Toxics. 2023; 11(11).

PMID: 37999578 PMC: 10675222. DOI: 10.3390/toxics11110926.


Comparative Analysis of Transcriptional Responses to Genotoxic and Non-Genotoxic Agents in the Blood Cell Model TK6 and the Liver Model HepaRG.

Kreuzer K, Sprenger H, Braeuning A Int J Mol Sci. 2022; 23(7).

PMID: 35408779 PMC: 8998745. DOI: 10.3390/ijms23073420.

References
1.
Combes R, Balls M . The Three Rs--opportunities for improving animal welfare and the quality of scientific research. Altern Lab Anim. 2014; 42(4):245-59. DOI: 10.1177/026119291404200406. View

2.
Soni M, Carabin I, Burdock G . Safety assessment of esters of p-hydroxybenzoic acid (parabens). Food Chem Toxicol. 2005; 43(7):985-1015. DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2005.01.020. View

3.
Marx U, Andersson T, Bahinski A, Beilmann M, Beken S, Cassee F . Biology-inspired microphysiological system approaches to solve the prediction dilemma of substance testing. ALTEX. 2016; 33(3):272-321. PMC: 5396467. DOI: 10.14573/altex.1603161. View

4.
Soni M, Burdock G, Taylor S, Greenberg N . Safety assessment of propyl paraben: a review of the published literature. Food Chem Toxicol. 2001; 39(6):513-32. DOI: 10.1016/s0278-6915(00)00162-9. View

5.
Kimura A, Miyata A, Honma M . A combination of in vitro comet assay and micronucleus test using human lymphoblastoid TK6 cells. Mutagenesis. 2013; 28(5):583-90. DOI: 10.1093/mutage/get036. View