Genotoxic and Antigenotoxic Assessment of Chios Mastic Oil by the In Vitro Micronucleus Test on Human Lymphocytes and the In Vivo Wing Somatic Test on Drosophila

被引:16
|
作者
Vlastos, Dimitris [1 ]
Drosopoulou, Elena [2 ]
Efthimiou, Ioanna [1 ]
Gavriilidis, Maximos [2 ]
Panagaki, Dimitra [2 ]
Mpatziou, Krystalenia [2 ]
Kalamara, Paraskevi [2 ]
Mademtzoglou, Despoina [2 ]
Mavragani-Tsipidou, Penelope [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Patras, Dept Environm & Nat Resources Management, Agrinion, Greece
[2] Aristotle Univ Thessaloniki, Fac Sci, Sch Biol, Dept Genet Dev & Mol Biol, Thessaloniki, Greece
来源
PLOS ONE | 2015年 / 10卷 / 06期
关键词
PISTACIA-LENTISCUS; CHEMICAL-COMPOSITION; BETA-MYRCENE; ANTIOXIDANT ACTIVITIES; RECOMBINATION TEST; MITOMYCIN-C; ANTIMICROBIAL ACTIVITY; MAJOR CONSTITUENTS; ALPHA-PINENE; SAMPLE-SIZE;
D O I
10.1371/journal.pone.0130498
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Chios mastic oil (CMO), the essential oil derived from Pistacia lentiscus (L.) var. chia (Duham), has generated considerable interest because of its antimicrobial, anticancer, antioxidant and other beneficial properties. In the present study, the potential genotoxic activity of CMO as well as its antigenotoxic properties against the mutagenic agent mitomycin-C (MMC) were evaluated by employing the in vitro Cytokinesis Block MicroNucleus (CBMN) assay and the in vivo Somatic Mutation And Recombination Test (SMART). In the in vitro experiments, lymphocytes were treated with 0.01, 0.05 and 0.10% (v/v) of CMO with or without 0.05 mu g/ml MMC, while in the in vivo assay Drosophila larvae were fed with 0.05, 0.10, 0.50 and 1.00% (v/v) of CMO with or without 2.50 mu g/ml MMC. CMO did not significantly increase the frequency of micronuclei (MN) or total wing spots, indicating lack of mutagenic or recombinogenic activity. However, the in vitro analysis suggested cytotoxic activity of CMO. The simultaneous administration of MMC with CMO did not alter considerably the frequencies of MMC-induced MN and wing spots showing that CMO doesn't exert antigenotoxic or antire-combinogenic action. Therefore, CMO could be considered as a safe product in terms of genotoxic potential. Even though it could not afford any protection against DNA damage, at least under our experimental conditions, its cytotoxic potential could be of interest.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Evaluation of the Genotoxic and Antigenotoxic Effects of Chios Mastic Water by the In Vitro Micronucleus Test on Human Lymphocytes and the In Vivo Wing Somatic Test on Drosophila
    Vlastos, Dimitris
    Mademtzoglou, Despoina
    Drosopoulou, Elena
    Efthimiou, Ioanna
    Chartomatsidou, Tatiana
    Pandelidou, Christina
    Astyrakaki, Melina
    Chalatsi, Eleftheria
    Mavragani-Tsipidou, Penelope
    PLOS ONE, 2013, 8 (07):
  • [2] Phytotherapeutic extract of Equisetum myriochaetum is not genotoxic either in the in vivo wing somatic test of Drosophila or in the in vitro human micronucleus test
    Ordaz Tellez, Maria Guadalupe
    Barcenas Rodriguez, Horacio
    Quevedo Olivares, Guillermo
    Castaneda Sortibran, America Nitxin
    Andrade Cetto, Adolfo
    Rodriguez-Arnaiz, Rosario
    JOURNAL OF ETHNOPHARMACOLOGY, 2007, 111 (01) : 182 - 189
  • [3] In vitro and in vivo evaluation of the genotoxic and antigenotoxic potential of the major Chios mastic water constituents
    Elena Drosopoulou
    Dimitris Vlastos
    Ioanna Efthimiou
    Paraskevi Kyrizaki
    Sofia Tsamadou
    Maria Anagnostopoulou
    Danai Kofidou
    Maxim Gavriilidis
    Despoina Mademtzoglou
    Penelope Mavragani-Tsipidou
    Scientific Reports, 8
  • [4] In vitro and in vivo evaluation of the genotoxic and antigenotoxic potential of the major Chios mastic water constituents
    Drosopoulou, Elena
    Vlastos, Dimitris
    Efthimiou, Ioanna
    Kyrizaki, Paraskevi
    Tsamadou, Sofia
    Anagnostopoulou, Maria
    Kofidou, Danai
    Gavriilidis, Maxim
    Mademtzoglou, Despoina
    Mavragani-Tsipidou, Penelope
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2018, 8
  • [5] Assessment of the genotoxic potential of two zinc oxide sources (amorphous and nanoparticles) using the in vitro micronucleus test and the in vivo wing somatic mutation and recombination test
    Reis, Erica de Melo
    Alves de Rezende, Alexandre Azenha
    Santos, Diego Vilela
    de Oliveria, Pollyanna Francielli
    Nicolella, Heloisa Diniz
    Tavares, Denise Crispim
    Almeida Silva, Anielle Christine
    Dantas, Noelio Oliveira
    Spano, Mario Antonio
    FOOD AND CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGY, 2015, 84 : 55 - 63
  • [6] Assessment of the genotoxic potential of essential oil constituents by the Drosophila wing spot test
    Mademtzoglou, Despoina
    Pavlidou, Theodora
    Bazioti, Maria-Georgia
    Koutsonikou, Chrysoula
    Lioulia, Elisavet
    Akmoutsou, Paraskevi
    Drosopoulou, Elena
    Vokou, Despoina
    Mavragani-Tsipidou, Penelope
    FLAVOUR AND FRAGRANCE JOURNAL, 2013, 28 (03) : 188 - 194
  • [7] Evaluation of genotoxic and antigenotoxic effects of boron by the somatic mutation and recombination test (SMART) on Drosophila
    Sarikaya, Rabia
    Erciyas, Kamile
    Kara, Muhammed Isa
    Sezer, Ufuk
    Erciyas, Ali Fuat
    Ay, Sinan
    DRUG AND CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGY, 2016, 39 (04) : 400 - 406
  • [8] Genotoxic and Antigenotoxic Potential of Momordica charantia Linn (Cucurbitaceae) in the Wing Spot Test of Drosophila melanogaster
    Guterres, Zaira Rosa
    Zanetti, Thalita Alves
    Sennes-Lopes, Tiago Felipe
    Gomes da Silva, Ana Francisca
    JOURNAL OF MEDICINAL FOOD, 2015, 18 (10) : 1136 - 1142
  • [9] Genotoxic assessment of oxcarbazepine and carbamazepine in drosophila wing spot test
    Sarikaya, Rabia
    Yuksel, Mummer
    FOOD AND CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGY, 2008, 46 (09) : 3159 - 3162
  • [10] Genotoxicity testing of Cecropia obtusifolia extracts in two in vivo assays:: The wing somatic mutation and recombination test of Drosophila and the human cytokinesis-block micronucleus test
    Toledo, Varenka Martinez
    Tellez, Maria Guadalupe Ordaz
    Sortibran, America Nitxin Castaneda
    Andrade-Cetto, Adolfo
    Rodriguez-Arnaiz, Rosario
    JOURNAL OF ETHNOPHARMACOLOGY, 2008, 116 (01) : 58 - 63