Guidance for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring anti-genotoxicity

Since DNA damage can occur spontaneously or be produced by the environmental genotoxins in living cells, it is important to investigate compounds that can reverse or protect DNA damage. An appropriate methodology is essential for the responsive identification of protection offered against DNA damage. This review includes information on the current state of knowledge on prokaryotic cell-based assays (SOS chromotest, umu test, vitotox assay) and cytogenetic techniques (micronucleus assay, chromosome aberration test and sister chromatid exchange assay) with an emphasis on the possibility to explore genoprotective compounds. Throughout the last decade, studies have extrapolated the scientific methodologies utilized for genotoxicity to assess genoprotective compounds. Therefore, shortcomings of genotoxicity studies are also mirrored in antigenotoxicity studies. While regulatory authorities around the world (OECD, US-EPA and ICH) continue to update diverse genotoxic assay strategies, there are still no clear guidelines/approaches for efficient experimental design to screen genoprotective compounds. As a consequence, non-synergetic and inconsistent implementation of the test method by the researchers to execute such simulations has been adopted, which inevitably results in unreliable findings. The review has made the first attempt to collect various facets of experimentally verified approaches for evaluating genoprotective compounds, as well as to acknowledge potential significance and constraints, and further focus on the assessment of end points which are required to validate such action. Henceforth, the review makes an incredible commitment by permitting readers to equate several components of their test arrangement with the provided simplified information, allowing the selection of convenient technique for the predefined compound from a central repository.

Investigation of belinostat-induced genomic instability by molecular cytogenetic analysis and pathway-focused gene expression profiling

Histone deacetylases (HDACs), which regulate transcription and specific functions such as tumor suppression by p53, are frequently altered in tumors and have a contentious role in carcinogenesis. HDAC inhibitors, which have a long history of use in psychiatry and neurology, have recently been tested as possible treatments for tumors. Belinostat received regulatory approval in the USA on July 3, 2014, for use against peripheral T-cell lymphoma. However, the unavailability of information on belinostat genotoxicity in normal cells and the molecular mechanisms involved in the genetic instability after exposure to belinostat encouraged us to conduct this study. Our data showed that the exposure of mice to belinostat at the recommended human doses induced chromosome breakage, whole-chromosome lagging, and oxidative DNA damage in bone marrow cells in a dose-dependent manner. The expression levels of 84 genes involved in the DNA damage signaling pathway were evaluated by using an RT² Profiler PCR array. Belinostat exposure altered the expression of 25 genes, with statistically significant changes observed in 17 genes. The array results were supported by RT-PCR and western blotting experiments. Collectively, our results showed that belinostat exposure caused oxidative DNA damage and downregulated the expression of genes involved in DNA damage repair, which may be responsible for belinostat-induced genomic instability. Thus, the clinical usage of this drug should be weighed against the hazards of carcinogenesis, and the observed genotoxicity profile of belinostat may support further development of efficient HDAC inhibitors with weaker genotoxicity.

Utility of Dexrazoxane for the Attenuation of Epirubicin-Induced Genetic Alterations in Mouse Germ Cells

Dexrazoxane has been approved to treat anthracycline-induced cardiomyopathy and extravasation. However, the effect of dexrazoxane on epirubicin-induced genetic alterations in germ cells has not yet been reported. Thus, the aim of this study was to determine whether dexrazoxane modulates epirubicin-induced genetic damage in the germ cells of male mice. Our results show that dexrazoxane was not genotoxic at the tested doses. Furthermore, it protected mouse germ cells against epirubicin-induced genetic alterations as detected by the reduction in disomic and diploid sperm, spermatogonial chromosomal aberrations, and abnormal sperm heads. The attenuating effect of dexrazoxane was greater at higher dose, indicating a dose-dependent effect. Moreover, sperm motility and count were ameliorated by dexrazoxane pretreatment. Epirubicin induced marked biochemical changes characteristic of oxidative DNA damage including elevated 8-hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosine levels and reduction in reduced glutathione. Pretreatment of mice with dexrazoxane before epirubicin challenge restored these altered endpoints. We conclude that dexrazoxane may efficiently mitigate the epirubicin insult in male germ cells, and prevent the enhanced risk of abnormal reproductive outcomes and associated health risks. Thus, pretreating patients with dexrazoxane prior to epirubicin may efficiently preserve not only sperm quality but also prevent the transmission of genetic damage to future generations.