Butterworth B E, Smith-Oliver T, Earle L, Loury D J, White R D, Doolittle D J, Working P K, Cattley R C, Jirtle R, Michalopoulos G
Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709.
Cancer Res. 1989 Mar 1;49(5):1075-84.
Often results from toxicological studies using rodent models cannot be directly extrapolated to probable effects in human beings. In order to examine the genotoxic potential of chemicals in human liver cells, a human hepatocyte DNA repair assay has been defined. Procedures were optimized to prepare primary cultures of human hepatocytes from discarded surgical material. On eight different occasions human hepatocyte cultures of sufficient viability to measure DNA repair were successfully prepared by collagenase perfusion techniques. The cells were allowed to attach to plastic or collagen substrata for periods of 1.5 to 24 h and subsequently incubated with [3H]thymidine and test chemicals for periods of 18 to 24 h. Chemically induced DNA repair, measured as unscheduled DNA synthesis, was quantitated autoradiographically. The following compounds were tested: 2-acetylaminofluorene, aflatoxin B1, 2-aminobenzyl alcohol, aniline, benzo(a)pyrene, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, 2,4-diaminotoluene, 2,6-diaminotoluene, di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, dimethylnitrosamine, 1,6-dinitropyrene, 2,4-dinitrotoluene, 2,6-dinitrotoluene, methyl chloride, 5-methylchrysene, mono(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, 2-methyl-2-P-(1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-1-naphthyl)phenoxypropionic acid (nafenopin), beta-naphthylamine, nitrobenzene, 2-nitrobenzyl alcohol, 2-nitrotoluene, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, unleaded gasoline, and 4-chloro-6-(2,3-xylidino)-2-pyrimidinylthioacetic acid (Wy-14,643). In only one of eight cases did some of the chemicals generally regarded as genotoxic fail to give a positive response. For purposes of comparison, all test chemicals were evaluated in the in vitro rat hepatocyte DNA repair assay. Individual-to-individual variation in the DNA repair response was far greater for the human cultures than for cultures derived from rats. For only three chemicals was there a qualitative difference in the response between the rodent and the human cells; beta-naphthylamine was positive in the rat but in none of the human cultures examined, whereas the opposite was seen for 2,6-diaminotoluene and 5-methylchrysene. Clofibric acid, mono(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, and Wy-14,643 induced enzymes indicative of peroxisomal proliferation in primary rat hepatocyte cultures, but not in two human hepatocyte cultures. These results indicate that, in general, the in vitro rat hepatocyte DNA repair assay is a valid model for predicting potential genotoxic effects in human beings. However, rodent hepatocytes may not be appropriate for assessing the potential of chemicals to elicit nongenotoxic effects in human beings such as the induction of hepatocyte peroxisomal proliferation.
通常,使用啮齿动物模型进行的毒理学研究结果不能直接外推至对人类可能产生的影响。为了检测化学物质在人肝细胞中的遗传毒性潜力,已定义了一种人肝细胞DNA修复试验。对从废弃手术材料中制备人肝细胞原代培养物的程序进行了优化。通过胶原酶灌注技术,在八个不同的时间成功制备了具有足够活力以测量DNA修复的人肝细胞培养物。使细胞在塑料或胶原基质上附着1.5至24小时,随后与[3H]胸腺嘧啶核苷和测试化学物质一起孵育18至24小时。以化学诱导的DNA修复(以非预定DNA合成来衡量)通过放射自显影法定量。测试了以下化合物:2-乙酰氨基芴、黄曲霉毒素B1、2-氨基苄醇、苯胺、苯并(a)芘、四氯化碳、氯仿、2,4-二氨基甲苯、2,6-二氨基甲苯、邻苯二甲酸二(2-乙基己基)酯、二甲基亚硝胺、1,6-二硝基芘、2,4-二硝基甲苯、2,6-二硝基甲苯、氯甲烷、5-甲基屈、邻苯二甲酸单(2-乙基己基)酯、2-甲基-2-P-(1,2,3,4-四氢-萘基)苯氧基丙酸(安妥明)、β-萘胺、硝基苯、2-硝基苄醇、2-硝基甲苯、2,3,7,8-四氯二苯并-对-二恶英、无铅汽油以及4-氯-6-(2,3-二甲苯胺基)-2-嘧啶基硫代乙酸(Wy-14,643)。在八例中的仅一例中,一些通常被视为具有遗传毒性的化学物质未给出阳性反应。为作比较,所有测试化学物质均在体外大鼠肝细胞DNA修复试验中进行了评估。人培养物中DNA修复反应的个体间差异远大于大鼠来源的培养物。仅三种化学物质在啮齿动物细胞和人类细胞之间的反应存在质的差异;β-萘胺在大鼠中呈阳性,但在所检测的人类培养物中均未呈阳性,而2,6-二氨基甲苯和5-甲基屈则情况相反。氯贝酸、邻苯二甲酸单(2-乙基己基)酯和Wy-14,643在原代大鼠肝细胞培养物中诱导了指示过氧化物酶体增殖的酶,但在两种人肝细胞培养物中未诱导。这些结果表明,一般而言,体外大鼠肝细胞DNA修复试验是预测对人类潜在遗传毒性影响的有效模型。然而,啮齿动物肝细胞可能不适用于评估化学物质引发人类非遗传毒性影响(如诱导肝细胞过氧化物酶体增殖)的潜力。