Bryce Steven M, Avlasevich Svetlana L, Conrad Adam, Hall Nikki E, Tichenor Kyle, Briggs Erica, Dertinger Stephen D, Bemis Jeffrey C
Litron Laboratories, Rochester, New York, USA.
Environ Mol Mutagen. 2025 Jun;66(5):280-290. doi: 10.1002/em.70017. Epub 2025 May 23.
This laboratory has reported that the combined use of In Vitro MicroFlow and MultiFlow assays provides information regarding chemicals' genotoxic mode of action (MoA). In an effort to go beyond MoA assessments, we incorporated a panel of biological response modifiers that elicit specific effects on the assays' biomarker response profiles. This was done to pursue our hypothesis that such perturbation signatures would reveal information on clastogenic mechanisms and molecular targets. For this proof-of-concept study, we exposed TK6 cells to 20 known clastogens. Cells were exposed in 96-well plates in the presence and absence of each of four modifying agents at one optimized concentration: talazoparib (PARP inhibitor), MK-8776 (CHK1 inhibitor), AZD-7648 (DNA-PK inhibitor), or a cocktail of reactive oxygen species scavengers. In parallel, cells were also exposed to each of the test chemicals for 4 h, at which time cells were washed and allowed to recover for an additional 20 h. For each of these treatment conditions, sample processing and flow cytometric analyses were performed using standard In Vitro MicroFlow and MultiFlow procedures to measure micronuclei, γH2AX, phosphohistone-H3 (p-H3), p53 activation, and relative nuclei counts. The resulting biomarker response data were processed with PROAST benchmark dose (BMD) software, with modifying agent as a covariate. Unsupervised hierarchical clustering of the collective potency metrics for various combinations of biomarkers showed that clastogens with similar genotoxic mechanisms grouped together. Overall, this study shows that in combination with biological response modifiers, MultiFlow and In Vitro MicroFlow biomarkers can provide mechanistic insights into chemical-induced genotoxicity.
本实验室报告称,体外微流和多流检测的联合使用可提供有关化学物质遗传毒性作用模式(MoA)的信息。为了超越作用模式评估,我们纳入了一组生物反应调节剂,这些调节剂对检测的生物标志物反应谱产生特定影响。这样做是为了验证我们的假设,即这种扰动特征将揭示有关致断裂机制和分子靶点的信息。在这项概念验证研究中,我们将TK6细胞暴露于20种已知的致断裂剂中。细胞在96孔板中暴露,分别在存在和不存在四种修饰剂之一的情况下,以一种优化浓度进行暴露:他拉唑帕尼(PARP抑制剂)、MK-8776(CHK1抑制剂)、AZD-7648(DNA-PK抑制剂)或活性氧清除剂混合物。同时,细胞也暴露于每种测试化学物质中4小时,此时细胞被洗涤并再恢复20小时。对于这些处理条件中的每一种,使用标准的体外微流和多流程序进行样品处理和流式细胞术分析,以测量微核、γH2AX、磷酸化组蛋白H3(p-H3)、p53激活和相对核计数。所得的生物标志物反应数据使用PROAST基准剂量(BMD)软件进行处理,将修饰剂作为协变量。对各种生物标志物组合的集体效力指标进行无监督层次聚类分析表明,具有相似遗传毒性机制的致断裂剂聚集在一起。总体而言,本研究表明,与生物反应调节剂相结合,多流和体外微流生物标志物可为化学诱导的遗传毒性提供机制性见解。