ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2016
Genotoxic potential of selected cytostatic drugs in human and zebrafish cells.
Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 65 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acute toxicity and genotoxicity assessment of environmental contaminants usingArhiv za higijenu rada i toksikologiju · 2026Article
- Genotoxic effects of association of the biogenic amines cadaverine and putrescine on the Xenopus tropicalis fibroblast cell line.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2026Article
- Environmental sustainability in gynecologic oncology.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2024Review
- Adverse Toxic Effects of Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors on Non-Target Zebrafish Liver (ZFL) Cells.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- The BRCT Domain from the Homologue of the Oncogene PES1 inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Challenges of TiOEnvironmental science and pollution research international · 2022Review
- Pharmaceutical Pollution in Aquatic Environments: A Concise Review of Environmental Impacts and Bioremediation Systems.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Review
- Development of 3D cultures of zebrafish liver and embryo cell lines: a comparison of different spheroid formation methods.Ecotoxicology (London, England) · 2021Article
- Genetic toxicity assessment using liver cell models: past, present, and future.Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part B, Critical reviews · 2020Review
- Analysis of molecular mechanisms of 5-fluorouracil-induced steatosis and inflammation in vitro and in mice.Oncotarget · 2017Article
- Fate and effects of the residues of anticancer drugs in the environment.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2016Article
- Influence of selected anti-cancer drugs on the induction of DNA double-strand breaks and changes in gene expression in human hepatoma HepG2 cells.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Due to their increasing use, the residues of anti-neoplastic drugs have become emerging pollutants in aquatic environments. Most of them directly or indirectly interfere with the cell's genome, which classifies them into a group of particularly dangerous compounds. The aim of the present study was to conduct a comparative in vitro toxicological characterisation of three commonly used cytostatics with different mechanisms of action (5-fluorouracil [5-FU], cisplatin [CDDP] and etoposide [ET]) towards zebrafish liver (ZFL) cell line, human hepatoma (HepG2) cells and human peripheral blood lymphocytes (HPBLs). Cytotoxicity was determined by 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay and acridine orange/ethidium bromide staining. All three drugs induced time- and dose-dependent decreases in cell viability. The sensitivity of ZFL and HepG2 cells towards the cytotoxicity of 5-FU was comparable (half maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) 5.3 to 10.4 μg/mL). ZFL cells were more sensitive towards ET- (IC50 0.4 μg/mL) and HepG2 towards CDDP- (IC50 1.4 μg/mL) induced cytotoxicity. Genotoxicity was determined by comet assay and cytokinesis block micronucleus (CBMN) assay. ZFL cells were the most sensitive, and HPBLs were the least sensitive. In ZFL cells, induction of DNA strand breaks was a more sensitive genotoxicity endpoint than micronuclei (MNi) induction; the lowest effective concentration (LOEC) for DNA strand break induction was 0.001 μg/mL for ET, 0.01 μg/mL for 5-FU and 0.1 μg/mL for CDDP. In HepG2 cells, MNi induction was a more sensitive genotoxicity endpoint. The LOEC values were 0.01 μg/mL for ET, 0.1 μg/mL for 5-FU and 1 μg/mL for CDDP. The higher sensitivity of ZFL cells to cytostatic drugs raises the question of the impact of such compounds in aquatic ecosystem. Since little is known on the effect of such drugs on aquatic organisms, our results demonstrate that ZFL cells provide a relevant and sensitive tool to screen genotoxic potential of environmental pollutant in the frame of hazard assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.