francisco cytotoxic and genotoxic …...effects of cadmium in human osteoblasts cell line mg-63....

Universidade de Aveiro

2011

Departamento de Biologia

FRANCISCO CARVALHO VIEIRA PINHO

CYTOTOXIC AND GENOTOXIC EFFECTS OF CADMIUM IN HUMAN OSTEOBLASTS EFEITOS CITOTÓXICOS E GENOTÓXICOS DO CÁDMIO EM OSTEOBLASTOS HUMANOS

Universidade de Aveiro

2011

Departamento de Biologia

FRANCISCO CARVALHO VIEIRA PINHO

CYTOTOXIC AND GENOTOXIC EFFECTS OF CADMIUM IN HUMAN OSTEOBLASTS EFEITOS CITOTÓXICOS E GENOTÓXICOS DO CÁDMIO EM OSTEOBLASTOS HUMANOS

Dissertação apresentada à Universidade de Aveiro para cumprimento dos requisitos necessários à obtenção do grau de Mestre em Biologia Aplicada – Ramo de Biologia Molecular e Celular, realizada sob a orientação científica da Doutora Helena Cristina Correia de Oliveira, Estagiária de Pós-Doutoramento do Departamento de Biologia da Universidade de Aveiro e sob co-orientação da Prof. Doutora Maria da Conceição Lopes Vieira dos Santos, Professora Associada com agregação do Departamento de Biologia da Universidade de Aveiro.

o júri president / presidente members / vogais

Prof. Doutor João António de Almeida Serôdio professor auxiliar do Departamento de Biologia da Universidade de Aveiro Prof. Doutor Francisco Manuel Pereira Peixoto (Arguente Principal) professor auxiliar com agregação, Departamento de Química, Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro Doutora Helena Cristina Correia de Oliveira (Orientadora) investigadora pós-doutoramento, CESAM - Centro de Estudos do Ambiente e do Mar, Universidade de Aveiro Prof. Doutora Maria Da Conceição Lopes Vieira dos Santos (Co-Orientadora), professora associada com agregação, Departamento de Biologia da Universidade de Aveiro

agradecimentos A realização da Dissertação na Universidade de Aveiro marca uma etapa especial da minha vida. Todas as vivências nesta cidade, as pessoas que conheci e todo o convívio que daí adveio, marcaram esta fase de crescimento pessoal e académico-profissional. Por este motivo, começo por agradecer especialmente à Prof. Doutora Maria da Conceição Lopes Vieira dos Santos, por me ter recebido no seu laboratório. Agradeço-lhe ter-me proporcionado bons momentos de discussão de ideias, bons momentos de inspiração e bons momentos sobre algumas lições de vida. E ainda, como co-orientadora agradecer-lhe-ei sempre todo o apoio prestado e por me ter colocado sob a alçada da Doutora Helena Cristina Correia de Oliveira que orientou o trabalho desenvolvido. Deste modo, à Doutora Helena, agradeço veementemente, em particular por toda a sua paciência e todo o apoio ao longo do meu percurso. Assim, é com sinceridade que agradeço tudo que aprendi até agora a trabalhar nesta equipa. No laboratório tive oportunidade de fazer bons amigos e descobrir companheiros. Desta forma tenho que agradecer ao Ricardo Costa (a quem desejo os meus sinceros votos de sucesso e felicidade e a quem espero voltar a ver no laboratório a fazer trypan blue e muito mais), ao Tiago Pedrosa e ao Pedro Pinto por toda a amizade e camaradagem ao longo da saga da Dissertação nos bons e maus momentos. A todos os colegas, não posso deixar de agradecer o seu simpático acolhimento e assistência prestada em diversas ocasiões. Quero ainda agradecer a uma amiga especial e de longa data, Mariana Santos Moreda Graça, pela sua amizade e ajuda, desde sempre e, no apoio à chegada a esta cidade. Não esqueço também, a Mónica Ferreira e o Eurico Pedrosa, pela sua boa amizade e agradáveis momentos passados juntos. Em especial, a uma pessoa bela e excecional, tanto na sua forma de ser e de estar, como pela sua inteligência e companheirismo, mas também, pelo seu rigor e competência académico-profissional, agradeço assim, à Maria Cristina Monteiro. Finalmente, dedico esta Dissertação a uma pessoa muito importante. Por todo o apoio incondicional, sem a qual nada teria sido possível, expresso uma enorme gratidão. Por isto e por muito mais na minha vida, à minha Mãe o meu eterno “muito obrigado”.

“Tudo o que o homem não conhece não existe para ele. Por isso o mundo tem, para cada um, o tamanho que abrange o seu conhecimento."

Carlos Bernardo González Pecotche

keywords

Cadmium, MG-63 cell line, cell proliferation / viability, cell cycle, DNA damage, flow cytometry, comet assay

abstract

Due to industrialization, cadmium has been increasingly accumulated in soil, water and air, and consequently the food chain, thus, being responsible for many diseases. In humans, damages to several organs and carcinogenic effects take place. However, the mechanisms underlying the bone diseases remain unknown, and so, this work aims to evaluate cytotoxic and genotoxic effects of cadmium in human osteoblasts cell line MG-63. Cells were exposed to 0 µM, 20 µM and 50 µM CdCl2 for 24 and 48 hours. Cell proliferation / viability was determined by the MTT assay, cell cycle effects were evaluated by flow cytometry, and DNA damage was assessed by the comet assay. After both times of exposure, cell viability decreased in both cadmium doses, although cell cycle progression alterations were not detected. However, cadmium lead to clastogenic effects and DNA damage in cells exposed to the cadmium dose of 50 µM, for 48 h. In conclusion, at 20 µM and 50 µM and for the periods tested cadmium chloride induced cytotoxic and genotoxic effects on MG-63 cell line, as it decreased cell viability, induced DNA damage and clastogenicity, though it did not change cell cycle progression.

palavras-chave

Cádmio, linha celular MG-63, proliferação / viabilidade celular, ciclo celular, danos no ADN, citometria de fluxo, ensaio de cometas

resumo

Devido à industrialização, a contaminação ambiental por metais como o cádmio tem aumentado no solo, água e ar. Consequentemente, a cadeia alimentar é afetada e, desta forma, o cádmio surge como agente carcinogénico e como causador de algumas doenças relacionadas com lesões em vários órgãos. Contudo, os mecanismos subjacentes a doenças ósseas ainda não se encontram totalmente desvendados, e assim neste trabalho, pretende-se avaliar os efeitos citotóxicos e genotóxicos do cádmio em osteoblastos humanos, na linha celular MG-63. As células foram expostas a 0 µM, 20 µM e 50 µM de cloreto de cádmio durante 24 e 48 horas. A proliferação / viabilidade celular foi avaliada pelo ensaio MTT, os efeitos na progressão do ciclo celular por foram avaliados por citometria de fluxo e os danos no DNA pelo ensaio de cometas. Após ambos os tempos de exposição a 20 µM e 50 µM de cloreto de cádmio, as células sofreram uma diminuição da viabilidade celular e não foram observadas alterações na progressão do ciclo celular. No entanto, o cádmio conduziu a efeitos clastogénicos e danos no DNA em células expostas à concentração de 50 µM, após 48 h de exposição. Concluindo, as concentrações 20 µM e 50 µM de cloreto de cádmio para os períodos testados, induziram efeitos citotóxicos e genotóxicos nas células da linha MG-63, dado que conduziram a uma diminuição da sua viabilidade, danos no DNA e clastogenicidade, não havendo, contudo, alterações na progressão do ciclo celular.

CYTOTOXIC AND GENOTOXIC EFFECTS OF CADMIUM IN HUMAN OSTEOBLASTS

Master in Applied Biology – Molecular and Cellular Biology I

Index

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Metals ...................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1.1. Essential and non-essential metals ................................................................................... 1

1.1.2. “Heavy metals – a meaningless term?” ............................................................................ 1

1.2. Cadmium: an environmental contaminant .............................................................................. 2

1.3. Cadmium exposure and human diseases ................................................................................. 2

1.4. Cadmium, cell disturbances and cancer .................................................................................. 4

1.4.1. Oxidative stress ................................................................................................................ 4

1.4.2. Oxidative stress and cadmium induced carcinogenicity .................................................. 5

1.4.3. Molecular mechanisms ..................................................................................................... 7

1.5. Toxicity assessment................................................................................................................. 8

1.5.1. Cytotoxicity ...................................................................................................................... 8

1.5.2. Genotoxicity ..................................................................................................................... 8

1.5.3. In vitro assays and the 3Rs ............................................................................................... 9

1.5.4. MG-63 cell line ................................................................................................................ 9

1.5.5. Biomarkers ..................................................................................................................... 10

1.5.5.1. Cell proliferation / viability ..................................................................................... 10

1.5.5.2. Cell cycle analysis ................................................................................................... 10

1.5.5.3. DNA damage ............................................................................................................ 14

1.6. Aims of Dissertation.............................................................................................................. 16

2. Materials and Methods ................................................................................................................. 17

2.1. MG-63 osteoblast cell line culture ........................................................................................ 17

2.2. Cell recovery / thawing ......................................................................................................... 17

2.3. Trypsinization ....................................................................................................................... 18

2.4. Cadmium Exposure ............................................................................................................... 18

2.5. Confluence, cell morphology and contaminations ................................................................ 19

2.6. Cell proliferation and viability– MTT Assay ........................................................................ 19

2.7. Cell cycle analysis – Flow Cytometry ................................................................................... 20

2.8. DNA damage – Comet Assay ............................................................................................... 21

2.9. Statistical Analysis ................................................................................................................ 22


Master in Applied Biology – Molecular and Cellular Biology

II

3. Results .......................................................................................................................................... 23

3.1. Confluence and morphology ................................................................................................. 23

3.2. Proliferation / viability assessment – MTT Assay ................................................................ 24

3.3. Cell cycle analysis – Flow Cytometry ................................................................................... 25

3.4. DNA damage – Comet assay ................................................................................................. 28

4. Discussion .................................................................................................................................... 30

5. Conclusions and future perspectives ............................................................................................ 34

6. References .................................................................................................................................... 35


Master in Applied Biology – Molecular and Cellular Biology 1

1. Introduction

1.1. Metals

1.1.1. Essential and non-essential metals

Life itself requires metals as nutrients, which despite needed at trace levels are

essential for maintaining biological functions. These elements are present in the organisms

and are often in soluble forms, or generally associated with proteins that require their

presence to be fully functional. However, humans have also been increasingly exposed to

these essential and other non essential metals, as cadmium, since the industrial

revolution (1).

1.1.2. “Heavy metals – a meaningless term?”

In 2002, the International Union Of Pure And Applied Chemistry – IUPAC –

released a Technical Report prepared for publication by John H. Duffus (2). On the subject

matter it presented a review concluding that the use of terms such as “heavy metals”

should be kept aside because there is no terminological or scientific basis for its use. It is

also argued that a novel classification is needed. One based on their chemical properties to

allow prediction and interpretation of biochemical basis for toxicity in a rational way. As

an example, there is the known Lewis acid properties, that for their affinity for phosphate

groups and nonoxygen centers in membranes, allows the prediction that borderline and

Class B ions similar in size to calcium (II) ions are likely to cause harmful membrane

structural changes. This way, toxicity testing could be minimized for metals and their

compounds since chemical biological knowledge will allow several toxic effects to be

predicted (2).



1.2. Cadmium: an environmental contaminant

Due to anthropogenic activities, metals have widely become environmental

pollutants and cadmium is no exception, by being utilized in the manufacture of plastic,

batteries, pigments and alloys, solders and electroplating (3,4). Soil, water and air have

been affected and, consequently, the food chain. Therefore, cadmium was designated as

“priority substance” by the European Comission (5) and by the Environmental Protection

Agency (6). This metal has been classified as a human carcinogen (group 1) by the

International Agency for Research on Cancer (7).

1.3. Cadmium exposure and human diseases

Cadmium exposure can be classified as chronic or acute. Acute exposure mainly

occurs as occupational hazards (inhaled smoke and dust, or ingestion). On the other hand,

chronic exposure occurs, in general, by air, water and by food. One of the most frequent

forms of intoxication derives from soil contamination of tobacco plant fields, mostly due to

cadmium absorption by the tobacco plant (8). Cadmium concentrations in leaves can vary

between 0 and 6.78 µg/g and each cigarette may contain 1 to 2 µg of cadmium in dry

weight. About 40% to 60% of cadmium present on inhaled smoke reaches systemic

circulation through pulmonary epithelium (8).

This way cadmium finally accumulates in the human body giving rise to health

problems, as it is not biodegradable and has a long biological half-life (9). Damage to

kidneys, liver and lungs have been associated with cadmium exposure as well as cancer

and bone disease (3,10,11). The public awareness and concern about cadmium toxicity

increased, when an outbreak in Japan reported people suffering from renal dysfunction and

osteomalacia after being exposed. People living by Jinzu river basin (see Fig.1 A, B) were

affected because of the water and rice fields industrial dumps contamination (11). This

condition designated by Itai-Itai disease “ouch-ouch” (see Fig.1 C) is a hurting result of

chronic cadmium intoxication (12).



Fig.1 – Jinzu river basin (A, B). Patient suffering from long-term exposure to cadmium (C), adapted (13).

Besides its toxicity per se, cadmium may also have other indirect effects: for

example, it may accumulate in liver leading mostly to acute damages; also its accumulation

in kidneys and intestines results in organ malfunction eventually having negative impacts

in bone homeostasis (14,15). The accumulation of cadmium in the reproductive organs /

system and its effects in fertility are also well documented (4). Some of the main effects of

cadmium in the human body are briefly summarized in Fig.2 (16).

Fig.2 – Cadmium exposure effects in the human body, adapted (16).

http://www.occup-med.com/content/1/1/22/figure/F2



1.4. Cadmium, cell disturbances and cancer

Among the several diseases that cadmium may induce, its carcinogenic potential is

described (17). However, still remains unclear the pathways in which cadmium may

disturb cell function in order to induce carcinogenicity. Apparently this may involve direct

or indirect mechanisms (18).

In the indirect mechanisms, cadmium induction of reactive oxygen species (ROS)

in the cell, leading to oxidative stress may be one of the most important. For example, it is

described that cadmium may lead to the depletion of the antioxidant defense activity like

glutathione, and inhibit several DNA repair mechanisms (19).

1.4.1. Oxidative stress

There are three ways in which oxidative stress is imposed in cells: rise of oxidant

species generation, antioxidant defense decrease and / or stoppage / decrease of oxidative

damage repair. ROS contemplate either free radicals, reactive anions (or other molecules)

containing oxygen atoms, or other species that can produce free radicals or can be

chemically activated by them. For instance, there is the hydroxyl radical, superoxide,

hydrogen peroxide, and peroxynitrite. Aerobic respiration is the in vivo main source of

ROS. However, several other processes lead to their production, such as peroxisomal-

oxidation of fatty acids, microsomal cytochrome P450 metabolism of xenobiotic

compounds, stimulation of phagocytosis by pathogens or lipopolysaccharides, arginine

metabolism, or even tissue specific enzymes (20). The major injuries to cells come from

ROS-induced modifications of macromolecules like polyunsaturated fatty acids in

membrane lipids, proteins and DNA, which, in turn, under homeostatic conditions, are

prevented by a battery of antioxidative mechanisms. In particular, these mechanisms relay

on the activities of enzymes such as superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT) and

glutathione reductase (GR), or peroxidase (POX) that metabolize them, therefore liberating

the cell from their effects. Other conditions such as Alzheimer´s disease, Parkinson’s

disease, cancer and aging have also been linked to oxidative stress (20–22). Fig.3

illustrates the general mechanisms involved in oxidative stress in the cell.

Pedrosa et al. (23) demonstrated that cadmium may affect some of the pathways evidenced



in this figure, namely by stimulating SOD, CAT, and inhibiting GR in the oxidative stress

pathway.

Fig.3 – Brief description of main mechanisms involved in oxidative stress in the cell. Green and red boxes

highlights, correspond to the pathways demonstrated to be affected by cadmium in MG-63 cell line (23).

ROS – reactive oxigen species, SOD – superoxide dismutase, CAT – catalase, APX – ascorbate peroxidase,

Asa – ascorbic acid, MDHA – monodehydroascorbate, MDHAR – monodehydroascorbate reductase, DHA –

dehydroascorbate, DHAR – dehydroascorbate reductase, GSH – reduced glutathione, GSSG – oxidised

glutathione, NAD(P)H – reduced nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (phosphate), NAD(P)+ – oxidized

nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (phosphate), GR – glutathione reductase, GPX – glutathione peroxidase.

1.4.2. Oxidative stress and cadmium induced carcinogenicity

The general model of oxidative stress network regulation was pointed out in the

latter topic. However, cadmium implication in oxidative stress is quite a challenge yet.

Cadmium has been demonstrated by several studies to cause cancer (7). The effects of

cadmium exposure have been under study for a long time and there is an increasing data

outlining the concern in the global impact of its toxicity in organs and at the cell level, both

in vivo and in vitro, especially its carcinogenicity. Currently, a main focus relies on the

conditions of toxicity at low levels of exposure. Cadmium interacts differently with cells

according to the doses of exposure and according to the cell type / organ resistance. Most

important, cadmium exerts its effects by several ways, in particular by multiple

mechanisms of genotoxicity (all leading to impairments and ultimately cancer). As



considered by Hartwig (18), the most promising hypothesis for cadmium induced

genotoxicity involves indirect mechanisms. There is an increased formation of ROS,

interactions with the DNA damage response system (DNA repair processes, cell cycle

control and apoptosis), and epigenetic changes like alterations in DNA methylation

patterns that cause genomic instability.

Under physiological conditions cadmium does not participate in redox reactions,

but oxidative stress related conditions are importantly linked to its carcinogenicity,

essentially at later steps, as the increased levels of ROS have been connected to tumor

formation due to mitotic stimuli and redox-sensitive transcription factors activation. This

process can be interpreted as an inhibitory effect by cadmium, of the antioxidant enzymes

(18). Although the role of ROS can be reversed by the cell its continuous elevated levels

may then lead to mutagenesis (24,25). This way, cell cycle deregulation may start to occur

depending on dose and time of exposure (18).

Other way of cadmium to exert its carcinogenic effect occurs by compromising

almost all main DNA repair pathways: Nucleotide Excision Repair – NER, Base Excision

Repair – BER, or Mismatch repair – MMR. The inhibition effects observed in the enzymes

of antioxidative DNA defenses were also observed in vivo, when rat testes were analyzed

for cadmium carcinogenicity. The levels of oxidized bases were increasing along with 8-

oxo-dGTPase activity decreased, thus showing that oxidative DNA damage lesions may be

in part a result of repair inhibition (26).

Besides the interference with DNA repair systems, cadmium also impairs the

function of p53 – tumor suppressor protein – consequently interfering with cell cycle

maintenance response. For instance, prostate epithelial cells have been shown to acquire

apoptosis resistance, which in turn, opens the possibility of cells to bypass extinction and

replicate with damaged DNA such as relevant mutations in carcinogenicity role (27).

In summary, the impact of cadmium on the stress response genes relies majorly in

those involved in the synthesis of metallothionein, heat-shock proteins, synthesis and

homeostasis of glutathione and oxidative stress response (3,19).



1.4.3. Molecular mechanisms

The most damaging cadmium form appears to be Cd2+

. Although, investigations

conducted by Schwerdtle et al. (28) and supported by past studies (29) showed that both

particulate and soluble forms of cadmium cause relatively the same damage, including the

conformational alterations of p53 induced by cadmium.

DNA repair inhibitions, cell proliferation and cell cycle control have been observed

to be affected at low doses (18,30). This raises two points of concern: one related with the

impact of new technologies’ nanoparticles / compounds as new forms of exposure, such as

solar panels, for instance. The other one relies in the fact of why damage response

pathways are so sensitive to cadmium ions. It is known that cadmium interacts with

essential metals such as calcium and zinc. Calcium (Ca2+

) is easily replaced by Cd2+

. Zinc

(Zn2+

), on its hand, can be also replaced by Cd2+

in many enzymes and transcription

factors, being zinc-fingers an example of the high affinity of cadmium towards (thiol) SH

groups. Zinc finger proteins consist of four residues of histidine and / or cysteine to form a

domain mainly for DNA binding and also for interactions between proteins, DNA repair

and cell cycle control proteins. For instance, p53 has a zinc binding structure in its DNA

binding domain, which has a key role in its tumor suppressor job. Cadmium-induced

protein inactivation is reversed by the excess of zinc which points out to a displacement

mechanism (18,30).

Moreover, calcium can be displaced by cadmium in E-cadherin, a protein that is

responsible for cell to cell adhesion and communication. Consequently, the ability to

communicate between cells is disrupted and cell proliferation is impaired (3).

Lastly, there is some information about cadmium-transformed cells that acquired

resistance to apoptosis linked to an increase in the anti-apoptotic action of Bcl-2 altering

the pathway of JNK signal transduction pathway (27).



1.5. Toxicity assessment

1.5.1. Cytotoxicity

The cytotoxicity term refers to the adverse effects resulting from the interaction

between an external toxic agent and cell processes essential to survival, proliferation or

normal cell maintenance (31).

Nowadays, it is hard to monitor physiological systems in vivo. This way, the

majority of trials determines effects at the cellular level (32). The development of in vitro

cytotoxicity assays has been driven by the necessity of rapidly evaluate toxicity potential

of a wide variety of substances or compounds (limiting animal experimentation – see the

principle of 3R’s into the chapter “In vitro assays and the 3Rs”).

Cytotoxicity assays evaluate drug induced alterations in metabolic pathways or

structural integrity, that may or not be related to cell death (33). The most common and fast

in vitro toxicological screening assays are the lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), neutral red (3-

amino-7-dimethylamino-2-metilphenazine hydrochloride), trypan blue and MTT (3-(4,5-

Dimethyl-2-thiazolyl)-2,5-diphenyl-2H-tetrazolium bromide (34). These assays have been

optimized for the use of microplate readers allowing for a rapid throughput (35).

1.5.2. Genotoxicity

It is important to distinguish between two concepts related to in vitro assay analysis

about genotoxicity prediction. Mutagenicity concerns what is capable of leading to

permanent transmittable changes in the amount or structure of the genetic material in cells

or organisms. These changes can entail a single gene (point mutations), a block of genes or

entire chromosomes (structural or numerical chromosome aberrations). Wherein,

genotoxicity is a broader term and refers to processes that alter the structure, information

content or segregation of DNA and which are not necessarily associated with mutagenicity.

Processes that involve unscheduled DNA synthesis, sister chromatid exchange, DNA

strand breaks, DNA adduct formation, and mitotic recombination. Therefore, genotoxicity

testing is important to investigate because it can give rise to cancer development allowing

to address potential substances effects (36).



1.5.3. In vitro assays and the 3Rs

In toxicological research there has been the effort and worry of replacing animal

laboratorial research by other strategies. Therefore, in vitro cell culture is the first and

primordial step in toxicological screen. In 1959, William Russell and Rex Burch (37)

mentioned for the first time in their book “The Principles of Humane Experimental

Technique”, the principle of 3Rs. This principle upholds methodologies towards

Reducement, Refinement and Replacement. Thus, it is necessary the development,

validation and perfectioning of alternative tests to animal experimentation. Following and

respecting this line of thought, the in vitro model was chosen to perform the study,

eventually leaving the animal experiments for later stages.

1.5.4. MG-63 cell line

The model of study relied on MG-63 cell line. MG-63 cell line was gently given by

Instituto Nacional de Engenharia Biomédica – INEB. This cell line is derived from an

osteosarcoma, a malignant bone tumor of a 14 years old caucasian male. It presents a

fibroblast morphology, being moderately differentiated and non-mineralizing in vitro

(38,39). Therefore, it is many times designated as “osteoblast-like” since it maintains

normal osteoblasts behavior such as growing in an adherent monolayer and expressing

alkaline phosphatase and osteocalcin immunocytochemical markers (40,41). MG-63 is a

continuous cell line, which benefits the workers with indefinite growth potential for a long

period of time, contrary to a primary cell line that has a finite number of replications

genetically programmed (32).

This and other osteosarcoma cell lines have been used for a variety of studies

ranging from nanoparticles, biomaterials study and toxicity assays. Cell lines like Saos-2

and U-2 OS are two of the most utilized, but MG-63 cell line is getting more and more

attention because, besides the advantages reported above, comparatively with the others

remains less investigated. Many studies have, together or separately, resorted to

proliferation assays, proteomics and genomics (42–44), immunocytochemistry (41), and so

on. However, in order to contribute for new insights about cadmium toxicity in this cell

line, until now there are no studies resorting to flow cytometry (FCM) for cell cycle



10

assessment along MTT for proliferation assessment, combined with the comet assay -

DNA damage assessment.

Thus, this was a major reason for the application of FCM in the study of cadmium

effects in MG-63 cell line.

1.5.5. Biomarkers

1.5.5.1. Cell proliferation / viability

The utilization of the MTT assay described by Mosmann (45) has been widely used

as a colorimetric approach based on the activity of mitochondrial dehydrogenase enzymes

in cells. The resulting intracellular purple formazan can be solubilized and quantified by

spectrophotometric means, being widely accepted as a reliable way to examine cell

proliferation (45,46). The number of assay steps has been minimized to such an extent to

fulfill the necessity to process large numbers of samples (45–47). The MTT reagent yields

low background absorbance values in the absence of cells and for each cell type the linear

relationship between cell number and signal produced is established, thus allowing an

accurate quantification of changes in the rate of cell proliferation (45).

1.5.5.2. Cell cycle analysis

Cell cycle analysis and proliferation kinetics are two major factors in toxicological

studies and tumor progression evaluation. Due to its importance, flow cytometry brought

the possibility of performing measurements with speed and precision revolutionizing cell

biology and cell cycle studies. Cell cycle is the biological phenomenon where

undifferentiated cells originate daughter cells with same genetic characteristics. Cell cycle

involves interphase and mitosis, Fig.4. Cell division occurs in mitosis (M) separated by the

next division by interphase. Chromosome duplication (replication) occurs during a specific

period of interphase. Therefore, it was divided in three parts: the period of DNA synthesis

is denominated S phase, G1 phase occurs right before S phase and the G2 is defined as the

period between S phase and the next mitosis.



11

Fig.4 – Cell cycle schematic representation, adapted (48)

The first cell cycle phase is G1 where cellular growth and protein synthesis take

place, reaching approximately 6 to 12 hours. Cells double size and mass due to the

expression of genes coding for their particular phenotype. The S phase is the next cell

cycle phase, characterized by synthesis or replication of DNA. Therefore, the nuclei

contain twice the amount of initial DNA and proteins. It has the duration of 6 to 8 hours.

The third cell cycle phase, G2 is the growth phase. It’s marked by the continuing of protein

synthesis. Lasting about 3 or 4 hours, it ends when chromatin begins to condensate at the

beginning of mitosis. In mitosis, nuclear and cytoplasmatic division occurs – citokinesis,

originating two daughter cells. There is also a stage, G0, defined as a prolonged G1

observed in cells with long periods of life rarely dividing (quiescent). However, after

adequate stimulus those cells can complete one or two complete division cycles (49–51).

To uphold the normal progression of the cell cycle and the surveillance of genomic

integrity, cells have developed a complex network of DNA repair pathways and cell cycle

checkpoints. There are cell cycle checkpoints at G1-S, at G2-M, and at the exit of mitosis.

And there is also an S-phase checkpoint that detects and responds to DNA damage and

replication stress. The checkpoints lie in biochemical signaling pathways to sense various

types of structural defects in DNA, or in chromosome function, and provoke a versatile

cellular response that activates DNA repair and delays cell-cycle progression. These



12

mechanisms evolved to manage inherent errors and genotoxic stress (cellular metabolites

or xenobiotics). Hence, when DNA damage is severe, checkpoints purge such potentially

hazardous cells by cell death or induce cell-cycle arrest, to essentially offer the time

necessary to repair the damage of the DNA before cell division (52–54).

Flow cytometry

Flow cytometry was originally developed in the late 50’s of the past century for

blood cell counting. Hematology and immunology were two of the biology fields that

boosted this technology development. However, with technical development and new

fluorescent markers, the utilization of this instrumentation has been generalized among

different fields such as microbial and plant cell (55).

A flow cytometer is a system composed of 5 elements (Fig.5): light source

(mercury lamp or laser), flow chamber, optical filters for wavelength specific interval,

photodiodes or photomultipliers for sensitive detection and signal processing, and finally,

one central processing unit (56).

Fig.5 – Flow Cytometer schematics, adapted (56)



13

Cell suspension is injected in the flow chamber where each cell is run through a

light beam, perpendicular to the flow. Individual cell passage is obtained by hydrodynamic

focusing of sample flow injected through a saline solution (sheath fluid) which also runs

through the flow chamber (see Fig.6). The different speeds of the fluids generate the

laminar flow. The flow speed of the sheath fluid is higher than the sample allowing the

manipulation of speed and thickness of sample solution. This way, up to 10000 cells

(events) per second can be detected. By intercepting the cell the excitation light beam

suffers a forward scatter and a side scatter. Its detection is directly made by photodiodes or

can be deviated by 90º lens, dicroic mirrors, optic filters or focused on photomultipliers.

The conjunction of the two types of light reveal information regarding cell dimension,

granularity / complexity and morphology (56).

Fig.6 – Schematic view of a flow chamber, adapted (56)

The most modern cytometers have up to 16 simultaneous detectors (fluorescence

and scattered light), allowing the analysis of a variety of cellular characteristics of elevated

number of cells individually – multiparametric analysis (56).

In brief, to perform flow cytometry it is necessary to prepare cell suspensions.

Imunofluorescent dyes or antibodies are added to the suspension. Thereafter, the mixture is

aspirated to the flow. Light is scattered or absorbed, which when in an appropriate wave

length, is reemitted as fluorescence signal if cell presents one or more fluorochrome /

antibody-fluorochrome. In turn, light scattering depends on internal cell structure, size and



14

shape. Fluorescent dyes absorb light in one wave length reemitting on different

wavelength. Finally, light or fluorescent signals are detected by photodiodes and

photomultiplier tubes and aftermost amplified. Optic filters are essential to block unwanted

light, allowing that only the light with desired wave length reaches the photodetector (57).

1.5.5.3. DNA damage

The comet assay or single cell gel electrophoresis (SCGE) is widely used for visual

detection of DNA damage at the single cell level (58). It combines the simplicity of

biochemical detection techniques for DNA strand breaks, alkali-labile sites and cross-

linking sites, with the single cell level approach typical of cytogenetics.

DNA damage is assessed by visual scoring of the nucleoids with a head and a tail,

resembling a comet (by qualitative classification in five categories, based on the tail length

and shape), or using software based measurements that recognize the extension of damage.

Size, shape and DNA quantity inside the comet play a key role on the assessment of level

damage. Software analysis provide a series of different parameters, being the most relevant

the % tail DNA, tail length, giving information on the amount and size of fragmented

DNA, and tail moment, which is the result of their mathematical product (58).

DNA damage and defective DNA repair are the molecular events underlying the

cancer initiation and progress. Therefore, it’s not surprising that many studies have been

used comet assay to assess DNA damage and repair characteristics in a wide variety of

tumor cells in response to different DNA damaging agents. These studies involve

established human cell lines as well as tumor cells extracted from cancer patients (59).

Comet assay main advantages rely on the fact of collecting data cell by cell, small

number of cells are needed per sample, DNA damage detection sensibility, use of any

eukaryote single cell population both in vitro and in vivo (60). Despite great advantages,

some inconvenients are also associated with this method. Theoretically, comet assay can be

used with any type of cell line, however, data obtained are often inconsistent.

There are also reported studies about comet assay in vivo, (61,62), however, there

are not appropriate controls available to this approach.

Comet assay is not capable of detecting DNA fragments smaller than 50 kb, since

those fragments are washed away during lysis or electrophoresis. It also fails when it



15

comes to detecting mitochondrial DNA damage since it is also very small. Apoptotic cells

can also be lost during lysis or electrophoresis (63).



16

1.6. Aims of Dissertation

Studies are still rare in bone cells despite cadmium accumulation in bone tissues

and their full mechanism is still poorly understood. Applying flow cytometry

multiparametric analysis to the evaluation of osteoblast cell lines is not still widely

practiced for this matter. Therefore, taken together, the viability assessment combined with

the comet assay and flow cytometry employment, the work aims to:

- Assess cell viability

- Evaluate cell cycle

- Detect cytostatic effects

- Detect clastogenic effects

- Detect DNA damage



17

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. MG-63 osteoblast cell line culture

Human osteoblast cell line MG-63 was kindly provided by Instituto Nacional de

Engenharia Biomédica – INEB, University of Porto, Portugal. It was in vitro cultured in a

controlled humid atmosphere of 5% CO2 at 37 ºC. Cells were manipulated under aseptic

conditions that were ensured by working on a laminar flow biological safety cabinet and

always with sterile disposables. Cells were cultured in 75 cm2 (Corning®) culture flasks

containing a final complete growth media volume of 10 mL.

The complete growth media was composed of α-MEM – Minimum Essential

Medium (Gibco), supplemented with 10% (v/v) fetal bovine serum (Gibco) and with

10000 units mL-1

penicillin-streptomycin (Gibco) and 2.5 µg mL-1

fungizone (Gibco). The

subculture routine was performed every three days: period of time cells required to reach

approximately 80% confluence – defined as the percentage of cell coverage on the surface

area of a culture vessel.

The above mentioned conditions were provided to the subcultured cells for

studying the following parameters:

Cell viability / proliferation, by the MTT reduction assay;

Cell cycle evaluation and clastogenicity, by flow cytometry;

DNA damage, by the comet assay (single cell gel electrophoresis).

Subsequent to the exposure to different concentrations of cadmium chloride (0, 20

and 50 µM) cells were harvested after 24 and 48 hours.

2.2. Cell recovery / thawing

To initiate cell culture routine, cell thawing was conducted very carefully: cells

were placed under 37 ºC in a water bath until almost 2/3 of the vial content become liquid.

Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO, Sigma), a preservative used in cell freezing, is cytotoxic at

room temperature, so the procedure should be done rapidly in order to minimize exposure

to DMSO at room temperature. Cells are then transferred to 5 mL of complete growth

medium very slowly, drop by drop to avoid osmotic shock. Then, cells were centrifuged at



18

approximately 300 g and resuspended in fresh complete growth medium and incubated in a

culture flask. Then subculture routine would be started.

2.3. Trypsinization

A critical step in adherent cell population is trypsinization. This step involves the

addition of a proteolytic enzyme which digests cell-to-cell adhesions and also dissociates

cells from the culture vessel – culture flask or dish, Petri style.

Cells were initially observed on the inverted microscope (Leica, Germany) to verify

their status: confluence, morphology and presence of contaminants. Then, cells were

washed with sterile phosphate buffer saline (PBS) pH 7.2 (Gibco) after previously

removing culture medium. Next, trypsin was added to the culture flask in the form of

trypsin-ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (trypsin-EDTA 0.25% trypsin and 1mM EDTA;

from Gibco) and incubated during 5 minutes at 37 ºC. By that time, the flask was taken

under microscope observation to verify cell disaggregation. Right next, trypsin inactivation

was performed with the complete growth medium (2x the trypsin volume added to cells).

To the new culture flaks properly identified with cell passage, cell type, username and

date, complete growth culture medium following cell suspension were added to a

proportion of 1:9 – cell suspension:complete growth medium.

The cell concentration (cell density) of the newly formed cell suspension was

determined by performing a cell count on the improved Neubauer chamber under a light

microscope Nikon Eclipse 80i (Japan). To a 75 cm2 culture flask the usual procedure

consisted of 1 mL of cell suspension (1.0 x 106 cells/mL) plus 9 mL of complete growth

medium, totalizing 10 mL on this flask.

2.4. Cadmium Exposure

According to the parameter about to study cells were subcultured in multiwell

plates, incubated for 24 h in the normal culture conditions prior to cadmium exposure of 24

h and 48 h. Exposure procedure consisted of normal growth medium replacement by new

complete medium with the desired final dilutions of cadmium chloride – 0, 20, 50 µM.



19

2.5. Confluence, cell morphology and contaminations

On the routinely subculturing procedure and during exposure to cadmium (e.g.

every 24-48h) cells were screened under an inverted microscope (Leica, Germany) at 40x

or 100x magnification. This way, cells were observed to quantify / qualitatively describe

parameters that are indicative of the cell functional and morphological status: confluence

(%), morphology (e.g. “fibroblast” like, dividing cells) and presence / absence of

contaminants.

2.6. Cell proliferation and viability– MTT Assay

The MTT assay was performed according to Lévesque et al. (64) with a slight

modification, and 96-well plates were used. For each time of exposure, 24 h and 48 h, 100

µL of suspended cells were added to wells (see Fig.7) 24 h prior to exposure for adhesion

and confluence achievement of 50-60 %. After the first 24 h, culture medium was replaced

by normal growth medium containing the 20 µM and 50 µM concentrations of cadmium

chloride solution, using four replicates for each condition: 0 µM, 20 µM and 50 µM. In

control wells, culture medium was replaced by an equal volume of fresh culture medium.

Fig.7 – Schematic representation of an assay in a 96 well-plate for 24 h and 48 h of cadmium exposure. Light

blue wells represent blank wells. Three clusters of cells were organized according to initial cell density for

being able to select the cluster that had the control absorbances in the range of 0.75 - 1.25.



20

Cells were daily observed with an optical microscope (Nikon Eclipse 80i, Japan) to

check for contaminations, adhesion and confluence. At the end of the respective exposure

time, MTT solution (1 mg/mL in PBS pH 7.2) (Sigma Aldrich) was added to the wells’

medium and left in the incubator for four hours (37 oC, 5% CO2). Afterwards, wells’

content was replaced by DMSO for formazan crystals solubilization and left on a shaking

plate during two hours at room temperature protected from light. In the end, absorbances

were obtained by a (BioTek ®– Gen5™ software) microplate reader (570 nm wavelength)

with blank correction. The mean absorbance with blank correction was used to obtain

viability chart (in the range of 0.75 – 1.25 for control samples). The initial cell densities

selection was based on the absorbance reading in that range. Therefore, only 2.0 x 105

cels/mL and 3.0 x 105 cels/mL were used for 48 h and 24 h exposures, respectively. The

equation to obtain viability relative percentage was: relative % Viability = A570 Sample/

mean A570 Control x 100.

2.7. Cell cycle analysis – Flow Cytometry

Cell analysis was performed according to the method described by Bork et al (65)

with slight modifications. Cells were cultivated in 24 wells plates and incubated for 24 h in

the normal growth conditions. After this period, culture medium was replaced by the

respective cadmium containing growth medium solutions – 0 µM, 20 µM and 50 µM.

Three or four replicates were considered and daily observed under an inverted microscope.

After the exposure times, each well was washed with PBS pH 7.2 and then trypsinized.

After trypsin inactivation with complete growth medium cells were transferred to

microtubes to centrifuge around 300 g between three and five minutes to prevent a too

dense pellet. Cells were washed with PBS, centrifuged and ressuspended with 85% ethanol

at 4 ºC for fixation and stored at -20 ºC until further analysis.

To perform the flow cytometry analysis cells were retrieved from -20 ºC to room

temperature. Then they were centrifuged at around 300 g during 3 to 5 minutes, carefully

ressuspended in 1 mL of PBS pH 7.2, and finally, filtered through a 55 µm nylon filter to

eliminate big clusters. Then, for each sample 50 µg/mL propidium iodide (Fluka, USA)

and 50 µg/mL RNAse (Sigma Aldrich, USA) were added and samples were incubated for

20 minutes to stain and eliminate RNA from samples, respectively. Relative fluorescence



21

intensity was measured in a flow cytometer (Beckman Coulter) equipped with an argon

laser (15 mW, 488 nm) having the fluorescence peak sample of G0/G1 cells adjusted to

channel 200. Acquisitions were made using SYSTEM II software (v. 3.0, Beckman

Coulter, USA). For each sample, the number of events reached approximately 5000. Cell

cycle analysis was then conducted based on the histogram outputs.

2.8. DNA damage – Comet Assay

The comet assay was performed as described by Singh et al. (66) and Tice et al.

(61) with slight modifications. Preparation of slides and solutions took place at early stage.

Slides with frosted ends were dipped into a solution of 1% normal melting point agarose

(NMPA) and then were dried overnight at room temperature. After exposure ending, cells

were harvested and transferred to microtubes. Both microtubes and NMPA slides were

previously properly identified. Then, cells were centrifuged at 300 g for 4 minutes,

carefully taking in consideration pellet thickness, therefore repeating if necessary. This

way, supernatant was removed to resuspend each sample in PBS. Positive control remained

for last, to be resuspended in 100 µM H2O2 exactly for 10 minutes. Positive controls

required strict attention to timing control. They were centrifuged for 5 minutes and

resuspended in PBS right before the end of 10 minutes of H2O2 treatment. A mixture of 50

µL of the cell suspension and 50 µL of 1% low melting point agarose (LMPA) previously

heated at 37 ºC was spread on each slide with the dried NPMA layer. A coverslip was

placed over the mixture and the agarose was allowed to solidify at 4 ºC for at least 10

minutes. The next step was the cell lysis. Lysing solution was composed of a freshly mix

of two solutions: one containing 2.5 M NaCl, 100 mM EDTA, 10mM Trizma Base, 0.2 M

NaHO, corrected pH 10; and other containing 1% Triton X-100 and 10% DMSO.

Coverslips were removed and cells were then treated with lysis solution for 2 h.

Meanwhile, electrophoresis buffer was freshly prepared with chilled distilled water. The

nuclei were immersed in an electrophoresis box with the cold electrophoretic buffer (300

mM NaOH and 1 mM EDTA, pH 13). They were left for 20 minutes to allow DNA

unwinding. Thereafter, electrophoresis ran for 30 minutes, 0.74 V/cm, 300 mA in the same

buffer. Since lysing step until the end of electrophoresis, slides were kept in the dark



22

avoiding direct fluorescent light to cause DNA damage. Next, slides were neutralized three

times (5 minutes each) with 0.4 M Tris buffer pH 7.5.

Afterwards, slides were left overnight to dry and be stored for prior analysis. To

perform comet scoring, slides needed to be rehydrated for 15 minutes and stained with 10

µg/mL ethidium bromide for 3 to 5 minutes, removing the excess with distilled water.

Slides were observed under a fluorescence microscope Nikon Eclipse 80i equipped with an

excitation filter of 510-560 nm and a barrier filter of 590 nm. At the end of observation,

slides were dipped in absolute ethanol to remove staining, dehydrated and stored again. For

each treatment group, two slides from each well were screened and 50-100 randomly

visualized cells were picked. Images were captured with imaging software (NIS-Elements

F 3.00, SP7). Every nuclei photographs were run on version 1.2.2 of CASP – Comet Assay

Software Project to automatically score a comprehensive set of parameters such as % tail

DNA, tail length and tail moment, to provide a global comet description.

2.9. Statistical Analysis

For all experiments at least 3 replicates and two independent assays were

performed. Data were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance (two-way ANOVA) (p <

0.05), followed by a Holm-Sidak test (p < 0.05) to evaluate the significance of differences

in the parameters. When necessary, data were transformed to achieve normality and

equality of variances. When justified, Pearson correlation was performed and the

respective correlation coefficient was presented as r.

All statistical analyses were performed with SigmaPlot Version 11.0 for Windows.



23

3. Results

3.1. Confluence and morphology

Confluence and morphology were observed during subculture routine and for each

exposure trial. Standard subculture routine and controls of the exposure trials, showed cells

with the general typical aspect documented by Fig.8A and Fig.8D. When adherent, MG-63

cells appeared oval to spindle-shaped (resembling fibroblasts), without branching cell

processes.

Fig.8 – The figure captures some of the samples obtained to visually document cadmium effects on MG-63

cell culture. A and D show pictures of control samples at 24 h and 48 h hours, respectively. B and E show

cells exposed to 20 µM cadmium at 24 h and 48 h, respectively. C and F show 50 µM cadmium exposure of

cells at 24 h and 48 h, respectively; (A to C, E, F – 100x magnification; D – 40x magnification).

Cell confluence was gradually lost along the increase of cadmium dose exposure,

with increasing appearance of detached cells typical of cell death (Fig.8 - B, C, E, F). This

was verified on both times of exposure, although the number of adherent cells was a bit

higher on the 48 h exposure trial, as shown from Fig.8D to Fig.8F as well as the

corresponding number of dead cells.



24

3.2. Proliferation / viability assessment – MTT Assay

To assess the MG-63 cell response to the cadmium doses, a proliferation

assessment was performed with MTT Assay. MG-63 cell viability as response to cadmium

exposure was measured using the MTT assay as a function of initial seeding density and

values of absorbance.

As shown in Fig.9, a significant (p < 0.05) reduction in cell viability was observed

at 24 h to 50 μM cadmium and at 48 h exposure to 20 and 50 μM cadmium. For the 24 h

exposure to 50 μM dose, the viability decreased 49%. As for the 48 h exposure, to 20 μM

the viability decreased 10% and to 50 μM the viability decreased 53%. Within

concentrations no significant variations were detected between 24h and 48h of exposure.

Fig.9 – Cadmium effects in MG-63 cell viability (mean ± standard deviation) to both times of exposure for

the MTT Assay – 24h and 48h. Different letters within time represent differences between cadmium

concentrations (p < 0.05).



25

3.3. Cell cycle analysis – Flow Cytometry

After the exposure, cells were collected to perform cell cycle analysis and the

global cell cycle stages are presented in Fig.10. The histograms of relative fluorescence

intensity obtained are represented in Fig.11, where cell cycle phases are depicted for

control and 50 µM cadmium of 48 h (Fig.11A and Fig.11B, respectively). Deeper analysis

revealed a trend of behavior to cadmium: for the 48 h of exposure, a statistically significant

correlation was detected between G0/G1 cell percentage and cadmium concentration

(Pearson Product Moment Correlation; r = - 0.485; p = 0.0482).

Fig.10 – Cell cycle results of MG-63 cadmium exposure after 24 h and 48 h. The given values are the mean

% of cell population (± standard deviation) along cell cycle stages of at least 3 replicates. The presence of

symbols indicates significant differences between times within a concentration at p < 0.05.



26

It indicates a decrease of G0/G1 cell percentage along the increase of cadmium

concentration. However, for the same exposure time, it is possible to visualize as well an

accompanying trend of increase in G2 cell percentage along cadmium concentration

increase as visualized in Fig.10. Between times it was verified the rise of % of cell

population in G0/G1 phase in the cadmium doses 0 and 20 µM.

Fig.11 – Histograms of relative fluorescence intensity. Example of results obtained to the 48 h exposure of

MG-63. Cell cycle phases are depicted – G0/G1, S, G2. A – Control. B – 50 µM cadmium.



27

Although no direct information was obtained from cell cycle analysis, other

statistical parameters were provided by the flow cytometry analysis. Half peak coefficient

of variation (HPCV) and full peak coefficient of variation (FPCV) are two of them, see

Fig.12. Samples presented a good HPCV value: under 5% indicating sample quality and

integrity. Still, FPCV showed a significant increase facing control samples: at 48 h of

exposure to 50 µM cadmium concentration.

Fig.12 – Half peak coefficient of variation (HPCV) and full peak coefficient of variation (FPCV) of MG-63

cells exposed to cadmium after 24h and 48h exposure. Different letters represent differences between

cadmium concentrations within time (p < 0.05).



28

3.4. DNA damage – Comet assay

To detect DNA damage comet assay was performed. The parameters studied are in

agreement with the images taken by fluorescence microscopy. The main effects were

detected at 48 h exposure. The amount and size of fragmented DNA, given by the % tail

DNA (Fig.13A) and tail length (Fig.13B), respectively, increased significantly and it was

higher for 20 µM than 50 µM cadmium concentration (p < 0.05). As for the tail moment

(Fig.13C), it is in agreement with the latter parameters since it’s the result of their

mathematical product, and increased in cadmium exposed cells, with values statistically

different from control (p < 0.05).

Fig.13 – Comet assay assessed parameters: % Tail DNA (A), Tail Length (B) and Tail Moment (C), the latter

two represented in arbitrary units. Results are expressed as mean of medians ± standard deviation. Different

letters represent differences between cadmium concentrations within time (p < 0.05). The presence of

symbols indicates significant differences between times within a concentration (p < 0.05).



29

The comet pictures obtained, as seen in the examples of Fig.14A-C, show that the

20 µM dose generated (p < 0.05) a bigger tail with a high DNA percentage on it.

Fig.14 – Comet assay representative images of MG-63 cell nuclei obtained for the 48 h exposure to cadmium

(400x). A – Typical control comet, B – example of comet obtained for the 20 µM cadmium dose, C –

example of comet obtained for the 50 µM cadmium dose.



30

4. Discussion

Cadmium is a natural metallic element. It occurs naturally in the environment,

however, human technological demands have engineered to take use of cadmium

properties integrating it for instance in inks and many hardware tools such as computers

and batteries, until a few years ago. Nowadays, its use is left mostly to modern

technologies like solar panels. Its extensive use has lead to its excessive buildup in

environment, reaching the food chain and causing disease by accumulating in organisms.

Bone disease mechanisms, in particular, are not fully understood. Many studies

have shown that cadmium is cytotoxic to osteoblast cells, namely to Saos-2 (67) and

MC3T3-E3 (68), although this study aims to evaluate several toxicity parameters in a less

studied human osteoblast cell line, MG-63.

Regarding the proposed aims, in this study it has also been observed some essential

cell culture parameters. For each exposure trial confluence and morphology were observed

during subculture routine. When adherent, MG-63 cells appeared oval to spindle-shaped

(resembling fibroblasts), without branching cell processes. The expected cadmium effects

on these features were consistent with Lévesque et al. (64) which also observed these

effects on the same cell line. With increasing cadmium concentrations, detachment and

loss of any type of differentiation tends to occur. E-Cadherin is a protein responsible for

cell to cell adhesion and communication. Cadmium specifically displaces calcium in E-

cadherin disrupting this protein and thus impairing cell proliferation (69). So, confluence

was gradually lost along the increase of cadmium dose, with increasing appearance of

swelled and detached cells typical of cell death. This was verified on both times of

exposure, 24 h and 48 h. Although, probably due to have had more time to multiply

themselves, the number of adherent cells were a bit higher on the 48 h exposure trial, as

well as the corresponding number of dead cells.

This point connects with the MTT assay. Proliferation / viability measurements are

the basis of several in vitro assessments of cellular response to xenobiotic substances or

compounds. Being reduced by mitochondrial enzymes, MTT assay is essentially a measure

of metabolic activity of cells, therefore, measuring the cell proliferation rate and on the

other hand, the reduction in cell viability when metabolic events lead to apoptosis or

necrosis (70). Under these in vitro conditions the obtained results showed an affected



31

viability of the human MG-63 cells in a time- and dose-dependent manner following a 24 h

and 48 h exposure. Lévesque et al. (64) interestingly exposed cells only after serum

deprivation for 24 h, suggesting that bovine serum albumin (BSA) in incubation medium

reduces cadmium availability to cells, therefore, minimizing cadmium-induced loss in cell

viability. These authors also came to show cell viability to increase with the presence of

BSA (cadmium chelating factor). This way, the authors obtained an 18 μM cadmium 50%

Lethal Concentration (LC50), while the present work shows a marked decline of cell

viability starting to occur with 50 μM for the 24 h exposure, so, these differences could

possibly result from the fact that no serum deprivation was proceeded to.

So far, the obtained results have lead to inquire about cell cycle behavior. As some

studies demonstrate cell cycle disturbances due to cadmium-induced genotoxicity

(65,71,72), for the present work, the evaluation of potential cell cycle alterations caused by

cadmium in MG-63 cell line was analyzed by flow cytometry. Cells were analyzed after 24

and 48 h of cadmium exposure. For both times, under the 20 and 50 µM cadmium no

significant effects were detected. However, it was identified a correlation between

cadmium concentration and the number of cells in G0/G1 phase. With the increase of

cadmium dose, the G0/G1 population number decreased. Also, an apparent trend stands out

relating to what can be observed in the G2 cell population. In this case, no correlation and

no significant differences were detected. Nevertheless, it would be expected to observe a

G2 cell increase which is noticeable in the histogram results – the rise of cell number on the

G2 cell cycle phase along cadmium increase of concentration. It is, for instance,

documented as a cadmium effect the occurrence of G2/M arrest in kidney proximal tubule

cells (65).

Between exposure times, it was verified the rise of cell population number of G0/G1

phase in 0 and 20 µM. This may be a result of the prolonged culture time. However, it may

be suggested that with increasing exposure times, for example until 72 h, a marked

accumulation would be clearer along the different phases. Even though no immediate

information was obtained from this cell cycle analysis due to the lack of statistical

significance, there are other important parameters provided by flow cytometry, such as

HPCV and FPCV. HPCV is measured around the mean of all cells in G0/G1 stage of the

cell cycle and can provide data in nuclear DNA content variation (73). According to

Loureiro and Santos (55), several authors mention optimal HPCV values and Galbraith



32

(74) established an acceptance index under 5%. For the present study, this analysis

revealed a consistent / stable HPCV (under 5%) which is an indicating factor of quality

sample (75). FPCV showed a significant increase facing control samples of 48 h exposure

to 50 µM cadmium concentration, suggesting clastogenicity (76).

Herein, to assess DNA damage with a quick, sensitive and versatile method, the

comet assay was chosen to be used, therefore, measuring single- and double-strand breaks

(77) in MG-63 cell line. The parameters studied – % tail DNA, tail length and tail moment

- were in agreement with the images taken and visualized by fluorescence microscopy. The

main effects were detected at 48 h exposure. The amount (% tail DNA) and size (tail

length DNA) of fragmented DNA increased significantly after cadmium exposure and it

was higher for 20 µM than for 50 µM cadmium concentrations. This effect may be

explained by the following prepositions: a) cadmium is known to form DNA adducts

which lead to cross-link formations (DNA-DNA, DNA-protein) and also helical distortions

(78,79). Lesions that can disrupt replication, or cause incorporation of the wrong base (80).

This way, the highest % tail DNA and highest tail length detected appear at 20 µM instead

of occurring at 50 µM cadmium dose, possibly due to the size of the latter generated

fragments may not be fully run under agarose electrophoresis, and the 50 µM cadmium

dose generated bigger fragments that parallel FPCV results; b) at 50 µM cadmium it was

also detected significant DNA damage but not on that latter extent. Whether this damage is

due to the formation of such elevated DNA fragments and / or due to severe impairment of

DNA repair mechanisms (18,62), it would be necessary a new insight at these results with

an assessment implying lesion specific enzymes which convert damage into breaks. The

use of endonucleases as formamidopyrimidine glycosylase (FPG – which removes

oxidized and ring-opened purines, formamidopyrimidines and alkylated bases),

endonuclease III (Endo III – for oxidized pyrimidinic bases) and 3-methyladenine DNA

glycosylase II (AlkA – which recognizes alkylated bases) allows the assessment of specific

damages and, consequently, if the DNA repair mechanisms were in activity (81).

The trend to cell cycle arrest at G2 checkpoint may be a response to DNA damage

occurring in cells exposed to 20 and 50 µM cadmium after 48 h of exposure. According to

O’Connel and Cimprich (82) when this checkpoint is activated, cells have chance to repair

DNA damages preventing them from entering mitosis and culminate in catastrophic

mitosis (micronuclei formation); another pathway cells may follow after cell cycle arrest at



33

G2 phase is apoptosis. The first pathway was observed in MG-63 cells with the cadmium

dose of 50 µM during 48 h. In these cells DNA damage has occurred, contributing to cell

cycle arrest at G2 checkpoint and, finally, leading to clastogenicity observed by the

increased FPCV detected by the flow cytometric analysis. Clastogenic effects took place in

these cells, probably because cadmium is known to cause inhibition of DNA repair (19). In

the cells exposed to 20 µM cadmium for 48 h, DNA damage was also confirmed by the

comet assay. Since DNA damages may be repairable or not, the trend to G2 arrest possibly

lead to repair pathway, otherwise entering apoptosis. Therefore, recognizing what happens

to MG-63 cells after G2 arrest would be important to clarify. For instance, resorting to

Annexin V / PI (Propidium iodide) would provide distinction between cells undergoing

apoptosis and necrosis (67).



34

5. Conclusions and future perspectives

In conclusion it was settled that cadmium chloride exerts cyto- and genotoxic

effects in the MG-63 human cell line.

Viability is shown to decrease considerably and cell cycle revealed a tendency to

alter its pattern possibly culminating in a G2 phase arrest. The ongoing cell steps would be

clarified by Annexin V / PI to tell apart the apoptotic from the necrotic cells.

Clastogenicity was also indicated by the values obtained for the FPCV, being furthermore

supported by the DNA damage assessed and positively detected.

Therefore, in future work, it would be wise and interesting to perform a new comet

assay assessment with refinement steps such as the inclusion of lesion-specific enzymes for

excision repair pathway damage and oxidized bases detection.

Finally, micronucleus detection could be a high valuable tool to complete the

analyses and substantiate comet assay results and clastogenic effects, clarifying DNA

fragmentation or chromosomal aberrations.



35

6. References

1. Davies IJT. Medical significance of the essential biological metals. J Radioanal Chem.

1977;37(1):39–64.

2. Duffus JH. “Heavy Metals” – A Meaningless Term ? (IUPAC Technical Report). Pure

App. Chem. 2002;74(5):793–807.

3. Waisberg M, Joseph P, Hale B, Beyersmann D. Molecular and cellular mechanisms of

cadmium carcinogenesis. Toxicol. 2003;192(2-3):95–117.

4. Oliveira H, Spanò M, Santos C, Pereira ML. Adverse effects of cadmium exposure on

mouse sperm. Reprod Toxicol. 2009;28(4):550–555.

5. EC (European Commission). Decision 2455/2001/EC of the European Parliament and

of the Council of 20 November 2001, establishing the list of priority substances in the

field of water policy and amending Directive 2000/60/EC. O.J. L 331/4. 2001.

6. EPA. Priority Pollutants. 2010 [updated 2011 December 13; cited 2011 December];

Available from: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/methods/cwa/pollutants.cfm.

7. IARC. Volume 58 Beryllium, Cadmium , Mercury , and Exposures in the Glass

Manufacturing Industry. International Agency For Research On Cancer. 1997.

8. ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). Toxicological profile

for Cadmium (Draft for Public Comment). Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services, Public Health Service. 2008.

9. Lalor GC. Review of cadmium transfers from soil to humans and its health effects in

the Jamaican environment. Sci Total Environ. 2008;400(1-3):162–172.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=en&type_doc=Decision&an_doc=2001&nu_doc=2455

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=en&type_doc=Directive&an_doc=2000&nu_doc=60

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/methods/cwa/pollutants.cfm



36

10. Järup L, Alfvén T. Low level cadmium exposure, renal and bone effects-the OSCAR

study. Biometals . 2004;17(5):505–509.

11. Nordberg GF. Historical perspectives on cadmium toxicology. Toxicol Appl

Pharmacol. 2009;238(3):192–200.

12. Shiraishi Y. Cytogenetic studies in 12 patients with itai-itai disease. Humangenet.

1975;27(1):31–44.

13. Patient suffering from Itai-Itai disease. (cited 2011 September). Available from:

http://2009.igem.org/Image:Itai_itai.png.

14. Nogawa K, Tsuritani I, Kido T, Honda R, Yamada Y, Ishizaki M. Mechanism for bone

disease found in inhabitants environmentally exposed to cadmium: decreased serum 1

alpha, 25-dihydroxyvitamin D level. Int. Arch Occup Environ Health. 1987;59(1):21–

30.

15. Kjellstrom T, Evrin PE, Rahnster B. Dose-response analysis of cadmium induced

tubular proteinuria: a study of urinary beta2-microglobulin excretion among workers

in a battery factory. Environ Res. 1977;13(2):303–317.

16. Godt J, Scheidig F, Grosse-Siestrup C, Esche V, Brandenburg P, Reich A, Groneberg

DA. The toxicity of cadmium and resulting hazards for human health. J Occup Med

Toxicol. 2006;1:22.

17. Satarug S, Garrett SH, Sens MA, Sens DA. Cadmium, environmental exposure, and

health outcomes. Environ Health Perspect. 2010;118(2):182–190.

18. Hartwig A. Mechanisms in cadmium-induced carcinogenicity: recent insights.

Biometals. 2010;23(5):951–960.



37

19. Joseph P. Mechanisms of cadmium carcinogenesis. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol.

2009;238(3):272–279.

20. Hayes, John D. and McLellan LL. Glutathione and glutathione-dependent enzymes

represent a co-ordinately regulated defence against oxidative stress. Free Radical Res.

1999;31(4):273–300.

21. Nicholls DG, Budd SL. Mitochondria and neuronal survival. Physiol Rev.

2000;80(1):315–360.

22. Fiers W, Beyaert R, Declercq W, Vandenabeele P. More than one way to die:

apoptosis, necrosis and reactive oxygen damage. Oncog. 1999;18(54):7719–7730.

23. Pedrosa T, Pinho F, Oliveira H, Santos C. Assessment of cadmium induced

cytotoxicity and apoptosis on human osteoblast-like cell line MG-63. Poster

communication at the International Conference on Occupational and Environmental

Health. 2011 October 17-19. Porto.

24. Valko M, Leibfritz D, Moncol J, Cronin MTD, Mazur M, Telser J. Free radicals and

antioxidants in normal physiological functions and human disease. Int J Biochem Cell

Biol. 2007;39(1):44–84.

25. Genestra M. Oxyl radicals, redox-sensitive signalling cascades and antioxidants. Cel

Signal. 2007;19(9):1807–1819.

26. Bialkowski K, Bialkowska a, Kasprzak KS. Cadmium(II), unlike nickel(II), inhibits 8-

oxo-dGTPase activity and increases 8-oxo-dG level in DNA of the rat testis, a target

organ for cadmium(II) carcinogenesis. Carcinog. 1999;20(8):1621–1624.

27. Qu W, Ke H, Pi J, Broderick D, French JE, Webber MM, Waalkes P. Acquisition of

apoptotic resistance in cadmium-transformed human prostate epithelial cells: Bcl-2



38

overexpression blocks the activation of JNK signal transduction pathway. Environ

Health Perspect. 2007;115(7):1094–1100.

28. Schwerdtle T, Ebert F, Thuy C, Richter C, Mullenders LHF, Hartwig A. Genotoxicity

of soluble and particulate cadmium compounds: impact on oxidative DNA damage

and nucleotide excision repair. Chem Res Toxicol. 2010;23(2):432–42.

29. Oldiges H, Hochrainer D, Glaser U. Long-term inhalation study with Wistar rats and

four cadmium compounds. Toxicol. Environ. Chem. 1989;19:217-222.

30. Beyersmann D, Hartwig A. Carcinogenic metal compounds: recent insight into

molecular and cellular mechanisms. Arch Toxicol. 2008;82(8):493–512.

31. Bakand S, Winder C, Khalil C, Hayes A. Toxicity assessment of industrial chemicals

and airborne contaminants: transition from in vivo to in vitro test methods: a review.

Inhal Toxicol. 2005;17(13):775–787.

32. Freshney RI. Culture of animal cells: a manual of basic technique and specialized

applications. 6th

ed. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley-Blackwell. New Jersey. John Wiley &

Sons, Inc. 2005. 732 p.

33. Masters JRW. Animal Cell Culture: a practical approach. 3rd

ed. Oxford University

Press. 2000. 315 p.

34. Fotakis G, Timbrell J A. In vitro cytotoxicity assays: comparison of LDH, neutral red,

MTT and protein assay in hepatoma cell lines following exposure to cadmium

chloride. Toxicol Lett. 2006;160(2):171–177.

35. Weyermann J, Lochmann D, Zimmer A. A practical note on the use of cytotoxicity

assays. Int J Pharm. 2005;288(2):369–376.



39

36. Serafimova R, Fuart Gatnik M, Worth A. Review of QSAR models and software tools

for predicting genotoxicity and carcinogenicity. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

(EUR collection). Publications Office of the European Union 2010. 49 p.

37. Russell WMS, Burch RL. The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique.

London. Methuen & Co. 1959. Special edition published by Universities Federation

for Animal Welfare (UFAW). 1992. 238 p.

38. Hattar S, Berdal A, Asselin A, Loty S, Greenspan DC, Sautier J-M. Behaviour of

moderately differentiated osteoblast-like cells cultured in contact with bioactive

glasses. Eur Cells Mater. 2002;4(1):61–69.

39. Schwartz Z, Lohmann CH, Oefinger J, Bonewald LF, Dean DD, Boyan BD. Implant

surface characteristics modulate differentiation behavior of cells in the osteoblastic

lineage. Adv Dent Res. 1999;13(1):38–48.

40. Lossdörfer S, Schwartz Z, Wang L, Lohmann CH, Turner JD, Wieland M, Cochran

DL, Boyan BD. Microrough implant surface topographies increase osteogenesis by

reducing osteoclast formation and activity. J Biomed Mater Res, Part A.

2004;70(3):361–369.

41. Pautke C, Schieker M, Tischer T, Kolk A, Neth P, Mutschler W, Milz S.

Characterization of osteosarcoma cell lines MG-63, Saos-2 and U-2 OS in comparison

to human osteoblasts. Anticancer Res. 2004;24(6):3743–3748.

42. Fleury C, Petit A, Mwale F, Antoniou J, Zukor DJ, Tabrizian M, Huk OL. Effect of

cobalt and chromium ions on human MG-63 osteoblasts in vitro: morphology,

cytotoxicity, and oxidative stress. Biomater. 2006;27(18):3351–60.

43. Singh KP, Kumari R, Pevey C, Jackson D, DuMond JW. Long duration exposure to

cadmium leads to increased cell survival, decreased DNA repair capacity, and

genomic instability in mouse testicular Leydig cells. Cancer Lett. 2009;279(1):84–92.



40

44. Haase H, Ober-Blöbaum JL, Engelhardt G, Hebel S, Rink L. Cadmium ions induce

monocytic production of tumor necrosis factor-alpha by inhibiting mitogen activated

protein kinase dephosphorylation. Toxicol Lett. 2010;198(2):152–158.

45. Mosmann T. Rapid colorimetric assay for cellular growth and survival: application to

proliferation and cytotoxicity assays. J Immunol Methods. 1983;65(1-2):55–63.

46. Twentyman PR, Luscombe M. A study of some variables in a tetrazolium dye (MTT )

based assay for cell growth and chemosensitivity. Br J Cancer. 1987; 56(3):279-85.

47. Ahmadian S, Barar J, Saei AA, Fakhree MAA, Omidi Y. Cellular toxicity of

nanogenomedicine in MCF-7 cell line: MTT assay. J Vis Exp. 2009;(26):3–4.

48. Cell cycle schematic representation. [cited 2011 September]. Available from:

http://schoolworkhelper.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/cell_cycle.jpg.

49. Sperelakis. Cell Biology Sourcebook: A Molecular Approach. 3rd ed. San Diego,

USA: Academic Press. 2001. p. 1136.

50. Hartwell LH, Weinert TA. Checkpoints: controls that ensure the order of cell cycle

events. Sci. 1989;246(4930):629–634.

51. Lodish H, Berk A, Kaiser CA, Krieger M, P. SM, Anthony B, Ploegh H, Matsudaira P.

Life begins with cells. In: Molecular Cell Biology. San Diego, USA: W.H. Freeman.

2008.p. 17–19.

52. Koren A. The role of the DNA damage checkpoint in regulation of translesion DNA

synthesis. Mutagen. 2007;22(3):155–160.

53. Bartek J, Lukas J. Mammalian G1- and S-phase checkpoints in response to DNA

damage. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2001;13(6):738–747.

http://schoolworkhelper.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/cell_cycle.jpg



41

54. Palou G, Palou R, Guerra-Moreno A, Duch A, Travesa A, Quintana DG. Cyclin

regulation by the s phase checkpoint. J Biol Chem. 2010;285(34):26431–26440.

55. Loureiro J, Santos C. Aplicação da Citometria de fluxo ao estudo do genoma vegetal.

Bol Biotecnol. 2004;77:18-29.

56. Lopes T, Reis A, Hewitt C, Roseiro C. Citometria de fl uxo - funcionalidade celular

on-line em bioprocessos. Bol Biotecnol. 2004;77:18-29.

57. Robinson JP. Flow Cytometry. Encyclopedia of Biomaterials and Biomedical

Engineering. New York. Marcel Dekker, Inc. 2004.

58. Kumaravel TS, Vilhar B, Faux SP, Jha AN. Comet Assay measurements: a

perspective. Cell Biol Toxicol. 2009;25(1):53–64.

59. McKenna DJ, McKeown SR, McKelvey-Martin VJ. Potential use of the comet assay

in the clinical management of cancer. Mutagen. 2008;23(3):183–190.

60. Costa S, Pina C, Coelho P, Costa C, Silva S, Porto B,Teixeira JP. Occupational

exposure to formaldehyde: genotoxic risk evaluation by comet assay and micronucleus

test using human peripheral lymphocytes. J Toxicol Environ Health, Part A.

2011;74(15-16):1040–1051.

61. Tice RR, Agurell E, Anderson D, Burlinson B, Hartmann A, Kobayashi H, Miyamae

Y, Rojas E, Ryu J-C, Sasaki YF. Single cell gel / comet assay : guidelines for in vitro

and in vivo genetic toxicology testing. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2000;221:206–221.

62. Hartmann A, Agurell E, Beevers C, Brendler-Schwaab S, Burlinson B, Clay P, Collins

A, Smith A, Speit G, Thybaud V, Tice RR. Recommendations for conducting the in

vivo alkaline comet assay. Mutagen. 2003;18(1):45–51.



42

63. Nossoni F. Single-cell gel electrophoresis (comet assay): methodology, potential

applications, and limitations in cancer research. Basic Biotechnol eJ. 2008;4:30–35.

64. Lévesque M, Martineau C, Jumarie C, Moreau R. Characterization of cadmium uptake

and cytotoxicity in human osteoblast-like MG-63 cells. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol.

2008;231(3):308–317.

65. Bork U, Lee W-K, Kuchler A, Dittmar T, Thévenod F. Cadmium-induced DNA

damage triggers G(2)/M arrest via chk1/2 and cdc2 in p53-deficient kidney proximal

tubule cells. Am J Physiol. Renal Physiol. 2010;298(2):F255–F265.

66. Singh NP, McCoy MT, Tice RR, Schneider EL. A simple technique for quantitation of

low levels of DNA damage in individual cells. Exp Cell Res. 1988;175(1):184–191.

67. Coonse KG, Coonts a J, Morrison EV, Heggland SJ. Cadmium induces apoptosis in

the human osteoblast-like cell line Saos-2. J Toxicol Environ Health, Part A.

2007;70(7):575–581.

68. Martineau C, Abed E, Médina G, Jomphe L-A, Mantha M, Jumarie C, Moreau R.

Involvement of transient receptor potential melastatin-related 7 (TRPM7) channels in

cadmium uptake and cytotoxicity in MC3T3-E1 osteoblasts. Toxicol Lett.

2010;199(3):357–363.

69. Prozialeck WC, Grunwald GB, Dey PM, Reuhl KR, Parrish AR. Cadherins and

NCAM as Potential Targets in Metal Toxicity. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol.

2002;182(3):255–265.

70. ATCC. MTT Cell Proliferation Assay - Instructions - Catalog Number 30-1010K.

2001;(30):1–6.

71. Yang P-M, Chiu S-J, Lin K-A, Lin L-Y. Effect of cadmium on cell cycle progression

in chinese hamster ovary cells. Chem-Biol Interact. 2004;149(2-3):125–136.



43

72. Oliveira H, Loureiro J, Filipe L, Santos C, Ramalho-Santos J, Sousa M,Pereira M de

L. Flow cytometry evaluation of lead and cadmium effects on mouse spermatogenesis.

Reprod Toxicol. 2006;22(3):529–535.

73. García-Medina S, Razo-Estrada C, Galar-martinez M, Cortéz-Barberena E, Gómez-

Oliván LM, Álvarez-González I, Madrigal-Bujaidar E. Genotoxic and cytotoxic

effects induced by aluminum in the lymphocytes of the common carp (Cyprinus

carpio). Comp Biochem Physiol, Part C. 2011;153(1):113–118.

74. Galbraith DW, Lambert GM, Macas J, Dolezel J. Analysis of nuclear DNA content

and ploidy in higher plants. in Curr Protoc Cytom. (Robinson JP, Darzynkiewicz Z,

Dean PN, Dressler LG, Rabinovitch, PS, Stewart CV, Tanke, HJ, Weeless LL Eds.

2001). New York. John Wiley & Sons. 7.6.1-7.6.22 pp.

75. Rodriguez E, Azevedo R, Fernandes P, Santos C. Cr(VI) induces DNA damage, cell

cycle arrest and polyploidization: a flow cytometric and comet assay study in Pisum

sativum. Chem Res Toxicol. 2011;24(7):1040–1047.

76. Monteiro MS, Rodriguez E, Loureiro J, Mann RM, Soares AMVM, Santos C. Flow

cytometric assessment of Cd genotoxicity in three plants with different metal

accumulation and detoxification capacities. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2010;73(6):1231–

1237.

77. Collins AR, Oscoz AA, Brunborg G, Gaivão I, Giovannelli L, Kruszewski M, Smith

CC, Štĕtina R. The comet assay: topical issues. Mutagen. 2008;23(3):143–151.

78. Hemminki K. DNA adducts, mutations and cancer. Carcinogen. 1993;14(10):2007–

2012.

79. Valko M, Morris H, Cronin MTD. Metals, toxicity oxidative stress. Curr Med Chem.

2005;12:1161–1208.



44

80. Azqueta A, Shaposhnikov S, Collins AR. DNA oxidation: investigating its key role in

environmental mutagenesis with the comet assay. Mutat Res. 2009;674(1-2):101–8.

81. Azqueta A, Shaposhnikov S, Collins AR. DNA Repair Measured by the Comet Assay.

in: Kruman I, editor. DNA Repair. InTech; 2011. 615–36 pp.

82. O’Connell MJ, Cimprich KA. G2 damage checkpoints: what is the turn-on? J Cell Sci.

2005;118(1):1–6.

francisco cytotoxic and genotoxic …...effects of cadmium in human osteoblasts cell line mg-63....

Documents