Qian Ye , Xingchao Geng , Hua Jiang , Chao Qin , Hui Wu , Sanlong Wang , Hairuo Wen
{"title":"在 C57BL/6J 小鼠体内评估 N-亚硝基乙基异丙基胺(NEIPA)和 N-亚硝基二异丙基胺(NDIPA)的遗传毒性","authors":"Qian Ye , Xingchao Geng , Hua Jiang , Chao Qin , Hui Wu , Sanlong Wang , Hairuo Wen","doi":"10.1016/j.mrgentox.2024.503763","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>N-Nitrosamines, known as drug impurities and suspected carcinogens, have drawn significant public concern. In response to drug regulatory needs, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has previously proposed a carcinogenic potency categorization approach based on the N-nitrosamine α-hydroxylation hypothesis, i.e., that N-nitrosamine mutagenicity increases with the number of α-hydrogen atoms. However, this structure-activity relationship has not been fully tested <em>in vivo</em>. NEIPA (N-nitrosoethylisopropylamine) and NDIPA (N-nitrosodiisopropylamine) are small N-Nitrosamines with similar structures, differing in that the former compound has an additional α-hydrogen atom. In this study, NEIPA and NEIPA doses, 25–100 mg/kg, were administered orally to C57BL/6 J mice for seven consecutive days, and their mutation and DNA damage effects were compared. Compared with NDIPA, the mutagenicity and DNA damage potencies of NEIPA (which contains one more α-hydrogen) were much greater. These differences may be related to their distinct metabolic pathways and target organs. This case study confirms the role of α-hydroxyl modification in the mutagenicity of nitrosamines, with oxidation at the α-hydrogen being a crucial step in the formation of mutagens from N-Nitrosamines, and can inform mutagenicity risk assessment and the formulation of regulatory standards for N-nitrosamine impurities.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":18799,"journal":{"name":"Mutation research. Genetic toxicology and environmental mutagenesis","volume":"896 ","pages":"Article 503763"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Genotoxicity assessments of N-nitrosoethylisopropylamine (NEIPA) and N-nitrosodiisopropylamine (NDIPA) in the C57BL/6J mouse\",\"authors\":\"Qian Ye , Xingchao Geng , Hua Jiang , Chao Qin , Hui Wu , Sanlong Wang , Hairuo Wen\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.mrgentox.2024.503763\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>N-Nitrosamines, known as drug impurities and suspected carcinogens, have drawn significant public concern. In response to drug regulatory needs, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has previously proposed a carcinogenic potency categorization approach based on the N-nitrosamine α-hydroxylation hypothesis, i.e., that N-nitrosamine mutagenicity increases with the number of α-hydrogen atoms. However, this structure-activity relationship has not been fully tested <em>in vivo</em>. NEIPA (N-nitrosoethylisopropylamine) and NDIPA (N-nitrosodiisopropylamine) are small N-Nitrosamines with similar structures, differing in that the former compound has an additional α-hydrogen atom. In this study, NEIPA and NEIPA doses, 25–100 mg/kg, were administered orally to C57BL/6 J mice for seven consecutive days, and their mutation and DNA damage effects were compared. Compared with NDIPA, the mutagenicity and DNA damage potencies of NEIPA (which contains one more α-hydrogen) were much greater. These differences may be related to their distinct metabolic pathways and target organs. This case study confirms the role of α-hydroxyl modification in the mutagenicity of nitrosamines, with oxidation at the α-hydrogen being a crucial step in the formation of mutagens from N-Nitrosamines, and can inform mutagenicity risk assessment and the formulation of regulatory standards for N-nitrosamine impurities.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18799,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mutation research. Genetic toxicology and environmental mutagenesis\",\"volume\":\"896 \",\"pages\":\"Article 503763\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mutation research. Genetic toxicology and environmental mutagenesis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383571824000391\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mutation research. Genetic toxicology and environmental mutagenesis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383571824000391","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Genotoxicity assessments of N-nitrosoethylisopropylamine (NEIPA) and N-nitrosodiisopropylamine (NDIPA) in the C57BL/6J mouse
N-Nitrosamines, known as drug impurities and suspected carcinogens, have drawn significant public concern. In response to drug regulatory needs, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has previously proposed a carcinogenic potency categorization approach based on the N-nitrosamine α-hydroxylation hypothesis, i.e., that N-nitrosamine mutagenicity increases with the number of α-hydrogen atoms. However, this structure-activity relationship has not been fully tested in vivo. NEIPA (N-nitrosoethylisopropylamine) and NDIPA (N-nitrosodiisopropylamine) are small N-Nitrosamines with similar structures, differing in that the former compound has an additional α-hydrogen atom. In this study, NEIPA and NEIPA doses, 25–100 mg/kg, were administered orally to C57BL/6 J mice for seven consecutive days, and their mutation and DNA damage effects were compared. Compared with NDIPA, the mutagenicity and DNA damage potencies of NEIPA (which contains one more α-hydrogen) were much greater. These differences may be related to their distinct metabolic pathways and target organs. This case study confirms the role of α-hydroxyl modification in the mutagenicity of nitrosamines, with oxidation at the α-hydrogen being a crucial step in the formation of mutagens from N-Nitrosamines, and can inform mutagenicity risk assessment and the formulation of regulatory standards for N-nitrosamine impurities.
期刊介绍:
Mutation Research - Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis (MRGTEM) publishes papers advancing knowledge in the field of genetic toxicology. Papers are welcomed in the following areas:
New developments in genotoxicity testing of chemical agents (e.g. improvements in methodology of assay systems and interpretation of results).
Alternatives to and refinement of the use of animals in genotoxicity testing.
Nano-genotoxicology, the study of genotoxicity hazards and risks related to novel man-made nanomaterials.
Studies of epigenetic changes in relation to genotoxic effects.
The use of structure-activity relationships in predicting genotoxic effects.
The isolation and chemical characterization of novel environmental mutagens.
The measurement of genotoxic effects in human populations, when accompanied by quantitative measurements of environmental or occupational exposures.
The application of novel technologies for assessing the hazard and risks associated with genotoxic substances (e.g. OMICS or other high-throughput approaches to genotoxicity testing).
MRGTEM is now accepting submissions for a new section of the journal: Current Topics in Genotoxicity Testing, that will be dedicated to the discussion of current issues relating to design, interpretation and strategic use of genotoxicity tests. This section is envisaged to include discussions relating to the development of new international testing guidelines, but also to wider topics in the field. The evaluation of contrasting or opposing viewpoints is welcomed as long as the presentation is in accordance with the journal''s aims, scope, and policies.