Dataset Information

The in vitro ToxTracker and Aneugen Clastogen Evaluation extension assay as a tool in the assessment of relative genotoxic potential of e-liquids and their aerosols.

ABSTRACT: In vitro (geno)toxicity assessment of electronic vapour products (EVPs), relative to conventional cigarette, currently uses assays, including the micronucleus and Ames tests. Whilst informative on induction of a finite endpoint and relative risk posed by test articles, such assays could benefit from mechanistic supplementation. The ToxTracker and Aneugen Clastogen Evaluation analysis can indicate the activation of reporters associated with (geno)toxicity, including DNA damage, oxidative stress, the p53-related stress response and protein damage. Here, we tested for the different effects of a selection of neat e-liquids, EVP aerosols and Kentucky reference 1R6F cigarette smoke samples in the ToxTracker assay. The assay was initially validated to assess whether a mixture of e-liquid base components, propylene glycol (PG) and vegetable glycerine (VG) had interfering effects within the system. This was achieved by spiking three positive controls into the system with neat PG/VG or phosphate-buffered saline bubbled (bPBS) PG/VG aerosol (nicotine and flavour free). PG/VG did not greatly affect responses induced by the compounds. Next, when compared to cigarette smoke samples, neat e-liquids and bPBS aerosols (tobacco flavour; 1.6% freebase nicotine, 1.6% nicotine salt or 0% nicotine) exhibited reduced and less complex responses. Tested up to a 10% concentration, EVP aerosol bPBS did not induce any ToxTracker reporters. Neat e-liquids, tested up to 1%, induced oxidative stress reporters, thought to be due to their effects on osmolarity in vitro. E-liquid nicotine content did not affect responses induced. Additionally, spiking nicotine alone only induced an oxidative stress response at a supraphysiological level. In conclusion, the ToxTracker assay is a quick, informative screen for genotoxic potential and mechanisms of a variety of (compositionally complex) samples, derived from cigarettes and EVPs. This assay has the potential for future application in the assessment battery for next-generation (smoking alternative) products, including EVPs.

SUBMITTER: Czekala L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8166346 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have become popular, in part because they are perceived as a safer alternative to tobacco cigarettes. An increasing number of studies, however, have found toxic metals/metalloids in e-cigarette emissions. OBJECTIVE:We summarized the evidence on metal/metalloid levels in e-cigarette liquid (e-liquid), aerosols, and biosamples of e-cigarette users across e-cigarette device systems to evaluate metal/metalloid exposure levels for e-cigarette users and the potential implications on health outcomes. METHODS:We searched PubMed/TOXLINE, Embase®, and Web of Science for studies on metals/metalloids in e-liquid, e-cigarette aerosols, and biosamples of e-cigarette users. For metal/metalloid levels in e-liquid and aerosol samples, we collected the mean and standard deviation (SD) if these values were reported, derived mean and SD by using automated software to infer them if data were reported in a figure, or calculated the overall mean (mean ± SD) if data were reported only for separate groups. Metal/metalloid levels in e-liquids and aerosols were converted and reported in micrograms per kilogram and nanograms per puff, respectively, for easy comparison. RESULTS:We identified 24 studies on metals/metalloids in e-liquid, e-cigarette aerosols, and human biosamples of e-cigarette users. Metal/metalloid levels, including aluminum, antimony, arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, selenium, tin, and zinc, were present in e-cigarette samples in the studies reviewed. Twelve studies reported metal/metalloid levels in e-liquids (bottles, cartridges, open wick, and tank), 12 studies reported metal/metalloid levels in e-cigarette aerosols (from cig-a-like and tank devices), and 4 studies reported metal/metalloid levels in human biosamples (urine, saliva, serum, and blood) of e-cigarette users. Metal/metalloid levels showed substantial heterogeneity depending on sample type, source of e-liquid, and device type. Metal/metalloid levels in e-liquid from cartridges or tank/open wicks were higher than those from bottles, possibly due to coil contact. Most metal/metalloid levels found in biosamples of e-cigarette users were similar or higher than levels found in biosamples of conventional cigarette users, and even higher than those found in biosamples of cigar users. CONCLUSION:E-cigarettes are a potential source of exposure to metals/metalloids. Differences in collection methods and puffing regimes likely contribute to the variability in metal/metalloid levels across studies, making comparison across studies difficult. Standardized protocols for the quantification of metal/metalloid levels from e-cigarette samples are needed. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP5686.

Dataset Information

The in vitro ToxTracker and Aneugen Clastogen Evaluation extension assay as a tool in the assessment of relative genotoxic potential of e-liquids and their aerosols.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets