Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Genetics and Molecular Biology logoLink to Genetics and Molecular Biology
. 2014 Jun;37(2):428–438. doi: 10.1590/s1415-47572014000300016

Evaluation of the mutagenicity and antimutagenicity of Ziziphus joazeiro Mart. bark in the micronucleus assay

Marcelo Fabiano Gomes Boriollo 1,2,✉, Marielly Reis Resende 4, Thaísla Andrielle da Silva 1,2, Juliana Yoshida Públio 2, Luiz Silva Souza 1,2, Carlos Tadeu dos Santos Dias 4, Nelma de Mello Silva Oliveira 1,3, João Evangelista Fiorini 1,2
PMCID: PMC4094613  PMID: 25071409

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the mutagenicity (clastogenicity/aneugenicity) of a glycolic extract of Ziziphus joazeiro bark (GEZJ) by the micronucleus assay in mice bone marrow. Antimutagenic activity was also assessed using treatments associated with GEZJ and doxorubicin (DXR). Mice were evaluated 24–48 h after exposure to positive (N-nitroso-N-ethylurea, NEU - 50 mg.kg−1 and DXR - 5 mg.kg−1) and negative (150 mM NaCl) controls, as well as treatment with GEZJ (0.5–2 g.kg−1), GEZJ (2 g.kg−1) + NEU and GEZJ (2 g.kg−1) + DXR. There were no significant differences in the frequencies of micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes in mice treated with GEJZ and GEJZ + DXR compared to the negative controls, indicating that GEZJ was not mutagenic. Analysis of the polychromatic:normochromatic erythrocyte ratio revealed significant differences in the responses to doses of 0.5 g.kg−1 and 1–2 g.kg−1 and the positive control (NEU). These results indicated no systemic toxicity and moderate toxicity at lower and higher doses of GEZJ. The lack of mutagenicity and systemic toxicity in the antimutagenic assays, especially for treatment with GEZJ + DXR, suggested that phytochemical compounds in Z. joazeiro bark attenuated DXR-induced mutagenicity and the moderate systemic toxicity of a high dose of Z. joazeiro bark (2 g.kg−1). Further studies on the genotoxicity of Z. joazeiro extracts are necessary to establish the possible health risk in humans and to determine the potential as a chemopreventive agent for therapeutic use.

Keywords: antimutagenicity, bone marrow, doxorubicin, micronucleus assay, mutagenicity, Zizyphus joazeiro Mart. (raspa-de-Juá)

Introduction

Many species of medicinal plants, such as Amburana cearensis, Anadenanthera colubrina, Mentha x villosa, Myracrodruon urundeuva, Plectranthus amboinicus, Ruta graveolens, Ximenia americana and Ziziphus joazeiro, are widely used by communities in the Brazilian Caatinga to treat a large spectrum of clinical conditions ranging from diseases requiring palliative care to general aches, e.g., bronchitis, sinusitis, rhinitis, nasal congestion, headaches, flu, fever, expectorant, colic, hypertension, thrombosis, indigestion, intestinal dysfunction, liver and kidney problems, infectious and inflammatory processes and pain in general (Cartaxo et al., 2010). Ziziphus joazeiro Mart. (Rhamnaceae) is a native Brazilian tree resistant to dry environments (Cartaxo et al., 2010). This species is an important source of water and food for animals in arid habitats (Braga, 1960; Cruz, 1985; Nunes et al., 1987).

A phytochemical analysis of Z. joazeiro Mart. has shown that the leaf epicuticular wax is rich in n-alkanes (78.6%), very efficient compounds for impermeabilizing the leaf surface, and triterpenoids (Oliveira et al., 2003). A similar analysis of a dichloromethane extract of Z. joazeiro Mart. bark identified triterpenoids with weak antibacterial activity (e.g., betulinic, alphitolic and ursolic acids) and remarkable activity against Staphylococcus epidermidis [e.g., betulinic acid ester derivatives such as 7β-(4-hydroxy-benzoyloxy), 7β-(4-hydro-3-methoxy-benzoyloxy) and 27-(4-hydroxy-3-methoxy-benzoyloxy)] (Schuhly et al., 1999). Ziziphus joazeiro Mart. bark also contains an abundance of saponins that have been used as toothpastes, with aqueous extracts showing antimicrobial action against bacteria (planktonic cells and artificial biofilms) related to dental caries and periodontal diseases (Alviano et al., 2008). Other popular therapeutic applications of Z. joazeiro Mart. include the treatment of dandruff, rheumatism, flu, fever, chronic bronchitis, gastric ulcers, indigestion, heartburn and headaches (Schuhly et al., 1999; Cartaxo et al., 2010). In addition, experimental studies have identified potential antifungal (Cruz et al., 2007), antibacterial (Schuhly et al., 1999; Alviano et al., 2008; Leal et al., 2010), antioxidant (Alviano et al., 2008) and antipyretic (Nunes et al., 1987) activities, as well as low toxicity (Alviano et al., 2008).

Biologically active compounds have been recognized for their pharmacological properties, but many of them are of limited therapeutic use because of their toxicological, carcinogenic and mutagenic properties (Ames, 1983; Konstantoupoulou et al., 1992; Tavares, 1996). The analysis of genotoxicity is a major aspect of drug development since most pharmaceutical companies evaluate the potential of a new therapeutic agent based on its genotoxicity in vitro and in vivo (Purves et al., 1995). In this context, the screening of popularly used plants and their isolated components for mutagenic activity is necessary and important for establishing adequate control measures. This screening can also provide insights into the mechanisms involved in the biological effects of plants used as therapeutic agents (Varanda, 2006).

As far as genotoxicity studies are concerned, the in vivo micronucleus (MN) assay in rodent bone marrow is a crucial part of the battery of tests used to identify hazardous mutagens (Mateuca et al., 2006). This assay is especially suited for assessing mutagenic hazards because it contemplates various factors, such as in vivo metabolism, pharmacokinetics and DNA repair mechanisms, even though these processes vary among species and tissues and have different genetic endpoints (OECD, 1997a,b; Ribeiro et al., 2003). Since bone marrow erythroblasts develop into polychromatic erythrocytes (PCEs), i.e., cells generated by extrusion of the main nucleus, micronuclei may remain in an otherwise anucleated cytoplasm. Consequently, the frequency of micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes (MNPCEs) has been the principal endpoint for MN assays. The measurement of MNPCEs in peripheral blood is possible in any species in which the spleen does not remove micronucleated erythrocytes, or that is sufficiently sensitive to agents that cause structural or numerical chromosomal aberrations. An increase in the frequency of MNPCEs in treated animals, i.e., a positive result, indicates that a substance can cause the formation of micronuclei through chromosomal damage or damage to the mitotic apparatus of erythroblasts. On the other hand, a negative result implies that the test substance does not cause micro-nucleus formation in immature erythrocytes. The number of normochromatic erythrocytes (NCEs) in peripheral blood that contain micronuclei for a given number of mature erythrocytes can also be used as the endpoint of this assay (OECD, 1997c; Ribeiro et al., 2003). Several studies have used the mammalian in vivo MN assay to understand the mutagenic effects induced by phytotherapeutics and foods (Indart et al., 2007; Venkatesh et al., 2007; Chandrasekaran et al., 2011; Silva et al., 2011; Alves et al., 2012).

Although several studies have examined the potential therapeutic effectiveness of Z. joazeiro Mart., there has been no systematic investigation of the genotoxic and mutagenic effects of this plant. In this work, we examined the mutagenic effects of a glycolic extract of Z. joazeiro Mart. bark as part of a wider study on the genotoxic potential of herbal extracts. The effect of the maximum permissible concentration of Z. joazeiro Mart. on the mutagenicity of doxorubicin (DXR) in mouse bone marrow, i.e., its antimutagenic activity, was also examined.

Material and Methods

Raw material and sample preparation

A glycolic extract of Z. joazeiro bark (GEZJ) was purchased commercially and stored according to the manufacturer’s recommendations (AKSY Comercial Ltda., São Bernardo do Campo, SP, Brazil). Aliquots (1.5 L) of this extract were submitted to solvent removal proceedings by rotary evaporation (40 rpm) (Rotavapor model R-215) coupled to a bath heating system maintained at 50–60 °C (Bath Heating model B-491), a vacuum pump (vacuum of 500 mm Hg; Vacuum Pump V-700 with Automatic Vacuum Controller V-855), a water recirculator (Recirculator Chiller F-100) and an evaporation bottle (Büchi Labortechnik AG, Switzerland). The final product was transferred to a 1 L reaction bottle (SCHOTT® DURAN®) and kept at −20 °C for 24 h in order to evaluate the freezing of the final product and the efficacy of solvent evaporation (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA) (2010)). Aliquots (40 mL) of this final product were transferred to penicillin-type glass vials (50 mL) and lyophilized (Lyophilizer model Alpha 1-2 LDPlus, Martin Christ Gefriertrocknungsanlagen GmbH, Germany) and the dry mass were measured (Electronic Analytical Balance AUW-220D, Shimadzu Corp., Kyoto, Japan). Aqueous solutions of the lyophilized product were prepared in type 1 water at twice the final concentration, sterilized by filtration (Millipore Corporation, hydrophilic Durapore® PVDF, 0.22 μm, ±47 mm, cat. no. GVWP 047 00) and stored in sterile polypropylene tubes (50 mL) at −70 °C until used.

In vivo assays

Healthy, heterogeneous, young adult male and female Swiss mice (Unib:SW) 7–12 weeks old (pubescent period) weighing 30–40 g (weight variation among mice of each sex was < 20% of the mean weight) were provided by CEMIB (Centro Multidisciplinar para Investigação Biológica - UNICAMP) and erythrocytes from the bone marrow of these mice were used in the MN assay (Collaborative Study Group for the Micronucleus Test (CSGMT), 1986; Chorilli et al., 2007).

Animals of the same sex were housed in polypropylene boxes in an air-conditioned environment to 22 ±3 °C, with a relative air humidity of 50% ±20% and a 12 h light/dark cycle. The mice were fed commercial rodent chow (Purina® Labina, Nestlé Purina Pet Care Company) and water ad libitum, and were acclimated to laboratory conditions for seven days prior to use in the experiments. At the end of this period, each mouse was weighed and then received 2 mL of liquid (containing the desired test agent) per 100 g body weight.

All animals were properly identified by numerical markings on their tails to ensure continuity of the records and reliable interpretation of the results throughout the study (OECD, 1997c). After the period of treatment, the mice were euthanized by inhalation of carbon dioxide in adapted acrylic chambers as described in the Report of the American Veterinary Medical Association panel on euthanasia (Beaver et al., 2000). This study was done in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Animal Rights (UNESCO, 1978), the ethical principles for animal experimentation established by the Brazilian Society of Laboratory Animal Science (SBCAL - Sociedade Brasileira de Ciência em Animais de Laboratório), the Brazilian Environmental Crimes Law (Law no. 9.605, February 12, 1998), the Brazilian standards for Didactic-Scientific Practice of Vivisection of Animals (Law no. 6.638, May 8, 1979), and was approved by the Committee for Ethics in Research Involving Animals at UNIFENAS (CEPEAU Protocol no. 04A/2008).

Experimental groups

The experimental groups of mice (3 males and 3 females each) were assessed 24 h and 48 h after a single treatment administered by gavage (Figure 1). The mutagenic activity of GEZJ was assessed in mice that received doses of 0.5–2 g.kg−1 (groups 7–14) and the antimutagenic activity was assessed in mice that received NEU (50 mg.kg−1) +GEZJ (2 g.kg−1) (groups 15 and 16) and DXR (5 mg.kg−1)+ GEZJ (2 g.kg−1) (groups 17 and 18). The doses of GEZJ were chosen based on previous acute toxicity experiments in mice that yielded LD50 values of 2.0–3.5 g/kg for several plant extracts, including Z. joazeiro (Alviano et al., 2008). Negative controls (groups 1 and 2: 150 mM NaCl in type 1 water) and positive controls (groups 3 and 4: 50 mg.kg−1 of NEU; groups 5 and 6: 5 mg.kg−1 of DXR) were also included as single treatments administered by gavage (NaCl) and intraperitoneally (NEU and DXR) (OECD, 1997c).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Experimental protocol for assessing the mutagenic and antimutagenic activity of a glycolic extract of Z. joazeiro bark. T - treatment, E - euthanasia and n - number of mice.

Processing of bone marrow

MN assays using bone marrow erythrocytes were done 24 h and 48 h after treatment, using previously described methodology (Schmid, 1976; Zambrano et al., 1982). Shortly after euthanasia, the femora were surgically and aseptically removed and the mice were appropriately discarded. Each femur was sectioned at the proximal end and the contents of the spinal canal were washed with 1.5 mL of 150 mM NaCl and transferred to a 15 mL centrifuge tube. This material was resuspended with a Pasteur pipette to ensure a homogenous distribution of bone marrow cells. The suspension was then centrifuged at 1,000 rpm (Bench centrifuge, model NT 810, Nova Técnica Ind. e Com. de Equip. para Laboratório Ltda., Piracicaba, SP, Brazil) for 5 min. The supernatant was discarded and the resulting pellet was resuspended in 500 μL of 150 mM NaCI solution added 4% formaldehyde. The slides (two per animal) were prepared by smearing, dried at room temperature for 24 h and stained with Leishman’s eosin methylene blue dye [pure dye for 3 min followed by diluted dye in distilled water (1:6) for 15 min] to differentiate polychromatic erythrocytes (PCEs) from monochromatic erythrocytes (NCEs).

PCEs were observed by light microscopy (Nikon Eclipse E-200 microscope) at a magnification of 1000×, counted (at least 2000 anucleated polychromatic erythrocytes per animal) with the aid of a digital cell counter (Contador Diferencial CCS02, Kacil Indústria e Comércio Ltda., PE, Brazil) and photographed using an 8.1 Megapixel Digital Camera (DC FWL 150). The number of PCEs, the number and frequency of MNPCEs and the ratio of polychromatic to monochromatic erythrocytes (PCE/NCE) were determined.

Statistical analysis

The data from the MN assay were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) using a 9×2×2 (treatment × gender × time) factorial scheme followed by multiple comparisons with the Tukey test (α= 0.05). All analyses were done using SAS® version 9.2 computer software.

Results and Discussion

Ziziphus joazeiro Mart. has been popularly used to treat dandruff, rheumatism, flu, fever, chronic bronchitis, gastric ulcers, indigestion, heartburn and headaches and to clean teeth (Schuhly et al., 1999; Cartaxo et al., 2010). In addition, Z. joazeiro has potential antifungal (Cruz et al., 2007), antibacterial (Schuhly et al., 1999; Alviano et al., 2008; Leal et al., 2010), antioxidant (Alviano et al., 2008) and antipyretic (Nunes et al., 1987) activities, as well as low toxicity (Alviano et al., 2008). This information partly supports the popular use of Z. joazeiro for certain treatments and agrees with ethnopharmacological studies designed to select plants for bioactivity screening (Cruz et al., 2007). In contrast, few studies have examined the mutagenic and antimutagenic effects of Z. joazeiro Mart.

In the present study, the number and frequency of MNPCEs and the PCE/NCE ratios in mouse bone marrow were analyzed in mutagenic and antimutagenic assays of a glycolic extract of Z. joazeiro bark (Table 1 and Figure 2). Analysis of the MNPCEs revealed no significant differences between the 24 h and 48 h results for the negative (NaCl) and positive (DXR and NEU) controls. However, there were significant differences (p < 0.05) between the negative and positive controls at the two time intervals. There were no differences between the negative controls and the treatments with GEJZ (0.5–2 g.kg−1) or with GEJZ (2 g.kg−1) + DXR (5 mg.kg−1): these responses showed no dose or time dependence, but varied between male and female mice. Mice treated with GEJZ (2 g.kg−1) + NEU (50 mg.kg−1) had intermediate values (n and %) that differed significantly from the negative and positive controls. These results suggest absence of mutagenicity (clastogenicity and/or aneugenicity) for GEZJ, regardless of the extract dose and time interval, although the responses varied between sexes. In contrast, GEJZ (2 g.kg−1) showed anti-mutagenic activity (anticlastogeny and/or antianeugeny) towards the chemotherapeutic agent DXR (5 mg.kg−1) or NEU (50 mg.kg−1), regardless of the time interval, although once again intersex variation was observed. These findings indicate that compounds in GEZJ can act against DXR-induced mutagenic effects in mouse bone marrow. Such compounds could include n-alkanes, triterpenoids [i.e., betulinic acid, alphitolic acid, ursolic acid, ester derivatives of betulinic acid such as 7β-(4-hydroxy-benzoyloxy)-betulinic acid, 7β-(4-hydro-3-methoxy-benzoyloxy)-betulinic acid and 27-(4-hydroxy-3-methoxy-benzoyloxy)-betulinic acid] (Oliveira et al., 2003; Schuhly et al., 1999) and saponins (Alviano et al., 2008). DXR has been reported to induce micronuclei, chromatid and chromosomal aberrations, and DNA single- and double-strand breaks in vitro and in vivo (Bean et al., 1992; Al-Harbi, 1993; Al-Shabanah, 1993; Delvaeye et al., 1993; Jagetia and Nayak, 1996, 2000; Shan et al., 1996; Dhawan et al., 2003; Jagetia and Aruna, 2000). In addition, the major acute toxicity induced by DXR is bone marrow suppression, while the long-term clinical usefulness is limited by a cumulative, dose-dependent, irreversible, chronic cardiotoxicity that manifests itself as congestive heart failure or cardiomyopathy (Van Acker et al., 1995, 2000).

Table 1.

MNPCE frequencies and PCE/NCE ratios in mouse bone marrow in mutagenic and antimutagenic assays of Z. joazeiro bark.

Treatment Number of PCEs analyzed MNPCEs * PCE / (PCE + NCE) ** NCE (n)
24 h 48 h 24 h (n) A 48 h (n) A 24 h (%) A’ 48 h (%) A’ 24 h A” 48 h B” 24 h 48 h
150 mM NaCl
F1 2095 2097 7 10 0.33 0.48 1.00 1.00 5 3
F2 2094 2095 9 10 0.43 0.48 1.00 1.00 6 5
F3 2087 2089 11 8 0.53 0.38 0.99 0.99 13 11
∑ F ∑ 6276 ∑ 6281 ∑ 27 ∑ 28 0.43 ±0.10 0.45±0.05 1.00±0.00 1.00±0.00 ∑ 24 ∑ 19
M1 2095 2088 9 13 0.43 0.62 1.00 0.99 5 12
M2 2055 2088 12 11 0.58 0.53 0.98 0.99 45 12
M3 2058 2084 7 11 0.34 0.53 0.98 0.99 42 16
∑ M ∑ 6208 ∑ 6260 ∑ 28 ∑ 35 0.45±0.12 0.56±0.06 0.99±0.01 0.99±0.00 ∑ 92 ∑ 40
∑ ∑ 12484 ∑ 12541 ∑ 55 A ∑ 63 A 0.44±0.08 A’ 0.50±0.06 A’ 0.99±0.01 A” 1.00±0.00 A” ∑ 116 ∑ 59
N-Nitroso-N-ethylurea (NEU, 50 mg.kg−1)
F1 2148 2075 38 36 1.77 1.73 0.49 0.65 2252 1125
F2 1884 2032 32 34 1.70 1.67 0.54 0.81 1616 468
F3 2002 1948 15 31 0.75 1.59 0.61 0.93 1298 152
∑ F ∑ 6034 ∑ 6055 ∑ 85 ∑ 101 1.41±0.57 1.67±0.07 0.54±0.06 0.80±0.14 ∑ 5166 ∑ 1745
M1 2025 1999 64 31 3.16 1.55 0.41 0.36 2875 3501
M2 2028 1916 105 40 5.18 2.09 0.51 0.55 1972 1584
M3 2004 2069 25 38 1.25 1.84 0.67 0.65 996 1131
∑ M ∑ 6057 ∑ 5984 ∑ 194 ∑ 109 3.20±1.97 1.83±0.27 0.53±0.13 0.52±0.14 ∑ 5843 ∑ 6216
∑ M and F ∑ 12091 ∑ 12039 ∑ 279 C ∑ 210 C 2.30±1.66 C’ 1.75±0.18 C’ 0.54±0.06 D” 0.66±0.16 D” ∑ 11009 ∑ 7961
Doxorubicin hydrochloride (DXR, 5 mg.kg−1)
F1 2091 2017 49 36 2.34 1.78 0.72 0.96 809 83
F2 2106 2077 73 63 3.47 3.03 0.98 0.99 44 23
F3 2056 2092 57 50 2.77 2.39 0.84 0.95 394 108
∑ F ∑ 6253 ∑ 6186 ∑ 179 ∑ 149 2.86±0.57 2.40±0.62 0.85±0.13 0.97±0.02 1247 214
M1 2067 2086 53 61 2.56 2.92 0.98 0.95 33 114
M2 2063 2042 56 70 2.71 3.43 0.98 0.97 37 58
M3 2082 2075 46 50 2.21 2.41 0.99 0.99 18 25
∑ M ∑ 6212 ∑ 6203 ∑ 155 ∑ 181 2.50±0.26 2.92±0.51 0.99±0.00 0.97±0.02 88 197
∑ M and F ∑ 12465 ∑ 12389 ∑ 334 D 330 D 2.68±0.42 D’ 2.66±0.43 D’ 0.92±0.07 AB” 0.97±0.01 AB” 1335 411
Glycolic extract of Z. joazeiro Mart. bark (0.5 mg.kg−1)
F1 2051 2085 8 8 0.39 0.38 0.77 0.95 620 115
F2 2082 2035 4 8 0.19 0.39 0.94 0.97 129 65
F3 2083 2005 11 2 0.53 0.10 0.94 0.95 134 95
∑ F A* A** ∑ 6216 ∑ 6125 ∑ 23 ∑ 18 0.37±0.17 0.29±0.17 0.88±0.10 0.96±0.01 ∑ 883 ∑ 275
M1 2076 2060 9 7 0.43 0.34 0.99 0.98 24 40
M2 2002 2046 7 7 0.35 0.34 0.95 0.97 98 54
M3 2038 2071 7 17 0.34 0.82 0.97 0.99 62 29
∑ M B* A** ∑ 6116 ∑ 6177 ∑ 23 ∑ 31 0.38±0.05 0.50±0.28 0.97±0.02 0.98±0.01 ∑ 184 ∑ 123
∑ M and F ∑ 12332 ∑ 12302 ∑ 46 A ∑ 49 A 0.37±0.00 A’ 0.40±0.15 A’ 0.92±0.07 AB” 0.97±0.02 AB” ∑ 1067 ∑ 398
Glycolic extract of Z. joazeiro Mart. bark (1 g.kg−1)
F1 2062 2047 9 10 0.44 0.49 0.80 0.89 531 253
F2 2044 2053 10 9 0.49 0.44 0.91 0.93 190 147
F3 2023 2067 11 8 0.54 0.39 0.86 0.94 337 138
∑ F A* A** ∑ 6129 ∑ 6167 ∑ 30 ∑ 27 0.49±0.05 0.44±0.05 0.86±0.06 0.92±0.03 ∑ 1058 ∑ 538
M1 2073 2014 15 12 0.72 0.60 0 81 0 92 489 175
M2 2056 2032 3 13 0.15 0.64 0 98 0 95 37 110
M3 2101 2075 20 16 0.95 0.77 0 84 0 97 389 68
∑ M B* A** ∑ 6230 ∑ 6121 ∑ 38 ∑ 41 0.61±0.42 0.67±0.09 0 88±0.09 0 95±0.02 ∑ 915 ∑ 353
∑ M and F ∑ 12359 ∑ 12288 ∑ 68 A ∑ 68 A 0.55±0.09 A’ 0.55±0.16 A’ 0.86±0.01 BC” 0.93±0.02 BC” ∑ 1973 ∑ 891
Glycolic extract of Z. joazeiro Mart. bark (1.5 mg.kg−1)
F1 2082 2041 21 16 1.01 0.78 0.80 0.84 518 401
F2 2134 2107 18 15 0.84 0.71 0.89 0.80 266 528
F3 2095 2075 16 14 0.76 0.67 0.81 0.91 505 195
∑ F A* A** ∑ 6311 ∑ 6223 ∑ 55 ∑ 45 0.87±0.12 0.72±0.06 0.83±0.05 0.85±0.06 ∑ 1289 ∑ 1124
M1 2045 2075 12 27 0.59 1.30 0.82 0.96 455 84
M2 2125 2048 14 16 0.66 0.78 0.86 0.92 352 173
M3 2108 2022 16 8 0.76 0.40 0.85 0.69 374 928
∑ M B* A** ∑ 6278 ∑ 6145 ∑ 42 ∑ 51 0.67 0.09 0.83 0.45 0.84 0.02 0.84 0.15 ∑ 1181 ∑ 1185
∑ M and F ∑ 12589 ∑ 12368 ∑ 97 AB ∑ 96 AB 0.77±0.14 AB’ 0.78±0.08 AB’ 0.84±0.01 C” 0.84±0.01 C” ∑ 2470 ∑ 2309
Glycolic extract of Z. joazeiro Mart. bark (2 g.kg−1)
F1 2032 2162 21 14 1.03 0.65 0.69 0.85 922 388
F2 2173 2037 17 23 0.78 1.13 0.93 0.79 176 532
F3 2020 2070 18 18 0.89 0.87 0.84 0.85 387 378
∑ F A* A** ∑ 6225 ∑ 6269 ∑ 56 ∑ 55 0.90±0.13 0.88±0.24 0.82±0.12 0.83±0.03 ∑ 1485 ∑ 1298
M1 2033 2010 17 14 0.84 0.70 0.84 0.77 383 590
M2 2058 2056 18 17 0.87 0.83 0.79 0.86 542 344
M3 2020 2037 10 26 0.50 1.28 0.70 0.88 880 277
∑ M B* A** ∑ 6111 ∑ 6103 ∑ 45 ∑ 57 0.74±0.21 0.93±0.30 0.78±0.07 0.83±0.06 ∑ 1805 ∑ 1211
∑ M and F ∑ 12336 ∑ 12372 ∑ 101 AB ∑ 112 AB 0.82±0.12 AB’ 0.91±0.04 AB’ 0.79±0.03 C” 0.83±0.00 C” ∑ 3290 ∑ 2509
Glycolic extract of Z. joazeiro Mart. bark (2 g.kg−1) + NEU (50 mg.kg−1)
F1 2052 2079 31 24 1.51 1.15 0.93 0.99 148 21
F2 2072 2055 26 16 1.25 0.78 0.99 0.98 28 45
F3 2071 2167 23 16 1.11 0.74 0.99 0.99 29 33
∑ F A* A** ∑ 6195 ∑ 6301 ∑ 80 ∑ 56 1.29±0.20 0.89±0.23 0.97±0.03 0.98±0.01 ∑ 205 ∑ 99
M1 2138 2241 32 43 1.50 1.92 0.97 0.90 62 259
M2 2144 2103 29 28 1.35 1.33 0.97 0.73 56 797
M3 2072 2076 32 27 1.54 1.30 0.94 0.99 128 24
∑ M B* A** ∑ 6354 ∑ 6420 ∑ 93 ∑ 98 1.46±0.10 1.53±0.35 0.96±0.02 0.86±0.13 ∑ 246 ∑ 1080
∑ M and F ∑ 12549 ∑ 12721 ∑ 173 B ∑ 154 B 1.38 B’ 1.21 B’ 0.97±0.00 AB” 0.92±0.09 AB” ∑ 451 ∑ 1179
Glycolic extract of Z. joazeiro Mart. bark (2 g.kg−1) + DXR (5 mg.kg−1)
F1 2086 2090 23 18 1.10 0.86 0.99 0.99 14 10
F2 2080 2100 23 20 1.11 0.95 0.99 1.00 20 1
F3 2080 2075 21 17 1.01 0.82 0.99 0.99 20 24
∑ F A* A** ∑ 6246 ∑ 6265 ∑ 67 ∑ 55 1.07±0.05 0.88±0.07 0.99±0.00 0.99±0.01 ∑ 54 ∑ 35
M1 2086 2088 24 12 1.15 0.57 0.99 0.99 14 12
M2 2083 2076 15 18 0.72 0.87 0.99 0.99 17 24
M3 2065 2096 17 14 0.82 0.67 0.98 1.00 35 4
∑ M B* A** ∑ 6234 ∑ 6260 ∑ 56 ∑ 44 0.90±0.22 0.70±0.15 0.99±0.01 0.99±0.00 ∑ 66 ∑ 40
∑ M and F ∑ 12480 ∑ 12525 ∑ 123 AB ∑ 99 AB 0.99±0.12 AB’ 0.79±0.12 AB’ 0.99±0.00 A” 0.99±0.00 A” ∑ 120 ∑ 75
Open in a new tab

Means with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05). M: Male. F: Female.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Box-plots showing the MNPCE frequencies and PCE/NCE ratios in mouse bone marrow in mutagenic and antimutagenic assays of Z. joazeiro bark. Means with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05). NaCl - control group treated with 150 mM NaCl, NEU - N-nitroso-N-ethylurea (50 mg.kg−1), DXR - doxorubicin hydrochloride (5 mg.kg−1), GEZJ - Glycolic extract of Z. joazeiro Mart. bark (0.5–2 g.kg−1), GEZJ (2 g.kg−1) + NEU (50 mg.kg−1) and GEZJ (2 g.kg−1) + DXR (5 mg.kg−1).

For the PCE/NCE ratio, there were no significant differences between the negative controls (NaCl), the positive control DXR (5 mg.kg−1), the GEZJ (0.5 mg.kg−1) group, and mice treated with GEZJ (2 g.kg−1) + NEU (50 mg.kg−1) or with GEZJ (2 g.kg−1) + DXR (5 mg.kg−1) (Table 1 and Figure 1). For the treatments with GEZJ, there was a significant difference between the dose of 500 mg.kg−1 and the doses of 1.5 g.kg−1 and 2 g.kg−1. Although there were no significant intersex differences, the responses did vary with time (24 h vs. 48 h). Lower doses of GEZJ (0.5–1 g.kg−1) were not toxic to bone marrow compared to higher doses (1.5–2 g.kg−1), regardless of sex, but varied between time intervals. Thus, the PCE/NCE ratio at higher doses was significantly lower than observed in positive the controls treated with NEU. These results suggest the absence of systemic toxicity at GEZJ doses of 0.5–1 g.kg−1 and moderate toxicity at doses of 1.5–2 g.kg−1, regardless of mouse gender, with variable responses over time (24–48 h). Whereas treatment with GEZJ (2 g.kg−1) + DXR (5 mg.kg−1) significantly reduced the MNPCEs (n and %), there was a significant increase in the PCE/NCE ratio with this same treatment, indicating that this combination was not toxic to mouse bone marrow. These results also suggest that the phytochemical compounds responsible for the moderate toxicity (altered PCE/NCE ratio) of GEZJ (2 g.kg−1) in bone marrow may also have an important role in attenuating the mutagenicity (n and % of MNPCE) of DRX (5 mg.kg−1).

The acute toxicity of different plant extracts, including Z. joazeiro, has previously been based on doses (1 to 4 or 5 g/kg) administered orally to different groups of mice (one dose per mouse, with each group containing eight animals: four males and four females) (Alviano et al., 2008). Behavioral parameters, including convulsion, hyperactivity, sedation, grooming, loss of righting reflex, increased or decreased respiration, and changes in food and water intake were also noted. These animals were observed and weighed over a period of 14 days; no weight loss was detected. Treated mice showed no behavioral alterations and the extract LD50 values ranged from 2.0–3.5 g/kg. None of the extracts was lethal to mice at the doses tested and the data from the in vivo assays indicated that the extracts had low toxicity (Alviano et al., 2008). The data from the MN as-says presented here provides additional information on the systemic toxicity of Z. joazeiro in mouse bone marrow based on the PCE/NCE ratio that suggested moderate toxicity of GEZJ at doses of 1.5–2 g.kg−1 that was independent of mouse gender but varied with time (24–48 h).

The PCE/NCE ratio is an indicator of the acceleration or inhibition of erythropoiesis and varies with the scoring interval. A continuous decline in the PCE/NCE ratio may reflect the inhibition of cell division, the killing of erythroblasts, the removal of damaged cells, or dilution of the existing cell pool with newly formed cells (Venkatesh et al., 2007). Several mechanisms may contribute to the cytotoxicity of DXR and MN induction (Gewirtz, 1999), including the intercalation of DXR in cellular DNA (Painter, 1978; Kiyomiya et al., 2001), stabilization of the topoisomerase II-DNA complex (Pommier et al., 1985; Guano et al., 1999), free radical-mediated toxicity caused by redox cycling of the semiquinone radical (Bachur et al., 1979), or the formation of reactive oxygen species by the DXR-iron complex (Eliot et al., 1984; Myers, 1998; Konorev et al., 1999). On the other hand, chemicals such as captopril and desferrioxamine (Al-Harbi, 1993; Al-Shabanah, 1993), βcarotene and vitamins A, C and E (Lu et al., 1996; Gulkac et al., 2004; Costa and Nepomuceno, 2006), thiol N-acetylcysteine, probucol, lovastatin and hydrophilic flavonoids such as rutin and luteolin (Al-Gharably, 1996; Sadzuka et al., 1997; D’Agostini et al., 1998; Bardeleben et al., 2002) can also reduce DXR-induced MN formation, genotoxicity and cytotoxicity. However, proponents of herbal medicine always claim that mixtures are better than pure chemicals because the dozens of biologically active compounds in plants work together to produce a greater effect than any one chemical on its own (Mackenzie, 2001).

Screening for newer pharmacological agents that can protect normal cells against DXR-induced cumulative toxicity is essential. Many plants widely used in traditional medicine are less toxic than pharmaceutical agents and have recently attracted the attention of researchers around the world. Plants contain many compounds and it is likely that these can provide better protection than a single molecule (Vidhya and Devraj, 1999). The presence of many molecules in plants may be advantageous, as some of them may counteract the toxicity of others so that the net effect may be therapeutically beneficial. For example, the effect of various concentrations (200, 250, 300, 350 and 400 mg/kg body weight) of Aegle marmelos on DXR-induced mutagenicity in mouse bone marrow was studied (Venkatesh et al., 2007). Mice treated with different concentrations of DXR (5, 10 or 15 mg.kg−1 body weight) showed a dose-dependent elevation in the frequency of PCE and NCE in their bone marrow, and this was accompanied by a DXR-mediated dose-dependent decline in the PCE/NCE ratio. In contrast, the treatment of mice with A. marmelos orally once a day for five consecutive days before treatment with DXR significantly reduced the frequency of DXR-induced micronuclei and significantly increased the PCE/NCE ratio at all time intervals. This chemoprotective effect may reflect the sum of interactions between different components of this complex mixture. The degree of protection may depend on the individual or collective interaction of components with the genotoxic agent. The plausible mechanisms of action of A. marmelos in protecting against DXR-induced damage included the scavenging of O2•−, •OH and other free radicals, an increase in antioxidant status, restoration of topoisomerase II activity and inhibition of the formation of the DXR-iron complex (Venkatesh et al., 2007). More recently, Alves et al. (2012) evaluated the genotoxic potential of a hydroalcoholic extract of Copaifera lansdorffii Desf. leaves and its influence on the genotoxicity of DXR (MN test) in peripheral blood from Swiss mice. Their finidngs demonstrated that C. lansdorffii Desf. was not genotoxic but that the extract significantly reduced the number of micronuclei in DXR-treated mice. The putative antioxidant activity of one or more of the active compounds of C. lansdorffii Desf., including two major flavonoid heterosides (quercitrin and afzelin), may explain the effect of this plant on DXR genotoxicity.

Conclusions

This study used the MN assay to evaluate the mutagenic (clastogeny and/or aneugeny) and antimutagenic activity of an extract of Z. joazeiro bark in mouse bone marrow. The Z. joazeiro bark extract was not mutagenic at the doses and time intervals tested, although sex-related variation was observed. The antimutagenic effect (anticlastogeny and/or antianeugeny) of Z. joazeiro bark extract against DXR-induced genotoxicity was observed at a high dose of extract (2 g.kg−1), but was independent of the duration of treatment and animal sex. Low concentrations of GEZJ (0.5–1 g.kg−1) were not toxic, regardless of mouse gender and duration of treatment, whereas moderate toxicity was observed at doses of 1.5–2 g.kg−1. Together, these findings indicate that phytochemical compounds in Z. joazeiro bark can attenuate DRX-induced mutagenicity and that a high dose of extract (2 g.kg−1) showed no toxicity in the conditions tested here.

Other studies on the genotoxicity and mutagenicity of Z. joazeiro extracts are needed to characterize the (anti)genotoxic effects and mechanisms, and to determine the potential health risks of this extract in humans. Such investigations will be useful for implementing strategies related to the use of Z. joazeiro bark in chemoprevention.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by Rede Mineira de Ensaios Toxicológicos e Farmacológicos de Produtos Terapêuticos (REDE MINEIRA TOXIFAR - 2012) and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG).

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Daisy Maria Fávero Salvadori

References

  1. Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária . Farmacopéia Brasileira. Fundação Oswaldo Cruz; Brasília: 2010. p. 545. [Google Scholar]
  2. Al-Gharably NM. Effect of probucol on the cytological and biochemical changes induced by adriamycin in Swiss albino mice. Res Commun Mol Pathol Pharmacol. 1996;94:289–303. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Al-Harbi MM. Effect of captopril on the cytological and biochemical changes induced by adriamycin. Food Chem Toxicol. 1993;31:209–212. doi: 10.1016/0278-6915(93)90095-g. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Al-Shabanah OA. Inhibition of adriamycin-induced micronuclei by desferrioxamine in Swiss albino mice. Mutat Res. 1993;301:107–111. doi: 10.1016/0165-7992(93)90032-q. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Alves JM, Munari CC, Neto MABM, Furtado RA, Senedese JM, Bastos JK, Tavares DC. In vivo protective effect of Copaifera langsdorffii hydroalcoholic extract on micronuclei induction by doxorubicin. J Appl Toxicol. 2012;33:854–860. doi: 10.1002/jat.2777. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Alviano WS, Alviano DS, Diniz CG, Antoniolli AR, Alviano CS, Faria LM, Carvalho MAR, Souza MMG, Bolognese AM. In vitro antioxidant potential of plant extracts and their activities against oral bacteria based on Brazilian folk medicine. Arch Oral Biol. 2008;53:545–552. doi: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2007.12.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Ames BN. Dietary carcinogens and anticarcinogens: Oxygen radicals and degenerative diseases. Science. 1983;221:1256–1264. doi: 10.1126/science.6351251. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bachur NR, Gordon SL, Gee MV, Kon HNR. NADPH cytochrome P-450 reductase activation of quinone anti-cancer agents to free radicals. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1979;76:954–957. doi: 10.1073/pnas.76.2.954. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bardeleben RV, Dunkern T, Kaina B, Fritz G. The HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor lovastatin protects cells from the antineoplastic drugs doxorubicin and etoposide. Int J Mol Med. 2002;10:473–479. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bean CL, Armstrong MJ, Galloway SM. Effect of sampling time on chromosome aberration yield for 7 chemicals in Chinese hamster ovary cells. Mutat Res. 1992;265:31–44. doi: 10.1016/0027-5107(92)90037-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Beaver BV, Reed W, Leary S, McKiernan B, Bain F, Schultz R, Bennett BT, Pascoe P, Shull E, Cork LC, et al. Report of the American Veterinary Medical Association panel on euthanasia. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2000;218:669–696. [Google Scholar]
  12. Braga R. Plantas do Nordeste, Especialmente do Ceará. Centro de Divulgação Universitária; Fortaleza: 1960. p. 540. [Google Scholar]
  13. Cartaxo SL, Sousa MMA, Albuquerque UP. Medicinal plants with bioprospecting potential used in semi-arid northeastern Brazil. J Ethnopharmacol. 2010;13:326–342. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2010.07.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Chandrasekaran CV, Sundarajan K, Gupta A, Srikanth HS, Edwin J, Agarwal A. Evaluation of the genotoxic potential of standardized extract of Glycyrrhiza glabra (GutGardTM) Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2011;61:373–380. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2011.10.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Chorilli M, Brizante AC, Rodrigues CA, Salgado HRN. Aspectos gerais em sistemas transdérmicos de liberação de fármacos. Rev Bras Farm. 2007;88:7–13. [Google Scholar]
  16. Collaborative Study Group for the Micronucleus Test (CSGMT) Sex differences in the micronucleus test. Mutat Res. 1986;172:151–163. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Costa WF, Nepomuceno JC. Protective effects of a mixture of antioxidant vitamins and minerals on the genotoxicity of doxorubicin in somatic cells of Drosophila melanogaster. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2006;47:18–24. doi: 10.1002/em.20160. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Cruz GL. Dicionário das Plantas Úteis do Brasil. Editora Civilização Brasileira S.A.; Rio de Janeiro: 1985. p. 405. [Google Scholar]
  19. Cruz MCS, Santos AM, Barbosa AM, Jr, de Melo DLFM, Alviano CS, Antoniolli AR, Alviano DS, Trindade RC. Antifungal activity of Brazilian medicinal plants involved in popular treatment of mycoses. J Ethnopharmacol. 2007;111:409–412. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2006.12.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. D’Agostini F, Bagnasco M, Giunciuglio D, Albini A, de Flora S. Inhibition by oral N-acetylcysteine of doxorubicin-induced clastogenicity and alopecia, and prevention of primary tumors and lung micrometastases in mice. Int J Oncol. 1998;3:217–224. doi: 10.3892/ijo.13.2.217. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Delvaeye M, Verovski V, De Neve W, Storme G. DNA breakage, cytotoxicity, drug accumulation and retention in two human ovarian tumor cell lines AZ224 and AZ364 treated with adriamycin, modulated by verapamil. Anti-cancer Res. 1993;13:1533–1538. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Dhawan A, Kayani MA, Parry JM, Parry E, Anderson D. Aneugenic and clastogenic effects of doxorubicin in human lymphocytes. Mutagenesis. 2003;18:487–490. doi: 10.1093/mutage/geg024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Eliot H, Gianni L, Myers C. Oxidative destruction of DNA by the adriamycin-iron complex. Biochemistry. 1984;5:928–936. doi: 10.1021/bi00300a021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Gewirtz DA. A critical evaluation of the mechanisms of action proposed for the antitumor effects of the anthracycline antibiotics adriamycin and daunorubicin. Biochem Pharmacol. 1999;57:727–741. doi: 10.1016/s0006-2952(98)00307-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Guano F, Pourquier P, Tinelli S, Binaschi M, Bigioni M, Animati F, Manzini S, Zunino F, Kohlhagen G, Pommier Y, et al. Topoisomerase poisoning activity of novel disaccharide anthracyclines. Mol Pharmacol. 1999;56:77–84. doi: 10.1124/mol.56.1.77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Gulkac MD, Akpinar G, Ustun H, Ozon KA. Effects of vitamin A on doxorubicin-induced chromosomal aberrations in bone marrow cells of rats. Mutagenesis. 2004;19:231–236. doi: 10.1093/mutage/geh021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Indart A, Viana M, Clapés S, Izquierdo L, Bonet B. Clastogenic and cytotoxic effects of lipid peroxidation products generated in culinary oils submitted to thermal stress. Food Chem Toxicol. 2007;45:1963–1967. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2007.04.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Jagetia GC, Aruna R. Correlation between cell survival and micronuclei-induction in HeLa cells treated with adriamycin after exposure to various doses of gamma-radiation. Toxicol Lett. 2000;115:183–193. doi: 10.1016/s0378-4274(00)00185-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Jagetia GC, Nayak V. Micronuclei-induction and its correlation to cell survival in HeLa cells treated with different doses of adriamycin. Cancer Lett. 1996;110:123–128. doi: 10.1016/s0304-3835(96)04470-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Jagetia GC, Nayak V. Effect of doxorubicin on cell survival and micronuclei formation in HeLa cells exposed to different doses of gamma-radiation. Strahlenther Onkol. 2000;176:422–428. doi: 10.1007/pl00002351. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kiyomiya K, Matsuo S, Kurebe M. Differences in intracellular sites of action of adriamycin in neoplastic and normal differentiated cells. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2001;47:51–56. doi: 10.1007/s002800000201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Konorev EA, Kennedy MC, Kalyanaraman B. Cellpermeable superoxide dismutase and glutathione peroxidase mimetics afford superior protection against doxorubicin-induced cardiotoxicity: The role of reactive oxygen and nitrogen intermediates. Arch Biochem Biophys. 1999;368:421–428. doi: 10.1006/abbi.1999.1337. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Konstantoupoulou I, Vassilopoulov L, Maviaganitsipido U, Scouras ZG. Insecticidal effects of essential oils. A study of the effects of essential oils extracted from eleven Greek aromatic plants on Drosophila auraria. Experientia. 1992;48:616–619. doi: 10.1007/BF01920251. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Leal ICR, Santos KRN, Itabaiana I, Jr, Antunes OAC, Porzel A, Wessjohann L, Kuster RM. Ceanothane and lupane type triterpenes from Zizyphus joazeiro - An anti-staphylococcal evaluation. Planta Med. 2010;76:47–52. doi: 10.1055/s-0029-1185947. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Lu HZ, Geng BQ, Zhu YL, Yong DG. Effects of beta-carotene on doxorubicin-induced cardiotoxicity in rats. Zhongguo Yao Li Xue Bao. 1996;17:317–320. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Mackenzie D. Complementary medicine, a special report. Swallow it whole. New Sci. 2001;2292:38–40. [Google Scholar]
  37. Mateuca R, Lombaert N, Aka PV, Decordier I, Kirsch-Volders M. Chromosomal changes: Induction, detection methods and applicability in human biomonitoring. Biochimie. 2006;88:1515–1531. doi: 10.1016/j.biochi.2006.07.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Myers C. The role of iron in doxorubicin-induced cardiomyopathy. Semin Oncol. 1998;25:10–14. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Nunes PHM, Marinho LC, Nunes MLRL, Soares EO. Antipyretic activity of an aqueous extract of Zizyphus joazeiro Mart. (Rhamnaceae) Braz J Med Biol Res. 1987;20:599–601. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. OECD . Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals: Bacterial reverse mutation test. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development; Paris: 1997a. p. 11. Guideline 471. p. [Google Scholar]
  41. OECD . Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals: In vitro mammalian chromosome aberration test. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development; Paris: 1997b. p. 14. Guideline 473. p. [Google Scholar]
  42. OECD . Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals: Mammalian erythrocyte micronucleus test. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development; Paris: 1997c. p. 10. Guideline 474. p. [Google Scholar]
  43. Oliveira AFM, Meirelles ST, Salatino A. Epicuticular waxes from caatinga and cerrado species and their efficiency against water loss. An Acad Bras Cienc. 2003;75:431–439. doi: 10.1590/s0001-37652003000400003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Painter RB. Inhibition of DNA replicon initiation by 4-nitroquinoline 1-oxide, adriamycin, and ethyleneimine. Cancer Res. 1978;38:4445–4449. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Pommier Y, Schwartz RE, Zwelling LA, Kohn KW. Effects of DNA intercalating agents on topoisomerase II induced DNA strand cleavage in isolated mammalian cell nuclei. Biochemistry. 1985;24:6406–6410. doi: 10.1021/bi00344a014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Purves D, Harvey C, Tweats D, Lumley CE. Genotoxity testing: Current practices and strategies used by the pharmaceutical industry. Mutagenesis. 1995;10:297–312. doi: 10.1093/mutage/10.4.297. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Ribeiro LR. Teste de micronúcleo em medula óssea de roedor in vivo. In: Ribeiro LR, Salvadori DMF, Marques EK, editors. Mutagênese Ambiental. Ulbra; Canoas: 2003. pp. 173–198. [Google Scholar]
  48. Sadzuka Y, Sugiyama T, Shimoi K, Kinae N, Hirota S. Protective effect of flavonoids on doxorubicin-induced cardiotoxicity. Toxicol Lett. 1997;92:1–7. doi: 10.1016/s0378-4274(97)00028-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Schmid W. Chemical mutagens. In: Hollender A, editor. The Micronucleus Test for Cytogenetic Analysis. Plenum Press; New York: 1976. pp. 31–53. [Google Scholar]
  50. Schuhly W, Heilmann J, Calis I, Sticher O. New triterpenoids with antibacterial activity from Zizyphus joazeiro. Planta Med. 1999;65:740–743. doi: 10.1055/s-1999-14054. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Shan K, Lincoff AM, Young JB. Anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity. Ann Inter Med. 1996;125:47–58. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-125-1-199607010-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Silva CR, Vieira PM, Santos SC, Chen-Chen L. Assessment of Duguetia furfuracea genotoxic and cytotoxic activity in bacteria and mice. An Acad Bras Ciênc. 2011;84:149–156. doi: 10.1590/s0001-37652012000100015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Tavares W. Manual de Antibióticos e Quimioterápicos Anti-Infecciosos - Introdução ao Estudo dos Antimicrobianos. Atheneu; Rio de Janeiro: 1996. p. 792. [Google Scholar]
  54. UNESCO . Comissão de Ética no Uso de Animais. Declaração Universal dos Direitos dos Animais (UNESCO); Bruxelas, Bélgica: 1978. p. 2. [Google Scholar]
  55. Van Acker SA, Kramer K, Grimbergen JA, Van Den Berg DJ, Van Der Vijgh WJ, Bast A. Monohydroxyethylrutoside as protector against chronic doxorubicin-induced cardiotoxicity. Br J Pharmacol. 1995;115:1260–1264. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.1995.tb15034.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Van Acker FA, Van Acker SA, Kramer K, Haenen GR, Bast A, Van Der Vijgh WJ. 7-Monohydroxyethylrutoside protects against chronic doxorubicin-induced cardiotoxicity when administered only once per week. Clin Cancer Res. 2000;6:1337–1341. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Varanda EA. Atividade mutagênica de plantas medicinais. Rev Ciênc Farm Básica Apl. 2006;27:1–7. [Google Scholar]
  58. Venkatesh P, Shantala B, Jagetia GC, Rao KK, Baliga MS. Modulation of doxorubicin-induced genotoxicity by Aegle marmelos in mouse bone marrow: A micronucleus study. Integr Cancer Ther. 2007;6:42–53. doi: 10.1177/1534735406298302. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Vidhya N, Devraj SN. Antioxidant effect of eugenol in rat intestine. Ind J Exp Biol. 1999;37:1192–1195. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Zambrano MA, Targa HJ, Rabello-Gay MN. Physiological saline solutions as a useful tool in micronucleus and metaphase slide preparations. Stain Technol. 1982;57:48–49. doi: 10.3109/10520298209066521. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Genetics and Molecular Biology are provided here courtesy of Sociedade Brasileira de Genética

RESOURCES