Hubbry Logo
ClastogenClastogenMain
Open search
Clastogen
Community hub
Clastogen
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Clastogen
Clastogen
Clastogen
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Figure comparing the effects of exposure to genotoxic agents (aneugens and clastogens) on DNA. Aneugens induce mis-segregation of chromosomes into daughter cells while clastogens break the DNA and chromosome.

A clastogen is a mutagenic agent that disturbs normal DNA related processes or directly causes DNA strand breakages, thus causing the deletion, insertion, or rearrangement of entire chromosome sections.[1] These processes are a form of mutagenesis which if left unrepaired, or improperly repaired, can lead to cancer.[1] Known clastogens include acridine yellow, benzene, ethylene oxide, arsenic, phosphine, mimosine, actinomycin D, camptothecin, methotrexate, methyl acrylate, resorcinol and 5-fluorodeoxyuridine.[2] Additionally, 1,2-dimethylhydrazine is a known colon carcinogen and shows signs of possessing clastogenic activity.[3] There are many clastogens not listed here and research is ongoing to discover new clastogens. Some known clastogens only exhibit clastogenic activity in certain cell types, such as caffeine which exhibits clastogenic activity in plant cells.[4] Researchers are interested in clastogens for researching cancer, as well as for other human health concerns such as the inheritability of clastogen effected paternal germ cells that lead to fetus developmental defects.[5]

Mechanism

[edit]
Summary of theories of the mechanisms of chromosomal aberrations: A, ‘classic’ breaks theory; B, ‘mis-repair of breaks’ theory; C, ‘repair-created breaks’ theory. Adapted from Bignold.[4]

There is not one all encompassing method by which clastogens damage chromosomal DNA, instead different clastogens have unique ways they interact with DNA, or DNA associated proteins, and disrupt normal function. Broadly these different types of clastogenic activity can be organized into three classes: ‘classic’ breaks theory; ‘mis-repair of breaks’ theory and ‘repair-created breaks’ theory.[4] It may not always be known how a clastogen causes chromosomal damage.

Radiation was the earliest known clastogen that caused direct DNA damage, following the classic breaks theory.[6] DNA is frequently damaged and there are many DNA repair pathways that combat this, but repair does not always work perfectly resulting in mistakes (called a misrepair).[7] A widely studied class of clastogens are alkylating agents which do not break DNA at all, but instead form DNA adducts, and these have often eluded the common theories for DNA breaks leading to misrepair.[4] The final theory encompasses clastogens that do not interact with DNA but instead impair DNA synthesis proteins or DNA repair proteins causing damage to occur through loss of normal function of the protein.[4]

Clastogen damage in certain areas of the chromosome can lead to instability, such as loss or damage to telomeres.[8] Studies have shown that rat cells that were exposed to chemical clastogens express telomeric irregularities in function and can remain for several cell generations after treatment has been attempted.[8]

Detection

[edit]

There are many different methods for testing for clastogenic activity. Two of the most common methods are listed below, but this is not a comprehensive guide.

There have been studies done that work with the usage of the deletion (DEL) assay to screen for clastogens.

The micronucleus test is another type of assay that uses gut cells to observe clastogens, and there are a few different types. The micronucleus test on gut cells is useful because in the case of the bone marrow micronucleus test there is not much activity seen after there has been oral exposure therefore more activity is seen in the gut cells. In vitro micronucleus assay (IVMN) can screen for clastogen activity, this method is useful because it can pick up clastogen activity and be used to foresee chromosome aberration activity. The IVMN assay can pick up on fragments that were membrane bound to DNA that were split from nuclei throughout the process of cell division.

These assays are time-consuming so novel methods for monitoring clastogens and aneuploidogens are highly desirable. One example is the use of the monochromosomal hybrid cell for the detection of mis-segregating chromosomes.

Telomeres

[edit]

There is a possibility of clastogens affecting telomeres. There can be uncertainty with telomeres that occur short term during the first round of cell division in which there can be chromosomal damage by clastogens. Clastogens (which break chromosomes) contribute to telomeric instability because it leads to chromosome end loss or true telomere loss. Clastogens can bring on issues with telomeres and cause them to fail to function as intended, most often seen anomalies are seen to occur in human lymphocytes, cancer cell lines, and non-human established cell lines where there is telomere loss and copies of anomalies in the exposed cells, thus, the problems that arise in telomeres can be duplicated and seen in exposed cells.

In addition, studies have shown that rat cells that were exposed to chemical clastogens express telomeric irregularities in function and can remain for several cell generations after treatment has been attempted.[8]

Research

[edit]

In terms of resistance, for a specific clastogen known as "Zeocin", an amino acid residue known as XLF-L115D mutant is flawed in terms of being resistant thus the clastogen activity shows no amount of decreasing.[9]

In plants and mice cells studies have found that purine receptor agonists adenosine, ATP, ADP, cyclohexyladenosine, phenylisopropyladenosine and dimethylaminopurine riboside can lower the amount of clastogen damage seen in chromosomes and reduce the amount of micronuclei affected brought on by ethyl methanesulfonate and cyclophosphamide. Some ligands more than others can stop or reduce the clastogen activity of ethyl methanesulfonate such as adenosine, ADP or DAP.[10]

In a study where rats were treated with Brevetoxin B (PbTx2), there was a noticeable 2-3 fold growth in the amount of DNA seen in comet tails which tell us that Brevetoxin B shows in vivo clastogenic activity. This clastogen activity was seen after Brevetoxin B was injected by way of intratracheal administering in the rat.[11]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Clastogen

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A clastogen is a mutagenic agent that induces breaks in DNA strands, leading to chromosomal aberrations such as gaps, breaks, deletions, or rearrangements if the damage is not properly repaired. These agents disrupt normal DNA processes and are distinct from aneugens, which primarily affect chromosome segregation and number rather than structure. Clastogens operate through direct or indirect mechanisms, including the formation of reactive intermediates that covalently bind to DNA or the generation of reactive oxygen species that cause oxidative damage. Inadequate DNA repair pathways, such as non-homologous end joining or homologous recombination, can result in misrepaired breaks, perpetuating genomic instability. This instability is implicated in various pathological conditions, including carcinogenesis, where clastogen-induced aberrations contribute to tumor initiation and progression. Examples of clastogens include physical agents like and ultraviolet light, as well as chemicals such as , , and certain anticancer drugs like . Inorganic compounds like also act as clastogens by forming DNA-protein crosslinks and strand breaks. These substances are encountered in environmental, occupational, and therapeutic contexts, highlighting their relevance to human health risks. In , clastogens are evaluated for their genotoxic potential using standardized s, such as the chromosomal aberration test and the , which detect structural damage in mammalian cells. The test in rodents is commonly employed for assessment, identifying clastogenic effects through the formation of micronuclei containing acentric fragments or whole chromosomes. Positive findings in these tests signal potential carcinogenicity or heritable damage, informing regulatory decisions for pharmaceuticals, chemicals, and environmental contaminants.

Definition and Classification

Definition

A clastogen is any agent that induces breaks in chromosomes, resulting in structural chromosomal aberrations such as deletions, translocations, or dicentrics. These aberrations arise from disruptions to chromosome integrity and are typically detectable through cytogenetic analysis under light microscopy. Clastogenicity represents a specific subset of mutagenesis, emphasizing gross structural damage to chromosomes rather than localized point mutations that alter single base pairs in DNA. While broader mutagens may induce various genetic alterations, clastogens primarily target chromosomal architecture, leading to visible cytogenetic changes that can compromise genomic stability. Clastogens achieve this by disrupting DNA integrity either directly, such as through the induction of strand breaks, or indirectly, for instance by interfering with or repair processes. The term "clastogen" derives from the Greek "klastos," meaning broken, combined with the suffix "-gen," indicating something that produces, and was first introduced in literature in the mid-20th century to describe chromosome-breaking agents.

Types of Clastogens

Clastogens are broadly classified into three primary categories based on their nature and origin: chemical, physical, and biological. Chemical clastogens encompass a diverse array of substances that induce chromosomal breaks through interactions with DNA, often categorized as direct-acting or indirect-acting. Direct-acting chemical clastogens, such as certain alkylating agents, react directly with DNA without requiring metabolic activation, leading to strand breaks via covalent binding. In contrast, indirect-acting chemical clastogens, including promutagens, necessitate enzymatic metabolism—typically by cytochrome P450 systems—to generate reactive intermediates that cause DNA damage. This distinction highlights the role of host metabolism in modulating clastogenic potential for indirect agents. Physical clastogens primarily involve forms of energy that disrupt chromosomal integrity, with exemplifying this category. , such as X-rays, penetrates cells and generates and direct ionization events, resulting in dose-dependent induction of double-strand breaks in DNA. The frequency of these breaks scales linearly with radiation dose at low levels, underscoring the stochastic nature of physical clastogenic effects. Unlike chemical agents, physical clastogens do not rely on molecular interactions but on energy deposition along particle tracks. Biological clastogens derive from living organisms or their components and exert clastogenic effects through biological processes. Certain viruses, for instance, integrate into host genomes or produce proteins that trigger chromosomal . These agents often involve enzymatic mechanisms that facilitate targeted or opportunistic DNA cleavage, distinguishing them from abiotic clastogens. A key distinction exists between clastogens and aneugens, another class of chromosomal mutagens. Clastogens induce structural aberrations through DNA breaks and rearrangements, whereas aneugens cause numerical changes, such as , by disrupting the mitotic spindle and chromosome segregation without fracturing DNA strands. This differentiation is critical for assessments, as clastogenic effects target DNA integrity directly, while aneugenic mechanisms affect cellular division machinery.

Mechanisms of Action

DNA Damage Induction

Clastogens induce DNA damage primarily through the formation of single-strand breaks (SSBs) or double-strand breaks (DSBs), with DSBs representing the most critical lesions due to their potential to cause irreversible genomic instability. Direct clastogens, such as certain alkylating agents, bind covalently to DNA bases or the phosphodiester backbone, leading to immediate strand breaks or base modifications that destabilize the helix during replication. In contrast, indirect clastogens, including many physical and chemical agents, generate reactive intermediates like (ROS) or alkylating groups that indirectly damage DNA, often resulting in replication fork stalling and subsequent collapse into DSBs. Ionizing radiation exemplifies indirect clastogen action by ionizing water molecules in the cellular milieu to produce highly reactive hydroxyl radicals (•OH), which abstract hydrogen atoms from the DNA sugar-phosphate backbone, yielding SSBs that can convert to DSBs if occurring on opposite strands within close proximity. Chemical clastogens, such as topoisomerase II inhibitors (e.g., etoposide), stabilize the enzyme-DNA cleavage complex, preventing religation and thereby trapping DSBs at sites of transient breaks during DNA unwinding. These mechanisms highlight how clastogens exploit both direct chemical reactivity and enzymatic vulnerabilities to initiate DNA lesions. The frequency of DSB induction varies by clastogen type but is particularly well-characterized for , where human cells typically sustain 20-40 DSBs per Gy of low (LET) exposure, reflecting the nature of radical attacks. This dose-response relationship follows the linear-quadratic model, approximated as: Breaks≈αD+βD2\text{Breaks} \approx \alpha D + \beta D^2 where DD is the radiation dose in Gy, α\alpha accounts for direct events (linear component), and β\beta captures indirect interactions from radical and interactions (quadratic component). Clastogen effectiveness is modulated by phase, with heightened sensitivity in S and G2 phases due to ongoing , which amplifies fork collapse and break propagation under replication stress.

Chromosomal Aberration Formation

Clastogens primarily induce chromosomal aberrations through the formation and subsequent processing of double-strand breaks (DSBs) in DNA, which serve as the critical initiating lesions. If these DSBs remain unrepaired or are misrepaired during cell cycle progression, they can result in structural changes such as acentric fragments, dicentric chromosomes, and translocations. Non-homologous end joining (NHEJ), a rapid but error-prone repair pathway, often rejoins broken ends inaccurately, leading to deletions, insertions, or inversions at the break sites. In contrast, homologous recombination (HR) attempts faithful repair using a sister chromatid template but can fail in S/G2 phases, producing exchanges or loss of genetic material when alternative pathways dominate. These outcomes manifest as visible aberrations during metaphase analysis, reflecting the cell's attempt to stabilize the genome post-damage. The principal types of aberrations include chromatid breaks, which involve discontinuities within a single chromatid arm and often arise from incomplete intra-arm exchanges; chromosome breaks, affecting entire arms and typically resulting from unrejoined DSBs spanning both chromatids; and exchanges, categorized as reciprocal (balanced translocations between two chromosomes) or non-reciprocal (unbalanced, leading to duplications or deletions). Dicentric chromosomes, formed by bridge-like exchanges, and acentric fragments, lacking centromeres and prone to loss during segregation, exemplify unstable aberrations that compromise cell viability. These structural variants stem from the spatial proximity and interaction of DSB ends during repair, with NHEJ predominating in to yield chromosome-type aberrations and HR influencing chromatid-type in later phases. A key conceptual framework for aberration formation is the misrepair model, where failures in the tethering of broken DNA ends to repair enzymes allow free ends to diffuse and undergo illegitimate rejoining, bypassing accurate ligation. This tethering failure explains the stochastic nature of interactions, as untethered ends from multiple DSBs pair erroneously, favoring complex rearrangements over simple restitution. Seminal observations support that aberration frequency scales quadratically with DSB number, expressed as Aberrations ∝ (DSBs)2, due to the requirement for pairwise end interactions in exchange formation, as posited in the exchange hypothesis. Several factors modulate the likelihood of aberration formation. Dose rate influences repair kinetics; low rates permit more time for accurate NHEJ or HR, reducing misrejoining and thus aberration yield compared to acute high-dose exposures. Oxygen levels enhance damage in oxidative clastogen scenarios, with an oxygen enhancement ratio of approximately 2.5–3 observed for radiation-induced aberrations, as hypoxia limits production and subsequent DSB fixation. Genetic background further predisposes cells, as deficiencies in or impair HR proficiency, shifting reliance to error-prone NHEJ and elevating aberration frequencies upon clastogen exposure.

Detection and Assessment

In Vitro Methods

In vitro methods for detecting clastogenic potential involve controlled laboratory assays using cultured mammalian cells to identify agents that induce structural chromosomal damage, providing mechanistic insights without systemic influences. These techniques are standardized to ensure reproducibility and , primarily through guidelines established by the (OECD). The chromosomal aberration test (CAT), outlined in OECD Test Guideline 473, is a primary assay for evaluating clastogenicity by scoring structural aberrations such as breaks and exchanges in metaphase spreads. Cultured mammalian cells, including established lines like Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) or V79 cells, are exposed to the test substance at varying concentrations, typically for 3–6 hours with and without metabolic activation using an S9 mix from rodent liver to detect promutagens. Cells are then allowed a recovery period of 1.5–2 cell cycles (usually 20–24 hours), fixed with methanol-acetic acid, stained (e.g., with Giemsa), and analyzed microscopically for aberrations in at least 100–200 metaphases per concentration. This protocol enables quantification of aberration frequency, often expressed as the percentage of aberrant metaphases or aberrations per cell, establishing dose-response relationships for clastogenic effects. The assay (MN), detailed in Test Guideline 487, complements CAT by detecting acentric chromosome fragments or lagging chromosomes formed during , serving as indirect indicators of clastogenicity. In the cytokinesis-block variant, cytochalasin B is added post-exposure to inhibit , yielding binucleate cells for selective scoring of micronuclei in cells that have undergone nuclear division; exposures mirror CAT protocols (3–6 hours short-term or continuous long-term up to 1.5–2 cell cycles, with S9 ). At least 2,000 binucleate cells per concentration are scored, with micronuclei identified as small, round structures separate from the main nuclei. To distinguish clastogens (inducing fragment-containing micronuclei) from aneugens (inducing whole-chromosome micronuclei), CREST staining (using anti-kinetochore antibodies from patients with ) or with centromeric probes labels kinetochores, allowing classification based on kinetochore-positive (aneugenic) versus kinetochore-negative (clastogenic) micronuclei. These assays demonstrate high sensitivity for clastogen detection, with the MN assay identifying 80–90% of known clastogens through its ability to capture both structural damage and associated endpoints like cytokinesis-block proliferation index. However, false positives can arise from non-genotoxic , necessitating assessments (e.g., relative population doubling or replication index) to confirm clastogenic specificity. Advantages include high throughput via potential in MN scoring and quantifiable, objective endpoints such as micronuclei frequency per 1,000 binucleate cells or aberration rates per 100 metaphases, facilitating regulatory identification.

In Vivo Methods

In vivo methods for assessing clastogenicity involve whole-organism exposure to evaluate chromosomal damage under physiological conditions, including metabolism and repair mechanisms, often serving as follow-up to preliminary screens. These approaches prioritize animal models and biomonitoring to detect tissue-specific effects and provide regulatory relevance for genotoxic hazard identification. The test, standardized as OECD Test Guideline 474, is a primary for detecting clastogens by measuring micronuclei formation in erythrocytes, indicating chromosomal breakage or loss. Typically conducted in such as mice or rats, the protocol includes acute single dosing, two treatments 24 hours apart, or repeated dosing over multiple days, with dose levels spaced by factors of 2-4 up to the maximum tolerated dose (e.g., 2000 mg/kg for short-term exposure). Sampling occurs from at 24-48 hours post-dosing or from peripheral blood at 36-72 hours, followed by scoring at least 4000 immature erythrocytes per animal via microscopy or to quantify micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes. This method distinguishes clastogenic from aneugenic effects through kinetochore staining and is integral to regulatory genotoxicity batteries, such as those outlined in ICH S2(R1), for confirming positives with demonstrated target tissue exposure. The mammalian alkaline (OECD Test Guideline 489) complements the test by detecting DNA strand breaks and alkali-labile sites in various tissues, offering insights into clastogen-induced damage beyond hematopoietic cells. Performed on , it involves similar dosing regimens (acute or repeated) with tissue harvesting (e.g., liver, , ) at 2-6 hours post-final dose for multiple administrations, followed by single-cell under alkaline conditions to measure tail DNA intensity via . Liver sampling is particularly valuable for capturing metabolic activation effects, as seen with pro-clastogens requiring hepatic . Like the assay, it forms part of the ICH-recommended battery, often integrated into repeated-dose toxicity studies to assess physiological relevance. For human-relevant assessment, the cytokinesis-block (CBMN) in peripheral blood lymphocytes serves as a tool for occupational clastogen exposure, scoring in binucleated cells after cytochalasin-B treatment to halt . Blood samples are cultured for 72 hours, with MN frequency analyzed in at least 1000 binucleated cells, revealing elevated damage (e.g., 2.5-fold increases) in workers exposed to chemicals like pesticides or compounds. This detects both clastogenic and aneugenic events and correlates with exposure biomarkers, such as urinary nitrosamines, supporting risk evaluation in real-world scenarios. These methods excel in revealing tissue-specific clastogenic effects, such as liver-mediated of pro-genotoxins, and are required in regulatory batteries to evaluate hazard potential. Rodent models demonstrate high sensitivity, with the test identifying approximately 74-80% of known carcinogens that act via clastogenic mechanisms. Despite their strengths, assays face limitations including ethical concerns over , addressed through 3Rs principles like reduced animal numbers and integrated study designs. Interspecies variability arises from differences in function and (e.g., between mice and rats), potentially affecting micronucleated cell detection. enhances high-volume scoring (e.g., 20,000 cells) for greater statistical power but can complicate interpretation of subtle increases.

Biological Effects

Impact on Telomeres

Telomeres consist of tandem TTAGGG repeats at the ends of linear chromosomes, protected by shelterin proteins to prevent recognition as DNA damage sites. Clastogens disrupt this structure primarily through oxidative damage or double-strand breaks (DSBs) at telomeric regions, leading to accelerated erosion compared to bulk genomic DNA. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) generated by clastogens preferentially target the G-rich telomeric sequences, impairing replication and repair processes. Key mechanisms include ROS-mediated oxidation, which hinders activity and promotes attrition, and direct DSB induction that compromises end-capping . For instance, the clastogen induces fragility by causing chromatid-type signal duplications in up to 99% of affected sites, as observed in human lymphoblastoid cells exposed to 10–100 µg/mL for 2 hours. Actinomycin D, another clastogen, inhibits by binding to telomeric structures, further exacerbating shortening. These actions result in fusions, forming dicentric chromosomes that drive breakage-fusion-bridge cycles during . Studies using quantitative (Q-FISH) and telomere restriction fragment (TRF) assays have documented significant length reductions in clastogen-exposed cells; for example, regimens including clastogens like lead to an average loss of 673 base pairs after six cycles in patients. Such exposure can lead to shortening over chronic treatment periods, linking to or replicative crisis. In epigallocatechin-3-gallate-treated cells, dysfunction emerges after 98 days, accompanied by increased γ-H2AX foci indicating DNA damage. Telomere-specific instability from clastogens uniquely amplifies genomic chaos at ends, distinct from breaks, by triggering end-to-end fusions and persistent DSBs that propagate through cell divisions. This end-focused vulnerability heightens overall chromosomal instability, a hallmark observed in clastogen-induced models.

Role in Disease

Clastogens play a significant role in by inducing chromosomal breaks that lead to translocations, deletions, and other structural aberrations, which can activate oncogenes or inactivate tumor suppressor genes, thereby promoting uncontrolled and tumor formation. For instance, exposure to , a known clastogen, has been consistently associated with an increased risk of , with epidemiological studies showing a dose-response relationship where odds ratios range from approximately 2 to 5 for moderate cumulative exposures. Similarly, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies many clastogens, such as and its inorganic compounds, as carcinogens based on sufficient evidence of human carcinogenicity, primarily through mechanisms involving chromosomal instability and genotoxic damage. Beyond cancer, clastogenic activity contributes to congenital anomalies, particularly through paternal exposure affecting germ cells, where induced chromosomal damage can result in heritable structural abnormalities passed to offspring, increasing risks of developmental defects and pregnancy loss. Clastogens also accelerate aging processes by promoting telomere erosion, as double-strand breaks near telomeric regions exacerbate shortening and cellular senescence, contributing to age-related tissue dysfunction. Furthermore, clastogen-induced damage in germ cells can lead to heritable mutations, manifesting as transmissible genetic alterations that elevate disease susceptibility across generations. Epidemiological data indicate that occupational exposure to clastogens correlates with elevated chromosomal aberration rates in peripheral blood lymphocytes, often significantly higher—such as 3-4 times the number of alterations—than in unexposed populations, serving as a for cumulative genotoxic risk and long-term health impacts. Regarding thresholds, clastogens that induce double-strand breaks, such as direct-acting genotoxins, are generally considered to have no safe dose due to the nature of DNA damage and potential for erroneous repair leading to oncogenic transformations. However, individual repair capacity modulates this risk, with impaired double-strand break repair pathways increasing susceptibility to clastogen-associated diseases.

Research and Examples

Historical Context

The study of clastogens traces its roots to early 20th-century investigations into , particularly the work of Hermann J. Muller, who in demonstrated that X-rays could induce genetic mutations, including chromosomal breaks, in fruit flies (). Muller's experiments, which exposed male flies to and tracked mutations in offspring, established radiation as a potent agent for disrupting chromosome integrity, laying foundational observations for later clastogen research. These findings shifted focus from spontaneous mutations to environmentally induced chromosomal damage, influencing subsequent cytogenetic studies. The term "clastogen," derived from "klastos" meaning broken, was formalized in the s amid advances in cytogenetic assays that systematically evaluated agents causing breakage. In a 1970 review, M.W. Shaw proposed "chromosomoclastogen" to describe chemical agents inducing such damage, marking the conceptual distinction from other mutagens and integrating it into frameworks. This nomenclature emerged alongside standardized scoring of aberrations in human cells, enabling broader screening of potential clastogenic hazards. Key milestones in clastogen research include the development of chromosomal aberration tests (CAT) in the 1950s, which built on post-World War II cytogenetic techniques to detect breaks in cultured mammalian cells exposed to radiation or chemicals. These assays, refined after the 1956 establishment of the human karyotype, allowed quantitative assessment of clastogenic effects . By the 1980s, the (OECD) issued guidelines for testing, including protocols for evaluating clastogens through aberration and assays, standardizing international regulatory approaches. Post-2000, integration with advanced the field, exemplified by (FISH) techniques for precise typing of aberrations, enabling differentiation between clastogenic and aneugenic mechanisms at the chromosomal level. Notable events underscored clastogens' health implications, such as 1980s studies linking exposure to chromosomal aberrations in , establishing its role in pathogenesis. Epidemiological and cytogenetic research during this period, including IARC classifications, confirmed as a via clastogenic pathways. In the , attention shifted to oxidative clastogens in , with studies highlighting from pollutants as drivers of DNA breaks in ecosystems and populations. Research on clastogens evolved from phenomenological scoring of visible aberrations in the mid-20th century to mechanistic models by the late 20th and early 21st centuries, including the "breakage-first" hypothesis, which posits that initial DNA double-strand breaks precede and dictate subsequent chromosomal rearrangements. This model, informed by radiation and chemical studies, emphasizes the primacy of strand breakage over chromatin architecture in aberration formation, guiding modern interpretations of repair failures.

Notable Clastogens

, a commonly found in and industrial solvents, serves as a prominent chemical clastogen and established leukemogen. Occupational exposure to has been linked to increased chromosomal aberrations and micronuclei formation in peripheral blood lymphocytes of workers, with studies showing elevated frequencies of these markers in exposed individuals compared to unexposed controls. Ionizing radiation, particularly X-rays as a physical clastogen, induces double-strand breaks (DSBs) in DNA, with approximately 40 DSBs per Gy in mammalian cells, leading to chromosomal aberrations such as dicentrics and acentric fragments. Bleomycin, a biological clastogen derived from the antibiotic produced by Streptomyces verticillus, causes G2-phase-specific chromosomal breaks by generating free radicals that induce single- and double-strand DNA breaks, independent of DNA replication. Ethylene oxide, widely used as a sterilant for medical equipment, exhibits clastogenicity and is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as , carcinogenic to humans, due to its ability to induce heritable translocations and mutations in s following exposure. Chronic exposure to in has been associated with through oxidative damage mechanisms, where arsenic generates leading to DNA strand breaks and chromosomal instability in epidermal cells. Research on clastogen-exposed populations, such as workers handling or , has demonstrated significant increases in chromosomal aberrations, often 2- to 3-fold higher than in controls, highlighting the genotoxic impact of occupational exposures. Regulatory actions on , a fumigant known for its clastogenic potential , include U.S. Agency restrictions in 2010 that expanded buffer zones and prohibited residential uses to primarily mitigate risks of acute and exposure incidents. In the , has increasingly focused on as emerging clastogens, with studies revealing their capacity to induce DNA damage and chromosomal aberrations through generation and direct cellular interactions, prompting calls for enhanced hazard assessments in regulatory frameworks.

References

  1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383574223000236
  2. https://www.ilpi.com/msds/ref/clastogen.html
  3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123864543008289
  4. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/ich-guideline-s2-r1-genotoxicity-testing-and-data-interpretation-pharmaceuticals-intended-human-use-step-5_en.pdf
  5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK591696/
  6. https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/S2_R1_Guideline.pdf
  7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/N/ntproc15/glossary/
  8. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/clastogen
  9. https://www.oed.com/dictionary/clastogen_n
  10. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.me.21.020170.002205
  11. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/em.22418
  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6195640/
  13. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2975036/
  14. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3616853/
  15. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23684910_Mechanisms_of_clastogen-induced_chromosomal_aberrations_A_critical_review_and_description_of_a_model_based_on_failures_of_tethering_of_DNA_strand_ends_to_strand-breaking_enzymes
  16. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0064532
  17. https://gentronix.co.uk/blog/detecting-clastogens-aneugens-how-determining-mechanism-supports-follow-up-testing/
  18. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4994891/
  19. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3331794/
  20. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2394378/
  21. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2952820/
  22. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2030708/
  23. https://academic.oup.com/mutage/article/15/4/289/1143400
  24. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1383574208001439
  25. https://karger.com/cgr/article/104/1-4/149/64521/Models-of-chromosome-aberration-induction-an
  26. http://www.aging-us.com/article/100336/text
  27. https://meridian.allenpress.com/radiation-research/article/158/1/43/331528/Dose-Responses-for-Chromosome-Aberrations-Produced
  28. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09553007014550321
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4442488/
  30. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2016/07/test-no-473-in-vitro-mammalian-chromosomal-aberration-test_g1g6ed0e.html
  31. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2023/07/test-no-487-in-vitro-mammalian-cell-micronucleus-test_g1g6fb2a/9789264264861-en.pdf
  32. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2118977/
  33. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1383571807000496
  34. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2016/07/test-no-474-mammalian-erythrocyte-micronucleus-test_g1g6fb16/9789264264762-en.pdf
  35. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2016/07/test-no-489-in-vivo-mammalian-alkaline-comet-assay_g1g6fb2c/9789264264885-en.pdf
  36. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4189446/
  37. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303439521_Use_of_the_lymphocyte_cytokinesis-block_micronucleus_assay_in_occupational_biomonitoring_of_genome_damage_caused_by_in_vivo_exposure_to_chemical_genotoxins_Past_present_and_future
  38. https://academic.oup.com/mutage/article/33/2/179/4970106
  39. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1383571896000708
  40. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5045625/
  41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrgentox.2021.503387
  42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10577-020-09641-2
  43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrgentox.2025.503877
  44. https://doi.org/10.1002/hon.3118
  45. https://doi.org/10.1002/em.22295
  46. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11628524/
  47. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2903550/
  48. https://www.inchem.org/documents/iarc/suppl7/arsenic.html
  49. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19514953/
  50. https://pure.qub.ac.uk/files/553773955/Andrology_-_2023_-_Aitken_-_DNA_damage_in_testicular_germ_cells_and_spermatozoa_When_and_how_is_it_induced_How_should_we.pdf
  51. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383574214000027
  52. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK218922/
  53. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4913430/
  54. https://article.imrpress.com/bri/Scholar/articles/pdf/Scholar468.pdf
  55. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5063601/
  56. https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/hermann-joseph-mullers-study-x-rays-mutagen-1926-1927
  57. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1946/muller/facts/
  58. https://meridian.allenpress.com/radiation-research/article/202/2/227/501745/The-Central-Role-of-Cytogenetics-in-Radiation
  59. https://molecularcytogenetics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13039-015-0125-8
  60. https://www.criver.com/sites/default/files/resources/GeneticToxTestingTheInVitroChromosomeAbberationTest.pdf
  61. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4373004/
  62. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK216570/
  63. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383571818302237
  64. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7812544/
  65. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0009279709003251
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7327986/
  67. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-18810-7_3
  68. https://publications.iarc.who.int/_publications/media/download/6037/4d6f5591b8276f4e8582d5f6af59c9c060f689ff.pdf
  69. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7017136/
  70. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1383574217301205
  71. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/002751079290003K
  72. https://publications.iarc.who.int/_publications/media/download/2026/3f9563baba3888456d9047d4ffd42842854fe58f.pdf
  73. https://oehha.ca.gov/sites/default/files/media/downloads/crnr/etocanceriurdraft040723.pdf
  74. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10860672/
  75. https://www.oncotarget.com/article/17745/text/
  76. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2717815/
  77. https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/phosphine.pdf
  78. https://www.epa.gov/archive/epapages/newsroom_archive/newsreleases/930a525cd534e290852576fe00580df9.html
  79. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11674189/
  80. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381212823_TOXICITY_OF_NANOMATERIALS_EXPOSURE_PATHWAYS_ASSESSMENT_AND_RECENT_ADVANCES
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.