A Quantitative Toxicogenomics Assay for High ... - ACS Publications

Feb 8, 2016 - This toxicogenomics-based assay presents a promising alternative for fast, ... a new quantitative toxicogenomics assay, which detects an...
0 downloads 0 Views 2MB Size
Subscriber access provided by ORTA DOGU TEKNIK UNIVERSITESI KUTUPHANESI

Article

A Quantitative Toxicogenomics Assay for High-throughput and Mechanistic Genotoxicity Assessment and Screening of Environmental Pollutants Jiaqi Lan, Na Gou, Sheikh Mokhlesur Rahman, Ce Gao, Miao He, and April Z Gu Environ. Sci. Technol., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b05097 • Publication Date (Web): 08 Feb 2016 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on February 22, 2016

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers

Environmental Science & Technology is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Subscriber access provided by ORTA DOGU TEKNIK UNIVERSITESI KUTUPHANESI

and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

Environmental Science & Technology is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Environmental Science & Technology

Chemical exposure

DNA damage repair pathway(s) activation

Protein expression

Page 1 of 38

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

PELI endpoints Genotoxic mode Chemical clustering

Environmental Science & Technology

1

A Quantitative Toxicogenomics Assay for High-

2

throughput and Mechanistic Genotoxicity

3

Assessment and Screening of Environmental

4

Pollutants

5

Jiaqi Lan1, Na Gou1, Sheikh Mokhles Rahman1, Ce Gao, Miao He2* and April Gu1*

6

1

7

Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, US.

8

2

9

Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China

10

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northeastern University, 360 Huntington

Environmental simulation and pollution control (ESPC) State Key Joint Laboratory, School of

* Corresponding Author: [email protected]; [email protected]

11

12

13

14

15

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 2 of 38

Page 3 of 38

16

17

Environmental Science & Technology

ABSTRACT The ecological and health concern of mutagenicity and carcinogenicity potentially

18

associated with an overwhelmingly large and ever-increasing number of chemicals demands for

19

cost-effective and feasible method for genotoxicity screening and risk assessment. This study

20

proposed a genotoxicity assay using GFP-tagged yeast reporter stains, covering 38 selected

21

protein biomarkers indicative of all the seven known DNA damage repair pathways. The assay

22

was applied to assess four model genotoxic chemicals, eight environmental pollutants and four

23

negative controls across six concentrations. Quantitative molecular genotoxicity endpoints were

24

derived based on dose response modeling of a newly developed integrated molecular effect

25

quantifier, Protein Effect Level Index (PELI). The molecular genotoxicity endpoints were

26

consistent with multiple conventional in vitro genotoxicity assays, as well as with in vivo

27

carcinogenicity assay results. Further more, the proposed genotoxicity endpoint PELI values

28

quantitatively correlated with both Comet assay in human cell and carcinogenicity potency assay

29

in mice, providing promising evidence for linking the molecular disturbance measurements to

30

adverse outcomes at a biological relevant level. In addition, the high-resolution DNA damaging

31

repair pathway alternated protein expression profiles allowed for chemical clustering and

32

classification. This toxicogenomics-based assay presents a promising alternative for fast,

33

efficient and mechanistic genotoxicity screening and assessment of drugs, foods and

34

environmental contaminants.

35

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Environmental Science & Technology

36

INTRODUCTION

37

The ecological and health concern of an overwhelmingly large and ever-increasing number

38

of chemicals (i.e. over 83,000 chemicals are in production by 2010) demands for toxicity

39

screening and risk assessment of the potential toxicants.1 It is recognized that, unless the

40

approaches can be revised, the time and resources required to meet the demands of anticipated

41

toxicity testing efforts will be measured in decades or beyond.2 Genotoxicity is of particular

42

importance because of its link to mutagenicity, carcinogenicity as well as cancer.3,4 Genotoxicity

43

assays have been used to predict carcinogenic potential when carcinogenicity data are absent, or

44

support carcinogenicity data in cancer risk assessment. 4, 8, 9 Genotoxicity is caused by agents

45

interacting with DNA and other cellular targets that control the integrity of the genetic materials,

46

including induction of DNA adducts, strand breaks, point mutations, and structural and

47

numerical chromosomal changes.5-7 Current genotoxicity assays, such as Ames test, comet test

48

and micronucleus test (in vitro or in vivo), require relatively long testing time (up to days or

49

weeks). And, depending on the detection target and mechanism of the genotoxicity assay, it

50

identifies one or limited types of genetic material damage and cannot capture all DNA damage

51

effects, therefore may lead to inconsistency among test outcome and sometime fail to capture

52

potential genotoxicity. There is a pressing need for less costly and more rapid, yet informative

53

and reliable genotoxicity screening and testing methods.

54

The Tox21 vision proposed by National Research Council (NRC) points out the promises of

55

taking advantage of advances in genomics, computational toxicity, high throughput in vitro assay

56

techniques to improve the ability to assess the impacts of chemically induced genetic damage in

57

all its possible forms, to assess new and existing chemicals more efficiently, cost-effectively, and

58

with less reliance on animal models.10, 11 Batteries and/or tiered testing strategy that combine

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 4 of 38

Page 5 of 38

Environmental Science & Technology

59

both in vitro and in vivo assays have been employed by U.S. EPA for evaluation of

60

genotoxicity.12 In recent years, high-throughput genotoxicity assessment based on single or a few

61

biomarkers indicative of DNA damage recognition and repair have been demonstrated with RT-

62

qPCR technique or in engineered cell reporter systems (e.g., recombinant bioluminescent

63

bacteria or yeast).

64

capture all types of genetic damage. For example, GreenScreen assay, which is listed in the

65

Alternatives Assessment Program of ToxCast and uses yeast cells with GFP-infused single

66

biomarker RAD54, can only detect genotoxicants that lead to HR activation for DSB repair

67

(implying lower assay sensitivity).15, 16 Over the past decade, toxicogenomics, which examines

68

the molecular-level activity of multiple biomarkers and pathways in response to environmental

69

stressors, have shown promises to allow for rapid and sensitive evaluation of genotoxicants, to

70

more properly classify putative carcinogenicity and to reveal the potential mode of action

71

(MOA).10,

72

molecular assay endpoints and link them to adverse effects,20,

73

anchoring.22, 23 Adverse outcome pathway (AOP) concept has been proposed to provide roadmap

74

for establishing linkage between a molecular endpoint and an adverse outcome at a biological

75

level of organization relevant to risk assessment.20, 24

76

17-19

4, 10, 13-17

However, these assays are specific for certain targets and may not

However, one of the major challenges is how to develop more quantitative 21

so called phenotypic

Based on the AOP concept and our current knowledge of DNA damage and repair pathways,

77

we proposed and developed a new quantitative toxicogenomics assay, which detects and

78

quantifies molecular level changes in proteins involved in known DNA damage repair pathways,

79

for fast, sensitive and mechanistic genotoxicity evaluation of environmental pollutants. This

80

genotoxicity assay employs a library of in frame GFP fusion proteins of S.cerevisiae consisting

81

of 38 reporter strains (key proteins) covering all the seven recognized DNA damage repair

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Environmental Science & Technology

82

pathways, which measures in situ and real-time protein expression changes in exposure to any

83

chemical, yielding chemical-specific temporal DNA damage repair response profiles

84

(fingerprints) within 1-2 hours. 25 By covering all the seven known DNA damage repair

85

pathways and monitoring temporal protein expression levels, this approach aims to more

86

comprehensively capture the impacts of chemically induced genetic damage in various forms,

87

therefore improves the assay sensitivity and reliability. Furthermore, in order to quantify the

88

molecular-level effects, a Protein Effect Level Index (PELI) was proposed based on the concept

89

from our previous work by quantifying the accumulative altered protein expression change over

90

certain exposure period for a given protein, specific pathway, or selected multiple biomarkers

91

ensemble library (i.e. DNA damage and repair pathway biomarkers ensemble).25-27 The derived

92

molecular endpoints based on PELI values quantitatively correlated (or phenotypically anchored)

93

with conventional phenotypic genotoxicity endpoints, demonstrating that the proposed approach

94

has potential to serve as an alternative high-throughput in vitro genotoxicity assay. The assay

95

was tested against a number of model genotoxicants as well as genotoxicity-negative controls

96

chemicals, in order to demonstrate its specificity and sensitivity. In addition, the information-rich

97

and high-resolution data reveal potential DNA damaging mechanisms related to genotoxicity and

98

were used for chemicals classification based on their distinct molecular responses in DNA

99

damage and repair pathways.

100 101

MATERIALS AND METHODS

102

Chemicals

103 104

Twelve known genotoxic chemicals and four non-genotoxic negative controls (details in Table S1) were selected to evaluate the proposed genotoxicity assay. The selected model

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 6 of 38

Page 7 of 38

Environmental Science & Technology

105

genotoxicants include: 4-nitroquinoline 1-oxide (4-NQO, a tumorigenic quinoline), mitomycin C

106

(MMC, bio-reactive alkylating agent), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2, oxidizing agent), and

107

benzo[a]pyrene (BaP, enzymatically activated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)

108

genotoxicant); three environmental pollutants that were reported to exhibit genotoxicity: lead (II)

109

nitrate (Pb(NO3)2,), ibuprofen and atrazine; five drinking water disinfection by-products (DBPs)

110

with genotoxicity reported: trichloroacetic acid (TCA), N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA),

111

bromodichloromethane (BDCM), chlorodibromomethane (CDBM) and formaldehyde. Four

112

negative controls are: aspirin, tetracycline hydrochloride, erythromycin and bisphenol A. They

113

were selected as negative controls since they were reported negative in most genotoxicity assays

114

and in vivo carcinogenicity assays (details in Result and Discussion).28 All the chemicals were

115

evaluated across approximately six-log concentration range (except H2O2) (Table S1), up to the

116

pre-determined maximum non-cytotoxic concentration (over 95% cell survival tested by growth

117

inhibition in yeast for 24 hours as shown in Figure S1).

118

Selection of Proteins as Biomarkers and Construction of Yeast Whole Cell Array for

119

Genotoxicity Assessment

120

A library of 38 in frame GFP fusion proteins (selected proteins listed in Table 1) of

121

S.cerevisiae (Invitrogen, no. 95702, ATCC 201388), constructed by oligonucleotide-directed

122

homologous recombination to tag each open reading frame (ORF) with Aequrea victoria GFP

123

(S65T) in its chromosomal location at the 3’ end, was employed in this study.25, 29, 30 The

124

selected proteins were either specific for a certain type of DNA damage or play a pathway-

125

specific role, therefore, changes in expression levels of these biomarkers would indicate the

126

particular pathway responses associated with different DNA damages. 31-36, 37-41 A housekeeping

127

gene PGK1 was selected as an internal control for plate normalization. 42

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Environmental Science & Technology

128

Table 1. DNA damage type, corresponding repair pathways and biomarkers selected for the

129

molecular genotoxicity assay using GFP-tagged yeast cells. 25, 27, 30 DNA damage General damage DNA lesions Base alkylation Base oxidation Base alkylation and deamination Single strand break Cross links Pyrimidine dimers Bulky adduct Mismatches

Double strand break (DSB)

Proteins selected in the assay DNA damage signaling (DDS) CHK1,RAD9 Translesion synthesis (TLS) RAD30 Direct reversal repair (DRR) PHR1 OGG1 NTG1, NTG2, UNG1, Base excision repair (BER) MAG1, RAD27, APN1, APN2 RAD1, RAD2, RAD4, Nucleotide excision repair (NER) RAD9, RAD14,RAD16, RAD23, RAD34 MSH1, MSH2, MSH3, Mismatch repair (MMR) MSH6, PMS1, MLH1, MLH2 General response to DSB XRS2, MRE11 RFA1, RFA2, RFA3, Homologous recombination DSB RAD51, RAD52, RAD54, (HR) repair HTA1 Non-homologous end LIF1, YKU70 joining (NHEJ) Repair pathway

130

131

132

Real Time Protein Expression Analysis upon Chemical Exposures Details of the proteomics assay for using GFP-tagged reporter yeast cells were described

133

in our previous reports.25, 27, 30 Briefly, yeast strains selected for genotoxicity assessment (Table 1)

134

were grown in clear bottom black 384-well plates (Costar) with SD medium for 4-6 h at 30 °C to

135

reach early exponential growth (OD600 about 0.2 to 0.4). 10µL chemical (dissolved in PBS) or

136

control (PBS only) was added to each well to reach the final concentrations (Table S1). For

137

Benzo [a] pyrene (BaP), liver extract (S9 fractions, final concentration at 1.4%) (Sprague-

138

Dawley Rat, Invitrogen, NY, US) was added for enzymatic bio-activation before exposure, with

139

equal amount of S9 in PBS served as vehicle control. 30 The plates were then placed into a Micro

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 8 of 38

Page 9 of 38

Environmental Science & Technology

140

plate Reader (SynergyTM H1 Multi-Mode, Biotech, Winooski, VT) for absorbance (OD600 for

141

cell growth) and GFP signal (filters with 485-nm excitation and 535-nm emission for protein

142

expression) measurements every 5 min for 2 hours after fast shake for 1 minute. All tests were

143

performed in dark in triplicate.

144

Protein Expression Profiling Data Processing and Quantitative Molecular Endpoints

145

Derivation Protein expression profiling data of yeast library were processed as described previously.

146 147

25, 27, 30

148

of medium control (with or without chemical). Protein expression P for each measurement was

149

then normalized by cell number as P= (GFPcorrected/ODcorrected). The P values were also corrected

150

with vehicle internal control (housekeeping gene PGK142) for plate normalization among

151

replicates. The alteration in protein expression for a given protein at each time point due to

152

chemical exposure, also referred as induction factor I, was represented by as I= Pexperiment /Pcontrol.

153

Where, Pexperiment = (GFPcorrected/ODcorrected)experiment as the normalized gene expression GFP level

154

in the experiments condition with chemical exposure, and Pcontrol = (GFPcorrected/ ODcorrected)

155

vehicle in the vehicle control condition without any chemical exposure.

Temporal OD and GFP raw data were first corrected by background OD and GFP signal

156

To quantify chemical-induced protein expression level changes with consideration of

157

exposure time, Protein Effect Level Index (PELI) was proposed and derived as a quantitative

158

molecular endpoint. 25, 27, 30 PELI can be derived to quantify the accumulative altered protein

159

expression change averaged over the exposure period for a given protein (ORFi) (PELIORFi), a

160

specific pathway (PELIpathway) or for the overall DNA damage and repair pathway ensemble

161

library (PELIgeno) as described in detail in the previous reports 25, 27, 30 and in supporting

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Environmental Science & Technology

162

information (Part 3). All tests were conducted in triplicates, and induction factor I, PELIORF,

163

PELIpathway and PELIgeno were evaluated by Mean ± SD. For a given chemical, PELIgeno based

164

dose-response pattern was modeled using Four Parameter Logistic (4PL) nonlinear regression

165

model,43-45 which allowed the calculation of PELImax. A chemical is considered genotoxicity

166

positive if the PELImax value derived from the PELIgeno-dose response curve is higher than 1.5, a

167

pre-determined threshold. The value of 1.5 was selected to reflect a statistically significant

168

increase in protein expression levels compared to the untreated control, which is over 1+3×SD

169

(SD refers to system standard deviation and was determined as 95% confidence interval for the

170

coefficient of variation (CV%) of PELIgeno values in this study, data not shown). The threshold of

171

folder change in genes or proteins as 1.5 has been widely used and verified in the literature. 46-51

172

Results from this study confirmed the appropriateness of the threshold value since all genotoxic

173

negative chemicals exhibited PELImax value less than 1.5, while all genotoxic positive chemicals

174

yielded PELImax values above 1.5.

175

DNA Damage Alkaline Comet Assay in Human A549 Cells for Phenotypic Confirmation

176

Alkaline comet assay in human A549 cells upon exposure to the 16 chemicals at selected

177

concentrations (details in Table S1) or 1% FBS-F12 medium only (as untreated control) for 24h

178

was carried out according to the protocol of ITRC 53 using CometAssay 96 Kit of Trevigen Inc

179

(www.trevigen.com). All these procedures were performed in dark with triplicates. 25 cells of

180

each treatment were measured by software CASP randomly (University of Wroclaw, Institute of

181

Theoretical Physics) and the damage was valued as % Tail DNA. Genotoxicity positive was

182

defined as significant increase of tail DNA % compared to vehicle control with p