Genotoxicity Assessment of Drinking Water Disinfection Byproducts by

Safe Global Water Institute and Department of Crop Sciences, University of ... Genotoxicity is considered a major concern for drinking water disinfect...
1 downloads 3 Views 3MB Size
Subscriber access provided by UNIV OF NEW ENGLAND ARMIDALE

Ecotoxicology and Human Environmental Health

Genotoxicity Assessment of Drinking Water Disinfection By-products (DBPs) by DNA Damage and Repair Pathway Profiling Analysis Jiaqi Lan, Sheikh Mokhlesur Rahman, Na Gou, Tao Jiang, Michael J Plewa, Akram Alshawabkeh, and April Z Gu Environ. Sci. Technol., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b06389 • Publication Date (Web): 16 Apr 2018 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on April 16, 2018

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 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 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 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.

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.

Page 1 of 34

Environmental Science & Technology

TOC

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Environmental Science & Technology

1

Genotoxicity Assessment of Drinking Water

2

Disinfection By-products (DBPs) by DNA

3

Damage and Repair Pathway Profiling Analysis

4

5

Jiaqi Lan1,2, Sheikh Mokhlesur Rahman 1, Na Gou1, Tao Jiang1, Micheal J. Plewa3, Akram

6

Alshawabkeh1 and April Z.Gu1,4*

7

1

8

Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, US.

9

2

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

Institute of Materia Medica, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical

10

College, Beijing, 100050, China

11

3

12

Crop Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801, US.

13

4

14

*corresponding author: [email protected]

Safe Global Water Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the Department of

School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14850, US.

15

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 2 of 34

Page 3 of 34

16 17

Environmental Science & Technology

ABSTRACT Genotoxicity is considered a major concern for drinking water disinfection by-products

18

(DBPs). Of over 700 DBPs identified to date, only a small number of has been assessed with

19

limited information for DBP genotoxicity mechanism(s). In this study we evaluated genotoxicity

20

of 20 regulated and un-regulated DBPs applying a quantitative toxicogenomics approach. We

21

used GFP-fused yeast strains that examine protein expression profiling of 38 proteins indicative

22

of all known DNA damage and repair pathways. The toxicogenomics assay detected

23

genotoxicity potential of these DBPs in consistent with conventional genotoxicity assays

24

endpoints. Furthermore, the high-resolution, real-time pathway activation and protein expression

25

profiling, in combination with clustering analysis, revealed molecular level details in the

26

genotoxicity mechanisms among different DBPs and enabled classification of DBPs based on

27

their distinct DNA damage effects and repair mechanisms. Oxidative DNA damage and base

28

alkylation were confirmed to be the main molecular mechanisms of DBP genotoxicity. Initial

29

exploration of QSAR modeling using moleular genotoxicity endpoints (PELI) suggested that

30

genotoxicity of DBPs in this study was mainly contributed by topological and quantum chemical

31

descriptors. This study presents a toxicogenomics-based assay for fast and efficient mechanistic

32

genotoxicity screening and assessment of large number of DBPs. The results help to fill in the

33

knowledge gap in the understanding of the molecular mechanisms of DBP genotoxicity.

34

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Environmental Science & Technology

35

INTRODUCTION

36

Drinking water disinfection by-products (DBPs) are formed during the reaction of disinfectants

37

(such as chlorine, chlorine dioxide, chloramine, UV and ozone) with naturally occurring organic

38

matter (NOM) and other contaminants present in water.1 DBPs are therefore widely existed in

39

drinking water at sub- µg/L (ppb) to low-to-mid- µg/L levels. Currently, there are over 700 DBPs

40

reported in drinking water, and new DBPs are continuing to be uncovered. 1-3

41

Great knowledge gaps exist for toxicological information and health impacts of DBPs.

42

Humans are exposed to DBPs through multiple routes, including ingestion (the common route

43

studied), inhalation and dermal exposures. 3 Literature review indicates that only approximately

44

15% (~100) of identified DBPs have been assessed with in vitro bioassays and a few with

45

chronic in vivo studies.2-4 Potential health risks of DBPs have been reported, including cancer

46

and other adverse reproductive effects, such as early-term miscarriage and birth defects. 5-7 An

47

association of specific cancers and exposure to disinfected water has emerged by

48

epidemiological research. 5, 8, 9 Several toxicity mechanisms for DBPs have been implicated,

49

including genotoxicity, oxidative stress, disruption of folate metabolism and cell cycle

50

disruption.5, 8, 9 Genotoxicity is of particular importance because of its link to mutagenicity,

51

carcinogenicity as well as cancer. 7, 10

52

The genotoxicity of evaluated DBPs seemed to be dependent on the structure and the

53

substituents. For example, among the halogenated DBPs, iodinated DBPs were observed to be

54

more toxic than their brominated and chlorinated analogs. 11, 12 Nitrogen-containing DBPs were

55

more genotoxic than the DBPs that do not contain nitrogen. 3, 13 Genotoxicity mechanisms of

56

DBPs are also strongly related to their structures. For example, for halogenated DBPs, oxidative

57

stress-induced DNA damage 14-21 and DNA alkylation 22-25 are two major mechanisms.

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 4 of 34

Page 5 of 34

Environmental Science & Technology

58

Halonitriles may also induce genomic damage by cell cycle disruption and the induction of

59

hyperploidy. 26 Nitrosamines may act as alkylating agents after metabolism, 27 and formaldehyde

60

can form DNA–protein crosslinks. 24 The genotoxicity and mechanisms of most DBPs remain

61

unknown.

62

The standard and most reliable genotoxicity tests are in vivo assays, however, they are

63

resource-intensive and time-consuming, therefore cannot meet the demand for evaluating a large

64

number of potential genotoxic DBPs.28, 29 In vitro genotoxicity assays, including Ames test,

65

comet test and micronucleus test, require relatively shorter testing time (several days), but often

66

yield inconsistent or false results compared to in vivo outcomes 7, 30, 31 due to the inherent

67

limitations of the target and DNA damage effects they can detect.7, 30 In recent years, high-

68

throughput genotoxicity assessment has been reported where the activation of single or selected

69

biomarkers indicative of DNA damage recognition and repair are used to indicate potential

70

genotoxicity.7, 32-37 Our group has recently developed and validated a new quantitative

71

toxicogenomics-based assay based on real time protein expression profiling of known DNA

72

damage and repair pathways ensemble. 38-41 Compared to other biomarkers-based tests, our assay

73

derives quantitative endpoints that correlate with conventional genotoxicity endpoints and

74

promises to be a cost-effective and mechanistic genotoxicity assessment assay. 40, 41

75

In this study, we employed the newly developed quantitative toxicogenomics

76

genotoxicity assay to perform a mechanistic genotoxicity assessment and profiling of 20 DBPs

77

representing nine different chemical classes of DBPs. The results provided new genotoxicity

78

information and insights of underlying DNA damaging mechanisms at molecular level for these

79

20 DBPs. The high-resolution protein expression profiles of DNA damage and repair pathways

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Environmental Science & Technology

80

also enabled DBP classification and further exploration of association between DBP chemical

81

structure and the genotoxicity mechanisms.

82 83

MATERIALS AND METHODS

84

Chemicals

85

20 DBPs were selected that belong to nine different chemical classes (Table 1,

86

manufacturer information in Table S1). Each DBP was evaluated across six-log sub-cytotoxic

87

concentration range (Table S1). The maximum non-cytotoxic concentration was pre-determined

88

(> 95% cell survival tested by growth inhibition in yeast for 24 hours, Figure S1).

89

Yeast Whole Cell Array and Real Time Protein Expression Analysis upon DBP Exposures

90

The whole cell assay library consists 38 in frame GFP fusion proteins (Table S2) of

91

Saccharomyces.cerevisiae (Invitrogen, no. 95702, ATCC 201388), constructed by

92

oligonucleotide-directed homologous recombination to tag each open reading frame (ORF) with

93

Aequrea victoria GFP (S65T) in its chromosomal location at the 3’ end, 42 covering all the seven

94

known DNA damage repair pathways. The library expresses full-length, chromosomally tagged

95

green fluorescent protein fusion proteins, 42 which makes the GFP signal reflect protein

96

expression directly.

97

Details of the proteomics assay for using GFP-tagged yeast cells were described in our

98

previous reports. 38-41 Briefly, the yeast strains were grown in clear bottom black 384-well plates

99

(Costar) with Synthetic Dextrose base (SD base) with Dropout (DO) supplement –His (Clontech,

100

CA, US) for 4-6 h at 30 °C to reach early exponential growth. 10µL DBP sample aliquots in PBS

101

or control (PBS only) were added to each well to obtain the target concentrations (Table S1). The

102

plates were then placed in a Micro plate Reader (Synergy TM H1 Multi-Mode, Biotech, Winooski,

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 6 of 34

Page 7 of 34

Environmental Science & Technology

103

VT) for absorbance (OD600 for cell growth) and GFP signal (filters with 485-nm excitation and

104

535-nm emission for protein expression) measurements every 5 min for 2 hours after double

105

orbital shake (425 cpm) for 1 minute. All tests were performed in dark in triplicate. Considering

106

that all the DBPs were tested at concentrations much lower than their solubility, the evaporation

107

and loss of the volatile DBPs during the 2-hr assay was not considered in this study. 43,44

108 109

Protein Expression Profiling Data Processing and Quantitative Molecular Endpoints

110

Derivation

111

Temporal protein expression profiling data of yeast library were processed as described

112

previously. 39, 41, 45 Temporal OD and GFP raw data are first corrected by background OD and

113

GFP signal of blank media control with or without chemical, respectively. The protein

114

expression level P for each protein biomarker (ORF) i, in treatment x, and at time point t is

115

normalized by cell density as: Pi,x,t = (GFPi,x,t-corrected/ODi,x,t-corrected) (1)

116

Where, GFPi,x,t-corrected is the GFP reading of protein i, in treatment x, at time t, corrected

117 118

by the GFP reading in the blank media control at time t; ODi,x,t-corrected is the OD reading of

119

protein i, in treatment x, at time t, corrected by the OD reading in the blank media control at time

120

t.

121

The altered protein expression in relative to untreated control (without chemical) for a

122

given protein ORFi in treatment x, at time t, due to chemical exposure, also referred as induction

123

factor I, is calculated as:

124

Ii,x,t = Pi,x,t /Pi,untreated,t (2)

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Environmental Science & Technology

125

Where, Pi,x,t = (GFPcorrected/ODcorrected)treatment x , is the altered protein expression GFP level

126

for protein (ORF) i for treatment x, at time t, in the treated experimental condition with chemical

127

exposure; Pi,untreated,t = (GFPcorrected/ ODcorrected) untreated control, is the altered protein expression GFP

128

level for protein (ORF) i for treatment x, at time t, in the un-treated control without chemical

129

exposure. P values of both treated experiments and untreated controls are normalized against

130

internal control (housekeeping protein PGK146).

131

To quantify the chemical-induced protein expression level changes of a treatment, Protein

132

Effect Level Index (PELI) was derived as a quantitative molecular endpoint. 38-41 The

133

accumulative altered protein expression change over the 2-hr exposure period for a given protein

134

(ORF) i was calculated as: 

, =

135 136 137 138 139

142 143

 !"#  %

(3)

Where, t is the exposure time. For up-regulated protein, I (up-regulated) = I, when I≥1; for proteins that showed down-regulation, I (up-regulated) =1 when I