2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate

Genetic toxicity: in vivo

Administrative data

Endpoint:

genetic toxicity in vivo

Type of information:

experimental study

Adequacy of study:

key study

Reliability:

2 (reliable with restrictions)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

other: Documentation sufficient for assessment

Data source

Reference

Reference Type:

publication

Title:

Induced DNA Damage by Dental Resin Monomers in Somatic Cells

Author:

Arossi, G.A., Lehmann, M., Dihl, R.R., Reguly, M.L.and de Andrade, H.H.R.

Year:

2009

Bibliographic source:

Basic and Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology 106, 124-129

Materials and methods

Principles of method if other than guideline:

Somatic Mutation and Recombinogenic Test (SMART) to detect mitotic recombination and a diverse set of mutational events.

GLP compliance:

not specified

Remarks:

information not provided in publication

Type of assay:

somatic mutation and recombination test in Drosophila

Test material

Test material information

Constituent 1

Reference substance name:

2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate

EC Number:

212-782-2

EC Name:

2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate

Cas Number:

868-77-9

Molecular formula:

C6H10O3

IUPAC Name:

2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate

Test material form:

liquid

Test animals

Species:

Drosophila melanogaster

Strain:

other: marker heterozygous (mwh ⁄flr3 ) and balancer-heterozygous (mwh ⁄TM3) genotypes

Sex:

male/female

Details on test animals or test system and environmental conditions:

The monomer genetic toxicities were accessed using the Standard Cross version of the wing SMART test: flr3 ⁄TM3, BdS females crossed with mwh ⁄mwh males. Eggs from this cross were collected for 8 hr on culture bottle containing a solid agar base (3% w⁄ v) enriched with a layer of live fermenting
baker’s yeast supplemented with sucrose. Three days later the larvae were transferred to vials containing 1.5 g of Drosophila Instant Medium (Carolina Biological Supply, Burlington, NC, USA) rehydrated with 5 ml of the test solutions.

Administration / exposure

Vehicle:

- Vehicle(s)/solvent(s) used: water

Details on exposure:

The monomer genetic toxicities were accessed using the Standard Cross version of the wing SMART test: flr3 ⁄TM3, BdS females crossed with mwh ⁄mwh males. Eggs from this cross were collected for 8 hr on culture bottle containing a solid agar base (3% w⁄ v) enriched with a layer of live fermenting
baker’s yeast supplemented with sucrose. Three days later the larvae were transferred to vials containing 1.5 g of Drosophila Instant Medium (Carolina Biological Supply, Burlington, NC, USA) rehydrated with 5 ml of the test solutions. Negative solvent controls were always included. The treated individuals remained in the vials until the emergence of the surviving adult flies.

Duration of treatment / exposure:

Flies were collected after eclosion

Frequency of treatment:

Eggs from the cross were collected for 8 hr. Three days later the larvae were transferred to vials containing 1.5 g of Drosophila Instant Medium rehydrated with 5 ml of the test solutions. Flies were collected after eclosion.

Doses / concentrations

Remarks:

Doses / Concentrations:
HEMA diluted in distilled water – 0.675%, 1.25%, 1.875% and 2.5%
Basis:

No. of animals per sex per dose:

30 total

Control animals:

yes

Positive control(s):

ethyl methanesulfonate

Examinations

Tissues and cell types examined:

presence of cell clones showing malformed wing hairs
number of spots as well as their type and size

Details of tissue and slide preparation:

After eclosion, the flies were collected from the treatment vials and stored in 70% ethanol. Subsequently, the wings were mounted on slides and scored under 400 X· magnification for the presence of cell clones showing malformed wing hairs. The number of spots as well as their type and size were recorded. In test larvae, two genotype configurations are possible: trans-heterozygous for the recessive wing cell markers [mwh and flr3 (mwh +⁄+ flr3)], and balancer- heterozygous (mwh ⁄TM3). Induced loss of heterozygosity on marker-heterozygous flies leads to two types of mutant clones: (i) single spots, either mwh and flr3, which can be produced by somatic point mutation, chromosome aberration as well as mitotic recombination and (ii) twin spots, consisting of both mwh and flr3 sub clones, which are originated exclusively from mitotic recombination. On balancer-heterozygous flies, mwh spots should reflect somatic point mutation and chromosome aberration, as mitotic recombination – involving the TM3 chromosome and its structurally normal homologue – is a lethal event.

Evaluation criteria:

We considered the treatment as positive if the frequency of mutant clones in the treated series was at least m (multiplication factor) times higher than that in the control series.

Statistics:

The conditional binomial test of Kastenbaun and Bowman [1970] was applied to assess differences between the frequencies of each spot type in treated and concurrent NC flies. The multiple decision procedure described by Frei and Wrgler [1988, 1995] was used to judge the overall response of an agent as positive, weakly positive, negative or inconclusive. We considered the treatment as positive if the frequency of mutant clones in the treated series was at least m (multiplication factor) times higher than that in the control series. As small single spots and total spots have a comparatively high spontaneous frequency, m was fixed as 2 (testing for a doubling of the spontaneous frequency). For large single spots and twin spots, which have a low spontaneous frequency, m = 5 was used. The recombinagenic action of the drugs was calculated comparing the standard frequency of clones per 105 cells obtained from mwh ⁄ flr3 and mwh ⁄TM3 genotypes. For an unbiased comparison of this frequency, only mwh clones in mwh single spots and in twin spots were used.

Results and discussion

Test results

Sex:

male/female

Genotoxicity:

negative

Toxicity:

no effects

Vehicle controls validity:

valid

Negative controls validity:

not applicable

Positive controls validity:

valid

Additional information on results:

HEMA did not have a significant effect on total spot frequencies in marker-heterozygous (mwh ⁄ flr3) flies analysed, suggesting that HEMA does not act as a genotoxin in the SMART assay.

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Conclusions:

Interpretation of results : negative
HEMA did not have a significant effect on total spot frequencies in marker-heterozygous (mwh ⁄ flr3) flies analysed, suggesting that HEMA does not act as a genotoxin in the SMART assay.

Executive summary:

The present in vivo study investigated the genotoxicity of hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA). The Somatic Mutation and Recombination Test (SMART) in Drosophila melanogaster was applied to analyse their genotoxicity expressed as homologous mitotic recombination, point and chromosomal mutation. SMART detects the loss of heterozygosity of marker genes expressed phenotypically on the fly’s wings. This fruit fly has an extensive genetic homology to mammalians, which makes it a suitable model organism for genotoxic investigations. HEMA had no statistically significant effect on total spot frequencies – suggesting no genotoxic action in the SMART assay. The clinical significance of these observations has to be interpreted for data obtained in other bioassays.