Advertisement

Cytotechnology

, Volume 63, Issue 3, pp 239–245 | Cite as

In vitro genotoxicity of rocuronium bromide in human peripheral lymphocytes

  • Umit Zan
  • Mehmet TopaktasEmail author
  • Erman Salih Istifli
Original Research

Abstract

Rocuronium bromide (RB), an aminosteroid type neuromuscular blocking agent, acts by reducing or inhibiting the depolarising effect of acetylcholine on the terminal disc of the muscle cell. To our knowledge, there is no adequate information on the genotoxic effects of RB, up to now. In the present study, possible genotoxic effects of RB have been determined by means of sister chromatid exchange (SCE), chromosome aberration (CA) and micronucleus (MN) analyses in human peripheral blood lymphocytes. The human peripheral blood lymphocytes were exposed to three different concentrations of RB (60, 80 and 100 μg/mL) for 24- and 48-h. In this study, RB increased the frequency of CAs, however, did not increase the frequency of SCEs. RB did not decrease the proliferation index (PI) and mitotic index (MI). Accordingly, RB increased the frequency of micronucleus (MN) but did not decrease the nuclear division index (NDI). Findings from this study suggest that rocuronium bromide is clastogenic but not cytotoxic to cultured human peripheral blood lymphocytes.

Keywords

Rocuronium bromide Human peripheral blood lymphocytes SCE CA MN 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the grant from Cukurova University research fund (FEF2006YL28).

References

  1. Albertini RJ, Anderson D, Douglas GR, Hagmar L, Hemminki K, Merlo F, Natarajan AT, Norppa H, Shuker DEG, Tice R, Waters MD, Aitio A (2000) IPCS guidelines for the monitoring of genotoxic effects of carcinogens in humans. Mutat Res 463:111–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baird M, Futter M (1996) Anaphylaxis to mivacurium. Anaesth Intensive Care 42:486–488Google Scholar
  3. Brambilla G, Martelli A (2009) Update on genotoxicity and carcinogenicity testing of 472 marketed pharmaceuticals. Mutat Res 681:209–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buckton KE, Evans HJ (eds) (1973) Methods for the Analysis of Human Chromosome Aberrations. World Health Organisation, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  5. Clendenen S, Harper J, Wharen R, Guarderas J (1997) Anaphylactic reaction after cisatracurium. Anesthesiology 87:690–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Evans HJ (1970) Population cytogenetics and environmental factors. In: Jacobs PA, Price WH, Law P (eds) Pfizer Medical Monographs, vol 5. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp 192–216Google Scholar
  7. Evans HJ (1982) Chromosomal mutations in human populations. Cytogenet Cell Genet 33:48–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Evans HJ (1984) Human Peripheral Blood Lymphocytes for the Analysis of Chromosome Aberrations in Mutagen Tests. In: Kilbey BJ, Legator M, Nichols W, Ramel C (eds) Handbook of mutagenicity test procedures, 2nd ed. Elsevier Science Publishers BV, Amsterdam, pp 405–427Google Scholar
  9. Evans HJ, Buckton KE, Hamilton GE, Carothers A (1979) Radiation-induced chromosome aberrations in nuclear-dockyard workers. Nature 277:531–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Farrell A, Gowland G, McDowell J, Simpson K, Watkins J (1988) Anaphylactoid reaction to vecuronium followed by systemic reaction to skin testing. Anaesthesia 43:207–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fenech M (2000) The in vitro micronucleus technique. Mutat Res 455:81–95Google Scholar
  12. Galloway SM (2000) Cytotoxicity and chromosome aberrations in vitro: Experience in industry and the case for an upper limit on toxicity in the aberration assay. Environ Mol Mutagen 35:191–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heier T, Guttormsen AB (2000) Anaphylactic reactions during induction of anaesthesia using rocuronium for muscle relaxation: A report including 3 cases. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 44:775–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huong TT, Szentesi I, Czeizel A (1988) Lower prevalence of chromosome aberrations and SCEs in self-poisoned pregnant women. Mutat Res 198:255–259Google Scholar
  15. Husum B, Wulf HC, Niebuhr E, Rasmussen JA (1985) SCE in lymphocytes of patients treated with single, large doses of diazepam. Mutat Res 155:71–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ishii Y, Bender MA (1980) Effects of inhibitors of DNA synthesis on spontaneous and ultraviolet light-induced sister chromatid exchanges in Chinese hamster cells. Mutat Res 79:19–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Karabulut AK, Reisli R, Uysal II, Çelik JB, Ziylan T (2004) An investigation of non-depolarizing muscle relaxants on embryonic development in cultured rat embryos. Eur J Anaesthesiol 21:715–724Google Scholar
  18. Karahalil B, Yağar S, Bahadır G, Durak P, Sardaş S (2005) Diazepam and propofol used as anesthetics during open-heart surgery do not cause chromosomal aberrations in peripheral blood lymphocytes. Mutat Res 581:181–186Google Scholar
  19. Kirsch-Volders M, Sofuni T, Aardemac M, Albertini S, Eastmond D, Fenech M, Ishidate M Jr, Kirchner S, Lorge E, Morita T, Norppa H, Surralles J, Vanhauwaert A, Wakata A (2003) Report from the in vitro micronucleus assay working group. Mutat Res 540:153–163Google Scholar
  20. Klimova EM, Paskevich IF (1984) Cytogenetic effect of barbiturate anesthetizing substances in a human peripheral blood leukocyte culture. Tsitol Genet 18:13–17Google Scholar
  21. Kumar A, Thys J, Van Aken H, Stevens E, Grul J (1993) Severe anaphylactic shock after atracurium. Anesth Analg 76:423–425Google Scholar
  22. Laake JH, Røttingen JA (2001) Rocuronium and anaphylaxis–a statistical challenge. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 45:1196–1203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leal Garza CH, Valenciano Cedillo GG, Rojas Alvarado MA, Cortes Gutierrez EI (1998) Mutagenic activity of diazepam evaluated by in vivo cytogenetic tests. Arch Med Res 29:285–289Google Scholar
  24. Lynch A, Harvey J, Aylott M, Nicholas E, Burman M, Siddiqui A, Walker S, Rees R (2003) Investigations into the concept of a threshold for topoisomerase inhibitor-induced clastogenicity. Mutagenesis 18(4):345–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mace ML Jr, Daskal Y, Wray W (1978) Scanning electron microscopy of chromosome aberrations. Mutat Res 52:199–206Google Scholar
  26. Mishima S, Yamamura T (1984) Anaphylactoid reaction to pancuronium. Anesth Analg 63:865–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Müller L, Sofuni T (2000) Appropriate levels of cytotoxicity for genotoxicity tests using mammalian cells in vitro. Environ Mol Mutagen 35:202–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Natarajan AT (2002) Chromosome aberrations: past, present and future. Mutat Res 504:3–16Google Scholar
  29. O’Callaghan A, Scadding G, Watkins J (1986) Bronchospasm following the use of vecuronium. Anaesthesia 41:940–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Olivier M, Bautista S, Vallès H, Theillet C (1998) Relaxed cell-cycle arrests and propagation of unrepaired chromosomal damage in cancer cell lines with wild-type p53. Mol Carcinog 23:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Paz-y-Miño C, Bustamante G, Sánchez ME, Leone PE (2002) Cytogenetic monitoring in a population occupationally exposed to pesticide in Ecuador. Environ Health Perspective 110:1077–1080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Perry PE, Thomson EJ (1984) The methodology of sister chromatid exchanges. In: Kilbey BJ, Legator M, Nichols W, Ramel C (eds) Handbook of Mutagenicity Test Procedures, 2nd ed. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 459–529Google Scholar
  33. Rothfuss A, Schütz P, Bochum S, Volm T, Eberhardt E, Kreirenberg R, Vogel W, Speit G (2000) Induced micronucleus frequencies in peripheral lymphocytes as a screening test for carriers of a BRCA1 mutation in breast cancer families. Cancer Res 60:390–394Google Scholar
  34. Speit G, Haupter S (1985) On the mechanisms of differential giemsa staining of bromodeoxyuridine-substituted chromosomes. II. Differences between the demonstration of sister chromatid differentiation and replication patterns. Human Genet 70:126–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Synder RD (2009) An Update on the Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity of Marketed Pharmaceuticals with Reference to In Silico Predictivity. Environ Mol Mutagen 50:435–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Synder RD, Green JW (2001) A review of the genotoxicity of marketed pharmaceuticals. Mutat Res 488:151–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Synder RD, Pearl GS, Mandakas G, Choy WN, Goodsaid F, Rosenblum IY (2004) Assessment of the Sensitivity of the Computational Programs DEREK, TOPKAT, and MCASE in the Prediction of the Genotoxicity of Pharmaceutical Molecules. Environ Mol Mutagen 43:143–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Toh K, Deacock S, Fawcett W (1999) Severe anaphylactic reaction to cisatracurium. Anesth Analg 88:462–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Topaktaş M, Rencüzoğulları E (1995) Cytogenetics. Cukurova University, Faculty of Science and Letters, Department of Biology. p. 182Google Scholar
  40. Treuren B, Buckley D (1990) Anaphylactoid reaction to vecuronium. Br J Anaesth 64:125–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Umit Zan
    • 1
  • Mehmet Topaktas
    • 2
    Email author
  • Erman Salih Istifli
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biology, Institute of Basic and Applied SciencesÇukurova UniversityAdanaTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Biology, Faculty of Science and LettersÇukurova UniversityAdanaTurkey

Personalised recommendations