Complex interactions between nicotine and resveratrol in the Drosophila melanogaster wing spot test.

Nicotine (NIC) and resveratrol (RES) are chemicals in tobacco and wine, respectively, that are widely consumed concurrently worldwide. NIC is an alkaloid known to be toxic, addictive and to produce oxidative stress, while RES is thought of as an antioxidant with putative health benefits. Oxidative stress can induce genotoxic damage, yet few studies have examined whether NIC is genotoxic in vivo. In vitro studies have shown that RES can ameliorate deleterious effects of NIC. However, RES has been reported to have both antioxidant and pro-oxidant effects, and an in vivo study reported that 0.011 mM RES was genotoxic. We used the Drosophila melanogaster wing spot test to determine whether NIC and RES, first individually and then in combination, were genotoxic and/or altered the cell division. We hypothesized that RES would modulate NIC's effects. NIC was genotoxic in the standard (ST) cross in a concentration-independent manner, but not genotoxic in the high bioactivation (HB) cross. RES was not genotoxic in either the ST or HB cross at the concentrations tested. We discovered a complex interaction between NIC and RES. Depending on concentration, RES was protective of NIC's genotoxic damage, RES had no interaction with NIC, or RES had an additive or synergistic effect, increasing NIC's genotoxic damage. Most NIC, RES, and NIC/RES combinations tested altered the cell division in the ST and HB crosses. Because we used the ST and HB crosses, we demonstrated that genotoxicity and cell division alterations were modulated by the xenobiotic metabolism. These results provide evidence of NIC's genotoxicity in vivo at specific concentrations. Moreover, NIC's genotoxicity can be modulated by its interaction with RES in a complex manner, in which their interaction can lead to either increasing NIC's damage or protecting against it.

Lycopene, resveratrol, vitamin C and FeSO4 increase damage produced by pro-oxidant carcinogen 4-nitroquinoline-1-oxide in Drosophila melanogaster: Xenobiotic metabolism implications.

4-nitroquinoline-1-oxide (4-NQO) is a pro-oxidant carcinogen bioactivated by xenobiotic metabolism (XM). We investigated if antioxidants lycopene [0.45, 0.9, 1.8 µM], resveratrol [11, 43, 172 µM], and vitamin C [5.6 mM] added or not with FeSO4 [0.06 mM], modulate the genotoxicity of 4-NQO [2 mM] with the Drosophila wing spot test standard (ST) and high bioactivation (HB) crosses, with inducible and high levels of cytochromes P450, respectively. The genotoxicity of 4-NQO was higher when dissolved in an ethanol - acetone mixture. The antioxidants did not protect against 4-NQO in any of both crosses. In the ST cross, resveratrol [11 µM], vitamin C and FeSO4 resulted in genotoxicity; the three antioxidants and FeSO4 increased the damage of 4-NQO. In the HB cross, none of the antioxidants, neither FeSO4, were genotoxic. Only resveratrol [172 µM] + 4-NQO increased the genotoxic activity in both crosses. We concluded that the effects of the antioxidants, FeSO4 and the modulation of 4-NQO were the result of the difference of Cyp450s levels, between the ST and HB crosses. We propose that the basal levels of the XM's enzymes in the ST cross interacted with a putative pro-oxidant activity of the compounds added to the pro-oxidant effects of 4-NQO.

Interactions of sulforaphane and dimethyl sulfoxide with methyl methanesulfonate, urethane, 4-nitroquinoline-1-oxide and hydrogen peroxide in the Drosophila melanogaster wing spot test.

Sulforaphane (SF) is an isothiocyanate present in Brassicaceae, vegetables that induce the detoxification of electrophiles and reactive oxygen species. SF has been correlated with chemoprevention mechanisms against degenerative diseases. We tested if the SF had an effect against methyl methanesulfonate (MMS), urethane (URE), 4-NQO and H(2)O(2). SF (>95% purity, 0.14, 0.28, 0.56 mM) was diluted in a DMSO/Tw80/EtOH mixture (DTE) corresponding to 25, 50, 100% of lyophilized broccoli. The SF treatment (0.14 mM) was positive for small spots in the ST cross and negative in the HB cross. In the HB cross, SF (0.28 mM) was genotoxic. In the ST cross, the SF treatments showed a tendency to reduce the genotoxic damage caused by MMS, which could be explained by the radical scavenging action of the DTE mixture. In the ST cross, the frequency of small spots in the SF 0.14 mM/URE treatment was similar to that of Water/URE, which can be explained by a DTE and SF scavenger action. In both crosses, the results for the direct oxidants, 4-NQO and H(2)O(2), were different and must be related to differential modulation of CYPs expression and the SF and DTE scavenger properties.

Sulforaphane modulates the expression of Cyp6a2 and Cyp6g1 in larvae of the ST and HB crosses of the Drosophila wing spot test and is genotoxic in the ST cross.

Constitutive overexpression of Cyp6g1 and Cyp6a2 genes in DDT-resistant line Oregon-flare of the Drosophila melanogaster wing spot test (SMART) has been reported. Cyp6g1 and Cyp6a2 expression levels were compared against the ß-actin gene in the standard (ST) and high bioactivation (HB) crosses of the Somatic Mutation and Recombination test (SMART) treated with sulforaphane or phenobarbital as the control inductor. The CYP450s' enzymatic activity was determined by overall NADH consumption. The expression levels of both genes and the CYP450s activity was higher in the HB cross. The Cyp6g1 levels were higher than those of Cyp6a2 in both crosses, but lower than the expression of ß-actin. Sulforaphane decreased Cyp6g1 in the HB cross and increased it in the ST cross; Cyp6a2 expression was inhibited in the ST cross. Sulforaphane resulted mutagenic in the ST cross, which could be related to the inhibition of Cyp6a2. Phenobarbital did not modify the Cyp6g1 levels but increased the Cyp6a2 and CYP450s basal activity. Although the transcript levels were always higher in the HB cross than in the ST, the expression of Cyp6a2 and Cyp6g1 was not constitutive and was independent one from the other. Sulforaphane modulated both genes in a differential way in each cross and, in contrast to its putative protective effect, it resulted to be mutagenic.