Evaluation of The Genotoxicity of Three Food Additives using CHO-K1 Cells under in vitro Micronucleus Flow Cytometry Assay

Beni Lestari, Dhania Novitasari, Herwandhani Putri, Sari Haryanti, Ediati Sasmito, Edy Meiyanto


Exposure of genotoxic substances come from various sources such as food additives. The aim of this study is to evaluate the genotoxicity of food additives in CHO-K1 cells by micronucleus test flow cytometry. The food additives: sodium saccharine (SS), monosodium glutamate (MSG), and sodium benzoate (SB) were assessed by in vitro cytotoxicity and genotoxicity using Chinese Hamster Ovary-K1 (CHO-K1) cells. The cytotoxic effect of those compounds was evaluated by MTT Assay on CHO-K1 Cells. The genotoxic evaluation was observed by in vitro micronucleus test by flowcytometry with double staining method. The results showed that the three compounds did not perform cytotoxic effect, increased the frequency of micronucleus, and changed the cell cycle profiles. In general, these studies obtained that none of three food additives showed cytotoxic and genotoxic effect on CHO-K1 cells. Micronucleus test using flow cytometry is suitable for this purpose study.

Key words : food additives, genotoxic, cytotoxic, micronucleus

Full Text:



Ashby, J., and Ishidate, M.Jr., Clastogenicity in vitro of the NA, K, CA and Mg salts of saccahin; and of magnesium chloride; consideration of significance, Mutat. Res., 163, 63-73. CrossRef

Ataseven, N., Yuzbasioglu, D., Keskin, A.C., Unal, F., 2016, Genotoxicity of Monosodium Glutamate, Food Chem. Toxicol., 91, 8-18. CrossRef

Blaauboer, B. J., Boobis, A.R., Bradford, B., Cockburn, A., Constable, A., and Daneshian, M., et al., 2016, Considering New Methodologies in Strategies for Safety Assessment of Foods and Food Ingredients, Food. Chem. Toxicol.,91, 19-35. CrossRef

Bryce, S.M., Bemis, J.C., Avlasevich, S.L., Dertinger, S.D., 2007, In vitro Micronucleus Assay Scored by Flow Cytometry Provides a Comprehensive Evaluation of Cytogenetic Damage and Cytotoxicity, Mutat. Res., 630(1-2), 78-91. CrossRef

Bryce, S.M., Shi, J., Nicolette, J., Diehl, M., Sonders, P., Avlasevich, S., et al., 2010, High Content Flow Cytometric Micronucleus Scoring Method is Applicable to Attachment Cell Lines, Environ. Mol. Mutagen., 51(3), 260–266. CrossRef

Corvi, R. and Madia, F., 2017, In vitro Genotoxicity Testinge. Can the Performance be Enhanced?, Food Chem. Toxicol., 106, 600-608. CrossRef

Damian, G., Deavall, Elizabeth, A., Martin, Judith, M., Horner, and Roberts, R., 2012, Drug-Induced Oxidative Stress and Toxicity, J. Toxicol., 2012(2012), 1-13. CrossRef

Dreisig, K., Taxvig, C., Birkhøj Kjærstad, M., Nellemann, C., Hass, U. and Vinggaard, A.M., 2013, Predictive Value of Cell Assays for Developmental Toxicity and Embryotoxicity, ALTEX, 30(3), 319-330. CrossRef

ECVAM, 2013, EURL ECVAM Strategy to Avoid and Reduce Animal use in Genotoxicity, JRC Scientific and Policy Report, 2013. CrossRef

Kirsch-Volders, M., Sofuni, T., Aardema, M., Albertini, S., Eastmond, D., Fenech, M,. et al., 2003, Report from the In vitro Micronucleus Assay Working Group, Mutat. Res., 540 (2), 153–63. CrossRef

Kristofferson,F., 2009, The Effects of Cyclamate and Saccharin on the Chromosome of a Chinese Hamster Cell Line, Hereditas, 70(2), 271-282. CrossRef

Lal, A. and Ames, B.N., 2011, Association of Chromosome Damage Detected as Micronuclei with Hhematological Diseases and Micronutrient Status, Mutagenesis, 26(1), 57-62. CrossRef

Lehmann, M., Franco, A., de Souza Prudente Vilar, K., Lukza Reguly, M. and de Andrade, H. H, 2003, Doxorubicin and Two of its Analogues are Preferential Inducers of Homologous Recombination Compared with Mutational Events in Somatic Cells of Drosophila melanogaster. Mutat. Res., 539(1-2),167-175. CrossRef

Mosmann, T., 1983, Rapid Colorimetric Assay for Cellular Growth and Survival: Application to Proliferation and Cytotoxicity Assays, J. Immunol. Methods, 65(1-2), 55–63. CrossRef

Phelps, J.B., Garriott, M.L. and Hoffman, W.P., 2002, A Protocol for the In vitro Micronucleus Test. II. Contributions to the Validation of a Protocol Suitable for Regulatory Submissions from an Examination of 10 Chemicals with Different Mechanisms of Action and Different Levels of Activity, Mutat. Res., 521(1–2), 103–12. CrossRef

Quiles, M.R.S., Jimenez, I.O., Saenz, D. H. and Antoun, M.D., 2010, Genotoxicity of Alkaloid-Rich Extract from Lupinus termis Seeds, Pharm. Crops., 1(1), 18–23. CrossRef

Sharma, Pallavi, Ambuj Bhushan Jha, Rama Shanker Dubey, and Mohammad Pessarakli, 2012, Reactive Oxygen Species, Oxidative Damage, and Antioxidative Defense Mechanismin Plants under Stressful Conditions, J. Botany, 2012(2012),1–26. CrossRef

Tripathi, D.N., Jena, G.B., 2009, Intervention of Astaxanthin Against Cyclophosphamide-induced Oxidative Stress and DNA Damage: a Study in Mice, Chem. Biol. Interact., 180(3):398–406. CrossRef

Wibbertmann, A., Kielhorn, J., Koennecker, G., Mangelsdorf, I. and Melber, C., 2000, Benzoic Acid and Sodium Benzoate, Concise International Chemical Assessment Document 26, World Health Organization, http://www.inchem.org/documents/cicads/cicads/cicad26. Link

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14499/indonesianjcanchemoprev8iss2pp74-80

Copyright (c) 2017 Indonesian Journal of Cancer Chemoprevention

Indexed by:




Indonesian Society for Cancer Chemoprevention