Open Access

Protective effects of tea polyphenols and β-carotene against γ-radiation induced mutation and oxidative stress in Drosophila melanogaster

Genes and Environment201739:24

https://doi.org/10.1186/s41021-017-0084-x

Received: 16 November 2016

Accepted: 1 September 2017

Published: 1 November 2017

Abstract

Background

The commonly consumed antioxidants β-carotene and tea polyphenols were used to assess their protective effects against γ-radiation induced sex-linked recessive lethal (SLRL) mutation and oxidative stress in Drosophila melanogaster. Third instar larvae and adult males of wild-type Oregon-K (ORK) were fed on test agents for 24 and 72 h respectively before exposure to 10Gy γ-irradiation. The treated/control flies were used to assess the induction of SLRLs. We also evaluated antioxidant properties of these phytochemicals in the third instar larvae.

Results

Different stages of spermatogenesis in adult males showed a decrease in γ-radiation induced SLRL frequencies upon co-treatment with test agents. A similar trend was observed in larvae. Furthermore, a significant increase in antioxidant enzymatic activities with a decrease in malondialdehyde content was observed.

Conclusion

β-carotene and tea polyphenols have exerted antigenotoxic and antioxidant effects in Drosophila. This study demonstrated the suitability of Drosophila as an alternative to mammalian testing for evaluating the antigenotoxic and antioxidant activity of natural products.

Keywords

Drosophila melanogaster γ-radiationTea polyphenolsβ-caroteneSex-linked recessive lethal mutationsAntioxidant enzymesAlternative to mammalian testing

Background

Radiations and certain chemical agents induce DNA lesions, which may cause genomic instability and activate cancer generation. Exposure to such mutagens disturbs ROS homeostasis leading to overproduction of ROS which enhances DNA damage. In the modern world scenario, exposure to such harmful radiation has become more frequent. Several studies showed that ionizing radiation (such as X-rays, γ-rays) cause lethal mutation in the germ cells of D. melanogaster [13].

Chemopreventive phytochemicals from commonly consumed fruits, vegetables and beverages are well documented for inducing antimutagenic and/or antioxidant activity by different mechanisms [4]. The most common radioprotective mode of action of phytochemicals implicate chelation and scavenging of free radicals generated during exposure to mutagens [5] and upregulation of mRNAs of antioxidant enzymes like catalase, glutathione S- transferase [6, 7] leading to overexpression of such antioxidant enzymes in vivo, and rescuing cells from oxidative stress and DNA damage [8].

β-carotene (BC) belongs to the carotenoid family with potential to scavenge singlet oxygen species/free radicals [9]. It is a natural precursor of vitamin A, which is most efficiently converted into vitamin A as compared to other provitamins [10]. BC is a potent antioxidant, and studies demonstrate that BC significantly reduces radiation-induced DNA damage including γ-radiation [11] and UV radiations [12]. BC is reported to protect against chromosomal damage, induction of micronuclei [13] and lipid peroxidation [14, 15].

Tea is the most common beverage consumed as green tea or black tea. Both forms of tea contain active ingredients commonly called as tea polyphenols which are strong antioxidants and exert antimutagenic potentials [1619]. Radioprotective effects of tea polyphenols against harmful effects of radiations are widely reported in various in vitro and in vivo studies [2024]. Studies have demonstrated that epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG), a bioactive phytochemical present in green tea can reduce UV radiation induced DNA damage in cultured human cells and peripheral leucocytes [25].

In toxicological research, animal models are widely used. However, its cost and licensing law issues limit its use in large-scale drug screening process [26]. To minimize the use of higher animals, use of alternative models have gained much importance. Drosophila, an invertebrate model with its extensively studied genome, shows more than 70% of gene homology with humans [27, 28]. The similarity of metabolic pathways between Drosophila and mammals has encouraged the use of Drosophila in the context of screening and evaluating the antimutagenicity especially for detecting somatic and germ cell mutations of pure and crude mixtures of various compounds [2935]. This model has fewer ethical concerns due to which it is included in the recommendations of European Center for Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) for genotoxicity testing that promotes to reduce, refine or replace (3R’s) the use of vertebrate models for laboratory experiments [36, 37].

In Drosophila, genotoxic damage can be detected either by performing the somatic mutation and recombination test (SMART) or the sex-linked recessive lethal test (SLRL). The sex-linked recessive lethal (SLRL) test in Drosophila melanogaster is widely used for detection of genetic lesions in germ cells [38]. It can be used to study the genotoxic effects of various environmental toxicants [3941]. This test can be used to screen recessive lethal mutations at almost 800 different loci on the X chromosome, which represents 80% of the X chromosome and one-fifth of the entire Drosophila melanogaster genome [42]. Since Drosophila model exhibits the significant activity of xenobiotic drug metabolizing enzymes like cytochrome P-450 and aryl hydrocarbon hydroxylase [43, 44], the SLRL test can be used to detect mutagens and promutagens with very short half-lives [4547]. Promutagens are mostly activated in spermatids [48], and SLRL can be used to analyze induced mutations in specific stages of germ cells [49].

Considering the well-established antioxidant properties of BC and TP in other in vivo models, the present investigation was initiated with the main objective of assessing whether or not these test agents show a similar level of antimutagenic and antioxidant potential in the Drosophila model. In accordance with these objectives, the experiments were carried out to study: (a) antigenotoxic potentials of BC and TP against γ-radiation-induced SLRL mutation in the germ cells of both larvae and adult flies of D. melanogaster, (b) analysis of antioxidant capacity (in terms of antioxidant level/activity) following induction of oxidative stress and its modulation with phytochemicals.

Methods

Drosophila stocks

The experiments were carried out using Muller-5 or Basc stock In(1)s s1L sc 8R  + S, sc s1 sc 8 w a B) and Oregon-K (wild type). These stocks were obtained from Drosophila stock center, Department of Zoology, Mysore University (India). Flies were cultured on the standard Drosophila culture medium [2].

Chemicals

The chemicals used in the present studies were polyphenon 60 from green tea (CAS No.138988–88-2), and β-carotene (CAS No.7235–40-7) obtained from Sigma-Aldrich Company, India. All the other used reagents and chemicals were of analytical grade, procured from local sources.

Irradiation

Culture vials containing adult flies and larvae of Drosophila were exposed to 10Gy γ-radiations at a dose rate of 1.8Gy/min in a gamma chamber (source 60Co, 204 TBq, 5500 Ci) obtained from Bhaba Atomic Research Centre (BARC), Mumbai, India. The dose rate was determined using Fe2+/Fe3+ dosimetry.

Test concentrations and treatment

Drosophila larvae and adult flies were fed on different concentrations of test agents. The concentrations which did not show lethality or delay in development of larvae were selected for the experiments.

Test for detecting sex-linked recessive lethal mutation

Adult feeding experiments

Four days old adult male flies (ORK) were starved for 6-8 h and transferred into a glass vial containing filter paper soaked in the test agents mixed with 10% sucrose solution which was also used as a negative control. The filter paper was renewed once every 12 h. After feeding on test solutions for 72 h, the control/ treated flies were irradiated, and each irradiated male was allowed to mate with 5 virgins Basc females for three days resulting in brood I. After three days, the same male fly was allowed to mate with another set of 5 virgin females (Muller-5) to produce brood II. The same pattern was repeated until brood IV to check the antimutagenic effect of test agents in postmeiotic (spermatozoa and spermatids), meiotic (spermatocytes) and premeiotic (spermatogonia) cells against the group treated with γ-irradiation alone [50].

Larval feeding experiments

Inseminated females (ORK) were allowed to lay eggs on the culture medium for 8-10 h. After this, the females were discarded, and 3 days later, the larvae were transferred to glass vials containing test solution mixed with instant Drosophila culture medium. After 24 h, one batch of third instar larvae was harvested and irradiated to check the enzymatic activity. The emerging one-day old adult males were mated individually with a set of 3 to 5 Basc females in order to conduct SLRL test [47].

For both the adult and larval feeding experiments, the inseminated females (one female/vial) from the F1 generation were used to raise the F2 generation which was scored for the absence of wild-type males indicating the occurrence of SLRL mutation [51].

Assays for oxidative stress markers

Biochemical assays were carried out for evaluating oxidative stress in control and treated third instar larva. For this purpose, larval tissue homogenates were prepared following the method by Singh et al. [52]. Protein content in cytosolic and microsomal samples was estimated by the method of Lowry et al. [53] using Folin’s reagent and BSA as the external standard. Protein concentration was expressed as mg/ml homogenate. GSH content was measured by the method of Ellman et al. [54] with some minor modifications. The reaction was monitored at 412 nm, and the GSH content was expressed as nmol/mg larval protein. Catalase activity was estimated as described by Sinha [55] and it is defined as the ability to dissociate H2O2 in 1 min of incubation time. Enzyme activity was expressed as μmol H2O2 decomposed/min/mg/larval protein. Glutathione S-transferase (GST) activity was measured by the method of Habig et al. [56] with some minor modifications using 5 mM CDNB as substrate. The formation of CDNB-GSH conjugate was measured by monitoring the absorbance for 3 min at 340 nm in a time interval of 3 s. GST activity was expressed as nmol CDNB reduced/min/mg protein using molar extinction coefficient of 6.25 × 103 M−1 cm−1. Superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity was determined as described by Nishikimi et al. [57] with minor modifications as described by Singh et al. [52]. One unit of enzymatic activity is defined as the protein concentration required for inhibiting the chromogen production by half in a time interval of 1 min, and the SOD activity is expressed as U/min/mg protein. Malondialdehyde (MDA) content was measured as a marker of lipid peroxidation (LPO) by the method of Okhawa et al. [58]. MDA was assayed using tetra ethoxy propane as an external standard. It was expressed in nmoles MDA formed/h/mg protein.

The data is presented as percentage change by using the formula:
$$ \mathrm{Mean}\ \left(\mathrm{sample}\right)-\mathrm{Mean}\ \left(\mathrm{Control}\right)/\mathrm{Mean}\ \left(\mathrm{Control}\right)\ \mathrm{x}\ 100 $$

Statistical analysis

The experimental values are represented as mean ± SD. Statistical analysis was carried out using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by post hoc tests for multiple comparisons among the treated groups and control using Newman’s Keuls test. Pearson’s correlations were also calculated and analyzed using Prism computer program (GraphPad version 5.0, San Diego, CA, USA). Kastenbaum and Bowman tables were used for validation of results obtained from SLRL test [59, 60], which are further analyzed by the Z Test for difference in proportions.

Results

Induction of SLRLs by 10Gy γ-radiation in Drosophila larvae and adult flies and its modulation by BC and TP

In our study, we examined the antimutagenic potential of BC and TP against γ-radiation-induced SLRL mutation. As compared to negative control group, no significant difference was observed in the mutation frequencies of individual treatment of TP and BC group. However, the mutation frequencies significantly increased with the positive control group (10Gy γ–radiation).

We observed a significant reduction in the incidence of mutation frequencies with phytochemical pre-treatment against γ-radiation induced mutation in the germ cells of larvae as well as adult flies of D. melanogaster. The results obtained in terms of % lethals from the adult and larval SLRL experiments with the two test compounds are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 respectively.
Table 1

Adult feeding experiments: Induction of sex-linked recessive lethals (SLRLs) by 10Gy γ-radiation and its modulation by TP and BC in Drosophila adult males

Treatment

Brood

No: of X-Chromosomes scored

Lethals (n)

Lethals (%)

10% Sucrose (Negative Control)

I

913

1

0.110

II

837

2

0.239

III

682

1

0.147

IV

554

1

0.181

I-IV

2986

5

0.167

TP 1%

I

781

2

0.256

II

746

1

0.134

III

614

1

0.163

IV

517

0

0.000

I-IV

2658

4

0.150

BC 0.25%

I

869

1

0.115

II

684

2

0.292

III

577

0

0.000

IV

461

1

0.217

I-IV

2591

4

0.154

BC 0.5%

I

889

2

0.225

II

702

1

0.142

III

693

0

0.000

IV

415

1

0.241

I-IV

2699

4

0.148

BC 1%

I

902

2

0.222

II

819

1

0.122

III

674

1

0.148

IV

529

1

0.189

I-IV

2924

5

0.171

γ-radiation

I

752

31

4.122###

II

732

27

3.689###

III

717

15

2.092###

IV

665

12

1.805###

I-IV

2866

85

2.966 ###

γ-radiation + TP 1%

I

825

8

0.970 ***, ##

{76.46%}

II

782

5

0.639***

{82.67%}

III

645

5

0.775 **, #

{62.95%}

IV

562

4

0.712 *

{60.55%}

I-IV

2814

22

0.782 ***, ###

{73.63%}

γ-radiation + BC 0.25%

I

810

7

0.864 ***, ##

{79.03%}

II

711

6

0.844 ***, #

{77.12%}

III

512

4

0.781 *, #

{62.66%}

IV

499

3

0.601 *

{66.70%}

I-IV

2532

20

0.790 ***, ###

{73.36%}

γ-radiation + BC 0.5%

I

788

7

0.888 ***, ##

{78.45%}

II

651

5

0.768 ***

{79.18%}

III

582

4

0.687 **

{67.16%}

IV

558

4

0.717 *

{60.27%}

I-IV

2579

20

0.775 ***, ###

{73.87%}

γ-radiation + BC 1%

I

704

8

1.136 ***, ###

{72.44%}

II

688

7

1.017***, ##

{95.36%}

III

662

7

1.057 ##

{49.47%}

IV

522

4

0.766

{57.56%}

I-IV

2576

26

1.009 ***, ###

{65.98%}

* p ≤ 0.10, ** p ≤ 0.05, *** p ≤ 0.01 (Compared to positive control group. i.e. γ-radiation)

#p ≤ 0.10, ## p ≤ 0.05, ###p ≤ 0.01 (Compared to negative control group. i.e. sucrose control)

The data in bold indicates the sum of all four broods for different test groups respectively

The percentages in parentheses indicates the decrease rates in the mutation frequency of test groups as compared to positive control group

Table 2

Larval feeding experiments: Induction of sex-linked recessive lethals (SLRLs) by 10Gy γ- radiation and its modulation by TP and BC in Drosophila larvae

Treatment

No: of X- chromosomes scored

Lethals (n)

Lethals (%)

Control

1808

4

0.221

TP 1%

1095

2

0.183

BC 0.25%

935

2

0.214

BC 0.5%

1167

3

0.257

BC 1%

1218

4

0.328

γ-radiation

1315

27

2.053###

γ-radiation + TP 1%

1121

13

1.160***, ###

{43.49%}

γ-radiation + BC 0.25%

986

12

1.217***, ###

{40.72%}

γ-radiation + BC 0.5%

885

11

1.243***, ###

{39.45%}

γ-radiation + BC 1%

722

10

1.385***,###

{32.53%}

* p ≤ 0.10, ** p ≤ 0.05, *** p ≤ 0.01 (Compared to positive control group. i.e. γ-radiation)

#p ≤ 0.10, ##p ≤ 0.05, ###p ≤ 0.01 (Compared to negative control group. i.e. sucrose control)

The percentages in parentheses indicates the decrease rates in the mutation frequency of test groups as compared to positive control group

Data from adult feeding experiments (Table 1) demonstrates that BC (0.5%) + γ-radiation has significantly reduced the mutation frequency induced by 10 Gy γ-irradiation in all the germ cell stages (Brood I-IV) from 2.966 to 0.775% (73.85% reduction, p ≤ 0.01) followed by γ-radiation + TP (1%) which is 2.966 to 0.782% (73.64% reduction, p ≤ 0.01). Results obtained from larval feeding experiments (Table 2) showed γ-radiation + TP (1%) has significantly reduced the mutation from 2.053 to 1.160% (43.51% reduction, p ≤ 0.01) followed by γ-radiation + BC (0.25%), in which the reduction was from 2.053 to 1.217% (40.72% reduction, p ≤ 0.01).

Modulation of oxidative stress levels in third instar larvae of D. melanogaster

As compared to negative control group, the amounts of anti-oxidant enzymes (GSH, GST, CAT) slightly but significantly increased and the LPO level decreased when treated with TP 1%, and GSH increased with BC 0.25%. However, the amounts of anti-oxidant enzymes significantly decreased and the LPO level increased when treated with γ-radiation (10Gy).

As compared to positive control group (10 Gy γ-irradiation), co-treatment of test agents with γ-radiation has shown a significant induction in antioxidant enzymatic activities. When the larvae were exposed to γ-radiation + TP (1%), SOD activity has increased up to, 100.37% (p ≤ 0.001) > CAT (71.94%; p ≤ 0.001) > GST (52.86%; p ≤ 0.001). Co-treatment with γ-radiation + BC (0.25%) has increased the activities of SOD and CAT by 102.09% and 65.18% respectively (p ≤ 0.001) with maximum GST activity (53.53%; p ≤ 0.001) when the larvae were treated with γ-radiation + BC (0.5%) (Table 3).
Table 3

Modulatory effects of TP and BC against γ-radiation induced oxidative stress on third instar larvae of D. melanogaster (ORK)

Parameters

aGSH

bGST

cCAT

dSOD

eLPO

Control

62.69 ± 3.66

37.39 ± 4.75

54.56 ± 4.30

3.56 ± 0.17

2.48 ± 0.30

TP 1%

76.56 ± 2.73###

46.28 ± 2.29#

64.68 ± 2.89#

3.95 ± 0.25

1.74 ± 0.21#

BC 0.25%

71.87 ± 1.58##

43.67 ± 3.72

53.01 ± 2.65

4.07 ± 0.10

2.07 ± 0.20

BC 0.5%

64.32 ± 3.24

41.12 ± 2.08

57.53 ± 4.50

3.74 ± 0.11

2.24 ± 0.22

BC 1%

64.26 ± 1.67

35.99 ± 4.79

51.91 ± 3.14

3.59 ± 0.21

2.08 ± 0.23

γ-radiation

49.41 ± 1.89###

23.63 ± 2.94###

31.08 ± 5.90###

1.45 ± 0.34###

5.70 ± 0.30###

γ-radiation + TP (1%)

61.97 ± 2.31***

{25.41%}

36.12 ± 2.55**

{35.63%}

53.44 ± 4.08***

{71.94%}

2.89 ± 0.22***, ##

{99.31%}

3.94 ± 0.17***, ###

{- 30.87%}

γ-radiation + BC (0.25%)

58.07 ± 1.80**

{17.52%}

34.28 ± 1.63**

{28.72%}

51.34 ± 2.56***

{65.18%}

2.93 ± 0.26***, ##

{102.0%}

2.48 ± 0.29***

{- 56.49%}

γ-radiation + BC (0.5%)

57.51 ± 2.18**, #

{16.39%}

36.28 ± 4.03**

{28.72%}

50.71 ± 4.28***

{63.15%}

2.51 ± 0.27***, ###

{73.10%}

2.60 ± 0.23***

{- 54.3%}

γ-radiation + BC (1%)

52.37 ± 2.67***, ###

{5.99%}

29.67 ± 3.08*

{11.41%}

38.52 ± 4.42*, ##

{23.93%}

2.20 ± 0.24***, ###

{51.72%}

2.84 ± 0.21***

{- 50.17%}

Effect of TP and BC on (a) Reduced glutathione (GSH) levels expressed as nM of GSH formed mg−1 protein. (b) Glutathione S-transferase (GST) activity expressed as nM of CDNB conjugated min−1 mg−1 protein. (c) Catalase (CAT) activity expressed as μmoles of H2O2 decomposed min−1 mg−1 protein. (d) Superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity expressed as units min−1 mg−1 protein. (E) Lipid peroxidation (LPO) expressed as nmol of MDA formed h−1 mg−1 protein. Data represented as mean ± SD of three identical experiments. # p ≤ 0.05; ## p ≤ 0.01; ### p ≤ 0.001 compared with normal control group; *p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01; ***p ≤ 0.001 compared with γ-radiation treated group

The percentages in parentheses indicates the increase rates in the GSH, GST, CAT and SOD activity and decrease (-) in the LPO of test groups as compared to positive control group

Modulatory effects of BC and TP on GSH and LPO levels in Drosophila larvae

A significant increase in glutathione levels (GSH) and reduction in MDA content (a measure of lipid peroxidation) was observed in the treated larvae as compared to positive control group (10Gy γ-radiation). Maximum GSH content was observed in the group where larvae were exposed to γ-radiation + TP (1%) (25.42% increase) followed by γ-radiation + BC (0.25%) (17.52% increase). γ-radiation + BC (0.25%) has reduced the MDA content by 56.5% followed by 54.4% reduction in γ-radiation + BC (0.5%) (Table 3).

Correlation between different stress parameters

A correlation was drawn between the different sets of oxidative stress markers (GSH, GST, CAT, SOD, and LPO) when the larvae were exposed to test agents (TP and BC) individually as well as in combination with γ-radiation. A significant negative correlation of MDA content (lipid peroxidation) and positive correlation of GSH content was observed with different sets of antioxidant enzymes (GST, CAT, and SOD) (Tables 4 and 5).
Table 4

Correlation between oxidative stress parameters. Correlation between different sets of oxidative stress markers (GSH, GST, SOD, CAT and LPO) when the larvae were exposed to TP and combination of TP (1%) + γ-radiation (10Gy)

 

GSH

GST

CAT

SOD

LPO

GSH

1

    

GST

0.989

1

   

CAT

0.959

0.990

1

  

SOD

0.925

0.966

0.975

1

 

LPO

−0.927

−0.955

−0.948

−0.990

1

Table 5

Correlation between different sets of oxidative stress markers (GSH, GST, SOD, CAT and LPO) when the larvae were exposed to varying doses of BC and combination of BC (0.25%, 0.5%, 1%) + γ-radiation (10Gy)

 

GSH

GST

CAT

SOD

LPO

GSH

1

    

GST

0.938

1

   

CAT

0.820

0.917

1

  

SOD

0.965

0.934

0.896

1

 

LPO

−0.743

−0.842

−0.863

−0.826

1

Discussion

Ionizing radiations are deleterious in nature and cause direct and indirect DNA damage. In recent years, human exposure to harmful levels of radiations has increased due to radiation based clinical diagnosis, and radiotherapy for cancer treatment [61]. Also, studies have shown that radiotherapy is responsible for “bystander effect” [62]. Ionizing radiation starts a cascade of events which leads to free radical generation [63]. DNA damage can occur in many different ways, amongst which adduction of free radicals with DNA is most common under stressful conditions [64]. Hence, to prevent free radical associated DNA damage, the most common strategy is to quench the generated free radicals. In the present study, we observed the antimutagenic and antioxidant activity of TP and BC against γ-radiation induced mutation and oxidative stress in the larvae and adult flies of D.melanogaster.

For testing γ-radiation induced mutation in the germ cells, SLRL test was performed to assess radioprotective effects of TP and BC in both larvae as well as adult flies of D. melanogaster. The maximum reduction of mutation frequencies in larvae was observed with γ-radiation + TP (1%), followed by γ-radiation + BC(0.25%) when compared to 10Gy γ-radiation. In the case of adult germ cells, a significant reduction was observed in all the successive germ cell stages (i.e. Brood I to IV) when flies were treated with γ-radiation + BC (0.5%) followed by γ-radiation + TP (1%). TP and BC have shown antigenotoxic activity against various chemical carcinogens in Drosophila [65, 66]. Significant protective effects of TP and its active constituents have been demonstrated against γ-radiation induced DNA damage in human lymphocytes [67] and also in splenocytes [68] and blood leucocytes [68] of mice. Similarly, BC showed protective effects against damage induced by X-rays and γ-rays in germ cells and somatic cells of rats and mice [11, 13, 69].

Radiation induced reactive oxygen species (ROS) is a major cause of oxidative stress to cells. Oxidative stress arises due to the imbalance of free radical generation and the antioxidant defense mechanisms. TP and BC are potent scavengers of free radicals. Our result show that pre-treatment with TP and BC has inhibited the reduction in antioxidant enzyme levels (GSH, GST, SOD, and CAT) caused by exposure to γ-radiation. Furthermore, this pre-treatment has rescued the cells from damage caused by lipid peroxidation. These findings are in agreement with in vivo and in vitro studies in which pre-treament with TP and its active constituents led to a reduction in LPO levels [70] with a concomitant increase in intracellular levels of GSH, GST, CAT and SOD [68, 7175]. A similar trend was observed for BC in humans [76, 77] and experimental animals [11].

Administration of these two phytochemicals (TP and BC) has reduced γ-radiation induced oxidative stress up to >50%. Furthermore, the antioxidant activity results are correlating well with the SLRL data we obtained. Since TP and BC are strong antioxidants, the most plausible explanation for the observed antimutagenic and antioxidant activity against γ-radiation could be the free radical scavenging property of these dietary phytochemicals. The antioxidant activities of TP and BC are attributed to their chemical nature. Chemically, TP contains phenolic structure that promotes electron sharing with free radical and exhibits the process of electron resonance dissociation [78], while BC contains conjugated alkyl structure enabling it to trap and stabilize peroxy free radicals and thereby reduce damage to the cell and cell membrane [79].

An important observation from the present study is the absence of a dose response for the antigenotoxic and antioxidant activity of BC. The highest dose of BC (1%) showed a lower level of antimutagenicity and antioxidant activity as compared to the other two doses (BC 0.25%) and (BC 0.5%). These observations suggest the possibility of a biphasic effect of BC that showed protection when taken at dietary levels but may have adverse effects when consumed in higher doses [8082].

The present work further highlights the utility of Drosophila for evaluating the genotoxicity and antigenotoxicity of single as well as crude mixtures of dietary phytochemicals. The suitability of Drosophila for detecting antigenotoxic effects of coffee, a complex mixture of bioactive compounds, was first demonstrated in our laboratory [83, 84] using the somatic mutation and recombination test (SMART). Subsequently, many publications have shown the suitability of Drosophila for detecting antigenotoxic effects of crude mixtures of natural compounds [8587]. Our studies were further strengthened by the similarity between the results of Drosophila and other in vivo and in vitro systems on antimutagenic effect and antioxidant activity of TP and BC. To the best of our knowledge, so far no study has been performed using SLRL test to assess the protective efficacy of BC and TP against γ-radiation-induced mutation and oxidative stress in the germ cells of larvae and adult flies of D.melanogaster.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our present work has demonstrated the important role Drosophila assays can play in assessing the antimutagenic and antioxidant activity of pure compounds and crude mixtures of dietary phytochemicals in different germ cell stages. The similarity and correlation of experimental data between Drosophila and in vivo mammalian assays further reveal the usefulness of this test system for extrapolation to mammals indicating that the Drosophila test system is a favourable candidate to be considered as an alternative to mammalian testing.

Abbreviations

BC: 

β carotene

CAT: 

Catalase

GSH: 

Glutathione content

GST: 

Glutathione S-transferase

LPO: 

Lipid peroxidation

ROS: 

Reactive oxygen species

SOD: 

Superoxide dismutase

TP: 

Tea Polyphenon-60

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Authors would like to thank University Grants Commission-RESOURCE NETWORKING and Department of Science and Technology- PURSE for the funding.

Funding

This work was funded by University Grants Commission-RESOURCE NETWORKING and Department of Science and Technology- PURSE (New Delhi).

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Authors’ contributions

SKA designed the experiments. IN performed all the experiments. Authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
School of Life Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University

References

  1. Beckman C, Roy RM, Sproule A. Modification of radiation-induced sex-linked recessive lethal mutation frequency by tocopherol. Mutat Res. 1982;105:73–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Abraham SK, Singh SP, Kesavan PC. Buthionine sulfoximine mediated enhancement of γ-radiation induced mutation frequency in Drosophila melanogaster. Mutat Res. 1993;301:255–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Mazar Barnett B, Muñoz ER. Effect of glyoxal pretreatment on radiation-induced genetic damage in Drosophila melanogaster. Mutat Res. 1989;212:173–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Surh YJ. Cancer chemoprevention with dietary phytochemicals. Nat Rev Cancer. 2003;3:768–80.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Lobo V, Patil A, Phatak A, Chandra N. Free radicals, antioxidants and functional foods: Impact on human health. Pharmacogn Rev. 2010;4:118–26.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Paul P, Unnikrishnan MK, Nagappa AN. Phytochemicals as radioprotective agents - A review. Indian J Nat Prod Resour. 2011;2:137–50.Google Scholar
  7. Jagetia GC. Radioprotective potential of plants and herbs against the effects of ionizing radiation. J Clin Biochem Nutr. 2007;40:74–81.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Weiss JF, Landauer MR. Protection against ionizing radiation by antioxidant nutrients and phytochemicals. Toxicology. 2003;189:1–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Hayatsu H, Arimoto S, Negishi T. Dietary inhibitors of mutagenesis and carcinogenesis. Mutat Res. 1988;202:429–46.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Gul K, Tak A, Singh AK, Singh P, Yousuf B, Wani AA, et al. Chemistry, encapsulation, and health benefits of β-carotene - A review. Cogent Food Agric. 2015;1:1018696.Google Scholar
  11. El-Habit OH, Saada H, Azab KS, Abdel-Rahman M, El-Malah D. The modifying effect of β-carotene on gamma radiation-induced elevation of oxidative reactions and genotoxicity in male rats. Mutat Res. 2000;466:179–86.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Sinha RP, Häder DP. UV-induced DNA damage and repair: a review. Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2002;1:225–36.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Abraham SK, Sarma L, Kesavan PC. Protective effects of chlorogenic acid, curcumin and β-carotene against γ-radiation-induced in vivo chromosomal damage. Mutat Res. 1993;303:109–12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Allard JP, Royall D, Kurian R, Muggli R, Jeejeebhoy KN. Effects of beta-carotene supplementation on lipid peroxidation in humans. Am J Clin Nutr. 1994;59:884–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hosseini F, Naseri MKG, Badavi M, Ghaffari MA, Shahbazian H, Rashidi I. Effect of beta carotene on lipid peroxidation and antioxidant status following renal ischemia/reperfusion injury in rat. Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 2010;70:259–63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Rice-Evans C. Plant polyphenols: free radical scavengers or chain-breaking antioxidants? Biochem Soc Symp. 1995;61:103–16.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Kuroda Y, Hara Y. Antimutagenic and anticarcinogenic activity of tea polyphenols. Mutat Res. 1999;436:69–97.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Yen GC, Chen HY. Antioxidant activity of various tea extracts in relation to their antimut agenicity. J Agric Food Chem. 1995;43:27–32.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Singh BN, Shankar S, Srivastava RK. Green tea catechin, epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG): mechanisms, perspectives and clinical applications. Biochem Pharmacol. 2011;82:1807–21.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Wei H, Zhang X, Zhao JF, Wang ZY, Bickers D, Lebwohl M. Scavenging of hydrogen peroxide and inhibition of ultraviolet light-induced oxidative DNA damage by aqueous extracts from green and black teas. Free Radic Biol Med. 1999;26:1427–35.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Tobi SE, Gilbert M, Paul N, McMillan TJ. The green tea polyphenol, epigallocatechin-3-gallate, protects against the oxidative cellular and genotoxic damage of UVA radiation. Int J Cancer. 2002;102:439–44.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Kim J, Hwang JS, Cho YK, Han Y, Jeon YJ, Yang KH. Protective effects of (−)-epigallocatechin-3-gallate on UVA- and UVB-induced skin damage. Skin Pharmacol Appl Ski Physiol. 2001;14:11–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Uchida S, Ozaki M, Suzuki K, Shikita M. Radioprotective effects of (−)-epigallocatechin 3-0-gallate (green-tea tannin) in mice. Life Sci. 1992;50:147–52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Feng Q, Torii Y, Uchida K, Nakamura Y, Hara Y, Osawa T. Black tea polyphenols, theaflavins, prevent cellular DNA damage by inhibiting oxidative stress and suppressing cytochrome P450 1A1 in cell cultures. J Agric Food Chem. 2002;50:213–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Morley N, Clifford T, Salter L, Campbell S, Gould D, Curnow A. The green tea polyphenol epigallocatechin gallate and green tea can protect human cellular DNA from ultraviolet and visible radiation-induced damage. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2005;21:15–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Botas J. Drosophila researchers focus on human disease. Nat Genet. 2007;39:589.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Adams MD, Celniker SE, Holt RA, Evans CA, Gocayne JD, Amanatides PG, et al. The genome sequence of Drosophila melanogaster. Science. 2000;287:2185–95.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Lindsley DL, Zimm GG. The genome of Drosophila melanogaster. San Diego: Academic Press; 1992.Google Scholar
  29. Olvera O, Zimmering S, Arceo C, Guzman J, De la Rosa ME. Evidence for the protective effect of ascorbic acid (vitamin C) in treatment with γ-rays and chromium (VI) oxide (CrO3) in somatic cells of Drosophila. Mutat Res. 1995;346:19–21.Google Scholar
  30. Stamenković-radak M, Andjelković M. Studying genotoxic and antimutagenic effects of plant extracts in Drosophila test systems. Bot Serbica. 2016;40:21–8.Google Scholar
  31. Mladenović M, Matić S, Stanić S, Solujić S, Mihailović V, Stanković N, et al. Combining molecular docking and 3-D pharmacophore generation to enclose the in vivo antigenotoxic activity of naturally occurring aromatic compounds: myricetin, quercetin, rutin, and rosmarinic acid. Biochem Pharmacol. 2013;86:1376–96.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Sortibrán ANC, Téllez MGO, Arnaiz RR. Assessment of the genotoxic and antioxidant activities of several vegetables, spices and herbs in combination with cyclophosphamide and 4-nitroquinoline n-oxide in Drosophila melanogaster. Adv Tech Biol Med. 2015;S1:2379–1764.Google Scholar
  33. Stanić S, Matić S, Delić G, Mihailović M, Bogojević D, Solujić S. Study of genotoxicity and antigenotoxicity of the Cotinus coggygria Scop methanol extract by Drosophila melanogaster sex-linked recessive lethal test. Russ J Genet. 2011;47:874–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Idaomar M, El Hamss R, Bakkali F, Mezzoug N, Zhiri A, Baudoux D, et al. Genotoxicity and antigenotoxicity of some essential oils evaluated by wing spot test of Drosophila melanogaster. Mutat Res. 2002;513:61–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Nagpal I, Abraham SK. Ameliorative effects of gallic acid, quercetin and limonene on urethane-induced genotoxicity and oxidative stress in Drosophila melanogaster. Toxicol Mech. Methods. 2017;27:286–92Google Scholar
  36. Benford DJ, Hanley AB, Bottrill K, Oehlschlager S, Balls M, Branca F, et al. Biomarkers as predictive tools in toxicity testing. ATLA Altern Lab Anim. 2000;28:119–31.Google Scholar
  37. Kandárová H, Letašiová S. Alternative methods in toxicology: pre-validated and validated methods. Interdiscip Toxicol. 2011;4:107–13.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Sobels FH, Vogel E. The capacity of Drosophila for detecting relevant genetic damage. Mutat Res. 1976;41:95–105.Google Scholar
  39. Sobels FH, Vogel EW. Assaying potential carcinogens with Drosophila. Environ Health Perspect. 1976;15:141–6.Google Scholar
  40. Szabad J, Soós I, Polgár G, Héjja G. Testing the mutagenicity of malondialdehyde and formaldehyde by the Drosophila mosaic and the sex-linked recessive lethal tests. Mutat Res. 1983;113:117–33.Google Scholar
  41. Lee WR, Abrahamson S, Valencia R, von Halle ES, Würgler FE, Zimmering S. The sex-linked recessive lethal test for mutagenesis in Drosophila melanogaster. A report of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Gene-Tox Program. Mutat.Res. 1983;123:183–279.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Abrahamson S, Würgler FE, DeJongh C, Meyer HU. How many loci on the X-chromosome of Drosophila melanogaster can mutate to recessive lethals? Environ Mutagen. 1980;2:447–53.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Baars AJ. Biotransformation of xenobiotics in Drosophila melanogaster and its relevance for mutagenicity testing. Drug Metab Rev. 1980;11:191–221.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Gladstone M, Tin T. Chemical genetics and drug screening in Drosophila cancer models. J Genet Genomics. 2011;38:497–504.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Yang J, McCart C, Woods DJ, Terhzaz S, Greenwood KG. ffrench-Constant RH, et al. A Drosophila systems approach to xenobiotic metabolism. Physiol. Genomics. 2007;30:223–31.Google Scholar
  46. Würgler FE. Mutagenicity testing with Drosophila. Arch Toxicol. 1980;46:77–87.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Würgler FE, Graf U. Mutagenicity testing with Drosophila melanogaster. Basic Appl. Mutagen. Boston: Springer US; 1985. p. 343–72.Google Scholar
  48. Kirkland DJ, editor. Statistical evaluation of mutagenicity test data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1989.Google Scholar
  49. Vogel EW. A Comparison of genotoxic activity in somatic tissue and in germ cells of Drosophila melanogaster. In: Chu EHY and Generoso WM, editors. In Mutation, Cancer, and Malformation. New York: Plenum Press; 1984. p. 233–55.Google Scholar
  50. Wurgler FE, Sobels FH, Vogel EW. Drosophila as an assay system for detecting genetic changes. In: Kilbey BJ, Legator M, Nichols W, Ramel C, editor.  Handbook of mutagenicity test procedures. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1984. p. 335–73.Google Scholar
  51. Lall S. X chromosome exposé. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2007;14:794.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Singh MP, Reddy MMK, Mathur N, Saxena DK, Chowdhuri DK. Induction of hsp70, hsp60, hsp83 and hsp26 and oxidative stress markers in benzene, toluene and xylene exposed Drosophila melanogaster: role of ROS generation. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2009;235:226–43.Google Scholar
  53. Lowry OH, Rosebrough NJ, Farr AL, Randall RJ. Protein measurement with the Folin phenol reagent. J Biol Chem. 1951;193:265–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Ellman GL. Tissue sulfhydryl groups. Arch Biochem Biophys. 1959;82:70–7.Google Scholar
  55. Sinha AK. Colorimetric assay of catalase. Anal Biochem. 1972;47:389–94.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Habig WH, Pabst MJ, Jakoby WB. Glutathione S transferases. The first enzymatic step in mercapturic acid formation. J Biol Chem. 1974;249:7130–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Nishikimi M, Appaji Rao N, Yagi K. The occurrence of superoxide anion in the reaction of reduced phenazine methosulfate and molecular oxygen. Biochem Biophys Res. 1972;46:849–54.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Ohkawa H, Ohishi N, Yagi K. Assay for lipid peroxides in animal tissues by thiobarbituric acid reaction. Anal Biochem. 1979;95:351–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Kastenbaum MA, Bowman KO. Tables for determining the statistical significance of mutation frequencies. Mutat Res. 1970;9:527–49.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Würgler FE, Graf U, Berchtold W. Statistical problems connected with the sex-linked recessive lethal test in Drosophila melanogaster. I. The use of the Kastenbaum-Bowman test. Arch. für Genet. 1975;48:158–78.Google Scholar
  61. Goldstein M, Kastan MB. The DNA damage response: implications for tumor responses to radiation and chemotherapy. Annu Rev Med. 2015;66:129–43.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Havaki S, Kotsinas A, Chronopoulos E, Kletsas D, Georgakilas A, Gorgoulis VG. The role of oxidative DNA damage in radiation induced bystander effect. Cancer Lett. 2015;356:43–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Iyer R, Lehnert BE. Effects of ionizing radiation in targeted and nontargeted cells. Arch Biochem Biophys. 2000;376:14–25.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Dizdaroglu M, Jaruga P. Mechanisms of free radical-induced damage to DNA. Free Radic Res. 2012;46:382–419.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Hayatsu H, Inada N, Kakutani T, Arimoto S, Negishi T, Mori K, et al. Suppression of genotoxicity of carcinogens by (−)-epigallocatechin gallate. Prev Med. 1992;21:370–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Dias CD, Araújo BC, Dutra ES, Nepomuceno JC. Protective effects of β-carotene against the genotoxicity of doxorubicin in somatic cells of Drosophila melanogaster. Genet Mol Res. 2009;8:1367–75.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Davari H, Haddad F, Moghimi A, Farhad Rahimi M, Ghavamnasiri MR. Study of radioprotective effect of green tea against gamma irradiation using micronucleus assay on binucleated human lymphocytes. Iran J Basic Med Sci. 2012;15:1026–31.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  68. Richi B, Kale RK, Tiku AB. Radio-modulatory effects of Green Tea Catechin EGCG on pBR322 plasmid DNA and murine splenocytes against gamma-radiation induced damage. Mutat Res. 2012;747:62–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Salvadori DMF, Ribeiro LR, Xiao Y, Boei JJ, Natarajan AT. Radioprotection of β-carotene evaluated on mouse somatic and germ cells. Mutat Res. 1996;356:163–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Nanjo F, Honda M, Okushio K, Matsumoto N, Ishigaki F, Ishigami T, et al. Effects of dietary tea catechins on alpha-tocopherol levels, lipid peroxidation, and erythrocyte deformability in rats fed on high palm oil and perilla oil diets. Biol Pharm Bull. 1993;16:1156–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Chacko SM, Thambi PT, Kuttan R, Nishigaki I. Beneficial effects of green tea: a literature review. Chin Med. 2010;5:13.Google Scholar
  72. Xinlin WEI, Ying LIU, Xiao J, Wang Y. Protective effects of tea polysaccharides and polyphenols on skin. J Agric Food Chem. 2009;57:7757–62.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  73. Frei B, Higdon J. Antioxidant activity of tea polyphenols in vivo: evidence from animal studies. J Nutr. 2003;133:3275S–84S.Google Scholar
  74. Lin Y, Cheng C, Lin Y, Lau Y, Juan I, Lin J. Hypolipidemic effect of green tea leaves through induction of antioxidant and phase II enzymes including superoxide dismutase, catalase, and glutathione s-transferase in rats. Animals. 1998;8561:1893–9.Google Scholar
  75. Das DK, Sinha M, Khan A, Das K, Manna K, Dey S. Radiation protection by major tea polyphenol, epicatechin. Int J Hum Genet. 2013;13:59–64.Google Scholar
  76. Kasperczyk S, Dobrakowski M, Kasperczyk J, Ostałowska A, Zalejska-Fiolka J, Birkner E. Beta-carotene reduces oxidative stress, improves glutathione metabolism and modifies antioxidant defense systems in lead-exposed workers. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2014;280:36–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Ben-Amotz A, Yatziv S, Sela M, Greenberg S, Rachmilevich B, Shwarzman M, et al. Effect of natural beta-carotene supplementation in children exposed to radiation from the Chernobyl accident. Radiat Environ Biophys. 1998;37:187–93.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Chen ZY, Chan PT. Antioxidative activity of green tea catechins in canola oil. Chem Phys Lipids. 1996;82:163–72.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  79. Konopacka M, Widel M, Rzeszowska-Wolny J. Modifying effect of vitamins C, E and beta-carotene against gamma-ray-induced DNA damage in mouse cells. Mutat Res. 1998;417:85–94.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Rao AV, Rao LG. Carotenoids and human health. Pharmacol Res. 2007;55:207–16.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Omenn GS, Goodman GE, Thornquist MD, Balmes J, Cullen MR, Glass A, et al. Effects of a combination of beta carotene and vitamin A on lung cancer and cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:1150–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. The Alpha-Tocopherol Beta Carotene Study Group. The effect of vitamin E and beta-carotene on the incidence of lung cancer and other cancers in male smokers. N Engl J Med. 1994;330:1029–35.Google Scholar
  83. Abraham SK. Antigenotoxicity of coffee in the Drosophila assay for somatic mutation and recombination. Mutagenesis. 1994;9:383–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Abraham SK, Graf U. Protection by coffee against somatic genotoxicity in Drosophila: role of bioactivation capacity. Food Chem Toxicol. 1996;34:1–14.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Graf U, Abraham SK, Guzmán-Rincón J, Würgler FE. Antigenotoxicity studies in Drosophila melanogaster. Mutat Res. 1998;402:203–9.Google Scholar
  86. Patenkovic A, Stamenkovic-Radak M, Banjanac T, Andjelkovic M. Antimutagenic effect of sage tea in the wing spot test of Drosophila melanogaster. Food Chem. 2009;47:180–3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  87. Costa WF, Nepomuceno JC. Protective effects of a mixture of antioxidant vitamins and minerals on the genotoxicity of doxorubicin in somatic cells of Drosophila melanogaster. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2006;47:18–24.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2017

Advertisement