中国P站

DNA damage; Food preservatives; Genetic toxicology; Genotoxicity; Oxidative stress; Mutagenicity; Nitrites; Benzoates; Sulfites; DNA adducts; Comet assay; Chromosomal aberrations; ROS; Apoptosis; Micronucleus test; Food safety; Regulatory toxicology; In vitro models; In vivo studies; Cytotoxicity; Public health

Introduction

Food preservatives play a critical role in extending shelf life, maintaining product quality, and ensuring food safety. However, the long-term consumption of certain chemical preservatives has raised significant concerns regarding their potential genotoxic effects. Genetic toxicology seeks to understand the capacity of chemical agents to damage the genetic material within a cell, ultimately leading to mutations, chromosomal aberrations, or cancer. Studies have demonstrated that some widely used preservatives, including sodium nitrite, sodium benzoate, and sulfur dioxide, may interact with DNA either directly or through the generation of reactive intermediates such as reactive oxygen species (ROS). This article explores the mechanisms of DNA damage induced by common food preservatives and examines insights from genetic toxicology that inform food safety and regulatory policies [1,2].

Description

Common food preservatives include a diverse group of chemical compounds that inhibit microbial growth, oxidation, and spoilage. Examples include nitrates and nitrites, sorbates, benzoates, sulfites, and parabens, each with specific mechanisms of action. Sodium nitrite, for instance, is widely used in processed meats to prevent Clostridium botulinum growth, while benzoates are added to acidic foods and beverages for antifungal activity [3]. Although generally recognized as safe (GRAS) at regulated levels, these compounds can become genotoxic under certain metabolic or environmental conditions. Nitrites, for example, can form nitrosamines, potent carcinogens, when they react with amines in protein-rich foods, especially under acidic stomach conditions. Similarly, benzoic acid derivatives may form benzene, a known genotoxic and carcinogenic compound, especially in the presence of ascorbic acid and metal ions [4]. Mechanistically, DNA damage from preservatives can result from direct covalent binding to DNA, generation of ROS, or interference with DNA repair systems. ROS can oxidize DNA bases, break DNA strands, and lead to the formation of 8-oxoguanine, which mispairs during replication, leading to mutations. Inadequate detoxification of these ROS or reactive metabolites enhances the risk of genomic instability [5]. The assessment of DNA damage in genetic toxicology is carried out through a battery of in vitro and in vivo tests, including the Ames test (for point mutations), comet assay (for strand breaks), micronucleus test (for chromosomal damage), and chromosomal aberration assays in cultured mammalian cells. These assays help detect mutagenic, clastogenic, and aneugenic effects of chemical preservatives [6].

Discussion

Numerous studies have demonstrated the genotoxic potential of food preservatives using both cellular and animal models. Sodium nitrite, when administered orally in rodents, has been shown to cause chromosomal aberrations, micronuclei formation, and DNA strand breaks, especially when combined with dietary amines. The nitrosation reaction results in compounds such as N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), which alkylate DNA, forming O6-methylguanine and other adducts that mispair during replication, triggering point mutations [7].

In sodium benzoate studies, particularly in cell cultures, the compound has induced mitotic arrest, clastogenic effects, and apoptosis in lymphocytes and fibroblasts. Its genotoxicity is exacerbated under oxidative conditions or in the presence of transition metals, which catalyze the production of hydroxyl radicals via the Fenton reaction. These ROS cause base modifications and single-strand breaks, detectable through increased tail moments in the comet assay. Sulfur dioxide and its salts (sulfites) are used in dried fruits, wines, and soft drinks, primarily as antioxidants and antimicrobials. However, upon ingestion, sulfites can convert to sulfurous acid in the stomach, producing free radicals and potentially interfering with mitochondrial function. Animal studies have indicated dose-dependent DNA fragmentation in hepatic and intestinal cells, suggesting sulfite-induced oxidative stress and nontoxicity [8].

The genetic toxicology toolbox is critical in delineating such effects. The Ames test, although highly sensitive for detecting mutagenicity in bacteria, may not capture all eukaryotic-relevant genotoxic mechanisms, necessitating mammalian cell studies. The comet assay is particularly effective in detecting single- and double-strand breaks, alkali-labile sites, and incomplete excision repair sites. This assay has revealed significant DNA damage in peripheral blood mononuclear cells exposed to high concentrations of preservatives. Moreover, in vivo micronucleus tests in bone marrow cells of mice and rats provide evidence for clastogenicity, a hallmark of chromosomal damage. When exposed to high doses of sodium benzoate or nitrites, animal models have demonstrated elevated frequencies of micronuclei, indicating chromosomal breakage or missegregation [9].

Importantly, the dose-response relationship is a fundamental principle in toxicology. Most genotoxic effects are observed at concentrations significantly higher than those typically encountered through dietary intake. However, cumulative exposure, bioaccumulation, and vulnerable populations (such as children, the elderly, or individuals with compromised detoxification systems) raise valid concerns about long-term safety. Recent studies using omics technologies—such as transcriptomics and proteomics—have provided deeper insights into the cellular pathways affected by food preservatives. For instance, benzoates have been shown to upregulate pro-apoptotic genes and oxidative stress markers, while nitrites may downregulate DNA repair genes such as XRCC1 and OGG1. These findings suggest not only direct DNA damage but also suppression of protective responses. Regulatory authorities, including the EFSA, FDA, and WHO, have established acceptable daily intakes (ADI) and maximum residue levels (MRLs) for most food preservatives. Nevertheless, ongoing reassessment is necessary as more sensitive detection methods and molecular data become available. The precautionary principle often guides regulations when evidence of genotoxicity, even at high doses, cannot be conclusively dismissed [10].

Conclusion

The genetic toxicology of food preservatives reveals important insights into how certain compounds, though beneficial for food preservation, can induce DNA damage under specific conditions. Mechanisms such as nitrosation, ROS generation, and interference with DNA repair pathways highlight the genotoxic potential of preservatives like nitrites, benzoates, and sulfites. While current regulatory frameworks and exposure levels generally maintain safety for consumers, the cumulative and synergistic effects of preservatives—especially in combination with dietary and environmental factors—warrant further investigation.

Advancements in molecular biology, in vitro testing, and animal models continue to enhance our understanding of these mechanisms. Future directions should focus on integrating omics data with traditional toxicological endpoints, improving risk assessment models, and developing safer preservative alternatives with minimal genotoxic potential. A balance between preserving food quality and ensuring genetic safety remains a top priority for public health.

References

1. Mockute R, Desai S, Perera S, Assuncao B, Danysz K (2019) Pharmaceut Med 33: 109-120.

   , ,

2. Iwata H, Kojima R, Okuno Y (2021) Springer.

   ,

3. Altman RB (2017) Clin Pharmacol Ther 101: 585-586.

   , ,

4. Kompa B, Hakim JB, Palepu A, Kompa KG, Smith M (2022) Drug Saf 45: 477-491.

   , ,

5. Wen M, Zhang Z, Niu S, Sha H, Yang R, et al. (2017) J Proteome Res 16: 1401-1409.

   , ,

6. Minko T, Rodriguez LR, Pozharov V (2013) Adv Drug Deliv Rev 65: 1880-1895.

   , ,

7. Sun M, Zhao S, Gilvary C, Elemento O, Zhou J, et al. (2019) Brief Bioinform 21: 919-935.

   , ,

8. Liang G, Fan W, Luo H, Zhua X (2020) Biomed Pharmacother 128: 110-225.

   , ,

9. Murali K, Kaur S, Prakash A, Medhi B (2019) Indian J Pharmacol 51: 373-376.

   , ,

10. Das S, Dey A, Pal A, Roy N (2015) Int J Comput Appl 115: 1-9.

    ,