Effects of Copper or Zinc Organometallics on Cytotoxicity, DNA Damage and Epigenetic Changes in the HC-04 Human Liver Cell Line
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Copper and zinc organometallics have multiple applications and many are considered “data-poor” because the available toxicological information is insufficient for comprehensive health risk assessments. To gain insight into the chemical prioritization and potential structure activity relationship, the current work compares the in vitro toxicity of nine “data-poor” chemicals to five structurally related chemicals and to positive DNA damage inducers (4-nitroquinoline-oxide, aflatoxin-B1). The HC-04 non-cancer human liver cell line was used to investigate the concentration–response effects (24 h and 72 h exposure) on cell proliferation, DNA damage (γH2AX and DNA unwinding assays), and epigenetic effects (global genome changes in DNA methylation and histone modifications using flow cytometry). The 24 h exposure screening data (DNA abundance and damage) suggest a toxicity hierarchy, starting with copper dimethyldithiocarbamate (CDMDC, CAS#137-29-1) > zinc diethyldithiocarbamate (ZDEDC, CAS#14324-55-1) > benzenediazonium, 4-chloro-2-nitro-, and tetrachlorozincate(2-) (2:1) (BDCN4CZ, CAS#14263-89-9); the other chemicals were less toxic and had alternate ranking positions depending on assays. The potency of CDMDC for inducing DNA damage was close to that of the human hepatocarcinogen aflatoxin-B1. Further investigation using sodium-DMDC (SDMDC, CAS#128-04-1), CDMDC and copper demonstrated the role of the interactions between copper and the DMDC organic moiety in generating a high level of CDMDC toxicity. In contrast, additive interactions were not observed with respect to the DNA methylation flow cytometry data in 72 h exposure experiments. They revealed chemical-specific effects, with hypo and hypermethylation induced by copper chloride (CuCl2, CAS#10125-13-0) and zinc-DMDC (ZDMDC, CAS#137-30-4), respectively, but did not show any significant effect of CDMDC or SDMDC. Histone-3 hypoacetylation was a sensitive flow cytometry marker of 24 h exposure to CDMDC. This study can provide insights regarding the prioritization of chemicals for future study, with the aim being to mitigate chemical hazards.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".