Next Article in Journal
When COVID-19 Is Not All: Femicide Conducted by a Murderer with a Narcissistic Personality “Masked” by a Brief Psychotic Disorder, with a Mini-Review
Previous Article in Journal
Assessment of Glucose Lowering Medications’ Effectiveness for Cardiovascular Clinical Risk Management of Real-World Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation under Model Misspecification and Missing Outcomes
Previous Article in Special Issue
Urinary Excretion of Cyanuric Acid in Association with Urolithiasis: A Matched Case-Control Study in Shanghai Adults
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 22
10.3390/ijerph192214824
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Cytotoxicity and Genotoxicity of Senecio vulgaris L. Extracts: An In Vitro Assessment in HepG2 Liver Cells

by
Mattia Acito
1,†,
Carla Russo
1,†,
Cristina Fatigoni
1,
Federica Mercanti
2,
Massimo Moretti
1,3,*,‡ and
Milena Villarini
1,*,‡
1
Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Unit of Public Health, University of Perugia, Via del Giochetto, 06122 Perugia, Italy
2
Sana Pianta Soc. Agricola S.a.s., Strada Tiberina Nord 228, 06134 Perugia, Italy
3
Inter-University Centre for the Environment (CIPLA-Centro Interuniversitario per l’Ambiente), University of Perugia, Piazza Università 1, 06123 Perugia, Italy
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors share first authorship.
‡
These authors share senior and last authorship.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(22), 14824; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192214824
Submission received: 27 September 2022 / Revised: 3 November 2022 / Accepted: 8 November 2022 / Published: 11 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Occupational/Residential Exposure to Toxic Xenobiotics)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Senecio vulgaris L. is a herbaceous species found worldwide. The demonstrated occurrence of pyrrolizidine alkaloids in this species and its ability to invade a great variety of habitats result in a serious risk of contamination of plant material batches addressed to the herbal teas market; this presents a potential health risk for consumers. In light of the above, this work aimed to assess the cytotoxic and genotoxic activity of S. vulgaris extracts in HepG2 cells. Dried plants were ground and extracted using two different methods, namely an organic solvent-based procedure (using methanol and chloroform), and an environmentally friendly extraction procedure (i.e., aqueous extraction), which mimicked the domestic preparation of herbal teas (5, 15, and 30 min of infusion). Extracts were then tested in HepG2 cells for their cytotoxic and genotoxic potentialities. Results were almost superimposable in both extracts, showing a slight loss in cell viability at the highest concentration tested, and a marked dose-dependent genotoxicity exerted by non-cytotoxic concentrations. It was found that the genotoxic effect is even more pronounced in aqueous extracts, which induced primary DNA damage after five minutes of infusion even at the lowest concentration tested. Given the broad intake of herbal infusions worldwide, this experimental approach might be proposed as a screening tool in the analysis of plant material lots addressed to the herbal infusion market.

1. Introduction

The genus Senecio (Asteraceae) is one of the largest genera of flowering plants and includes more than 1500 species [1]. The name for the genus Senecio is probably derived from “senex” (i.e., old man, in Latin), and this name was first used by Pliny in reference to the plant becoming grey and hairy when fruiting. The specific epithet vulgaris (i.e., common) refers to its wide distribution [2,3], and the binomial name Senecio vulgaris was first proposed by Carl von Linnaeus (1753) in his publication Species Plantarum [4].
Senecio vulgaris L. is a tetraploid, self-fertile, broadleaf annual herb (5–40 cm high), glabrous or slightly hairy, with pinnatifid or lobed leaves and green or purple stems [5]. It blooms from spring to autumn, giving yellow flower heads without ligulate flowers. Native to Mediterranean Europe, North Africa, and temperate Asia, S. vulgaris has now been spread worldwide by human activities and, because of its extensive ecological amplitude, can thrive in a variety of habitats—not only ruderal zones—including gardens, waste places, roadsides, and cultivated fields [6]. It is often known by the common names “groundsel” and “old-man-in-the-spring”; the name groundsel derives from the Anglo-Saxon “groundeswelge” literally meaning “ground swallower”, probably referring to the rapidity of weed spreading [7].
Several studies have presented the composition of S. vulgaris solvent extracts demonstrating the occurrence of bioactive compounds, such as flavonoids [8]. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, S. vulgaris was commonly used for the treatment of a wide variety of health problems, including toothache, intestinal worms, amenorrhea, and dysmenorrhea [9]. Detrimental activities have also been reported. The ingestion of S. vulgaris and other species of this genus has been incriminated as a possible cause of hepatotoxicity in livestock: ingestion of floral and stem material by cattle and horses can lead to liver disease, resulting in weight loss, weakness, and death within nine months [5], with toxic effects that are usually latent until irreversible liver damage has occurred [10]. S. vulgaris biological features qualify it as a potentially very serious weed [11]. The intrinsic toxicity due to the production of hepatotoxic alkaloids makes the control of this species necessary in agricultural and pasture fields [5]. Exposure to S. vulgaris could also threaten human health through accidental poisoning due to ingestion of grain contaminated with weeds, consumption of herbal or bush teas, or when taken as herbal teas for medicinal purposes [12].
Pyrrolizidine alkaloids (PAs) represent a class of naturally occurring secondary metabolites that are present in over 6000 different plant species—approximately 2% of all flowering plants [13]—grown worldwide [14,15]. To date, more than 660 PAs and PA N-oxides have been identified [16,17]. Plants containing PAs primarily belong to the families of Asteraceae (alternate name: Compositae) (e.g., genus Senecio, Eupatoria), Boraginaceae (e.g., genus Heliotropium), and Fabaceae (alternate name: Leguminosae) (e.g., genus Crotalaria) [18]. In plants, PAs play a pivotal role in chemical defense against phytophagous insects [19]. After ingested by herbivores, PAs have been reported to be acutely toxic, genotoxic, and teratogenic to vertebrates and invertebrates, and chronic ingestion of PA-containing plants and contaminated hay, straw, or silage, has been reported to cause livestock poisoning [20,21,22,23]. In humans, exposure to PAs contaminating herbal teas, cereals, pollen, and honey has been related to acute and chronic hepatic toxicity [16,23,24,25], such as veno-occlusive disease, especially in children [26,27]. More recently, the presence of PAs has been reported in herbal and food supplements with a resulting exposure to these genotoxic/carcinogenic xenobiotics, without proper knowledge on the potential risks for human health consequent to this kind of exposure [28,29,30].
The qualitative and quantitative profiles of PAs in S. vulgaris—one of the most common species containing PAs worldwide—are influenced by several factors, including the geographical area of growth, season, and ontogenesis. A previous work investigating 12 different S. vulgaris populations in Europe and China [31] has detected 22 different PAs, including eight presumed PA N-oxides with unknown identities. In particular, senecionine, integerrimine, seneciphylline, and their N-oxides were present in the aerial parts of all plants and all populations. Spartioidine, retrorsine, and their N-oxides were found in all populations and in more than 90% of the individual shoot samples, whereas riddelliine N-oxide was detected in 10 populations. Senecivernine, usaramine N-oxide, and riddelliine were also detected. Several studies have investigated the occurrence of PAs according to the phenological development stages of plants and seasons, showing that during the year, the total PA concentration in S. vulgaris ranged from 1654.3 µg/g (growth stage five—inflorescence emergence, autumn) to 4910.2 µg/g (growth stage two—formation of side shoots, midsummer) [32,33]. Since some of these compounds have been shown to exert various toxic activities and have been included by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Panel on contaminants in the food chain in the list of PAs to be monitored in food (i.e., senecionine, senecionine-N-oxide, senecivernine, seneciphylline, seneciphylline-N-oxide, retrorsine, retrorsine-N-oxide and, in addition, integerrimine and integerrimine-N-oxide) [17], the scenario of accidental contamination/ingestion of this plant should be taken into consideration.
In light of the above, this work aimed to investigate the cytotoxic and genotoxic activity of S. vulgaris chloroform and aqueous extracts in an in vitro liver preclinical model (i.e., HepG2 cells).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Chemicals, Reagents, and Media

All reagents used were of analytical grade. Chloroform, ethanol, hydrochloric acid (HCl), methanol, ethylenediaminetetracetic acid disodium (Na2EDTA) and tetrasodium (Na4EDTA) salt, sodium chloride (NaCl), sodium hydroxide (NaOH), and zinc were purchased from Carlo Erba Reagenti Srl (Milan, Italy). Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), ethidium bromide, low- and normal-melting-point agarose (LMPA and NMPA, respectively), 4-nitroquinoline N-oxide (4NQO), tris (hydroxymethyl)aminomethane (Tris-HCl), and Triton X-100 were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich Srl (Milan, Italy). Acridine orange (AO), 6,4′-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI), and Via1-CassetteTM were purchased from ChemoMetec A/S (Allerød, Denmark). Eagle’s Minimum Essential Medium (MEM), and Dulbecco’s phosphate-buffered saline, pH 7.4 (DPBS) were purchased from Invitrogen Srl (Milan, Italy). Antibiotics (penicillin and streptomycin), fetal bovine serum (FBS), MEM non-essential amino acids (NEAA), sodium pyruvate, and trypsin were acquired from Euroclone SpA (Milan, Italy). Conventional microscope slides and coverslips were supplied by Knittel-Glaser GmbH (Braunschweig, Germany). Distilled water (dH2O) was used throughout the experiments.

2.2. Plant Material

Fresh aerial parts (including stems, leaves, and flower heads) of S. vulgaris were harvested in the locality of Tavernacce (43°14′11.5″ N 12°24′30.9″ E), Municipality of Perugia, Umbria Region, Italy. The botanical identification and authentication of the plants were performed by Dr. Andrea Primavera, Agronomist, President of FIPPO (Federazione Italiana Produttori Piante Officinali/Italian Federation of Officinal Plant Producers).

2.3. Extraction Methods

2.3.1. Chloroform Extract

Aerial parts of S. vulgaris were dried, cut, and ground (5000 rpm, 10 s, 3 times) to a fine powder using an IKA® Tube Mill Control (IKA-Werke GmbH and Co. KG, Staufen, Germany); then, 2 g of the powdered material was extracted for 16 h in 20 mL methanol [34] with occasional stirring using a mechanical shaker. The liquid portion was filtered, and the solvent was removed at a controlled temperature (40 °C) using a low-pressure evaporator. The residue was taken up and extracted in 10 mL of 2 M HCl and 10 mL of chloroform in a separatory funnel by vigorous shaking. After equilibrating the phases, the funnels were allowed to stand until phase separation occurred. Zinc was then added to the acid solution to convert the PA N-oxides to the parent compounds [35]. The 2 M HCl phase was then made basic to ensure the alkaloids are regenerated and then are subsequently extracted with 10 mL chloroform. The chloroform fractions were pooled and evaporated in a rotary evaporator under controlled temperature (40 °C) and low pressure. The residue was finally resuspended in DMSO for testing in HepG2 cells.

2.3.2. Aqueous Extract

As above, aerial parts of S. vulgaris were dried, cut, and ground to a fine powder; 2 g of the powdered material was extracted by suspension in 100 mL boiling dH2O and infused for 5, 15, and 30 min. The suspensions were centrifuged (2000 rpm, 5 min), the supernatants were filtered through Whatman No. 1 filter paper, and they were finally freeze-dried (using Christ® ALPHA I/5, Martin Christ Gefriertrocknungsanlagen GmbH, Osterode am Harz, Germany). After freeze-drying, the residues were then resuspended in complete culture medium (see below).

2.4. Cell Line and Culture Conditions

The HepG2 cells originate from human cancer cells collected in the 1970s from the liver of a young Argentine with a diagnosis of hepatoblastoma [36,37,38]. Thanks to a series of practical advantages (e.g., almost unlimited life span, stable phenotype, high availability, easy handling, etc.), these cells are commonly employed for liver toxicity investigation [39]. Moreover, compared with the use of other cell lines which demand the addition of exogenous metabolic activation systems (such as S9 mix), it has been demonstrated that the use of this model is more adherent to in vivo conditions [40].
The HepG2 cell line (ATCC HB 8065) was purchased from Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell’Emilia Romagna “Bruno Ubertini” (Brescia, Italy). The cells were grown in 25 cm2 flasks in MEM supplemented with 10% (v/v) FBS, 1% NEAA, 1 mM sodium pyruvate, 100 U/mL penicillin, and 0.1 mg/mL streptomycin, at 37 °C in a humidified atmosphere containing 5% CO2. HepG2 cells were sub-cultured by dispersal with 0.05% trypsin in 0.02% Na4EDTA (contact time: 5 min) and replated at a 1:2 dilution, which maintained cells in the exponential growth phase. Before the treatment, sub-confluent HepG2 cultures were detached by trypsinization and were suspended in complete MEM culture medium.

2.5. Cell Count and Viability: AO/DAPI Double Staining

According to the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) guidance document for genetic toxicology testing [41], the highest soluble concentration of the test extracts for in vitro testing when the composition of the test substance is not defined (e.g., substance of unknown or variable composition, complex reaction products, biological materials, environmental extracts, mixtures of incompletely known composition) should be at least 5 mg/mL to increase the concentration of each of the components.
We assessed the possible cytotoxicity of the S. vulgaris extracts by evaluating 5 scalar concentrations (i.e., 50, 25, 10, 5, and 1 mg/mL, corresponding to 200, 100, 40, 20 and 4 mg dry matter – d.m.). For the test, the cells (2.5 × 105 per well) were transferred into 12-well culture plates (Becton Dickinson Italia SpA, Milan, Italy) in 1 mL volume, and maintained in culture for 24 h. Then, cells were treated with 1% Triton X-100 (positive control) or S. vulgaris extracts over a range of 5 concentrations. The cells were exposed for 4 h. The number of total and viable cells was then assessed by staining the cells with AO and DAPI fluorophores, with AO staining the entire population of cells and DAPI staining nonviable cells. For the analysis, cell suspensions were loaded into Via1-Cassette which were then placed in a NucleoCounter® NC-3000TM (Chemometec, Allerød, Denmark), a fluorescence-based image cytometer, where cell count and viability were determined [42,43]. Total cell concentration in Via1-Cassette was shown on a personal computer using NucleoView software.

2.6. Genotoxicity Testing: Comet Assay

To avoid the possibility of false-positive results arising from DNA damage associated with cytotoxicity [44], 3 non-cytotoxic concentrations of the S. vulgaris extracts (i.e., 1, 5, and 25 mg/mL) were addressed to the comet assay [45]. The test was conducted under alkaline conditions (alkaline unwinding/alkaline electrophoresis, pH > 13) following the original 3-layer procedure [45] as described in detail elsewhere [42].
Briefly, 48 h before the treatment with S. vulgaris extracts, HepG2 cells were trypsinized and seeded (approximately 5 × 105 cells/well) in 12-well plates. Cells were then treated for 4 h with the S. vulgaris extracts; cell subcultures were also treated with the model mutagen 4NQO (1 µM; positive control). At the end of treatments, the cells were detached by trypsinization and collected by centrifugation (70× g, 8 min, 4 °C). Cell pellets were gently resuspended in 300 µL of 0.7% LMPA (in Ca2+/Mg2+-free DPBS, w/v) maintained at 37 °C, rapidly layered onto a conventional microscope slide precoated with 1% NMPA (in Ca2+/Mg2+-free DPBS, w/v), and finally covered with a coverslip. After brief agarose solidification at 4 °C, coverslips were removed, and the embedded cells were protected with a top layer of 75 µL of 0.7% LMPA. To lyse the embedded cells and to permit DNA unfolding, the slides were then immersed in cold, freshly prepared lysing solution (2.5 M NaCl, 100 mM Na2EDTA, 10 mM Tris-HCl; pH 10; 1% Triton X-100 added just before use) and left to stand for 18 h at 4 °C. The slides were then placed in a horizontal electrophoresis box (HE99; Hoefer Scientific, Holliston, MA, USA) filled with a freshly prepared buffer (10 mM Na4EDTA, 300 mM NaOH; pH > 13). Prior to electrophoresis, the slides were left in the alkaline buffer for 20 min to allow DNA unwinding and expression of alkali-labile damage. Electrophoresis runs were then performed in an ice bath for 20 min by applying an electric field of 1 V/cm and adjusting the current to 300 mA (Power Supply E411; Consort, Turnhout, Belgium). The microgels were then neutralized with 0.4 M Tris-HCl buffer (pH 7.5), fixed 10 min in ethanol, allowed to air-dry, and stored in slide boxes at room temperature until analysis. All steps of the comet assay were conducted in yellow light to prevent the occurrence of additional DNA damage.
Immediately before scoring, the air-dried slides were stained with 65 µL of 20 µg/mL ethidium bromide and covered with a coverslip. The comets in each microgel were blindly analyzed at ×200 magnification with an epi-fluorescent microscope (BX41, Olympus Co., Tokyo, Japan) equipped with a high-sensitivity black and white charge-coupled device (CCD) camera (PE2020, Pulnix Europe Ltd., Basingstoke, UK) under a 100 W high-pressure mercury lamp (HSH-1030-L, Ushio Inc., Tokyo, Japan) using appropriate optical filters (excitation: 510–550 nm; emission: 590 nm). Microphotographs were elaborated by Comet Assay III software (Perceptive Instruments, Suffolk, UK). A total of 100 randomly selected comets (50 cells/replicate slides) were considered for each experimental point. The extent of primary DNA damage was quantified as the percent of fluorescence migrated in the comet tail (i.e., tail intensity) [46].

3. Results

3.1. Cell Count and Viability: AO/DAPI Double Staining

Results concerning cell count and the viability assay are summarized in Figure 1. In HepG2 cells, viability decreased in a concentration-dependent manner after the treatment with both extracts (i.e., chloroform and aqueous extract), with a more marked cytotoxic effect of the highest concentration of the aqueous extract (5-and 30-min infusion). The results of viability assays determined the choice of concentrations to be investigated afterward; the highest extract concentration (i.e., 200 mg d.m.) was not assayed in the comet assay.

3.2. Genotoxicity Testing: Comet Assay

Genotoxicity testing was performed using three concentrations that did not show cytotoxic effects in the AO/DAPI assay (i.e., 4, 20, and 100 mg d.m). Figure 2 illustrates the results of the comet assay. 4NQO, used as a positive control, induced a marked response (p < 0.05), thus indicating the sensitivity of the test.
Exposure of HepG2 cells to S. vulgaris extracts significantly increased the extent of DNA damage in a concentration-dependent manner. This is quite clear in both chloroform and aqueous extracts, and, in the latter, this phenomenon is independent of the time of infusion. The highest concentration (100 mg d.m.) exerted a significant genotoxic effect in each extract (compared with the negative control), whereas 20 mg d.m. did so only in the aqueous extracts. Aqueous extracts obtained after 5 and 30 min of infusion induced primary DNA damage at the lowest concentration tested (4 mg d.m.).

4. Discussion

In this work, we investigated the biological activity of S. vulgaris extracts in a preclinical hepatic model, namely HepG2 cells.
First, we adopted an extraction procedure using methanol and chloroform (+ HCl), which represent widely used solvents for the extraction of PAs from plant material [47]. Results showed a slight loss in cell viability at the highest concentration tested, and a marked dose-dependent genotoxicity exerted by non-cytotoxic concentrations. Results are in line with the scientific literature, as evidence showed a low/null cytotoxic effect of retrorsine, riddelliine, senecionine, and seneciphylline in this cell line [48], and remarkable genotoxic effects of several PAs in liver cell lines, primary hepatocytes and other liver models [49].
The ability of S. vulgaris to invade a wide variety of habitats worldwide makes the contamination of other plant materials addressed to the herbal teas market an actual risk for the consumer. Consequently, to investigate a potential risk occurring in everyday life—unintentional exposure to S. vulgaris mediated by herbal infusion intake—we also performed all experimental sets using aqueous extracts, reproducing the preparation of herbal teas with three different times of infusion (i.e., 5, 15, and 30 min). Results of viability and genotoxicity assays are almost superimposable with those obtained using the organic solvent-based procedure. Therefore, although the qualitative and quantitative details are unknown, it can be stated that the compounds responsible for toxic activity are present in the aqueous extracts, which mimicked common herbal infusions. The genotoxic effect is even more pronounced in aqueous extracts (e.g., 20 mg d.m.). Moreover, aqueous extract induced primary DNA damage in HepG2 cells after five minutes of infusion, even at the lowest concentration tested. In our work, wild S. vulgaris plants were harvested in late September at growth stage five—inflorescence emergence. As the combination of this growth stage and season has been shown to correspond to the lowest PA concentrations in this species [32], the toxic effects might realistically be even higher in the case of contamination occurring during the harvest in spring and summer. Our study had several strengths. Firstly, we set up an accessible extraction method (aqueous extraction followed by freeze-drying), which is notably fast, cheap, and environmentally friendly. Moreover, water extraction perfectly fits with the aim of this study, namely a safety assessment in the context of unintentional exposure mediated by herbal tea/supplement intake. Secondly, the choice of three times of infusion kept the experimental design close to everyday life conditions, simulating the cases of a short/medium infusion time (5 and 15 min, respectively), and the case of a long infusion time (30 min), which might occur when the consumer accidentally forgets to take away the teabag from the hot water. Thirdly, our comparative analysis in both the chloroform and the aqueous extracts allowed us to verify the appropriacy of a green procedure in this kind of investigation.
Our study also had some limitations. Qualitative and quantitative analysis (e.g., LC-MS/MS) of PAs contained in both the chloroform and the aqueous extracts has not been carried out. However, given the complexity of such analyses when dealing with plant matrices, this kind of investigation deserves to be addressed in separate research.

5. Conclusions

In summary, through the use of an environmentally friendly extraction procedure, this work highlighted the in vitro hepatotoxic effect of S. vulgaris when considered in the form of herbal tea. Given the wide diffusion of this weed, the broad intake of herbal teas worldwide, and the clear genotoxic activity of extracts obtained by mimicking domestic tea preparation, this experimental approach might be proposed as a screening tool in the analysis of plant material lots addressed to the herbal infusion markets.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.M. and M.V.; methodology, M.V.; software, M.M.; validation, M.M. and M.V.; formal analysis, M.M. and M.V.; investigation, M.A., C.R., F.M., and C.F.; resources, M.V.; data curation, M.M.; writing—original draft preparation, M.M. and M.A.; writing—review and editing, M.M.; visualization, M.V.; supervision, M.V.; project administration, M.V.; funding acquisition, M.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Regione Umbria (Piano Sviluppo Rurale 2014–2020, Misura 16.2.2—grant number 84250120502).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Heywood, V.; Harborne, J.; Turner, B.; Linnean Society of London; Phytochemical Group. The Biology and Chemistry of the Compositae; Academic Press: London, UK, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  2. Gledhill, D. The Names of Plants, 4th ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  3. Nicolini, G. Enciclopedia Botanica Motta; Federico Motta Editore: Milano, Italy, 1960; Volume 3. [Google Scholar]
  4. Von Linnaeus, C. Species Plantarum; Imprensis Laurentii Salvii: Stockholm, Sweden, 1753. [Google Scholar]
  5. Robinson, D.E.; O’Donovan, J.T.; Sharma, M.P.; Doohan, D.J.; Figueroa, R. The Biology of Canadian Weeds. 123. Senecio vulgaris L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2003, 83, 629–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Mitich, L.W. Common Groundsel (Senecio vulgaris). Weed Technol. 1995, 9, 209–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Simpson, J.; Weiner, E. The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed.; Claredon Press: Oxford, UK, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  8. Mansour, R.M.; Saleh, N.A. Flavonoids of Three Local Senecio Species. Phytochemistry 1981, 20, 1180–1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Stuart, M. The Encyclopedia of Herbs and Herbalism; Orbis Books: London, UK, 1979. [Google Scholar]
  10. Molyneux, R.J.; Johnson, A.E.; Olsen, J.D.; Baker, D.C. Toxicity of Pyrrolizidine Alkaloids from Riddell Groundsel (Senecio riddellii) to Cattle. Am. J. Vet. Res. 1991, 52, 146–151. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  11. Baker, H.G. The Evolution of Weeds. In Review of Ecology and Systematics; Annual Reviews: San Mateo, CA, USA, 1974; Volume 5, pp. 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  12. Steenkamp, V.; Stewart, M.J.; Zuckerman, M. Clinical and Analytical Aspects of Pyrrolizidine Poisoning Caused by South African Traditional Medicines. Ther. Drug Monit. 2000, 22, 302–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. The Plant List 2022. Available online: https://www.dixon.org/events/event/23544/ (accessed on 20 September 2022).
  14. Chen, L.; Mulder, P.P.J.; Louisse, J.; Peijnenburg, A.; Wesseling, S.; Rietjens, I.M.C.M. Risk Assessment for Pyrrolizidine Alkaloids Detected in (Herbal) Teas and Plant Food Supplements. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2017, 86, 292–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Teuscher, E.; Lindequist, U. Biogene Gifte: Biologie, Chemie, Pharmakologie, Toxikologie; Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft: Stuttgart, Germany, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  16. Bodi, D.; Ronczka, S.; Gottschalk, C.; Behr, N.; Skibba, A.; Wagner, M.; Lahrssen-Wiederholt, M.; Preiss-Weigert, A.; These, A. Determination of Pyrrolizidine Alkaloids in Tea, Herbal Drugs and Honey. Food Addit. Contam. Part A 2014, 31, 1886–1895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Knutsen, H.K.; Alexander, J.; Barregård, L.; Bignami, M.; Brüschweiler, B.; Ceccatelli, S.; Cottrill, B.; Dinovi, M.; Edler, L.; Grasl-Kraupp, B.; et al. Risks for Human Health Related to the Presence of Pyrrolizidine Alkaloids in Honey, Tea, Herbal Infusions and Food Supplements. EFSA J. 2017, 15, e04908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. WHO/IPCS. Pyrrolizidine Alkaloids; Environmental Health Criteria; World Health Organization/International Programme on Chemical Safety: Geneva, Switzerland, 1988; Volume 80. [Google Scholar]
  19. Doorduin, L.J.; Vrieling, K. A Review of the Phytochemical Support for the Shifting Defence Hypothesis. Phytochem. Rev. 2011, 10, 99–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Chen, T.; Mei, N.; Fu, P.P. Genotoxicity of Pyrrolizidine Alkaloids. J. Appl. Toxicol. 2010, 30, 183–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Moyano, M.R.; García, A.; Rueda, A.; Molina, A.M.; Mendez, A.; Infante, F. Echium vulgare and Senecio vulgaris Poisoning in Fighting Bulls. J. Vet. Med. Ser. A 2006, 53, 24–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Stegelmeier, B.L.; Edgar, J.A.; Colegate, S.M.; Gardner, D.R.; Schoch, T.K.; Coulombe, R.A.; Molyneux, R.J. Pyrrolizidine Alkaloid Plants, Metabolism and Toxicity. J. Nat. Toxins 1999, 8, 95–116. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  23. Wiedenfeld, H.; Edgar, J. Toxicity of Pyrrolizidine Alkaloids to Humans and Ruminants. Phytochem. Rev. 2011, 10, 137–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Molyneux, R.J.; Gardner, D.L.; Colegate, S.M.; Edgar, J.A. Pyrrolizidine Alkaloid Toxicity in Livestock: A Paradigm for Human Poisoning? Food Addit. Contam. Part A 2011, 28, 293–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Mulder, P.P.J.; López, P.; Castellari, M.; Bodi, D.; Ronczka, S.; Preiss-Weigert, A.; These, A. Occurrence of Pyrrolizidine Alkaloids in Animal- and Plant-Derived Food: Results of a Survey across Europe. Food Addit. Contam. Part A 2018, 35, 118–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Mohabbat, O.; Younos, M.S.; Merzad, A.A.; Srivastava, R.N.; Sediq, G.G.; Aram, G.N. An Outbreak of Hepatic Veno-Occlusive Disease in North-Western Afghanistan. Lancet 1976, 2, 269–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Tandon, B.N.; Tandon, H.D.; Tandon, R.K.; Narndranathan, M.; Joshi, Y.K. An Epidemic of Veno-Occlusive Disease of Liver in Central India. Lancet 1976, 2, 271–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Van den Berg, S.J.P.L.; Restani, P.; Boersma, M.G.; Delmulle, L.; Rietjens, I.M.C.M. Levels of Genotoxic and Carcinogenic Ingredients in Plant Food Supplements and Associated Risk Assessment. Food Nutr. Sci. 2011, 2, 989–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Van den Berg, S.J.P.L.; Serra-Majem, L.; Coppens, P.; Rietjens, I.M.C.M. Safety Assessment of Plant Food Supplements (PFS). Food Funct. 2011, 2, 760–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Schrenk, D.; Gao, L.; Lin, G.; Mahony, C.; Mulder, P.P.J.; Peijnenburg, A.; Pfuhler, S.; Rietjens, I.M.C.M.; Rutz, L.; Steinhoff, B.; et al. Pyrrolizidine Alkaloids in Food and Phytomedicine: Occurrence, Exposure, Toxicity, Mechanisms, and Risk Assessment—A Review. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2020, 136, 111107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Cheng, D.; Nguyen, V.-T.; Ndihokubwayo, N.; Ge, J.; Mulder, P.P.J. Pyrrolizidine Alkaloid Variation in Senecio Vulgaris Populations from Native and Invasive Ranges. PeerJ 2017, 5, e3686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Flade, J.; Beschow, H.; Wensch-Dorendorf, M.; Plescher, A.; Wätjen, W. Occurrence of Nine Pyrrolizidine Alkaloids in Senecio vulgaris L. Depending on Developmental Stage and Season. Plants 2019, 8, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Meier, U. BBCH Monograph. In Growth Stages of Mono- and Dicotyledonous Plants; Open Agrar Repositorium: Quedlinburg, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mattocks, A.R. Relation of Structural Features to Pyrrolic Metabolites in Livers of Rats given Pyrrolizidine Alkaloids and Derivatives. Chem. Biol. Interact. 1981, 35, 301–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Vollmer, J.J.; Steiner, N.C.; Larsen, G.Y.; Muirhead, K.M.; Molyneux, R.J. Pyrrolizidine Alkaloids: Testing for Toxic Constituents of Comfrey. J. Chem. Educ. 1987, 64, 1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Aden, D.P.; Fogel, A.; Plotkin, S.; Damjanov, I.; Knowles, B.B. Controlled Synthesis of HBsAg in a Differentiated Human Liver Carcinoma-Derived Cell Line. Nature 1979, 282, 615–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Knowles, B.B.; Howe, C.C.; Aden, D.P. Human Hepatocellular Carcinoma Cell Lines Secrete the Major Plasma Proteins and Hepatitis B Surface Antigen. Science 1980, 209, 497–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. López-Terrada, D.; Cheung, S.W.; Finegold, M.J.; Knowles, B.B. Hep G2 Is a Hepatoblastoma-Derived Cell Line. Hum. Pathol. 2009, 40, 1512–1515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Donato, M.T.; Tolosa, L.; Gómez-Lechón, M.J. Culture and Functional Characterization of Human Hepatoma HepG2 Cells. Methods Mol. Biol. 2015, 1250, 77–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Knasmüller, S.; Parzefall, W.; Sanyal, R.; Ecker, S.; Schwab, C.; Uhl, M.; Mersch-Sundermann, V.; Williamson, G.; Hietsch, G.; Langer, T.; et al. Use of Metabolically Competent Human Hepatoma Cells for the Detection of Mutagens and Antimutagens. Mutat. Res. 1998, 402, 185–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. OECD. Guidance Document on Revisions to OECD Genetic Toxicology Test Guidelines; Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development: Paris, France, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  42. Villarini, M.; Pagiotti, R.; Dominici, L.; Fatigoni, C.; Vannini, S.; Levorato, S.; Moretti, M. Investigation of the Cytotoxic, Genotoxic, and Apoptosis-Inducing Effects of Estragole Isolated from Fennel (Foeniculum Vulgare). J. Nat. Prod. 2014, 77, 773–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Shah, D.; Naciri, M.; Clee, P.; Al-Rubeai, M. NucleoCounter—An Efficient Technique for the Determination of Cell Number and Viability in Animal Cell Culture Processes. Cytotechnology 2006, 51, 39–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Di Nunzio, M.; Valli, V.; Tomás-Cobos, L.; Tomás-Chisbert, T.; Murgui-Bosch, L.; Danesi, F.; Bordoni, A. Is Cytotoxicity a Determinant of the Different In Vitro and In Vivo Effects of Bioactives? Complement. Altern. Med. 2017, 17, 453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Tice, R.R.; Agurell, E.; Anderson, D.; Burlinson, B.; Hartmann, A.; Kobayashi, H.; Miyamae, Y.; Rojas, E.; Ryu, J.C.; Sasaki, Y.F. Single Cell Gel/Comet Assay: Guidelines for in Vitro and in Vivo Genetic Toxicology Testing. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 2000, 35, 206–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Collins, A.R. The Comet Assay for DNA Damage and Repair: Principles, Applications, and Limitations. Mol. Biotechnol. 2004, 26, 249–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kopp, T.; Abdel-Tawab, M.; Mizaikoff, B. Extracting and Analyzing Pyrrolizidine Alkaloids in Medicinal Plants: A Review. Toxins 2020, 12, 320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Rutz, L.; Gao, L.; Küpper, J.-H.; Schrenk, D. Structure-Dependent Genotoxic Potencies of Selected Pyrrolizidine Alkaloids in Metabolically Competent HepG2 Cells. Arch. Toxicol. 2020, 94, 4159–4172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Schrenk, D.; Fahrer, J.; Allemang, A.; Fu, P.; Lin, G.; Mahony, C.; Mulder, P.P.J.; Peijnenburg, A.; Pfuhler, S.; Rietjens, I.M.C.M.; et al. Novel Insights into Pyrrolizidine Alkaloid Toxicity and Implications for Risk Assessment: Occurrence, Genotoxicity, Toxicokinetics, Risk Assessment-A Workshop Report. Planta Med. 2022, 88, 98–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 19 14824 g001a 550Ijerph 19 14824 g001b 550
Figure 1. Effects of scalar concentrations of S. vulgaris chloroform and aqueous extracts on HepG2 cell viability expressed as percent of negative control (taken as the unit, 100%). The results of each experimental set are summarized as the mean (±SEM) of three independent experiments. Statistical analysis: * indicates statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) compared with the negative control, one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s post hoc analysis. Cell viability (%) after treatment with the positive control (1% Triton-X-100): 34.94 ± 2.24.
Figure 1. Effects of scalar concentrations of S. vulgaris chloroform and aqueous extracts on HepG2 cell viability expressed as percent of negative control (taken as the unit, 100%). The results of each experimental set are summarized as the mean (±SEM) of three independent experiments. Statistical analysis: * indicates statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) compared with the negative control, one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s post hoc analysis. Cell viability (%) after treatment with the positive control (1% Triton-X-100): 34.94 ± 2.24.
Ijerph 19 14824 g001aIjerph 19 14824 g001b
Ijerph 19 14824 g002 550
Figure 2. Primary DNA damage in HepG2 cells exposed for four hours to different concentrations of Senecium vulgaris chloroform and aqueous extracts. The extent of DNA strand breakage is expressed in terms of tail intensity (% DNA migrated in the comet tail). The results of each experimental set are summarized as the mean value of at least three independent experiments (±SEM). Statistical analysis: * indicates statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) compared with the negative control, one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s post hoc analysis. Tail intensity of positive control (1 μM 4NQO): 18.55 ± 2.30.
Figure 2. Primary DNA damage in HepG2 cells exposed for four hours to different concentrations of Senecium vulgaris chloroform and aqueous extracts. The extent of DNA strand breakage is expressed in terms of tail intensity (% DNA migrated in the comet tail). The results of each experimental set are summarized as the mean value of at least three independent experiments (±SEM). Statistical analysis: * indicates statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) compared with the negative control, one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s post hoc analysis. Tail intensity of positive control (1 μM 4NQO): 18.55 ± 2.30.
Ijerph 19 14824 g002
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Acito, M.; Russo, C.; Fatigoni, C.; Mercanti, F.; Moretti, M.; Villarini, M. Cytotoxicity and Genotoxicity of Senecio vulgaris L. Extracts: An In Vitro Assessment in HepG2 Liver Cells. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 14824. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192214824

AMA Style

Acito M, Russo C, Fatigoni C, Mercanti F, Moretti M, Villarini M. Cytotoxicity and Genotoxicity of Senecio vulgaris L. Extracts: An In Vitro Assessment in HepG2 Liver Cells. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(22):14824. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192214824

Chicago/Turabian Style

Acito, Mattia, Carla Russo, Cristina Fatigoni, Federica Mercanti, Massimo Moretti, and Milena Villarini. 2022. "Cytotoxicity and Genotoxicity of Senecio vulgaris L. Extracts: An In Vitro Assessment in HepG2 Liver Cells" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 22: 14824. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192214824

APA Style

Acito, M., Russo, C., Fatigoni, C., Mercanti, F., Moretti, M., & Villarini, M. (2022). Cytotoxicity and Genotoxicity of Senecio vulgaris L. Extracts: An In Vitro Assessment in HepG2 Liver Cells. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(22), 14824. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192214824

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop