The effects of exposure to different clastogens on the pattern of chromosomal aberrations detected by FISH whole chromosome painting in occupationally exposed individuals

Fluorescence in situ hybridization is necessary to detect an association between chromosome aberrations and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon exposure in utero and reveals nonrandom chromosome involvement

“…The distribution of aberration types detected by FISH and Giemsa-staining in our study population was consistent with prior research examining cytogenetic damage due to age, environmental and occupational exposures, and lifestyle [Ramsey et al, 1995;Huttner et al, 1999;Verdorfer et al, 2001;Beskid et al, 2006]. Translocations were the most frequent type of aberration detected by WCP FISH in subjects occupationally exposed to either radiation, nitroaromates, acrylonitrile, ethyl benzene, or PAHs and their unexposed controls [Verdorfer et al, 2001;Beskid et al, 2006], and amongst different age groups [Ramsey et al, 1995].…”

“…Translocations were the most frequent type of aberration detected by WCP FISH in subjects occupationally exposed to either radiation, nitroaromates, acrylonitrile, ethyl benzene, or PAHs and their unexposed controls [Verdorfer et al, 2001;Beskid et al, 2006], and amongst different age groups [Ramsey et al, 1995]. Chromatid breaks were the most frequent type of aberration detected by Giemsastaining in persons with environmental exposure to heavy metals and dioxins/furans and their unexposed controls [Huttner et al, 1999].…”

“…This theory has been substantiated in some radiation and chromosome aberration studies that have demonstrated a linear relationship between DNA content and breakpoints, i.e., larger chromosomes are subject to more breaks [Puerto et al, 1999b;Johnson et al, 1999;Sachs et al, 2000]. However, multiple studies have demonstrated that chromosome aberrations induced with radiation and chemicals are not randomly distributed by chromosome size [Knehr et al, 1996;Stephan and Pressl, 1997;Barquinero et al, 1998;Smith et al, 1998;Wu et al, 1998;Zhang et al, 1998aZhang et al, ,b, 2005Eastmond et al, 2001;Verdorfer et al, 2001;Zhu et al, 2002;Beskid et al, 2006]. Studies have consistently shown that chemical exposures generate nonrandom chromosome damage, but these have been limited in the scope of exposures and the types of chromosome probes utilized [Smith et al, 1998;Wu et al, 1998;Zhang et al, 1998a,b;Eastmond et al, 2001;Verdorfer et al, 2001;Zhu et al, 2002;Beskid et al, 2006], with the exception of a recent pilot study by Zhang et al [2005].…”

“…However, multiple studies have demonstrated that chromosome aberrations induced with radiation and chemicals are not randomly distributed by chromosome size [Knehr et al, 1996;Stephan and Pressl, 1997;Barquinero et al, 1998;Smith et al, 1998;Wu et al, 1998;Zhang et al, 1998aZhang et al, ,b, 2005Eastmond et al, 2001;Verdorfer et al, 2001;Zhu et al, 2002;Beskid et al, 2006]. Studies have consistently shown that chemical exposures generate nonrandom chromosome damage, but these have been limited in the scope of exposures and the types of chromosome probes utilized [Smith et al, 1998;Wu et al, 1998;Zhang et al, 1998a,b;Eastmond et al, 2001;Verdorfer et al, 2001;Zhu et al, 2002;Beskid et al, 2006], with the exception of a recent pilot study by Zhang et al [2005]. Their work showed that occupational exposure to benzene produced nonrandom chromosomal damage by examining all 24 human chromosomes with a special type of FISH (OctoChrome).…”

“…The demonstration of specific patterns of chromosome damage following exposures indicates that chromosome aberrations may provide a chemical-specific fingerprint of exposure [Crane et al, 1996;Smith et al, 1998;Zhang et al, 1998aZhang et al, ,b, 2005Alexander et al, 2001;Eastmond et al, 2001;Beskid et al, 2006]. Characteristic chromo-some rearrangements in leukemia patients have been associated with past exposure to tobacco smoke, solvents, and pesticides [Cuneo et al, 1992;Crane et al, 1996;Davico et al, 1998;Alexander et al, 2001].…”