In vivo and in vitro binding of 1,2-dibromoethane and 1,2-dichloroethane to macromolecules in rat and mouse organs.
The comparative interaction of equimolar amounts of 1,2-dichloroethane and 1,2-dibromoethane with rat and mouse nucleic acids was studied in both in vivo (liver, lung, kidney and stomach) and in vitro (liver microsomal and/or cytosolic fractions) systems. In vivo, liver and kidney DNA showed the highest labeling, whereas the binding to lung DNA was barely detectable. Dibromoethane was more highly reactive than dichloroethane in both species. With dichloroethane, mouse DNA labeling was higher than rat DNA labeling whatever the organ considered: the opposite was seen for the bioactivation of dibromoethane. RNA and protein labelings were higher than DNA labeling, with no particular pattern in terms of organ or species involvement. In vitro, in addition to a low chemical reactivity towards nucleic acids shown by haloethanes per se, both compounds were bioactivated by either liver microsomes and cytosolic fractions to reactive forms capable of binding to DNA and polynucleotides. UV irradiation did not photoactivate dibromoethane and dichloroethane. The in vitro interaction with DNA mediated by enzymatic fractions was PB-inducible (one order of magnitude, using rat microsomes). In vitro bioactivation of haloethanes was mainly performed by microsomes in the case of dichloroethane and by cytosolic fractions in the case of dibromoethane. When microsomes plus cytosol were used, rat enzymes were more efficient than mouse enzymes in inducing a dibromoethane-DNA interaction: the opposite situation occurred for dichloroethane-DNA interaction, and this is in agreement with the in vivo pattern. In the presence of both metabolic pathways, addition or synergism occurred. Dibromoethane was always more reactive than dichloroethane. An indication of the presence of a microsomal GSH transferase was achieved for the activation of dibromoethane. No preferential binding in vitro to a specific polynucleotide was found. Polynucleotide labeling was higher than (or equal to) DNA binding. The labeling of microsomal RNA and proteins and of cytosolic proteins was many times lower than that of DNA or polynucleotides. The in vivo and in vitro data reported above give an unequivocal indication of the relative reactivity of the haloethanes examined with liver macromolecules from the two species and agree, on the whole, with the relative genotoxicity (DNA repair induction ability, mutagenicity and carcinogenicity) of the chemicals.
D000818:Animals; D001711:Biotransformation; D003600:Cytosol / Q000378:metabolism; D004247:DNA / Q000378:metabolism; D015946:Ethylene Dibromide / Q000378:metabolism*; D005025:Ethylene Dichlorides / Q000378:metabolism*; D006842:Hydrocarbons, Brominated / Q000378:metabolism*; D006843:Hydrocarbons, Chlorinated / Q000378:metabolism*; D008297:Male; D051379:Mice; D008807:Mice, Inbred BALB C; D008861:Microsomes / Q000378:metabolism; D011506:Proteins / Q000378:metabolism; D012313:RNA / Q000378:metabolism; D051381:Rats; D011919:Rats, Inbred Strains; D013045:Species Specificity
D005025:Ethylene Dichlorides; D006842:Hydrocarbons, Brominated; D006843:Hydrocarbons, Chlorinated; D011506:Proteins; D015946:Ethylene Dibromide; D012313:RNA; D004247:DNA