Biomarkers in risk assessment of asbestos exposure

Our plain-English summary of Biomarkers in risk assessment of asbestos exposure, by K. Bhattacharya, E. Dopp, P. Kakkar, et al (Mutation Research, 2005).

The study

• Authors: K. Bhattacharya, E. Dopp, P. Kakkar, F.N. Jaffery, D. Schiffmann, M.C. Jaurand, I. Rahman, Q. Rahman
• Journal: Mutation Research
• Published: 2005;579(1-2):6-21
• Type of article: Review
• Cited by: 18 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

Developments in the field of molecular epidemiology and toxicology have given valuable tools for early detection of impending disease or toxic condition. Morbidity due to respiratory distress, which may be due to environmental and occupational exposure, has drawn attention of researchers worldwide. Among the occupational exposure to respiratory distress factors, fibers and particles have been found to be main culprits in causing diseases like asbestosis, pleural plaques, mesotheliomas and bronchogenic carcinomas. An early detection of the magnitude of exposure or its' effect using molecular end points is of growing importance. The early inflammatory responses like release of the inflammatory cells collected by non-invasive methods give an indication of the unwanted exposure and susceptibility to further complications. Since free radicals like O2-, OH, OOH, NO, NOO, etc. are involved in the progression of asbestos-related diseases and lead to cytogenetic changes, an evaluation of antioxidant states reducing equivalents like GSH and ROS generation can be a good biomarker. The cytogenetic end points like chromosomal aberration, micronucleus formation and sister chromatid exchange give indication of genetic damage, hence they are used as effective biomarkers. New techniques like fluorimetric analysis of DNA unwinding, alkaline elution test, fluorescent in situ hybridization and comet assay are powerful tools for early detection of initiation of disease process and may help in planning strategies for minimizing morbidity related to asbestos fiber exposure. The present review article covers in detail possible biomarkers for risk assessment of morbidity due to fibers/particles in exposed population.

In plain English

This 2005 article was a review, not a new study. The authors, from research centres in India, Germany, the USA and France, surveyed published work on biomarkers (measurable signs in the body) that might be used to assess risk from exposure to fibers and particles, especially asbestos. They grouped biomarkers into markers of exposure, markers of effect and markers of susceptibility. These included cell counts in nasal lavage, sputum and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid; asbestos bodies in sputum and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid; antioxidant and free-radical measures; chromosome-damage tests such as chromosomal aberrations, micronuclei and sister chromatid exchange; DNA-damage tests such as the comet assay; and inflammatory signalling molecules. Among the earlier studies the review described, one study of 270 retired asbestos textile and frictional material factory workers found asbestos fibers and macrophages in the sputum of 82.6% of subjects. Another described study of workers at an asbestos insulators factory reported raised sister chromatid exchange rates. The authors concluded that the cancer-causing effects of fibers, especially asbestos, can be established using such biomarkers. They noted that establishing this was not the review's main aim.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Narrative review of published literature on biomarkers for risk assessment of fiber and particle exposure, especially asbestos
• Who was studied: Not applicable: a review of earlier human, animal and laboratory studies. No new study population.
• Exposure: Fibers and particles, especially asbestos. The review names the serpentine chrysotile and the amphiboles amosite, crocidolite, anthophyllite, tremolite and actinolite. Other dusts and tobacco smoke are also discussed.
• Main results:
  • The review grouped biomarkers into three types: markers of exposure, markers of effect and markers of susceptibility. This follows a 1987 National Research Council definition.
  • The review described nasal lavage for cell counts and inflammatory markers, and placed asbestos bodies in sputum and in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid.
  • Described earlier study (not this review's own data): in sputum of 270 retired asbestos textile and frictional material factory workers, asbestos fibers and macrophages were found in 82.6% of subjects. 53% of these samples were confirmed positive for asbestos bodies.
  • Described earlier study: among 166 asbestos factory workers in Rajasthan and Maharashtra, India, the number of asbestos bodies in sputum showed no significant correlation with age, sex or exposure duration.
  • Described earlier study: in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from 108 exposed workers and 57 patients, subjects with long-term exposure had higher fiber concentrations than those with more recent exposure.
  • Described earlier study (Rom et al.): workers of an asbestos insulators factory had an elevated sister chromatid exchange rate in blood lymphocytes compared with matched controls. The rate increased with exposure years, and a significant synergism with cigarette smoking was reported.
  • Described study from the authors' laboratory: in an asbestos cement manufacturing unit in Uttar Pradesh, India, sister chromatid exchange was elevated in exposed workers who were smokers compared with a control group not exposed to asbestos.
  • Described laboratory study: in blood lymphocytes of smokers exposed in vitro, crocidolite induced more micronuclei and aneuploidy than chrysotile.
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that the carcinogenicity and co-carcinogenicity of fibers and particles, especially asbestos, can be effectively established using biomarkers of inflammatory responses, cytotoxicity and genotoxicity. They added that establishing carcinogenicity was not the main aim of the review, and that such biomarkers could help in suggesting precautionary measures.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The authors stated that the biological consequence of asbestos-induced sister chromatid exchange is still not well understood, although it is a sensitive indicator in biomonitoring.

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Biomarker, Asbestos Exposure, Epidemiology, Occupational Exposure, Pleural Plaques, Mesothelioma, Bronchogenic Carcinoma, Comet Assay.

Related studies

• HMGB1 and Its Hyperacetylated Isoform are Sensitive and Specific Serum Biomarkers to Detect Asbestos Exposure and to Identify Mesothelioma Patients — A. Napolitano, D.J. Antoine, et al. (2016)
• Validity of the Lymphocyte Cytokinesis-Block Micronucleus Assay (L-CBMN) as biomarker for human exposure to chemicals with different modes of action: A synthesis of systematic reviews — M. Kirsch-Volders, M. Fenech, et al. (2018)
• Pleural mesothelioma and occupational and non-occupational asbestos exposure: a case-control study with quantitative risk assessment — D. Ferrante, D. Mirabelli, et al. (2016)
• Assessment of cancer risks due to environmental exposure to asbestos — H.A. Driece, S. Siesling, et al. (2010)
• Risk assessment due to environmental exposures to fibrous particulates associated with taconite ore — R. Wilson, E.E. McConnell, et al. (2008)
• Geological occurrence, mineralogical characterization, and risk assessment of potentially carcinogenic erionite in Italy — M. Giordani, M. Mattioli, et al. (2017)

Browse more research in Mutation Research, or return to medical research.