Differences in the biological effects of crocidolite asbestos and two glass fibres on epithelial lung cells

Our plain-English summary of Differences in the biological effects of crocidolite asbestos and two glass fibres on epithelial lung cells, by M. Aufderheide, M. Riebe-Imre, M. Straub, et al (Experimental and Toxicologic Pathology, 1994).

The study

• Authors: M. Aufderheide, M. Riebe-Imre, M. Straub, A. Peraud
• Journal: Experimental and Toxicologic Pathology
• Published: 1994;45(8):467-72
• Cited by: 1 article, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This laboratory study compared crocidolite asbestos with two glass fibres, JM 104/475 and B-1M. It used a hamster lung epithelial cell line (M3E3/C3) grown in dishes. No people or live animals were studied. Cells were exposed to the fibres and checked for four things: cell survival, ability to form colonies, transformation (growth in soft agar, a laboratory sign of cancer-like change), and changes in three parts of the cell's internal skeleton (actin, tubulin and vimentin). Crocidolite and JM 104/475 both significantly reduced cell survival. No toxic effect was found for B-1M. The cells were more sensitive to crocidolite than to either glass fibre. Only crocidolite caused transformation; neither glass fibre did. All three fibres disturbed the actin system over time. After 86 hours, both glass fibres broke down the tubulin system, but crocidolite did not. Only crocidolite caused vimentin to gather into bundles. The authors concluded that examining the cell skeleton offers some clues to why these fibres act differently.

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: In vitro (cell culture) experiment comparing one asbestos fibre with two glass fibres
• Who was studied: Syrian hamster lung epithelial cell line M3E3/C3, derived from the lung of a hamster foetus on day 15 of gestation; Institute of Experimental Pathology, Hannover Medical School, Germany
• Exposure: Crocidolite asbestos and two glass fibres (JM 104/475 and B-1M). For cell survival tests, cells were treated for 96 h with 10, 20, 30 or 50 µg/ml crocidolite, or 50, 100, 150 or 200 µg/ml of each glass fibre. For transformation tests the doses were: crocidolite 1, 1.5 and 2 µg/ml; JM 104/475 50, 100 and 150 µg/ml; B-1M 300, 400 and 500 µg/ml. For microscopy the doses were 10 µg/ml crocidolite, 50 µg/ml JM 104/475 and 100 µg/ml B-1M.
• Main results:
  • Increasing doses of crocidolite asbestos and of JM 104/475 significantly decreased survival of the hamster cells compared with untreated cells. The article states that the cytotoxicity was three-fold greater than for the concurrently examined glass fibre.
  • No toxic effect was found for the B-1M glass fibre.
  • Colony-forming tests confirmed the survival results: the cells were more sensitive to crocidolite asbestos than to JM 104/475 or B-1M.
  • Only crocidolite asbestos induced transformation (anchorage-independent growth). Neither glass fibre had an effect in the transformation test. No numbers are given in the text; results are shown only in a figure.
  • All fibres affected the actin filament system in a time-dependent manner. With crocidolite and JM 104/475, actin filaments broke down into a granular form after 38 h, with early restoration by 86 h. B-1M produced a delayed actin reaction after 86 h.
  • Crocidolite caused no change in the tubulin (microtubule) system, whereas both glass fibres caused complete breakdown of tubulin filaments after 86 h.
  • Crocidolite caused the vimentin network to concentrate in bundles. No vimentin changes were seen in cells exposed to the glass fibres.
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that the biological effects of the fibres differed greatly depending on fibre size and type. They also concluded that, beyond standard toxicity measures, examining the cytoskeleton offers some clues to the mechanisms behind these differences.

Topics

The National Library of Medicine indexes this study under subjects our site covers: Crocidolite.

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Crocidolite.

Related studies

• Differences in the sensitivity of hamster and rat lung cells exposed in vitro to natural and man-made fibres — M. Aufderheide, J.W. Knebel, et al. (1996)
• Formation of pseudo-asbestos bodies on sized glass fibres in the hamster lung — A. Holmes, A. Morgan, et al. (1983)
• Cytotoxicity, oxidative stress and genotoxicity induced by glass fibers on human alveolar epithelial cell line A549 — V. Rapisarda, C. Loreto, et al. (2015)
• Efflux of reduced glutathione after exposure of human lung epithelial cells to crocidolite asbestos — S.A. Golladay, S.H. Park, et al. (1997)
• A comparison of the cytogenetic response to asbestos and glass fibre in Chinese hamster and human cell lines. Demonstration of growth inhibition in primary human fibroblasts — A.M. Sincock, J.D. Delhanty, et al. (1982)
• Sister-chromatid exchange and cell kinetics in CHO-K1 cells, human fibroblasts and lymphoblastoid cells exposed in vitro to asbestos and glass fibre — G. Casey (1983)

Browse more research in Experimental and Toxicologic Pathology, or return to medical research.