Effect of asbestos on the P388D1 macrophagelike cell line: preliminary ultrastructural observations

Our plain-English summary of Effect of asbestos on the P388D1 macrophagelike cell line: preliminary ultrastructural observations, by N.F. Johnson, R. Davies (Environmental Health Perspectives, 1983).

The study

• Authors: N.F. Johnson, R. Davies
• Journal: Environmental Health Perspectives
• Published: 1983;51:109-17
• Cited by: 9 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

Abstract

The ultrastructural effects of mineral dusts on a macrophagelike cell line (P388D1) were studied by transmission electron microscopy. The cells were found to contain virus particles which probably did not exert a cytopathic effect toward the cells. During mitosis the asbestos fibers appeared to be pushed to the periphery of the cell. The distribution of the asbestos in the P388D1 cells was similar to that seen previously in cultured peritoneal macrophages, and it was concluded that the cytotoxic effect of asbestos towards the cells was due to mechanical effects, e.g., by penetrating structures such as the nucleus or phagosomes, by preventing the ordered movement of organelles with the cell or by disrupting the cytoskeletal framework of the cell.

In plain English

In this laboratory study, the authors used electron microscopy to examine how mineral dusts affected P388D1, a macrophage-like cell line from a mouse lymphoid tumour. Cells were exposed to UICC Canadian chrysotile, UICC crocidolite, DQ12 quartz or magnetite. Damage was measured by LDH enzyme release. LDH released was 4.8 ± 0.2% with no dust, 5.5 ± 0.8% with magnetite, 65.6 ± 3.0% with quartz, 29.8 ± 0.6% with chrysotile and 18.8 ± 0.5% with crocidolite. The authors called the asbestos minerals modestly cytotoxic. Most chrysotile-treated cells looked unaffected, but fibers were seen free in the cytoplasm and penetrating or inside the nucleus, and nuclear indentations were often next to fibers. Crocidolite caused similar changes, except that no crocidolite fibers were found penetrating or inside the nucleus or in deep nuclear invaginations. In the few dividing cells seen, fibers lay at the cell's edge. The cells carried virus particles that the authors judged did not appear to harm them; whether these altered the response to dust could not be determined. The authors suggested that asbestos may damage these cells mechanically, as in cultured peritoneal macrophages.

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: laboratory cell-culture experiment with transmission electron microscopy and an LDH enzyme-release cytotoxicity test (described in the title as preliminary)
• Who was studied: P388D1 macrophage-like cell line, originally isolated from a methylcholanthrene-induced lymphoid neoplasm (P388) of a DBA mouse; cultured at the MRC Pneumoconiosis Unit, Penarth, Wales
• Exposure: UICC Canadian chrysotile and UICC crocidolite asbestos, compared with DQ12 quartz and magnetite dusts and with untreated cells
• Main results:
  • Percent LDH released into the culture medium: chrysotile-treated cells 29.8 ± 0.6; crocidolite-treated cells 18.8 ± 0.5
  • Percent LDH released: no dust 4.8 ± 0.2; magnetite 5.5 ± 0.8; DQ12 quartz 65.6 ± 3.0
  • The authors described the asbestos minerals as modestly cytotoxic.
  • In chrysotile-treated cultures, most cells appeared ultrastructurally unaffected.
  • In chrysotile-treated cultures, fibers were found free in the cytoplasm and penetrating or inside the nucleus.
  • In chrysotile-treated cultures, indentations in the nucleus were often next to chrysotile fibers.
  • Crocidolite-treated cultures showed changes similar to chrysotile, except that no crocidolite fibers were found penetrating or within the nucleus or in deep nuclear invaginations.
  • In the few dividing (mitotic) chrysotile-treated cells seen, fibers were at the periphery of the cell, not among the chromosomes.
  • The cells contained virus particles, which the authors judged did not appear to have a cytopathic (cell-damaging) effect.
• The authors' conclusion: The authors suggested that, because asbestos affected P388D1 cells and cultured peritoneal macrophages in broadly similar ways, the fibers may damage the cells mechanically: by penetrating structures such as the nucleus or phagosomes, by blocking the orderly movement of organelles, or by disrupting the cell's cytoskeleton.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The authors could not determine whether the virus particles in the cells changed how the cells responded to the dusts.
  • Cutting artifacts made it hard to tell exactly where quartz particles were located within the cells.

Topics

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

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM), Macrophage.

Related studies

• An ultrastructural study of the effects of asbestos fibres on cultured peritoneal macrophages — N.F. Johnson, R. Davies (1981)
• Cytotoxicity of a short-fiber chrysotile asbestos for human alveolar macrophages: preliminary observations — H. Yeager, D.A. Russo, et al. (1983)
• Spontaneous lysosomal enzyme secretion by a murine macrophage-like cell line — W. Jessup, R.T. Dean (1980)
• Magnetometric evaluation of the effects of man-made mineral fibers on the function of macrophages using the macrophage cell line RAW 264.7 — K. Shibata, Y. Kudo, et al. (2007)
• Some observations on the in vitro cytotoxicity of chrysotile prepared by the wet dispersion process — I.P. Gormley, R.E. Bolton, et al. (1983)
• Proliferation stimulating effects of chrysotile and crocidolite asbestos fibres on B lymphocyte cell lines — A. Ueki, T. Oka, et al. (1984)

Browse more research in Environmental Health Perspectives, or return to medical research.