The cytotoxic effects of asbestos and other mineral dust in tissue culture cell lines

Our plain-English summary of The cytotoxic effects of asbestos and other mineral dust in tissue culture cell lines, by M. Chamberlain, R.C. Brown (British Journal of Experimental Pathology, 1978).

The study

• Authors: M. Chamberlain, R.C. Brown
• Journal: British Journal of Experimental Pathology
• Published: 1978;59(2):183-9
• Cited by: 87 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Free full text

Abstract

The cytotoxic effects of 15 dusts have been tested in 2 cell lines. Experimental animal data are available for 11 of the 15 dusts. There is a correlation between the cytotoxic activities of the dusts and the ability to induce mesothelial tumours following intrapleural injection of the dusts. Some preliminary observations on the nature of interaction between the dusts, medium components and the cells are reported. It is suggested that the study of the interactions between cells and dusts in culture may lead to an understanding of the pathogenesis of these dusts in man and animals.

In plain English

This laboratory study tested 15 mineral dusts on Chinese hamster lung cells (V79-4). Seven of the dusts were also tested for their effect on the growth of a human lung cell line (A549). Dusts included standard and treated asbestos, glass, silica, talc and brucite. Seven dusts, including both silicas, talc, leached chrysotile B and milled crocidolite, did not harm the hamster cells at 50 micrograms per millilitre. The other 8 were toxic to varying degrees. In the human cells, UICC crocidolite, UICC chrysotile B and glass fibre Code 100 strongly slowed growth. Leached chrysotile B and the two silicas did not, even at 320 micrograms per millilitre. Milled crocidolite was much less toxic than standard UICC crocidolite. The authors compared their results with earlier rat experiments, covering 11 of the 15 dusts, in which dust was injected into the pleural cavity. Dusts active in culture were those that caused mesothelial tumours in those rats. However, the most toxic dusts were not always the most carcinogenic. The authors suggested fibre shape is an important factor in toxicity. They cautioned that short-term cell tests may not tell durable fibres from those the body would inactivate.

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 (in vitro) cell culture experiment
• Who was studied: Two cell lines: V79-4 Chinese hamster lung cells, used to test 15 dusts, and A549 human cells with the characteristics of alveolar Type II lung cells, used to compare the growth-inhibiting effects of 7 of the dusts. No people or animals were studied directly.
• Exposure: 15 dusts: UICC standard reference asbestos (crocidolite, amosite, anthophyllite, chrysotile B), SFA chrysotile, ball-milled UICC crocidolite, Canadian chrysotile leached with hydrochloric acid, artificial fluoramphibole B, brucite (nemalite), glass fibre Codes 100 and 110, borosilicate glass powder, Min-u-sil and South African silica, and Italian talc. Concentrations went up to 50 micrograms per millilitre for V79-4 cells and up to 320 micrograms per millilitre for A549 cells.
• Main results:
  • Seven dusts were not toxic to V79-4 cells at 50 micrograms per millilitre: the 2 silica samples, Italian talc, glass powder, glass fibre Code 110, leached chrysotile B and 8-hour-milled crocidolite.
  • The remaining 8 dusts were toxic to V79-4 cells to varying degrees.
  • V79-4 colonies grown with toxic dusts were smaller and contained larger, often multinucleate cells.
  • UICC crocidolite was less toxic to V79-4 cells when the cells were allowed to attach to the plastic for 24 hours before the dust was added. This was not seen with UICC chrysotile B.
  • UICC crocidolite, but not UICC chrysotile B, was less toxic to V79-4 cells in medium with heat-inactivated serum.
  • Growth inhibition in A549 cells was compared for 7 of the dusts: Min-u-sil, South African silica, leached chrysotile B, glass fibre Code 110, UICC crocidolite, glass fibre Code 100 and UICC chrysotile B.
  • In A549 cells, leached chrysotile B and the 2 silica samples did not inhibit growth even at concentrations as high as 320 micrograms per millilitre.
  • In A549 cells, glass fibre Code 110 was weakly inhibitory, while glass fibre Code 100, UICC crocidolite and chrysotile B were very inhibitory.
  • A549 cultures treated with growth-inhibiting dusts also contained giant cells.
  • Milled crocidolite was much less toxic than standard UICC crocidolite, even though an equal mass contained many more particles.
  • Animal data from earlier studies (Wagner and colleagues, not this study) were available for 11 of the 15 dusts.
  • The dusts active in these cell tests were those that caused mesothelial tumours when injected into the pleural cavities of rats in those earlier studies (intrapleural inoculation of 20 mg).
  • Toxicity did not rank in the same order as cancer-causing ability in rats. SFA chrysotile, the most active dust in rats, was less toxic in these tests than the less carcinogenic UICC amosite.
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that their observations go some way toward suggesting that fibrous shape is an important determinant of toxicity, and that their results have little relevance to the dusts' ability to cause fibrosis. They suggested that such cell studies may eventually provide a screening method for hazardous dusts.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • Short-term cell tests may not distinguish durable fibres from fibres that would be inactivated in the body, so a close numerical match between test-tube and animal results may not be obtainable.
  • The effects measured may result from several different interactions between the cells, the culture medium and the dusts.

Related studies

• Cytotoxic action of mineral dusts on CHV 79 cells in vitro: factors affecting toxicity — S.O. Lock, M. Chamberlain (1983)
• The influence of mineral dusts on metabolic co-operation between mammalian cells in tissue culture — M. Chamberlain (1982)
• Effect of mineral dusts on metabolic cooperation between Chinese hamster V79 cells in vitro — M. Chamberlain (1983)
• Cytotoxic effects of some mineral dusts on Syrian hamster peritoneal macrophages — E. Bey, J.S. Harington (1971)
• The effect of asbestos on tissue cultures; a comparative study with quartz and coal dust — T.H. Belt, I. Friedmann, et al. (1947)
• Reaction of mineral dusts with primary lung fibroblast cultures — R.J. Richards, J. Hunt (1983)

Browse more research in British Journal of Experimental Pathology, or return to medical research.