4.6 Article

Supplemental Dietary Folic Acid Has No Effect on Chromosome Damage in Erythrocyte Progenitor Cells of Mice

Journal

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
Volume 142, Issue 5, Pages 813-817

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.3945/jn.112.157750

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Canadian Regulatory Systems for Biotechnology
  2. Health Canada
  3. Canadian Institute of Health Research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Folate deficiency can cause chromosome damage, which could result from reduced de novo thymidylate synthesis or DNA hybomethylation. High folic acid intake has been hypothesized to inhibit folate-dependent one-carbon metabolism, which could also lead to DNA damage. A large proportion of the general population may have high folic acid intakes. In this study, 2 experiments were conducted to examine the effects of folate on chromosome damage. First, male mice were fed folic acid deficient (D) (0 mg folic acid/kg diet), control (C) (2 mg/kg), or folic acid supplemented (S) (6 mg folic acid/kg diet) diets from weaning to maturity. Second, female mice were fed the D, C, or S diet throughout pregnancy, lactation, and breeding for 3 generations; male mice from the F3 generation were fed the same diet as their mothers from weaning, producing D, C, and S F3 male mice. RBC micronucleus frequencies, a measure of chromosome damage or aneuploidy, were determined for both experimental groups. In mice fed diets from weaning to maturity, erythrocyte micronucleus frequency was 24% greater-in D compared with C mice. F3 mice fed diet D had 260% and 174% greater reticulocyte and erythrocyte micronucleus frequencies compared with F3 C mice, respectively. The S diets did not affect micronucleus frequency, suggesting that excess folic acid at this level does not promote or protect against chromosome damage. The results suggest that chronic exposure to folic acid at the levels similar to those achieved through fortification is unlikely to be clastogenic or aneugenic. J. Nutr. 142: 813-817, 2012.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available