4.2 Article

Genotoxicity assessment of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in human embryonic stem cells

期刊

EPILEPSY RESEARCH
卷 158, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2019.106232

关键词

Epilepsy; Genotoxicity; Anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs); Human embryonic stem cells (hESCs); Comet assay; MTS assay

资金

  1. Pasteur Institute of Iran [1396]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are administrated during pregnancy according to recent therapeutic protocols. Ten percent of pregnant women with epilepsy give birth to offspring with malformations and teratogenic defects. Since the mechanism of action of AEDs is not yet completely understood, therefore, it could be hypothesized that they may cause cyto- or genotoxicity in embryonic fetus cells. To investigate this hypothesis, the genotoxicity and cell survival of AEDs treated human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) were investigated by single-cell gel electrophoresis (Comet assay) and MTS assay, respectively. HESCs (Royan H6 cell line) were treated in-vitro with high therapeutic doses of Carbamazepine, Gabapentin, Lamotrigine, Levetiracetam or Topiramate as monotherapy or combination therapy of each drug with Folic acid. After hESCs pluripotency confirmation, the effect of AEDs on cellular DNA damage of hESCs was investigated. levetiracetam and topiramate were found to damage the DNA significantly compared to untreated cells. The amount of DNA damage produced by carbamazepine and lamotrigine was similar while for gabapentin, the amount of DNA migration was very low and produced less DNA damage than the others. A considerable reduction in DNA damages occurred in genotoxicity in the presence of Folic acid in comparison to AEDs monotherapies. According to our results, all mentioned AEDs caused DNA damage, while Levetiracetam and topiramate caused more extensive DNA damages than the others. Noticeably, the addition of Folic acid to the treated cells decreased the DNA damages considerably.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据