Effects of (+)catechin and (−)epicatechin on heterocyclic amines‐induced oxidative DNA damage

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the protective effect of (+)‐catechin and (−)‐epicatechin against 2‐amino‐3,8‐ dimethylimidazo[4,5‐f]quinoxaline (8‐MeIQx), 2‐amino‐3,4,8‐trimethylimidazo[4,5‐f]‐quinoxaline (4,8‐diMeIQx) and 2‐amino‐1‐methyl‐6‐phenyl‐imidazo[4,5‐b]pyridine (PhIP)‐induced DNA damage in human hepatoma cells (HepG2). DNA damage (strand breaks and oxidized purines/pyrimidines) was evaluated by the alkaline single‐cell gel electrophoresis or comet assay. Increasing concentrations of 8‐MeIQx, 4,8‐diMeIQx and PhIP induced a significant increase in DNA strand breaks and oxidized purines and pyrimidines in a dose‐dependent manner. Among those, PhIP (300 µ m ) exerted the highest genotoxicity. (+)‐Catechin exerted protection against oxidized purines induced by 8‐MeIQx, 4,8‐diMeIQx and PhIP. Oxidized pyrimidines and DNA strand breaks induced by PhIP were also prevented by (+)‐catechin. Otherwise, (−)‐epicatechin protected against the oxidized pyrimidines induced by PhIP and the oxidized purines induced by 8‐MeIQx and 4,8‐diMeIQx. One feasible mechanism by which (+)‐catechin and (−)‐epicatechin exert their protective effect towards heterocyclic amines‐induced oxidative DNA damage may be by modulation of phase I and II enzyme activities. The ethoxyresorufin O ‐deethylation (CYP1A1) activity was moderately inhibited by (+)‐catechin, while little effect was observed by (−)‐epicatechin. However, (+)‐catechin showed the greatest increase in UDP‐glucuronyltransferase activity. In conclusion, our results clearly indicate that (+)‐catechin was more efficient than (−)‐epicatechin in preventing DNA damage (strand breaks and oxidized purines/pyrimidines) induced by PhIP than that induced by 8‐MeIQx and 4,8‐diMeIQx. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.