Ana Paula Simões da Cunha

Bio: Ana Paula Simões da Cunha is an academic researcher from Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso. The author has contributed to research in topics: TBARS & Thiobarbituric acid. The author has an hindex of 3, co-authored 4 publications receiving 24 citations.

Evaluation of the antioxidant potential of Copaifera multijuga in Ehrlich tumor-bearing mice

Abstract: Copaifera multijuga, commonly known as copaiba, is popularly used in the form of tea for various conditions due to the presence of antioxidant substances in its composition, which protect cells against damage caused by free radicals. Its oleoresin is also used as an anti-inflammatory and antitumoral agent. The present study investigated the antioxidant effect of the ethanolic extract of copaiba stem bark on Swiss mice inoculated with solid Ehrlich tumors. Mice were inoculated subcutaneously with 1x106 Ehrlich’s tumor cells and treated via gavage with ethanolic extract of copaiba for thirty days, with doses varying between 100 and 200 mg kg-1. Biochemical analyses of enzymatic antioxidants [superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), glutathione-S-transferase (GST)], non-enzymatic antioxidants [reduced glutathione (GSH) and ascorbic acid (ASA)], substances reactive to thiobarbituric acid (TBARS) and protein carbonylation (carbonyl) in different tissues were significantly affected. The extract administered at 200 mg kg-1 presented higher antioxidant capacity in the liver, increased CAT, GST, GSH and decreased TBARS, as well as increased CAT activity and protein carbonylation in brain tissue. The results showed that the copaiba extract was able to reverse the oxidative stress caused by solid Ehrlich tumor, probably due to the presence of antioxidant compounds, and had potential antineoplasic effect after a 30-day treatment.

Antioxidant and hepatoprotective effects of ethanolic and ethyl acetate stem bark extracts of Copaifera multijuga (Fabaceae) in mice

Abstract: The properties of oil-resin of copaiba, Copaifera multijuga are commonly mentioned in the literature, but there are few studies on extracts from its stem bark. We evaluated the antioxidant effects of ethanolic (EE) and ethyl acetate (EA) crude stem bark extracts from copaiba and compared them to rutin in a paracetamol (PCM)-induced oxidative stress model in mice. All test comparisons differed significantly. Hepatic catalase (CAT) and glutathione-S-transferase (GST) activity decreased in the PCM group, and there was an increase of protein carbonyls in the liver, kidney and brain. However, the protein carbonyls decreased in the liver for the PCM + EE group, in the kidneys for the PCM + EA and PCM + Rutin groups, and in the brain for all treatments. Hepatic GSH decreased in the PCM group and increased in the PCM + EE group. The extracts showed a positive effect on ascorbic acid (ASA), since they were able to restore the levels of parameters that had been changed by PCM. There was an increase of ALT and AST activity in the plasma within the PCM group. Even though ALT decreased in the PCM + Rutin, PCM + EE and PCM + EA groups, EE and EA did not have an effect on AST. The strongest antioxidant effect was observed for EE, due to the presence of the phenolic compounds epicatechin and epiafzelechin, as well as the highest concentration of total phenols and an excellent antioxidant potential observed in the DPPH· test.

How did the US EPA and IARC reach diametrically opposed conclusions on the genotoxicity of glyphosate-based herbicides?

Abstract: The US EPA considers glyphosate as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A).” EPA asserts that there is no convincing evidence that “glyphosate induces mutations in vivo via the oral route.” IARC concludes there is “strong evidence” that exposure to glyphosate is genotoxic through at least two mechanisms known to be associated with human carcinogens (DNA damage, oxidative stress). Why and how did EPA and IARC reach such different conclusions? A total of 52 genotoxicity assays done by registrants were cited by the EPA in its 2016 evaluation of technical glyphosate, and another 52 assays appeared in the public literature. Of these, one regulatory assay (2%) and 35 published assays (67%) reported positive evidence of a genotoxic response. In the case of formulated, glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs), 43 regulatory assays were cited by EPA, plus 65 assays published in peer-reviewed journals. Of these, none of the regulatory, and 49 published assays (75%) reported evidence of a genotoxic response following exposure to a GBH. IARC considered a total of 118 genotoxicity assays in six core tables on glyphosate technical, GBHs, and aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), glyphosate’s primary metabolite. EPA’s analysis encompassed 51 of these 118 assays (43%). In addition, IARC analyzed another 81 assays exploring other possible genotoxic mechanisms (mostly related to sex hormones and oxidative stress), of which 62 (77%) reported positive results. IARC placed considerable weight on three positive GBH studies in exposed human populations, whereas EPA placed little or no weight on them. EPA and IARC reached diametrically opposed conclusions on glyphosate genotoxicity for three primary reasons: (1) in the core tables compiled by EPA and IARC, the EPA relied mostly on registrant-commissioned, unpublished regulatory studies, 99% of which were negative, while IARC relied mostly on peer-reviewed studies of which 70% were positive (83 of 118); (2) EPA’s evaluation was largely based on data from studies on technical glyphosate, whereas IARC’s review placed heavy weight on the results of formulated GBH and AMPA assays; (3) EPA’s evaluation was focused on typical, general population dietary exposures assuming legal, food-crop uses, and did not take into account, nor address generally higher occupational exposures and risks. IARC’s assessment encompassed data from typical dietary, occupational, and elevated exposure scenarios. More research is needed on real-world exposures to the chemicals within formulated GBHs and the biological fate and consequences of such exposures.

Re-registration Challenges of Glyphosate in the European Union

Abstract: One of the most controversial societal issues today, regarding pesticide registration in the European Union (EU) may be the case surrounding re-registration of the active herbicide ingredient glyphosate. Shortly before the announcement of the conflicting views regarding the carcinogenicity status of this regulated agrochemical by EU Agencies, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) on the one hand, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) on the other hand, the Cancer Assessment Review Committee of the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) also published re-evaluations. The US EPA assessment classified glyphosate into Group E, “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans”. Similar positions were reached by EFSA and ECHA, assessing glyphosate as “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans” and “not classified as a carcinogen”, respectively. A strongly opposing evaluation has previously been reached by IARC by classifying glyphosate into Group 2A, “probably carcinogenic to humans”. IARC identified potential cancer hazards in this case, but did not estimate the level of risk it may present, which was taken into consideration by opposing agencies. Multiple effects of glyphosate have been reported, of which carcinogenic effects are only one component. Formulated glyphosate products – especially with polyethoxylated tallowamine and related compounds – have been shown to cause stronger cytotoxic or endocrine disrupting effects than the active ingredient glyphosate alone. Questions related to hazards and corresponding risks identified in relation to this active ingredient and its formulated herbicide preparations divide scientific circles and official health and environmental authorities and organizations, and touch upon fundamental aspects of risk assessment and product regulation. The decision has to consider both hazard-based (IARC) and risk-based analysis (EFSA); the former may not be suitable to calculate practical significances, and the latter being challenged if exposure estimations are uncertain in light of new data on residue levels. The results of current analytical surveys on surface water are particularly worrisome. In turn, the precautionary principle appears to be the optimal approach in this case for regulation in the EU.

Blood biomarkers of herbicide, insecticide, and fungicide toxicity to fish-a review.

Abstract: Pesticides are widely used in the world agriculture, and they may adversely affect non-target organisms, including fish. The present 2000–2019 literature review summarizes hematological and blood biochemical effects of various herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides in fish. The observed changes usually indicate anemia and inflammation, as well as hyperglycemia, hypoproteinemia, increase in cortisol concentration and activities of hepatic aminotransferases that are typical for intoxication and stress. Other changes that are also sometimes observed such as increase in red blood parameters indicate compensatory response. The often-noted symptoms of immunosuppression show an adverse effect of pesticides on immune system and possible immunosuppression. Pathophysiological changes in fish induced by pesticides depend on many factors, such as active compound and its concentration, exposure duration, fish species, environmental conditions, etc. Hematological and blood biochemical parameters appear to be useful biomarkers for evaluation of physiological state of fish exposed to pesticides; however, they are not specific markers of intoxication.

Impact of the glyphosate-based commercial herbicide, its components and its metabolite AMPA on non-target aquatic organisms.

Abstract: Glyphosate (GLY) is the active ingredient of several herbicide formulations widely used to control weeds in agricultural and non-agricultural areas. Due to the intensive use of GLY-based herbicides and their direct application on soils, some of their components, including the active ingredient, may reach the aquatic environment through direct run-off and leaching. The present study assessed the acute toxicity and genotoxicity of the GLY-based formulation Atanor 48 (ATN) and its major constituents GLY, surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), as well as the main metabolite of GLY aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) on non-target aquatic organisms. The toxic effects of these chemicals were evaluated in the fish embryo acute toxicity test with zebrafish (Danio rerio), while genotoxic effects were investigated in the comet assays with cells from zebrafish larvae and rainbow trout gonad-2 (RTG-2). GLY and AMPA caused no acute toxic effect, while ATN and POEA induced significant lethal effects in zebrafish (LC50-96 h 76.50 mg/L and 5.49 mg/L, respectively). All compounds were genotoxic in comet experiments with zebrafish larvae (LOEC 1.7 mg/L for GLY, ATN, AMPA and 0.4 mg/L for POEA). Unlike in vivo, only POEA induced DNA damage in RTG-2 cells (LOEC 1.6 mg/L), suggesting that it is a direct acting genotoxic agent. In summary, these data indicate that the lethal effects on zebrafish early-life stages can be ranked in the following order from most to least toxic: surfactant POEA > formulation ATN > active ingredient GLY ≈ metabolite AMPA. Genotoxic effects were observed in both RTG-2 cells (only POEA) and zebrafish (all test compounds) with the lowest tested concentrations. Therefore, it is important to evaluate different toxicological endpoints as well as use different non-target organisms to predict the hazards of GLY-based formulations and their components and breakdown product to aquatic biota.