This research reveals cytotoxic and genotoxic effects of soluble copper chloride in macrophages, suggesting mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative stress contribute to immunotoxicity.
Copper (Cu) is an essential trace element required for mitochondrial respiration and antioxidant defence; however, excessive copper exposure disrupts redox homeostasis via Fenton-like reactions, resulting in the overproduction of reactive oxygen species (ROS). This study investigated the cytotoxic, genotoxic, and apoptotic effects of soluble copper(II) chloride (CuCl₂) in RAW264.7 macrophages. Concentration- and time-dependent decreases in cell viability were observed following 6, 12, and 24 h exposures. The IC₅₀ values calculated from viability data were 23.44, 15.93, and 13.24 µM at 6, 12, and 24 h, respectively; notably, the 40 µM concentration was excluded from IC₅₀ determination because viability fell below 20%, representing nonspecific terminal cytotoxicity. Based on these IC₅₀ values, sub-IC₅₀ concentrations of 5–20 µM were selected, and mechanistic assays were subsequently performed after 24 h of CuCl₂ treatment. CuCl₂ exposure led to a concentration-dependent decrease in DNA strand breaks, micronucleus formation, and a reduced cytokinesis-block proliferation index. Elevated ROS levels were associated with mitochondrial depolarization, cytochrome c release, and the activation of caspase-3, -8, and − 9, indicating the involvement of both intrinsic and extrinsic apoptotic pathways. Previous copper toxicology studies typically evaluated isolated endpoints or single mechanistic pathways. In contrast, this study integrates time-course cytotoxicity with multiple mechanistically related endpoints under uniform experimental conditions, enabling a more comprehensive interpretation of Cu²⁺-induced immunotoxicity in macrophages. Collectively, these results support a model in which oxidative stress and mitochondrial impairment contribute to CuCl₂-induced immunotoxicity and genotoxic injury in macrophages.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tsai et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: