Cell viability reduced with increasing methylisothiazolinone, indicating nephrotoxicity via apoptosis in HEK293 cells.
Objectives: Methylisothiazolinone (MIT) is a widely used synthetic biocide in industrial, household, and cosmetic products. There is insufficient information about its nephrotoxic potential, although it causes skin sensitivities or ecological problems. We investigated MIT-induced nephrotoxicity and molecular mechanisms in human embryonic kidney (HEK293) cells.Materials and Methods: Cell viability was assessed using the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay. Apoptotic/necrotic cells were defined by Annexin V/ Propidium iodide (PI) assay, inflammatory responses were quantified by LEGENDPlex™, and the protein expression levels of apoptotic-, cell survival-, and angiogenic-related biomarkers were determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).Results: The IC50 was 301.67 µM. MIT triggers concentration-dependent apoptosis about 34.46% at the highest exposed concentration, with late apoptosis being the primary mechanism of cell death. Interleukin-6 (IL-6) and IL-8 levels were significantly elevated at 75 µM as 3.43-fold and 2.34-fold, respectively, while monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1) levels were dramatically suppressed to 97%. The intrinsic apoptotic pathway was activated by significant upregulation of p53 (14.8-fold), Β-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL-2) associated X protein (BAX) (10.0-fold), and apoptotic protease activating factor-1 (APAF-1) (6.1-fold), along with a disruption in the BAX/BCL-2 balance. The elevation in cyclooxygenase (COX), COX-2, Src Kinase (SRC), and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR2) levels showed stress-induced pro-survival signaling.Conclusion: The results imply a possible link between systemic absorption and renal-related safety considerations, supporting that existing safety thresholds may benefit from further evaluation for products with potential mucosal or ingestive exposure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Özhan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: