Literature DB >> 1279398

Frequency and nature of specific-locus mutations induced in female mice by radiations and chemicals: a review.

L B Russell1, W L Russell.   

Abstract

The inducibility of heritable mutations in female mammals has been measured in the mouse specific-locus test (SLT). For radiation-induced mutations, a large body of data has been accumulated that includes information about biological and physical factors that influence mutation yields. However, relatively few SLT studies in females have been conducted with chemicals to date. A single estimate of the spontaneous mutation rate in oocytes, 6/536,207, has been derived as the most appropriate one to subtract from experimental rates. This rate is highly significantly below the spontaneous mutation rate in males. Mutations recovered from females mutagenized at any time after about the 12th day post-conception are induced in non-dividing cells. In adult females, most oocytes are arrested in small follicles; maturation from this stage to ovulation takes several weeks. High-dose-rate radiations are more mutagenic in mature and maturing oocytes than in spermatogonia of the male; on the other hand, no clearly induced mutations have been recovered from irradiated arrested oocytes. Efficient repair processes have been invoked to explain the latter finding as well as the upward-curving dose-effect relation for acute irradiation, and the fact that dose protraction drastically reduces mutation yield from mature and maturing oocytes. The dose-protraction effect is much greater than that found in spermatogonia. Radiation-induced mutation rates in embryonic, fetal, and newborn females are overall lower than those in the mature and maturing oocytes of adults. A dose-protraction effect has also been demonstrated at an early developmental stage when the nuclear morphology of mouse oocytes most resembles that of the human. Of only 5 chemicals so far explored for their effect in oocytes, 2 (ethylnitrosourea, ENU, and triethylenemelamine, TEM), and possibly a third (procarbazine hydrochloride, PRC), are mutagenic--with at least one of these (ENU) mutagenic in arrested as well as maturing oocytes. However, the mutation rate is, in each case, lower than for treated male germ cells. By contrast, ENU-induced mutation yield for the maternal genome of the zygote is an order of magnitude higher than that for the zygote's paternal genome or for spermatogonia. A high proportion of mutants derived from chemical treatment of oocytes (including the oocyte genome in zygotes) are mosaics, probably owing to lesions affecting only 1 strand of the DNA. A characteristic of specific-locus mutations induced in oocytes is that they include a considerably higher percentage of large (multi-locus) lesions (LLs) than do mutations induced in spermatogonia.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1279398     DOI: 10.1016/0165-1110(92)90035-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mutat Res        ISSN: 0027-5107            Impact factor:   2.433


  18 in total

1.  DNA damage, DNA repair, cell proliferation, and DNA replication: how do gene mutations result?

Authors:  J P O'Neill
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2000-10-10       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Medical radiation exposure and risk of retinoblastoma resulting from new germline RB1 mutation.

Authors:  Greta R Bunin; Marc A Felice; William Davidson; Debra L Friedman; Carol L Shields; Andrew Maidment; Michael O'Shea; Kim E Nichols; Ann Leahey; Ira J Dunkel; Rima Jubran; Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo; Mary Lou Schmidt; Joanna L Weinstein; Stewart Goldman; David H Abramson; Matthew W Wilson; Brenda L Gallie; Helen S L Chan; Michael Shapiro; Avital Cnaan; Arupa Ganguly; Anna T Meadows
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2011-05-15       Impact factor: 7.396

3.  Clusters of identical new mutation in the evolutionary landscape.

Authors:  R C Woodruff; H Huai; J N Thompson
Journal:  Genetica       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 1.082

4.  Enhanced genetic integrity in mouse germ cells.

Authors:  Patricia Murphey; Derek J McLean; C Alex McMahan; Christi A Walter; John R McCarrey
Journal:  Biol Reprod       Date:  2013-01-03       Impact factor: 4.285

5.  Air pollution induces heritable DNA mutations.

Authors:  Christopher M Somers; Carole L Yauk; Paul A White; Craig L J Parfett; James S Quinn
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2002-12-09       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Dynamic Variations in Genetic Integrity Accompany Changes in Cell Fate.

Authors:  I-Chung Chen; Christine Hernandez; Xueping Xu; Austin Cooney; Yufeng Wang; John R McCarrey
Journal:  Stem Cells Dev       Date:  2016-10-12       Impact factor: 3.272

Review 7.  The high spontaneous mutation rate: is it a health risk?

Authors:  J F Crow
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1997-08-05       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Creating a "hopeful monster": mouse forward genetic screens.

Authors:  Vanessa L Horner; Tamara Caspary
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2011

9.  Single nucleotide polymorphism profiling assay to confirm the identity of human tissues.

Authors:  Ronald Huijsmans; Jan Damen; Hans van der Linden; Mirjam Hermans
Journal:  J Mol Diagn       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 5.568

10.  Assessing human germ-cell mutagenesis in the Postgenome Era: a celebration of the legacy of William Lawson (Bill) Russell.

Authors:  Andrew J Wyrobek; John J Mulvihill; John S Wassom; Heinrich V Malling; Michael D Shelby; Susan E Lewis; Kristine L Witt; R Julian Preston; Sally D Perreault; James W Allen; David M Demarini; Richard P Woychik; Jack B Bishop
Journal:  Environ Mol Mutagen       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 3.216

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.