Literature DB >> 16963170

The mouse lymphoma thymidine kinase assay for the assessment and comparison of the mutagenic activity of cigarette mainstream smoke particulate phase.

H Schramke1, T J Meisgen, F J Tewes, W Gomm, E Roemer.   

Abstract

The mouse lymphoma thymidine kinase assay (MLA) has been optimized to quantitatively determine the in vitro mutagenicity of cigarette mainstream smoke particulate phase. To test whether the MLA is able to discriminate between different cigarette types, specially constructed cigarettes each containing a single tobacco type - Bright, Burley, or Oriental - were investigated. The mutagenic activity of the Burley cigarette was statistically significantly lower, up to approximately 40%, than that of the Bright and Oriental cigarettes. To determine the impact of two different sets of smoking conditions, American-blend cigarettes were smoked under US Federal Trade Commission/International Organisation for Standardisation conditions and under Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH) conditions. Conventional cigarettes - eight from the US commercial market plus the Reference Cigarettes 1R4F and 2R4F - and an electrically heated cigarette smoking system (EHCSS) prototype were tested. There were no statistically significant differences between the two sets of smoking conditions on a per mg total particulate matter basis, although there was a consistent trend towards slightly lower mutagenic activity under MDPH conditions. The mutagenic activity of the EHCSS prototype was distinctly lower than that of the conventional cigarettes under both sets of smoking conditions. These results show that the MLA can be used to assess and compare the mutagenic activity of cigarette mainstream smoke particulate phase in the comprehensive toxicological assessment of cigarette smoke.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16963170     DOI: 10.1016/j.tox.2006.07.019

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Toxicology        ISSN: 0300-483X            Impact factor:   4.221


  7 in total

Review 1.  Evaluation of in vitro assays for assessing the toxicity of cigarette smoke and smokeless tobacco.

Authors:  Michael D Johnson; Jodi Schilz; Mirjana V Djordjevic; Jerry R Rice; Peter G Shields
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 2.  Scientific assessment of the use of sugars as cigarette tobacco ingredients: a review of published and other publicly available studies.

Authors:  Ewald Roemer; Matthias K Schorp; Jean-Jacques Piadé; Jeffrey I Seeman; Donald E Leyden; Hans-Juergen Haussmann
Journal:  Crit Rev Toxicol       Date:  2012-01-21       Impact factor: 5.635

3.  Quantitative differentiation of whole smoke solution-induced mutagenicity in the mouse lymphoma assay.

Authors:  Xiaoqing Guo; Robert H Heflich; Stacey L Dial; Mamata De; Patricia A Richter; Nan Mei
Journal:  Environ Mol Mutagen       Date:  2017-11-09       Impact factor: 3.216

Review 4.  The in vitro toxicology of Swedish snus.

Authors:  Christopher R E Coggins; Mark Ballantyne; Margareta Curvall; Lars-Erik Rutqvist
Journal:  Crit Rev Toxicol       Date:  2012-03-09       Impact factor: 5.635

5.  Development, qualification, validation and application of the Ames test using a VITROCELL® VC10® smoke exposure system.

Authors:  Kathy Fowler; Wanda Fields; Victoria Hargreaves; Lesley Reeve; Betsy Bombick
Journal:  Toxicol Rep       Date:  2018-04-12

6.  Reduced toxicological activity of cigarette smoke by the addition of ammonia magnesium phosphate to the paper of an electrically heated cigarette: subchronic inhalation toxicology.

Authors:  O Moennikes; P M Vanscheeuwijck; B Friedrichs; E Anskeit; G J Patskan
Journal:  Inhal Toxicol       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 2.724

7.  CSEO - the Cigarette Smoke Exposure Ontology.

Authors:  Erfan Younesi; Sam Ansari; Michaela Guendel; Shiva Ahmadi; Chris Coggins; Julia Hoeng; Martin Hofmann-Apitius; Manuel C Peitsch
Journal:  J Biomed Semantics       Date:  2014-07-10
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.