Literature DB >> 21238603

A core in vitro genotoxicity battery comprising the Ames test plus the in vitro micronucleus test is sufficient to detect rodent carcinogens and in vivo genotoxins.

David Kirkland1, Lesley Reeve, David Gatehouse, Philippe Vanparys.   

Abstract

In vitro genotoxicity testing needs to include tests in both bacterial and mammalian cells, and be able to detect gene mutations, chromosomal damage and aneuploidy. This may be achieved by a combination of the Ames test (detects gene mutations) and the in vitro micronucleus test (MNvit), since the latter detects both chromosomal aberrations and aneuploidy. In this paper we therefore present an analysis of an existing database of rodent carcinogens and a new database of in vivo genotoxins in terms of the in vitro genotoxicity tests needed to detect their in vivo activity. Published in vitro data from at least one test system (most were from the Ames test) were available for 557 carcinogens and 405 in vivo genotoxins. Because there are fewer publications on the MNvit than for other mammalian cell tests, and because the concordance between the MNvit and the in vitro chromosomal aberration (CAvit) test is so high for clastogenic activity, positive results in the CAvit test were taken as indicative of a positive result in the MNvit where there were no, or only inadequate data for the latter. Also, because Hprt and Tk loci both detect gene-mutation activity, a positive Hprt test was taken as indicative of a mouse-lymphoma Tk assay (MLA)-positive, where there were no data for the latter. Almost all of the 962 rodent carcinogens and in vivo genotoxins were detected by an in vitro battery comprising Ames+MNvit. An additional 11 carcinogens and six in vivo genotoxins would apparently be detected by the MLA, but many of these had not been tested in the MNvit or CAvit tests. Only four chemicals emerge as potentially being more readily detected in MLA than in Ames+MNvit--benzyl acetate, toluene, morphine and thiabendazole--and none of these are convincing cases to argue for the inclusion of the MLA in addition to Ames+MNvit. Thus, there is no convincing evidence that any genotoxic rodent carcinogens or in vivo genotoxins would remain undetected in an in vitro test battery consisting of Ames+MNvit.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21238603     DOI: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2010.12.015

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


  28 in total

1.  A comparison of transgenic rodent mutation and in vivo comet assay responses for 91 chemicals.

Authors:  David Kirkland; Dan D Levy; Matthew J LeBaron; Marilyn J Aardema; Carol Beevers; Javed Bhalli; George R Douglas; Patricia A Escobar; Christopher S Farabaugh; Melanie Guerard; George E Johnson; Rohan Kulkarni; Frank Le Curieux; Alexandra S Long; Jasmin Lott; David P Lovell; Mirjam Luijten; Francesco Marchetti; John J Nicolette; Stefan Pfuhler; Daniel J Roberts; Leon F Stankowski; Veronique Thybaud; Sandy K Weiner; Andrew Williams; Kristine L Witt; Robert Young
Journal:  Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen       Date:  2019-01-18       Impact factor: 2.873

2.  Comparison of in vitro test systems using bacterial and mammalian cells for genotoxicity assessment within the "health-related indication value (HRIV) concept.

Authors:  Eva-Maria Prantl; Meike Kramer; Carsten K Schmidt; Martina Knauer; Stefan Gartiser; Aliaksandra Shuliakevich; Julia Milas; Hansruedi Glatt; Walter Meinl; Henner Hollert
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2016-12-08       Impact factor: 4.223

Review 3.  The Impact of Novel Assessment Methodologies in Toxicology on Green Chemistry and Chemical Alternatives.

Authors:  Ivan Rusyn; Nigel Greene
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 4.849

4.  The Extended ToxTracker Assay Discriminates Between Induction of DNA Damage, Oxidative Stress, and Protein Misfolding.

Authors:  Giel Hendriks; Remco S Derr; Branislav Misovic; Bruno Morolli; Fabienne M G R Calléja; Harry Vrieling
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2015-12-29       Impact factor: 4.849

5.  Biomarkers of DNA damage response improve in vitro micronucleus assays by revealing genotoxic mode of action and reducing the occurrence of irrelevant positive results.

Authors:  Svetlana Avlasevich; Tina Pellegrin; Manali Godse; Steven Bryce; Jeffrey Bemis; Peter Bajorski; Stephen Dertinger
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  2021-11-29       Impact factor: 3.000

Review 6.  Comparison of methods used for evaluation of mutagenicity/genotoxicity of model chemicals - parabens.

Authors:  J Chrz; B Hošíková; L Svobodová; D Očadlíková; H Kolářová; M Dvořáková; K Kejlová; L Malina; G Jírová; A Vlková; M Mannerström
Journal:  Physiol Res       Date:  2020-12-31       Impact factor: 1.881

7.  Seven benzimidazole pesticides combined at sub-threshold levels induce micronuclei in vitro.

Authors:  Sibylle Ermler; Martin Scholze; Andreas Kortenkamp
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  2013-04-01       Impact factor: 3.000

Review 8.  Chromium in drinking water: sources, metabolism, and cancer risks.

Authors:  Anatoly Zhitkovich
Journal:  Chem Res Toxicol       Date:  2011-07-28       Impact factor: 3.739

Review 9.  Nanoparticles: Weighing the Pros and Cons from an Eco-genotoxicological Perspective.

Authors:  Preeyaporn Koedrith; Md Mujibur Rahman; Yu Jin Jang; Dong Yeop Shin; Young Rok Seo
Journal:  J Cancer Prev       Date:  2021-06-30

10.  Appropriate in vitro methods for genotoxicity testing of silver nanoparticles.

Authors:  Ha Ryong Kim; Yong Joo Park; Da Young Shin; Seung Min Oh; Kyu Hyuck Chung
Journal:  Environ Health Toxicol       Date:  2013-02-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.