Literature DB >> 2200948

Comparison of Salmonella typhimurium TA102 with Escherichia coli WP2 tester strains.

P Wilcox1, A Naidoo, D J Wedd, D G Gatehouse.   

Abstract

In 1982, Levin et al. published a paper describing a new Salmonella typhimurium strain, TA102, for detecting mutagenic agents that react preferentially with AT base pairs. This strain has an AT base pair at the critical mutation site within the hisG gene, which is located on a multicopy plasmid, pAQ1; the chromosomal copy of the hisG gene has been deleted. It also has an intact excision repair system, thus facilitating the detection of cross-linking agents, and carries the mutator plasmid, pKM101. Although TA102 has been shown to be reverted by certain mutagenic agents that are not detected in the usual battery of strains (TA1535, TA1537, TA1538, TA98 and TA100), there has been a general reluctance within the field to include TA102 as one of the standard screening strains. This may in part result from the difficulties which have been experienced in many laboratories in maintaining the strain, and in obtaining reproducible spontaneous and induced revertant counts. At Glaxo we routinely include certain Escherichia coli strains in our microbial test battery, and were aware that some of the genetic features offered by TA102 were already being covered by these strains. For example, E.coli WP2 (pKM101) has an AT base pair at the critical mutation site within the trpE gene, is excision proficient (and thus will detect cross-linking agents) and carries the pKM101 plasmid to enhance error-prone repair. From the published literature it was apparent that a number of the 'TA102 specific' mutagens could be detected in E.coli e.g. neocarzinostatin, UV and 8-MOP plus UV.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2200948     DOI: 10.1093/mutage/5.3.285

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mutagenesis        ISSN: 0267-8357            Impact factor:   3.000


  3 in total

1.  In Silico Approaches In Carcinogenicity Hazard Assessment: Current Status and Future Needs.

Authors:  Raymond R Tice; Arianna Bassan; Alexander Amberg; Lennart T Anger; Marc A Beal; Phillip Bellion; Romualdo Benigni; Jeffrey Birmingham; Alessandro Brigo; Frank Bringezu; Lidia Ceriani; Ian Crooks; Kevin Cross; Rosalie Elespuru; David M Faulkner; Marie C Fortin; Paul Fowler; Markus Frericks; Helga H J Gerets; Gloria D Jahnke; David R Jones; Naomi L Kruhlak; Elena Lo Piparo; Juan Lopez-Belmonte; Amarjit Luniwal; Alice Luu; Federica Madia; Serena Manganelli; Balasubramanian Manickam; Jordi Mestres; Amy L Mihalchik-Burhans; Louise Neilson; Arun Pandiri; Manuela Pavan; Cynthia V Rider; John P Rooney; Alejandra Trejo-Martin; Karen H Watanabe-Sailor; Angela T White; David Woolley; Glenn J Myatt
Journal:  Comput Toxicol       Date:  2021-09-23

2.  In vitro genotoxicity evaluation and metabolic study of residual glutaraldehyde in animal-derived biomaterials.

Authors:  Jianfeng Shi; Huan Lian; Yuanli Huang; Danmei Zhao; Han Wang; Chunren Wang; Jingli Li; Linnan Ke
Journal:  Regen Biomater       Date:  2020-10-24

3.  Microbial Mutagenicity Assay: Ames Test.

Authors:  Urvashi Vijay; Sonal Gupta; Priyanka Mathur; Prashanth Suravajhala; Pradeep Bhatnagar
Journal:  Bio Protoc       Date:  2018-03-20
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.