Literature DB >> 2209576

Comparison of the Salmonella (Ames) test, umu tests, and the SOS Chromotests for detecting genotoxins.

A E McDaniels1, A L Reyes, L J Wymer, C C Rankin, G N Stelma.   

Abstract

The limits of detection of 10 genotoxins representing 7 chemical classes with varying structures and modes of action were compared using the Ames test (Salmonella plate-incorporation test) with 2 tester strains, 2 standard colorimetric methods (the umu test and SOS Chromotest), and modifications of the umu and SOS Chromotests developed during the course of this study. The purpose of the study was to determine the sensitivity and reproducibility of each of the six methods. The sensitivities of the methods were compared using two criteria: the concentrations required for doubling responses, and the minimum concentrations required to produce statistically significant increases from background controls. The Ames test with strains TA98 and TA100 was ranked as the most sensitive method more often than the others, but the results indicated that the umu tests were statistically equivalent to the Ames test. The original SOS Chromotest kit method was highly sensitive in detecting the direct acting genotoxins, but neither SOS test was as sensitive as the other methods in detecting indirect acting genotoxins. The umu microtiter plate test is the least expensive of the assays and would be the most suitable for screening large numbers of environmental samples.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2209576     DOI: 10.1002/em.2850160308

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Mol Mutagen        ISSN: 0893-6692            Impact factor:   3.216


  8 in total

1.  Salmonella mutagenicity analysis of water samples from Camalti Saltern.

Authors:  Mehtap Kutlu; M Burçin Mutlu; Gözde Aydoğan; Kiymet Güven
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2007-12-20       Impact factor: 2.513

2.  Physicochemical characteristics, mutagenicity and genotoxicity of airborne particles under industrial and rural influences in Northern Lebanon.

Authors:  Pamela N Melki; Frédéric Ledoux; Samer Aouad; Sylvain Billet; Bilal El Khoury; Yann Landkocz; Roula M Abdel-Massih; Dominique Courcot
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2017-06-15       Impact factor: 4.223

3.  Genotoxicity of 12 Mycotoxins by the SOS/umu Test: Comparison of Liver and Kidney S9 Fraction.

Authors:  Maria Alonso-Jauregui; Elena González-Peñas; Adela López de Cerain; Ariane Vettorazzi
Journal:  Toxins (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-10       Impact factor: 5.075

4.  A biosensor for environmental genotoxin screening based on an SOS lux assay in recombinant Escherichia coli cells.

Authors:  L R Ptitsyn; G Horneck; O Komova; S Kozubek; E A Krasavin; M Bonev; P Rettberg
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 4.792

5.  Completely automated short-term genotoxicity testing for the assessment of chemicals and characterisation of contaminated soils and waste waters.

Authors:  Corinna Brinkmann; Adolf Eisentraeger
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 4.223

Review 6.  Bacterial genotoxicity bioreporters.

Authors:  Alva Biran; Sharon Yagur-Kroll; Rami Pedahzur; Sebastian Buchinger; Georg Reifferscheid; Hadar Ben-Yoav; Yosi Shacham-Diamand; Shimshon Belkin
Journal:  Microb Biotechnol       Date:  2009-12-29       Impact factor: 5.813

7.  Prioritization of Mycotoxins Based on Their Genotoxic Potential with an In Silico-In Vitro Strategy.

Authors:  Maria Alonso-Jauregui; María Font; Elena González-Peñas; Adela López de Cerain; Ariane Vettorazzi
Journal:  Toxins (Basel)       Date:  2021-10-19       Impact factor: 4.546

8.  Electrochemical genotoxicity assay based on a SOS/umu test using hydrodynamic voltammetry in a droplet.

Authors:  Hideki Kuramitz; Kazuto Sazawa; Yasuaki Nanayama; Noriko Hata; Shigeru Taguchi; Kazuharu Sugawara; Masami Fukushima
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2012-12-14       Impact factor: 3.576

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.