Literature DB >> 24632063

Reduction of misleading ("false") positive results in mammalian cell genotoxicity assays. III: sensitivity of human cell types to known genotoxic agents.

Paul Fowler1, Robert Smith2, Katie Smith2, Jamie Young3, Laura Jeffrey2, Paul Carmichael4, David Kirkland5, Stefan Pfuhler6.   

Abstract

We have demonstrated previously that the seemingly high rate of "false" or "misleading" positive results from in vitro micronucleus assays (MNvit) was greater when rodent derived cell lines and certain toxicity measures, such as relative cell count or replication index, were used. These studies suggested that the use of a human cell type with functional p53 and a toxicity measure that included a function of cell proliferation could dramatically reduce the detection of misleading positive results. A reduced "false positive rate" should not be at the expense of a loss of sensitivity of the assay. Therefore, we have investigated the sensitivity of the MNvit assay to known genotoxic agents using three cell types shown previously to be less prone to misleading positives, namely human lymphocytes (HuLy), TK6 and HepG2 cells. The 17 chemicals are well characterised and are from a list of chemicals known to produce positive results in in vitro mammalian cell assays. These data demonstrated a high sensitivity of the assay in which TK6 and HuLy cells were employed, such that 15 out of the 17 chemicals were correctly identified. By contrast, the use of HepG2 cells resulted in far fewer than expected positive responses. In conclusion, using TK6 and HuLy cells in preference to long established rodent cell lines in order to improve specificity does not compromise the sensitivity of the MNvit to detect known genotoxic agents.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Genotoxicity; Human cells; Misleading positive results; Sensitivity

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24632063     DOI: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2014.03.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen        ISSN: 1383-5718            Impact factor:   2.873


  13 in total

1.  Evaluating the potential genotoxicity of phthalates esters (PAEs) in perfumes using in vitro assays.

Authors:  Iman Al-Saleh; Tahreer Al-Rajudi; Ghofran Al-Qudaihi; Pulicat Manogaran
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2017-09-05       Impact factor: 4.223

2.  Development and Application of TK6-derived Cells Expressing Human Cytochrome P450s for Genotoxicity Testing.

Authors:  Xilin Li; Si Chen; Xiaoqing Guo; Qiangen Wu; Ji-Eun Seo; Lei Guo; Mugimane G Manjanatha; Tong Zhou; Kristine L Witt; Nan Mei
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 4.849

3.  The in vitro micronucleus assay using imaging flow cytometry and deep learning.

Authors:  Matthew A Rodrigues; Christine E Probst; Artiom Zayats; Bryan Davidson; Michael Riedel; Yang Li; Vidya Venkatachalam
Journal:  NPJ Syst Biol Appl       Date:  2021-05-18

4.  Automation of the in vitro micronucleus assay using the Imagestream® imaging flow cytometer.

Authors:  Matthew A Rodrigues
Journal:  Cytometry A       Date:  2018-08-17       Impact factor: 4.355

5.  High-content imaging analyses of γH2AX-foci and micronuclei in TK6 cells elucidated genotoxicity of chemicals and their clastogenic/aneugenic mode of action.

Authors:  Akira Takeiri; Kaori Matsuzaki; Shigeki Motoyama; Mariko Yano; Asako Harada; Chiaki Katoh; Kenji Tanaka; Masayuki Mishima
Journal:  Genes Environ       Date:  2019-02-05

6.  Cytome micronucleus assays with a metabolically competent human derived liver cell line (Huh6): A promising approach for routine testing of chemicals?

Authors:  Miroslav Mišík; Armen Nersesyan; Claudia Bolognesi; Michael Kundi; Franziska Ferk; Siegfried Knasmueller
Journal:  Environ Mol Mutagen       Date:  2018-11-08       Impact factor: 3.216

7.  Genetic toxicity assessment of engineered nanoparticles using a 3D in vitro skin model (EpiDerm™).

Authors:  John W Wills; Nicole Hondow; Adam D Thomas; Katherine E Chapman; David Fish; Thierry G Maffeis; Mark W Penny; Richard A Brown; Gareth J S Jenkins; Andy P Brown; Paul A White; Shareen H Doak
Journal:  Part Fibre Toxicol       Date:  2016-09-09       Impact factor: 9.400

8.  Correlation between the results of in vitro and in vivo chromosomal damage tests in consideration of exposure levels of test chemicals.

Authors:  Eiji Yamamura; Chinami Aruga; Shigeharu Muto; Nobuyuki Baba; Yoshifumi Uno
Journal:  Genes Environ       Date:  2018-03-06

9.  Development of an in vitro PIG-A gene mutation assay in human cells.

Authors:  Benjamin J Rees; Matthew Tate; Anthony M Lynch; Catherine A Thornton; Gareth J Jenkins; Richard M Walmsley; George E Johnson
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 2.954

10.  In Silico Model for Chemical-Induced Chromosomal Damages Elucidates Mode of Action and Irrelevant Positives.

Authors:  Yurika Fujita; Osamu Morita; Hiroshi Honda
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2020-10-11       Impact factor: 4.096

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.