Literature DB >> 29119619

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

Xiaoqing Guo1, Robert H Heflich1, Stacey L Dial1, Mamata De2, Patricia A Richter2, Nan Mei1.   

Abstract

In vitro genotoxicity dose-response data have been investigated for their utility in modeling and assessing potential differences in mutagenic responses between machine-generated whole smoke solutions (WSSs) from combusted cigarette tobacco products. Our previous study observed that potency ranking by benchmark dose (BMD) analysis was a useful modeling approach for quantitative assessment of differences between the mutagenicity of several structurally diverse chemical constituents of cigarette smoke. To follow-up on these observations, we used the mouse lymphoma assay (MLA) to evaluate the mutagenicity of WSSs prepared from two commercial cigarettes smoked under two different smoking machine regimens. L5178Y cells were exposed to ≥5 concentrations of each WSS for 4 hr ± S9 activation. S9 reduced the cytotoxicity and enhanced the mutagenicity of the WSSs. The resulting S9-mediated mutagenicity dose-responses were compared between test articles using BMD analysis, the lowest dose exceeding the Global Evaluation Factor, the no observed or lowest observed genotoxic effect level, and the mutagenic potency. The BMD10 , BMD50 , BMD100 , and BMD200 , indicating a 10%, 50%, 100%, or 200% increase in the background mutant frequency, respectively, were calculated using the PROAST software package. Overall, the quantitative approaches resulted in a similar rank order of mutagenic potency for the MLA tested WSSs, with potency increasing with the level of tar. The BMD approach using covariate analysis produced the most informative comparisons. Differences in potency were associated with the number of cigarettes smoked, the cigarette product smoked, and the smoking machine protocol used to prepare the sample. Under the conditions of this study, these results suggest that our hypothesis of modeling MLA data using the BMD approach to quantitatively discriminate between the mutagenic potential of WSSs from combustible cigarettes might be an useful method. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 59:103-113, 2018. Published 2017. This article is a US Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
© 2017. This article is a US Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Entities:  

Keywords:  benchmark dose; mouse lymphoma assay; quantitative analysis; whole smoke solution

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29119619      PMCID: PMC8142256          DOI: 10.1002/em.22151

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


  22 in total

Review 1.  Nature and nurture - lessons from chemical carcinogenesis.

Authors:  Andreas Luch
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 60.716

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

Authors:  H Schramke; T J Meisgen; F J Tewes; W Gomm; E Roemer
Journal:  Toxicology       Date:  2006-07-29       Impact factor: 4.221

3.  Evaluation method for the cytotoxicity of cigarette smoke by in vitro whole smoke exposure.

Authors:  Xiang Li; Cong Nie; Pingping Shang; Fuwei Xie; Huimin Liu; Jianping Xie
Journal:  Exp Toxicol Pathol       Date:  2013-08-22

4.  Quantitative analysis of the relative mutagenicity of five chemical constituents of tobacco smoke in the mouse lymphoma assay.

Authors:  Xiaoqing Guo; Robert H Heflich; Stacey L Dial; Patricia A Richter; Martha M Moore; Nan Mei
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  2015-05-22       Impact factor: 3.000

5.  Mouse lymphoma thymidine kinase gene mutation assay: follow-up meeting of the International Workshop on Genotoxicity Testing--Aberdeen, Scotland, 2003--Assay acceptance criteria, positive controls, and data evaluation.

Authors:  Martha M Moore; Masamitsu Honma; Julie Clements; George Bolcsfoldi; Brian Burlinson; Maria Cifone; Jane Clarke; Robert Delongchamp; Robert Durward; Michael Fellows; Bhaskar Gollapudi; Saimei Hou; Peter Jenkinson; Melvin Lloyd; Jenness Majeska; Brian Myhr; Michael O'Donovan; Takashi Omori; Colin Riach; Richard San; Leon F Stankowski; Ajit K Thakur; Freddy Van Goethem; Shinobu Wakuri; Isao Yoshimura
Journal:  Environ Mol Mutagen       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 3.216

6.  A method for assessment of the genotoxicity of mainstream cigarette-smoke by use of the bacterial reverse-mutation assay and an aerosol-based exposure system.

Authors:  Joanne Kilford; David Thorne; Rebecca Payne; Annette Dalrymple; Julie Clements; Clive Meredith; Debbie Dillon
Journal:  Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen       Date:  2014-05-13       Impact factor: 2.873

7.  Dose-response assessment of naphthalene-induced genotoxicity and glutathione detoxication in human TK6 lymphoblasts.

Authors:  Leslie Recio; Kim G Shepard; Lya G Hernández; Gregory L Kedderis
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2012-01-17       Impact factor: 4.849

8.  IWGT report on quantitative approaches to genotoxicity risk assessment I. Methods and metrics for defining exposure-response relationships and points of departure (PoDs).

Authors:  James T MacGregor; Roland Frötschl; Paul A White; Kenny S Crump; David A Eastmond; Shoji Fukushima; Melanie Guérard; Makoto Hayashi; Lya G Soeteman-Hernández; Toshio Kasamatsu; Dan D Levy; Takeshi Morita; Lutz Müller; Rita Schoeny; Maik J Schuler; Véronique Thybaud; George E Johnson
Journal:  Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen       Date:  2014-10-13       Impact factor: 2.873

9.  A mode-of-action approach for the identification of genotoxic carcinogens.

Authors:  Lya G Hernández; Jan van Benthem; George E Johnson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-05-13       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Derivation of point of departure (PoD) estimates in genetic toxicology studies and their potential applications in risk assessment.

Authors:  G E Johnson; L G Soeteman-Hernández; B B Gollapudi; O G Bodger; K L Dearfield; R H Heflich; J G Hixon; D P Lovell; J T MacGregor; L H Pottenger; C M Thompson; L Abraham; V Thybaud; J Y Tanir; E Zeiger; J van Benthem; P A White
Journal:  Environ Mol Mutagen       Date:  2014-05-06       Impact factor: 3.216

View more
  3 in total

1.  Comparative Genotoxicity of TEMPO and 3 of Its Derivatives in Mouse Lymphoma Cells.

Authors:  Xiaoqing Guo; Ji-Eun Seo; Steven M Bryce; Jenna A Tan; Qiangen Wu; Stacey L Dial; Martha M Moore; Nan Mei
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2018-05-01       Impact factor: 4.849

2.  Comparative potency analysis of whole smoke solutions in the bacterial reverse mutation test.

Authors:  Fanxue Meng; Nan Mei; Jian Yan; Xiaoqing Guo; Patricia A Richter; Tao Chen; Mamata De
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  2021-08-27       Impact factor: 3.000

Review 3.  Benchmark Dose Modeling of In Vitro Genotoxicity Data: a Reanalysis.

Authors:  Xiaoqing Guo; Nan Mei
Journal:  Toxicol Res       Date:  2018-10-15
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.