Literature DB >> 31708073

Recommended criteria for the evaluation of bacterial mutagenicity data (Ames test).

Dan D Levy1, Errol Zeiger2, Patricia A Escobar3, Atsushi Hakura4, Bas-Jan M van der Leede5, Masayuki Kato6, Martha M Moore7, Kei-Ichi Sugiyama8.   

Abstract

A committee was constituted within the International Workshop on Genetic Toxicology Testing (IWGT) to evaluate the current criteria for a valid Ames test and to provide recommendations for interpretation of test results. Currently, determination of a positive vs. a negative result is made by applying various data evaluation procedures for comparing dosed plates with the concurrent solvent control plates. These evaluation procedures include a requirement for a specific fold increase (2- or 3-fold, specific to the bacterial strain), formal statistical procedures, or subjective (expert judgment) evaluation. After extensive discussion, the workgroup was not able to reach consensus recommendations in favor of any of these procedures. There was a consensus that combining additional evaluation criteria to the comparison between dosed plates and the concurrent solvent control plates improves test interpretation. The workgroup recommended using these additional criteria because the induction of mutations is a continuum of responses and there is no biological relevance to a strict dividing line between a positive (mutagenic) and not-positive (nonmutagenic) response. The most useful additional criteria identified were a concentration-response relationship and consideration of a possible increase above the concurrent control in the context of the laboratory's historical solvent control values for the particular tester strain. The workgroup also emphasized the need for additional testing to resolve weak or inconclusive responses, usually with altered experimental conditions chosen based on the initial results. Use of these multiple criteria allowed the workgroup to reach consensus on definitions of "clear positive" and "clear negative" responses which would not require a repeat test for clarification. The workgroup also reached consensus on recommendations to compare the responses of concurrent positive and negative controls to historical control distributions for assay acceptability, and the use of control charts to determine the validity of the individual test. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Keywords:  Ames; Interpretation criteria; Regulatory testing

Year:  2019        PMID: 31708073     DOI: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2019.07.004

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


  9 in total

1.  Genotoxicity test of eight natural color additives in the Korean market.

Authors:  Byungkyung Do; Hoonjeong Kwon
Journal:  Genes Environ       Date:  2022-06-08

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

3.  Comparative Analysis of Transcriptional Responses to Genotoxic and Non-Genotoxic Agents in the Blood Cell Model TK6 and the Liver Model HepaRG.

Authors:  Katrin Kreuzer; Heike Sprenger; Albert Braeuning
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2022-03-22       Impact factor: 5.923

4.  The effect of alkyl substitution on the oxidative metabolism and mutagenicity of phenanthrene.

Authors:  Danlei Wang; Viktoria Schramm; Jeroen Pool; Eleni Pardali; Annemarijn Brandenburg; Ivonne M C M Rietjens; Peter J Boogaard
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2022-02-19       Impact factor: 5.153

5.  Ligand-based design and synthesis of N'-Benzylidene-3,4-dimethoxybenzohydrazide derivatives as potential antimicrobial agents; evaluation by in vitro, in vivo, and in silico approaches with SAR studies.

Authors:  Rogy R Ezz Eldin; Marwa A Saleh; Mohammad Hayal Alotaibi; Reem K Alsuair; Yahya A Alzahrani; Feras A Alshehri; Amany F Mohamed; Shaimaa M Hafez; Azza Ali Althoqapy; Seham K Khirala; Mona M Amin; Yousuf A F; Azza H AbdElwahab; Mohamed S Alesawy; Ayman Abo Elmaaty; Ahmed A Al-Karmalawy
Journal:  J Enzyme Inhib Med Chem       Date:  2022-12       Impact factor: 5.756

6.  Ligand-based design, synthesis, computational insights, and in vitro studies of novel N-(5-Nitrothiazol-2-yl)-carboxamido derivatives as potent inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 main protease.

Authors:  Mohamed Elagawany; Ayman Abo Elmaaty; Ahmed Mostafa; Noura M Abo Shama; Eman Y Santali; Bahaa Elgendy; Ahmed A Al-Karmalawy
Journal:  J Enzyme Inhib Med Chem       Date:  2022-12       Impact factor: 5.756

7.  Nano-Ag Particles Embedded in C-Matrix: Preparation, Properties and Application in Cell Metabolism.

Authors:  Sylwia Terpilowska; Stanislaw Gluszek; Elzbieta Czerwosz; Halina Wronka; Piotr Firek; Jan Szmidt; Malgorzata Suchanska; Justyna Keczkowska; Bozena Kaczmarska; Mirosław Kozlowski; Ryszard Diduszko
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-24       Impact factor: 3.748

8.  Genetic Toxicology and Safety Pharmacological Evaluation of Forsythin.

Authors:  Zhong Han; Jianmin Guo; Feibiao Meng; Haifeng Liao; Yinghua Deng; Yuankeng Huang; Xialing Lei; Chun Liang; Richou Han; Wei Yang
Journal:  Evid Based Complement Alternat Med       Date:  2021-06-18       Impact factor: 2.629

9.  Evaluation of the in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity of a Dioscorea Rhizome water extract.

Authors:  Seung-Beom Cha; Seong-Sook Kim; Jeong-Ja Oh; Woo-Joo Lee; Si-Whan Song; Je-Oh Lim; Jong-Choon Kim
Journal:  Toxicol Res       Date:  2021-01-02
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.