Literature DB >> 34131742

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

Fanxue Meng1, Nan Mei1, Jian Yan1, Xiaoqing Guo1, Patricia A Richter2, Tao Chen1, Mamata De2.   

Abstract

Short-term in vitro genotoxicity assays are useful tools to assess whether new and emerging tobacco products potentially have reduced toxicity. We previously demonstrated that potency ranking by benchmark dose (BMD) analysis quantitatively identifies differences among several known carcinogens and toxic chemicals representing different chemical classes found in cigarette smoke. In this study, six whole smoke solution (WSS) samples containing both the particulate and gas phases of tobacco smoke were generated from two commercial cigarette brands under different smoking-machine regimens. Sixty test cigarettes of each brand were machine-smoked according to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) puffing protocol. In addition, either 60 or 20 test cigarettes of each brand were machine-smoked with the Canadian Intense (CI) puffing protocol. All six WSSs were evaluated in the bacterial reverse mutation (Ames) test using Salmonella typhimurium strains, in the presence or absence of S9 metabolic activation. The resulting S9-mediated mutagenic concentration-responses for the four WSSs from 60 cigarettes were then compared using BMD modelling analysis and the mutagenic potency expressed as number of revertants per μl of the WSS. The quantitative approaches resulted in a similar rank order of mutagenic potency for the Ames test in both TA98 and TA100. Under the conditions of this study, these results indicate that quantitative analysis of the Ames test data can discriminate between the mutagenic potencies of WSSs on the basis of smoking-machine regimen (ISO vs. CI), and cigarette product (differences in smoke chemistry). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The UK Environmental Mutagen Society 2021.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34131742      PMCID: PMC8742878          DOI: 10.1093/mutage/geab021

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


  45 in total

1.  Mutagenicity of 11 cigarette smoke condensates in two versions of the mouse lymphoma assay.

Authors:  Xiaoqing Guo; Tracie L Verkler; Ying Chen; Patricia A Richter; Gregory M Polzin; Martha M Moore; Nan Mei
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  2010-10-27       Impact factor: 3.000

2.  Mutagenicity of native cigarette mainstream smoke and its gas/vapour phase by use of different tester strains and cigarettes in a modified Ames assay.

Authors:  Michaela Aufderheide; Helga Gressmann
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  2008-07-31       Impact factor: 2.433

3.  Assessment of novel tobacco heating product THP1.0. Part 7: Comparative in vitro toxicological evaluation.

Authors:  David Thorne; Damien Breheny; Christopher Proctor; Marianna Gaca
Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol       Date:  2017-10-25       Impact factor: 3.271

Review 4.  A general theory of effect size, and its consequences for defining the benchmark response (BMR) for continuous endpoints.

Authors:  Wout Slob
Journal:  Crit Rev Toxicol       Date:  2016-11-02       Impact factor: 5.635

5.  Quantitative approaches for assessing dose-response relationships in genetic toxicology studies.

Authors:  B B Gollapudi; G E Johnson; L G Hernandez; L H Pottenger; K L Dearfield; A M Jeffrey; E Julien; J H Kim; D P Lovell; J T Macgregor; M M Moore; J van Benthem; P A White; E Zeiger; V Thybaud
Journal:  Environ Mol Mutagen       Date:  2012-09-18       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.  Demonstrating laboratory proficiency in bacterial mutagenicity assays for regulatory submission.

Authors:  Dan D Levy; Atsushi Hakura; Rosalie K Elespuru; Patricia A Escobar; Masayuki Kato; Jasmin Lott; Martha M Moore; Kei-Ichi Sugiyama
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  2019-07-12       Impact factor: 2.433

Review 8.  Genotoxicity of tobacco smoke and tobacco smoke condensate.

Authors:  D M DeMarini
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1983-01       Impact factor: 2.433

9.  Quantitative comparison of in vitro genotoxicity between metabolically competent HepaRG cells and HepG2 cells using the high-throughput high-content CometChip assay.

Authors:  Ji-Eun Seo; Volodymyr Tryndyak; Qiangen Wu; Kostiantyn Dreval; Igor Pogribny; Matthew Bryant; Tong Zhou; Timothy W Robison; Nan Mei; Xiaoqing Guo
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2019-02-21       Impact factor: 5.153

10.  Quantitative assessment of the dose-response of alkylating agents in DNA repair proficient and deficient ames tester strains.

Authors:  Leilei Tang; Melanie Guérard; Andreas Zeller
Journal:  Environ Mol Mutagen       Date:  2013-11-23       Impact factor: 3.216

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.