Literature DB >> 34209992

Direct Comparison of the Lowest Effect Concentrations of Mutagenic Reference Substances in Two Ames Test Formats.

Bernhard Rainer1, Elisabeth Pinter1, Lukas Prielinger1, Chiara Coppola1, Maricel Marin-Kuan2, Benoit Schilter2, Silvia Apprich1, Manfred Tacker1.   

Abstract

The Ames assay is the standard assay for identifying DNA-reactive genotoxic substances. Multiple formats are available and the correct choice of an assay protocol is essential for achieving optimal performance, including fit for purpose detection limits and required screening capacity. In the present study, a comparison of those parameters between two commonly used formats, the standard pre-incubation Ames test and the liquid-based Ames MPF™, was performed. For that purpose, twenty-one substances with various modes of action were chosen and tested for their lowest effect concentrations (LEC) with both tests. In addition, two sources of rat liver homogenate S9 fraction, Aroclor 1254-induced and phenobarbital/β-naphthoflavone induced, were compared in the Ames MPF™. Overall, the standard pre-incubation Ames and the Ames MPF™ assay showed high concordance (>90%) for mutagenic vs. non-mutagenic compound classification. The LEC values of the Ames MPF™ format were lower for 17 of the 21 of the selected test substances. The S9 source had no impact on the test results. This leads to the conclusion that the liquid-based Ames MPF™ assay format provides screening advantages when low concentrations are relevant, such as in the testing of complex mixtures.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Ames assay; S9 comparison; bacterial reverse mutation; complex mixtures; food contact materials; genotoxicity; lowest effective concentration (LEC); mutagenicity

Year:  2021        PMID: 34209992     DOI: 10.3390/toxics9070152

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Toxics        ISSN: 2305-6304


  36 in total

1.  Assessment of the performance of the Ames II assay: a collaborative study with 19 coded compounds.

Authors:  S Flückiger-Isler; M Baumeister; K Braun; V Gervais; N Hasler-Nguyen; R Reimann; J Van Gompel; H-G Wunderlich; G Engelhardt
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  2004-03-14       Impact factor: 2.433

Review 2.  Quantitative genotoxicity assays for analysis of medicinal plants: A systematic review.

Authors:  Graziela Sponchiado; Mônica Lucia Adam; Caroline Dadalt Silva; Bruna Silva Soley; Cristina de Mello-Sampayo; Daniela Almeida Cabrini; Cassyano Januário Correr; Michel Fleith Otuki
Journal:  J Ethnopharmacol       Date:  2015-12-08       Impact factor: 4.360

Review 3.  Genotoxicity testing approaches for the safety assessment of substances used in food contact materials prior to their authorization in the European Union.

Authors:  Claudia Bolognesi; Anna F Castoldi; Riccardo Crebelli; Eric Barthélémy; Daniela Maurici; Detlef Wölfle; Katharina Volk; Laurence Castle
Journal:  Environ Mol Mutagen       Date:  2017-05-28       Impact factor: 3.216

Review 4.  Bacterial mutagenicity screening in the pharmaceutical industry.

Authors:  P A Escobar; R A Kemper; J Tarca; J Nicolette; M Kenyon; S Glowienke; S G Sawant; J Christensen; T E Johnson; C McKnight; G Ward; S M Galloway; L Custer; E Gocke; M R O'Donovan; K Braun; R D Snyder; B Mahadevan
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  2012-12-20       Impact factor: 2.433

5.  Is a liver comparable to a liver? A comparison of different rat-derived S9-fractions with a biotechnological animal-free alternative in the Ames fluctuation assay.

Authors:  Julia Brendt; Sarah E Crawford; Mirna Velki; Hongxia Xiao; Beat Thalmann; Henner Hollert; Andreas Schiwy
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2020-11-14       Impact factor: 7.963

6.  Editorial.

Authors:  John Gilbert; Tim Phillips; Elke Anklam; Richard Stadler
Journal:  Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess       Date:  2018-01

7.  Petroleum mineral oil refining and evaluation of cancer hazard.

Authors:  Carl R Mackerer; Larry C Griffis; John S Grabowski; Fred A Reitman
Journal:  Appl Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2003-11

8.  Mutagenesis by N4-aminocytidine: induction of AT to GC transition and its molecular mechanism.

Authors:  K Negishi; M Takahashi; Y Yamashita; M Nishizawa; H Hayatsu
Journal:  Biochemistry       Date:  1985-12-03       Impact factor: 3.162

9.  Genotoxicity studies in groundwater, surface waters, and contaminated soil.

Authors:  Luc Verschaeve
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2002-05-08

Review 10.  Evaluation of the Suitability of Mammalian In Vitro Assays to Assess the Genotoxic Potential of Food Contact Materials.

Authors:  Elisabeth Pinter; Bernhard Rainer; Thomas Czerny; Elisabeth Riegel; Benoît Schilter; Maricel Marin-Kuan; Manfred Tacker
Journal:  Foods       Date:  2020-02-22
View more
  1 in total

1.  Incorporation of Metabolic Activation in the HPTLC-SOS-Umu-C Bioassay to Detect Low Levels of Genotoxic Chemicals in Food Contact Materials.

Authors:  Emma Debon; Paul Rogeboz; Hélia Latado; Gertrud E Morlock; Daniel Meyer; Claudine Cottet-Fontannaz; Gabriele Scholz; Benoît Schilter; Maricel Marin-Kuan
Journal:  Toxics       Date:  2022-08-27
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.