Literature DB >> 7692273

The SOS chromotest: a review.

P Quillardet1, M Hofnung.   

Abstract

The SOS chromotest is reviewed through over 100 publications corresponding to the testing of 751 chemicals. 404 (54%) of these chemicals present a genotoxic activity detectable in the SOS chromotest. Their SOS inducing potencies span more than 8 orders of magnitude. For 452 compounds, the results obtained in the SOS chromotest could be compared to those obtained in the Ames test. It was found that 373 (82%) of these compounds give similar responses in both tests (236 positive and 137 negative responses). Thus the discrepancies between both tests concern 79 compounds (18%). A case by case analysis shows that many of these compounds are at the same time very weak SOS inducers and very weak mutagens. Thus we think that, most of the time, the discrepancies between the two tests may be accounted for by differences in the interpretation of the results rather than by the experimental results themselves. However, there are some compounds which are clearly SOS inducers but devoid of mutagenic activity in the Ames test (such as quinoline-1-oxide) and to a larger extent, clearly mutagenic compounds which do not induce the SOS response in the SOS chromotest (such as benzidine, cyclophosphamide, acridines, ethidium bromide). We also analyzed the correlation between SOS induction, mutagenesis and carcinogenesis according to the classification of Lewis. For 65 confirmed carcinogens (class 1), the sensitivity, i.e., the capacity to identify carcinogens, was 62% with the SOS chromotest and 77% with the Ames test. For 44 suspected carcinogens (class 2), the sensitivity was 66% with the SOS chromotest and 68% with the Ames test. Thus, we confirmed previous observations made on 83 compounds that there is a close correlation between the results given by both bacterial tests. The capacity of the Ames test to identify carcinogens is higher than that of the SOS chromotest. However, because the number of false positive compounds was lower in the SOS chromotest, the specificity, i.e., the capacity to discriminate between carcinogens and non-carcinogens of the SOS chromotest, appeared higher than that of the Ames test. Thus, the results of the SOS chromotest and of the Ames test can complement each other. The SOS chromotest is one of the most rapid and simple short-term test for genotoxins and is easily adaptable to various conditions, so that it could be used as an early--perhaps the earliest--test in a battery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1993        PMID: 7692273     DOI: 10.1016/0165-1110(93)90019-j

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


  23 in total

Review 1.  Where microbiology meets microengineering: design and applications of reporter bacteria.

Authors:  Jan Roelof van der Meer; Shimshon Belkin
Journal:  Nat Rev Microbiol       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 60.633

2.  Structural transformations of DNA macromolecules in salt aqueous solutions and the survival of Escherichia coli cells in ultralow-intensity thermalized neutron fields.

Authors:  G P Zhizhina; A G Lipsont; I A Gagina; S V Vasil'eva; M K Borodin; E I Saunin; A Yu Tsivadze
Journal:  Dokl Biochem Biophys       Date:  2010 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 0.788

3.  Construction of a ColD cda promoter-based SOS-green fluorescent protein whole-cell biosensor with higher sensitivity toward genotoxic compounds than constructs based on recA, umuDC, or sulA promoters.

Authors:  Anders Norman; Lars Hestbjerg Hansen; Søren J Sørensen
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 4.792

4.  Immobilization as a technical possibility for long-term storage of bacterial biosensors.

Authors:  Kyeong Seo Park; Christa Baumstark-Khan; Petra Rettberg; Gerda Horneck; Elke Rabbow; Man Bock Gu
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2005-03-25       Impact factor: 1.925

5.  Nitro musk compounds genotoxic activity : Genotoxicity testing of nitro musks with the SOS-chromotest and the sister-chromatid exchange test.

Authors:  S Kevekordes; K Grahl; A Zaulig; H Dunkelberg
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 4.223

6.  A rapid method for the detection of representative coliforms in water samples: polymerase chain reaction-enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (PCR-ELISA).

Authors:  Jong-Tar Kuo; Chiu-Yu Cheng; Hsiao-Han Huang; Chia-Fen Tsao; Ying-Chien Chung
Journal:  J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 3.346

7.  Green fluorescent protein-based biosensor to detect and quantify stress responses induced by DNA-degrading colicins.

Authors:  Sam Abraham; James Chin; Huub J M Brouwers; Bernadette Turner; Ren Zhang; Toni A Chapman
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2011-07-29       Impact factor: 4.792

8.  Physicochemical characteristics, mutagenicity and genotoxicity of airborne particles under industrial and rural influences in Northern Lebanon.

Authors:  Pamela N Melki; Frédéric Ledoux; Samer Aouad; Sylvain Billet; Bilal El Khoury; Yann Landkocz; Roula M Abdel-Massih; Dominique Courcot
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2017-06-15       Impact factor: 4.223

9.  Spatial distribution of atmospheric PAHs and their genotoxicity in petrochemical industrialized Lanzhou valley, northwest China.

Authors:  Li Wang; Yuan Zhao; Xin Yi; Zhanxiang Wang; Yayi Yi; Tao Huang; Hong Gao; Jianmin Ma
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2017-03-31       Impact factor: 4.223

10.  A biosensor for environmental genotoxin screening based on an SOS lux assay in recombinant Escherichia coli cells.

Authors:  L R Ptitsyn; G Horneck; O Komova; S Kozubek; E A Krasavin; M Bonev; P Rettberg
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 4.792

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.