Literature DB >> 8792833

Validation of the SOS/umu test using test results of 486 chemicals and comparison with the Ames test and carcinogenicity data.

G Reifferscheid1, J Heil.   

Abstract

The present study gives a comprehensive update of all umu genotoxicity assay results published so far. The available data of 486 chemicals investigated with the umu test are compared with the Ames test (274 compounds) as well as rodent carcinogenicity data (179 compounds). On the whole, there is good agreement between the umu test and the Ames test results, with a concordance of about 90%. The umu test was able to detect 86% of the Ames mutagens, while the Ames test (using at least 5 strains) detected 97% of the umu positive compounds. The elimination of TA102 from the set of Ames tester strains reduced the percentage of detectable umu genotoxins from 97 to 86%. The agreement between carcinogenesis and umu response was 65%, which is comparable to earlier studies concerning rodent carcinogenesis and Salmonella mutagenesis. The present compilation of umu results provides a database that can be used for the comparison of the SOS-inducing activity of chemicals and their mutagenicity, respectively, carcinogenicity. The results presented here clearly demonstrate that a chemical which induces the expression of the umu operon can be regarded a rodent carcinogen with a high degree of certainty (93%).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8792833     DOI: 10.1016/s0165-1218(96)90021-x

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


  19 in total

1.  Application of preparative capillary gas chromatography (pcGC), automated structure generation and mutagenicity prediction to improve effect-directed analysis of genotoxicants in a contaminated groundwater.

Authors:  Cornelia Meinert; Emma Schymanski; Eberhard Küster; Ralph Kühne; Gerrit Schüürmann; Werner Brack
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2010-01-30       Impact factor: 4.223

Review 2.  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

Review 3.  How accurate is in vitro prediction of carcinogenicity?

Authors:  Richard Maurice Walmsley; Nicholas Billinton
Journal:  Br J Pharmacol       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 8.739

4.  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

5.  Comparison of in vitro test systems using bacterial and mammalian cells for genotoxicity assessment within the "health-related indication value (HRIV) concept.

Authors:  Eva-Maria Prantl; Meike Kramer; Carsten K Schmidt; Martina Knauer; Stefan Gartiser; Aliaksandra Shuliakevich; Julia Milas; Hansruedi Glatt; Walter Meinl; Henner Hollert
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2016-12-08       Impact factor: 4.223

6.  Qualitative and quantitative assessment of genotoxins using SRRz lysis reporter under the control of a newly designed SOS responsive promoter in Escherichia coli.

Authors:  Pengfei Yuan; Junqing Dong; Weibin Zhao; Min Zhuo; Shuang Li; Shaobin Huang; Jianjun Li
Journal:  RSC Adv       Date:  2019-11-04       Impact factor: 4.036

7.  Completely automated short-term genotoxicity testing for the assessment of chemicals and characterisation of contaminated soils and waste waters.

Authors:  Corinna Brinkmann; Adolf Eisentraeger
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 4.223

8.  Pyrazolo[3,4-d]pyrimidines as sigma-1 receptor ligands for the treatment of pain. Part 2: Introduction of cyclic substituents in position 4.

Authors:  José Luis Díaz; Jordi Corbera; Daniel Martínez; Magda Bordas; Cristina Sicre; Rosalia Pascual; Mª José Pretel; Ana Paz Marín; Ana Montero; Albert Dordal; Inés Alvarez; Carmen Almansa
Journal:  Medchemcomm       Date:  2017-04-20       Impact factor: 3.597

Review 9.  Bacterial genotoxicity bioreporters.

Authors:  Alva Biran; Sharon Yagur-Kroll; Rami Pedahzur; Sebastian Buchinger; Georg Reifferscheid; Hadar Ben-Yoav; Yosi Shacham-Diamand; Shimshon Belkin
Journal:  Microb Biotechnol       Date:  2009-12-29       Impact factor: 5.813

10.  Electrochemical genotoxicity assay based on a SOS/umu test using hydrodynamic voltammetry in a droplet.

Authors:  Hideki Kuramitz; Kazuto Sazawa; Yasuaki Nanayama; Noriko Hata; Shigeru Taguchi; Kazuharu Sugawara; Masami Fukushima
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2012-12-14       Impact factor: 3.576

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.