Abstract
The purpose of this study was to find a better enzyme extraction reagent for the SOS/umu test to replace the conventional one (the combination of sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) and Z-buffer), which has the disadvantage of denaturing β-galactosidase leading to decreased measurement sensitivity. By adopting a microplate system, the performance of the umu test using BugBuster Master Mix, a commercially available enzyme extraction reagent, was compared with that using the conventional reagent for detecting the genotoxicity of known mutagens as well as environmental samples. BugBuster Master Mix was found to increase the detection sensitivities of the selected genotoxins and environmental water samples, due to the fact that it doesn’t denature β-galactosidase. The result of this study showed that BugBuster Master Mix could be a better enzyme extraction reagent for umu test.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cao N, Yang M, Zhang Y et al (2009) Evaluation of wastewater reclamation technologies based on in vitro and in vivo bioassays. Sci Total Environ 407:1588–1597
Chambers SP (2002) High-throughput protein expression for the post-genomic era. Drug Discov Today 7:759–765
De Mey M, Lequeux GJ, Maertens J et al (2008) Comparison of protein quantification and extraction methods suitable for E. coli cultures. Biologicals 36:198–202
Demeo MP, Miribel V, Botta A et al (1988) Applicability of the SOS chromotest to detect urinary mutagenicity caused by smoking. Mutagenesis 3:277–283
Deutsches Institut für Normung (DIN) (1996) 38415-3: German standard methods for the examination of water, waste water and sludge—sub-animal testing (group T)—part 3: determination of the genotoxic potential of water with the umu-test (T 3)
Dizer H, Wittekindt E, Fischer B et al (2002) The cytotoxic and genotoxic potential of surface water and wastewater effluents as determined by bioluminescence, umu-assays and selected biomarkers. Chemosphere 46:225–233
El Mzibri M, DeMeo MP, Laget M et al (1996) The Salmonella sulA-test: a new in vitro system to detect genotoxins. Mutat Res 369:195–208
Ganesh A, Lin J (2011) Comparisons of protein extraction procedures and quantification methods for the proteomic analysis of Gram-positive Paenibacillus sp. strain D9. World J Microb Biot 27:1669–1678
Grabski A, McCormick M, Mierendorf R (1999) BugBuster™ and Benzonase®: the clear solutions to simple, efficient extraction of E. coli proteins. Innovations 10:17–19
Grage K, Peters V, Rehm BHA (2011) Recombinant protein production by In vivo polymer inclusion display. Appl Environ Microbiol 77:6706–6709
Hamer B, Bihari N, Reifferscheid G et al (2000) Evaluation of the SOS/umu-test post-treatment assay for the detection of genotoxic activities of pure compounds and complex environmental mixtures. Mutat Res 466:161–171
ISO (2000) 13829: Water quality—determination of the genotoxicity of water and waste water using the umu-test
Ma FJ, Yuan GX, Meng LP et al (2012) Contributions of flumequine and nitroarenes to the genotoxicity of river and ground waters. Chemosphere 88:476–483
Michel B (2005) After 30 years of study, the bacterial SOS response still surprises us. PLoS Biol 3:1174–1176
Miller JH (1972) Experiments in molecular genetics. Cold Spring Harbor Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY
Misik M, Knasmueller S, Ferk F et al (2011) Impact of ozonation on the genotoxic activity of tertiary treated municipal wastewater. Water Res 45:3681–3691
Monarca S, Zani C, Richardson SD et al (2004) A new approach to evaluating the toxicity of genotoxicity of disinfected drinking water. Water Res 38:3809–3819
Novagen® and Calbiochem® (2004) Sample preparation-tools for protein research. Merck Biosciences Ltd., Darmstadt, Germany, pp 5–10
Novagen® and Calbiochem® (2006) Sample preparation-tools for protein research, 2nd edn. Merck Biosciences Ltd., Darmstadt, Germany, p 16
Oda Y, Nakamura S, Oki I et al (1985) Evaluation of the new system (umu-test) for the detection of environmental mutagens and carcinogens. Mutat Res 147:219–229
Oda Y, Funasaka K, Kitano M et al (2004) Use of a high-throughput umu-microplate test system for rapid detection of genotoxicity produced by mutagenic carcinogens and airborne particulate matter. Environ Mol Mutagen 43:10–19
Ohe T, Watanabe T, Wakabayashi K (2004) Mutagens in surface waters: a review. Mutat Res 567:109–149
Quillardet P, Hofnung M (1985) The SOS chromotest, a colorimetric bacterial assay for genotoxins: procedures. Mutat Res 147:65–78
Shen L, Wu JY, Lin GF et al (2003) The mutagenic potentials of tap water samples in Shanghai. Chemosphere 52:1641–1646
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2006) EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Scorpio Recycling, Inc. (EPA ID: PRD987376662). http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r2006020001432.pdf. Accessed 21 Nov 2013
Whong WZ, Wen YF, Stewart J et al (1986) Validation of the SOS/umu test with mutagenic complex mixtures. Mutat Res 175:139–144
Wu QY, Li Y, Hu HY et al (2010) Reduced effect of bromide on the genotoxicity in secondary effluent of a municipal wastewater treatment plant during chlorination. Environ Sci Technol 44:4924–4929
Zhang X, Zhao X (2013) Ecotoxicity assessment of artificial groundwater recharge with reclaimed water: a pilot-scale study. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 91:499–502
Zhu Z, Gu W, An W et al (2008) Carcinogen risk assessment of drinking water based on genotoxic activities using SOS/umu test. Asian J Ecotoxicol 3:363–369
Acknowledgments
This work was funded by the Science Fund for the Creative Research Groups of China (No. 51221892) and the Ministry of Science and Technology, Peoples Republic of China (2013DFG50150).
Conflict of interest
None declared.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tian, Z., Oda, Y., Zhang, Y. et al. Use of a New Enzyme Extraction System to Improve the Sensitivity of SOS/umu Test and Application to Environmental Samples. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 94, 370–375 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-014-1445-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-014-1445-9