Skip to main content
Log in

Does carcinogenic potency correlate with mutagenic potency in the Ames assay?

  • Letter
  • Published:

From Nature

View current issue Submit your manuscript

Abstract

AN approximately linear relationship between the mutagenic potency of a chemical in the Salmonella reverse mutation assay of Ames1 and its carcinogenic potency in animals, was recently alluded to2 and has since been discussed at several international symposia3,4. The implications of such a claim are clearly momentous. At present, the fact that the Salmonella assay can give both false positive and false negative results when compared with animal tests6,7 has led to its being regarded as an early warning system rather than the final arbiter of animal and possibly human carcinogenicity. A correlation between mutagenic and carcinogenic potency would, however, mean that a strong positive response in the Ames assay would define a potentially potent carcinogen, and would suggest that some compounds give positive results in this assay but fail to induce cancer in animals because their mutagenic potency is too low. We believe, however, that there is sufficient experimental evidence to treat any superficial potency correlation with great caution at this stage.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ames, B. N., McCann, J. & Yamasaki, E. Mutat. Res. 31, 347–364 (1975).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ames, B. N. Science, 191, 241–245 (1976).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  3. Ames, B. N. Eur. envir. Mutagen Soc. Meet. (Edinburgh, 1977).

  4. Meselson, M. & Russell, K. Origins Hum. Cancer, Cold Spring Harbor Conf. (1976).

  5. McCann, J., Choi, E., Yamasaki, E. & Ames, B. N. Proc. natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 72, 5135–5139 (1975).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Purchase, I. F. H. et al. Nature 264, 624–627 (1976): Br. J. Cancer (in the press).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Stoltz, D. R. et al. Toxic appl. Pharmac. 29, 157–180 (1974).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Gillette, J. R. in In Vitro Metabolic Activation in Mutagenicity Testing (eds de Serres, F. J., Fouts, J. R., Bend, J. R. & Philpot, R. M.) (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Basu, T. K. & Dickerson, J. W. T. Chem.-Biol. Interact. 8, 193–206 (1974).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Food and Chemical News, 22 November, 64 (1976); Pesticide Toxic. chem. News, 22 August, 9 (1977).

  11. Brookes, P. Mutat. Res. 39, 257–284 (1977).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Sims, P. & Grover, P. L. Adv. Cancer Res. 20, 165–274 (1974).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Sims, P., Grover, P. L., Swaisland, A., Pal, K. & Hewer, A. Nature 252, 326–328 (1974).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Levin, W. et al. Proc. natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 73, 243–247 (1976).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Jerina, D. M. & Daly, J. W. Drug Metabolism (eds Parke, D. V. & Smith, R. L.)(Taylor and Francis, London, 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Glatt, H. R., Oesch, F. A., Frigerio, & Garattini, S. Int. J. Cancer 16, 787–797 (1975).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Oesch, F., Bentley, P. & Glatt, H. R. Int. J. Cancer 18, 448–452 (1976).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Oesch, F. Xenobiotica 3, 305–340 (1972).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Coombs, M. M., Kissonerghis, A. M. & Allen, J. A. Cancer Res. 36, 4525–4529 (1976).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Nagao, M. et al. Cancer Res. 37, 399–407 (1977).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bartsch, H., Malaveille, C., Montesano, R. & Tomatis, L. Nature 255, 641–643 (1975).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Chem. Engng News 18 July, 18 (1977).

  23. Henschler, D., Eder, E., Neudecker, T. & Metzler, M. Archs Toxicol. 37, 233–236 (1977).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. McGregor, D. Mutat. Res. 30, 305–315 (1975).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Arcos, J. C. & Argus, M. F. in Chemical Induction of Cancer 143 (Academic, New York, 1974).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Sugimura, T. et al. in Progress in Genetic Toxicology (eds Scott, D., Bridges, B. A. & Sobels, F. H.) 126–154 (Elsevier, North Holland, 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Nagao, M. et al. Proc. Japan Acad. B 53, 95–98 (1977).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Nagao, M. Proc. Japan Acad. B 53, 34–37 (1977).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Lijnisky, W. & Saffiotti, U. Annali Ital. Derm. Chem. sper. 19, 34–44 (1965).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Zapp, J. A. Am. Ind. Hyg. Ass J. 36, 916 (1975).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Ashby, J., Styles, J. A. & Anderson, D. Br. J. Cancer 36, 564–571 (1977).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Bemes, V. & Sram, R. J. Ind. med. Surg. 38, 442–444 (1969).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Brusick, D., Jagannath, D. & Weekes, U. Mutat. Res. 41, 51–60 (1976).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Weekes, U. J. natn. Cancer Inst. 55, 1199–1201 (1975).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

ASHBY, J., STYLES, J. Does carcinogenic potency correlate with mutagenic potency in the Ames assay?. Nature 271, 452–455 (1978). https://doi.org/10.1038/271452a0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/271452a0

  • Springer Nature Limited

This article is cited by

Navigation