Aneuploidy pp 445-454 | Cite as

Special Committee Report, Part I: An Evaluation of Current Testing Approaches for the Detection of Chemically Induced Aneuploidy

  • Vicki L. Dellarco
  • Kathleen H. Mavournin
  • Michael D. Waters
Part of the Basic Life Sciences book series (BLSC, volume 36)

Abstract

Evaluation of scientific data to determine the likelihood that a particular chemical may pose a health risk is a major function of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In certain legislative mandates (e.g., Toxic Substances Control Act), mutagenicity is identified as a toxicological endpoint for which testing standards must be developed. Thus, the EPA must make decisions on testing methods for mutagenicity. Most genetic toxicology tests identify chemicals that cause gene mutations, chromosome breakage and rearrangement, or other forms of direct DNA damage. Because DNA is not necessarily the target for the induction of numerical chromosome mutations, induction of aneuploidy may not correlate with the induction of other types of genetic alterations. Tests designed specifically to detect aneuploidy should be included in a screening or testing program to better characterize the potential genetic (or carcinogenic) hazard of a chemical.

Keywords

Environmental Protection Agency Carbamate Ethyl Methyl Methanesulfonate Female Germ Cell Mammalian Somatic Cell 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Allen, J.W., J.C. Liang, A.V. Carrano, and R.J. Preston (1985) Review of literature on chemical-induced aneuploidy in mammalian male germ cells. Mut. Res, (in press).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bond, D.J., and A.C. Chandley (1983) Aneuploidy, Oxford Monographs on Medical Genetics No. 11, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 198 pp.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cimino, M.C., R.R. Tice, and J.C. Liang (1985) Aneuploidy in mammalian somatic cells in vivo. Mut. Res, (in press).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dellarco, V.L., K.H. Mavournin, and R.R. Tice (1985) Aneuploidy and health risk assessment: Current status and future directions. Environ. Mutagen. 7: 405–424.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dellarco, V.L., K.H. Mavournin, and M.D. Waters (1985) An introduction to a series of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reports on testing approaches for the detection of chemically-induced aneuploidy. Mut. Res, (in press).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Galloway, S.M., and J.L. Ivett (1985) Chemically induced aneuploidy in mammalian cells in culture. Mut. Res. (in press).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Griffiths, A.J.F., H.E. Brockmann, D.M. DeMarini, and F. de Serres (1985) The efficacy of Neurospora in detecting agents that cause aneuploidy. Mut. Res, (in press).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Käfer, E., B.R. Scott, and A. Kappas (1985) Systems and results of tests for chemical induction of mitotic segregation and aneuploidy in Aspergillus nidulans. Mut. Res, (in press)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Larson, K.H. (1979) Indexed collection of the literature on aneuploidy. Env. Health Perspect. 31: 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Larson, K.H. (1979) Indexed collection of the literature on aneuploidy. Env. Health Perspect. 31: 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Resnick, M.A., V.W. Mayer, and F.K. Zimmermann (1985) The detection of chemically induced aneuploidy in Saccharomyces cerevisiae: An assessment of mitotic and meiotic systems. Mut. Res. (in press).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Russell, L.B. (1979) Meiotic nondisjunction in the mouse: Methodology for genetic testing and comparison with other methods. Env. Health Perspect. 31: 113–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sandhu, S.S., V.K. Baldev, and M.J. Constantin (1985) Detection of chemically induced aneuploidy with plant test systems. Mut. Res. (in press).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Waters, M.D. (1979) The GENE-TOX program. In Mammalian Mutagenesis: The Maturation of Test Systems, A.W. Hsie, J.P. Neill, and V. McElheny, eds. Banbury Report #2, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, New York.Google Scholar
  15. 14.
    Zimmering, S., J.M. Mason, and C. Osgood (1985) Current status of aneuploidy testing on Drosophila. Mut. Res, (in press).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vicki L. Dellarco
    • 1
  • Kathleen H. Mavournin
    • 2
  • Michael D. Waters
    • 3
  1. 1.Reproductive Effects Assessment Group (RD-689)U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyUSA
  2. 2.Environmental Mutagen, Carcinogen, and Teratogen Information ProgramOak Ridge National LaboratoryOak RidgeUSA
  3. 3.Genetic Toxicology Division (MD-68)Health Effects Research Laboratory U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyUSA

Personalised recommendations