Strategies for the Use of a Multiple-Endpoint System for Mammalian Germ Cell Mutation Testing
There are specific advantages to the use of a multiple-endpoint system, as opposed to any individual in vivo mutation test system. First of all, a larger sampling of the genome becomes possible than with any individual system. It has become clear that some loci (both within and between systems) appear to be more sensitive to mutagens (Favor, 1989; Neel and Lewis, 1990). By examining a broad spectrum of loci, as is possible in a multiple-endpoint system, a better idea of differential sensitivities of regions of the genome becomes possible. Furthermore, it permits more effective use of resources by performing multiple assays on the same animals. This capability is especially valuable in experiments on postgonial stages and those experiments in which fertility is affected by the test compound. Finally, a multiple-endpoint system allows for flexibility. It is clearly an option to add other assays which may become available in the future and to allow selective use of individual endpoints, according to the requirements of a given experiment.
KeywordsAtomic Bomb Survivor Human Carbonic Anhydrase Electrophoretic System Human Risk Assessment Human Disease Model
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Favor, J. (1989) Risk estimation based on germ-cell mutations in animals, in: P.B. Moens (ed.) Proceedings of the XVIth International Congress of Genetics, August 20–27, 1988, Toronto, Canada, pp. 844–852, The National Research Council of Canada.Google Scholar
- Green, M.C. (ed.) (1981) Genetic Variants and Strains of the Laboratory Mouse, Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, New York.Google Scholar
- Lewis, S.E., L.B. Barnett, B.M. Sadler, and M.D. Shelby (1991) ENU mutagenesis in the mouse electrophoretic specific locus test: 1. dose-response relationship of electrophoretically-detected mutations arising from mouse spermatogonia treated with ethylnitrosourea, Mutation Res., 249, 311–315.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Neel, J.V., C. Satoh, H.B. Hamilton, M. Otake, K. Goriki, T. Kageoka, M. Fujita, S. Nerishi, and J. Asakowa (1980a) Search for mutations affecting protein structure in children of atomic bomb survivors: Preliminary report, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 71, 4222–4225.Google Scholar
- Peters, J., S.T. Ball, and S.J. Andrews (1986) The detection of gene mutations by electrophoresis and their analysis, in: C. Ramel, B. Lambert, J. Magnusson (eds.), Genetic Toxicology of Environmental Chemicals, Part B: Genetic Effects and Applied Mutagenesis, Alan R. Liss, Inc., New York, pp. 367–374.Google Scholar
- Searle, A.G. (1974) Mutation induction in mice, in: J.T. Lett, H. Adler, and M. Zeble (eds.), Advances in Radiation Biology, Vol. 4, Academic Press, New York, pp. 131–207.Google Scholar