Strategies for the Use of a Multiple-Endpoint System for Mammalian Germ Cell Mutation Testing

  • S. E. Lewis
  • L. B. Barnett
  • L. S. Niedziela
Part of the Reproductive Biology book series (RBIO)

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Toxicity Ethyl Electrophoresis Germinal Cataract 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ehling, U.H., D.J. Charles, J. Favor, J. Graw, J. Kratochvilova, A. Neuhauser-Klaus, and W. Pretsch (1985) Induction of gene mutations in mice: The multiple-endpoint approach, Mutation Res., 150, 393–401.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Erickson, R.P. (1990) Invited Editorial: Mapping dysmorphic syndromes with the aid of the human/ mouse homology map, Am. J. Hum. Genet., 46, 1013–1016.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Green, M.C. (ed.) (1981) Genetic Variants and Strains of the Laboratory Mouse, Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Johnson, F.M., G.T. Roberts, R.K. Sharma, F. Chasalow, R. Zweidinger, A. Morgan, R.W. Hendren, and S.E. Lewis (1981) The detection of mutants in mice by electrophoresis: Results of a model induction experiment with procarbazine, Genetics, 97, 113–124.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Lewis, S.E., F.M. Johnson, L.C. Skow, L.B. Barnett, and R.A. Popp (1985) A mutation in the mouse β-globulin gene detected in the progeny of a female treated with ethyl nitrosourea, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 82, 5829–5831.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lewis, S.E., C. Felton, L.B. Barnett, W. Generoso, N. Cacheiro, and M.D. Shelby (1986) Dominant visible and electrophoretically expressed mutations induced in male mice exposed to ethylene oxide by inhalation, Env. Mutagen., 8, 867–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lewis, S.E., R.P. Erickson, L.B. Barnett, P. Venta, and R. Tashian (1988) Ethylnitrosourea-induced null mutation at the mouse Car-2 locus: An animal model for human carbonic anhydrase II deficiency syndrome, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 85, 1962–1966.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Mohrenweiser, H.W., R.D. Larsen, and J.V. Neel (1989) Development of molecular approaches to estimating germinal mutation rates, I. Detection of insertion/deletion/rearrangementvariants in the human genome, Mutation Res., 212, 241–252.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Neel, J.V., H. Mohrenweiser, and M. Meisler (1980b) Rate of spontaneous mutation at human loci encoding protein structure, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 77, 6037–1041.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Neel, J.V., and S.E. Lewis (1990) The comparative radiation genetics of humans and mice, Ann. Rev. Genet., 24, 327–362.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Peters, J., S.J. Andrews, J.F. Loutit, and J.B. Clegg (1985) A mouse β-globin mutant that is an exact model of hemoglobin Rainier in man, Genetics, 110, 709–721.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Rinchik, E.M., J.W. Bangham, P.R. Hunsicker, N.L. A. Cacheiro, B.S. Rwon, I.J. Jackson, and L.B. Russell (1990) Genetic and molecular analysis of chlorambucil-induced germline mutations in the mouse, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 87, 1416–1420.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Russell, L.B., P.B. Selby, E. von Halle, W. Sheridan, and L. Valcovic (1981) The mouse specific-locus test with agents other than radiation. Interpretation of data and recommendations for future work, Mutation Res., 86, 329–354.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Russell, L.B., P.R. Hunsicker, N.L.A. Cacheiro, J.W. Bangham, and W.L. Russell (1989) Chlorambucil effectively induces deletion mutations in mouse germ cells, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 86, 3704.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Russell, W.L., E.M. Kelly, P.R. Hunsicker, J.W. Bangham, S.C. Maddux, and E.L. Phipps (1979) Specific-locus test shows ethylnitrosourea to be the most potent mutagen in the mouse, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 76, 5818–5819.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schlager, G., and M.M. Dickie (1967) Spontaneous mutations and mutation rates in the house mouse, Genetics, 57, 319–330.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Searle, A.G. (1975) The specific locus test in the mouse, Mutation Res., 31, 277–290.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Searle, A.G., J. Peters, M.F. Lyon, E.P. Evans, J.H. Edwards, and V.J. Buckle (1987) Chromosome maps of man and mouse, III, Genomics, 1, 3–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Skow, L.C., B.A. Burkhart, F.M. Johnson, R.A. Popp, D.M. Popp, S.Z. Goldberg, W.F. Anderson, L.B. Barnett, and S.E. Lewis (1983) A mouse model for α-thalassemia, Cell, 34, 1043–1052.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. E. Lewis
    • 1
  • L. B. Barnett
    • 1
  • L. S. Niedziela
    • 1
  1. 1.Chemistry and Life Sciences Research Triangle InstituteResearch Triangle ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations