Advertisement

Evaluation of the Genotoxic Potential of Certain Pesticides Used in Pakistan

  • Shahbeg S. Sandhu
  • Michael D. Waters
  • Vincent F. Simmon
  • Kristien E. Mortelmans
  • Ann D. Mitchell
  • Ted Jorgenson
  • David C. L. Jones
  • Ruby Valencia
  • Frank Stack
Part of the Basic Life Sciences book series

Abstract

The mutagenicity of fifteen insecticides, five fungicides, four herbicides, and an acaricide commonly used in Pakistan was evaluated by employing thirteen short-term bioassays. The genetic endpoints used included point or gene mutation, primary DNA damage, and chromosomal effects. Initially, all pesticides were tested in a “core” battery of four in vitro bioassays. A carefully selected group among these chemicals was retested in higher level test systems to confirm the results obtained in the initial phase. Of the pesticides tested, only a small portion consistently displayed mutagenicity across test systems. The Saccharomyces cerevisiae bioassays detected mutagenicity for the largest number of pesticides. The Salmonellacestyphimurium strain,, TA100, was able to detect genetic activity in all of the pesticides that produced positive results in this bio-assay. The cytogenetic effects observed from the Vicia faba root assay were consistent with those obtained in mammalian cells in culture. All pesticides which displayed mutagenicity were not carcinogenic in animal bioassays but, in general, mutagenicity in a battery of short-term bioassays was a reliable indicator of the carcinogenic potential in animals. A simple test battery is proposed for evaluating the genetic potential of agricultural pesticides.

Keywords

Chinese Hamster Ovary Cell Methyl Parathion Vicia Faba Human Lung Cell Mouse Lymphoma 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. Ames, B. N., McCann, J., and Yamasaki, E., 1975, Methods for detecting carcinogens and mutagens with the Salmonella/mammalian-microsome mutagenicity test, Mutat. Res., 31:347–363.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bridges, B. A., 1972, Simple bacterial systems for detecting mutagenic agents, Lab. Pract., 21:413–423.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Brusick, D. J., and Mayer, V. W., 1973, New developments in mutagenicity screening techniques with yeast, Environ. Health Perspect., 6:83–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clive, D., Johnson, K. O., Spector, J. F. S., Batson, A. G., and Brown, M. M. M., 1979, Validation and characterization of the L5178Y/TK+/ mouse lymphoma mutagen assay system, Mutat. Res., 59:61–108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Darlington, C. D., and La Cour, L. F., 1976, “The Handling of Chromosomes,” sixth ed., George Allen and Unwin Ltd., London, 201 pages.Google Scholar
  6. Green, M. B., Hartley, G. S., and West, T. F., 1977, in: “Chemicals for Crop Protection and Pest Control,” Pergamon Press, New York, 28 pages.Google Scholar
  7. Green, S., and Auletta, A., 1980, Editorial introduction to the reports of “The Gene-Tox Program.” An evaluation of bio-assays in Genetic Toxicology, Mutat. Res., 76:165–168.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Griesemer, R. A., and Cueto, C., Jr., 1980, Toward a classification scheme for degrees of experimental evidence for the carcino-genicity of chemicals for animals, in: “IARC Monographs on the Molecular and Cellular Aspects of Carcinogen Screening Tests,” Vol. 27, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France, pp. 259–281.Google Scholar
  9. Hoagland, D. R., and Arnon, D. E., 1938, The water-culture method for growing plants without soil, University of California Agricultural Experimental Station, Berkeley, Circular No. 347, pp. 1-39.Google Scholar
  10. International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1977, 2,4-D and esters, in: “IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans: Some Fumigants, the Herbicides 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, Chlorinated Dibenzodioxins and Miscellaneous Industrial Chemicals,” Vol. 15, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France, pp. 111–138.Google Scholar
  11. Kihlman, B. A., 1975, Root tips of Vicia faba for the study of the induction of chromosomal aberrations, Mutat. Res., 31:401–412.Google Scholar
  12. Mackey, B. E., and MacGregor, J. T., 1979, The micronucleus test: Statistical design and analysis, Mutat. Res., 64:195–204.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Perry, P., and Evans, H. J., 1975, Cytological detection of mutagen-carcinogen exposure by sister chromatid exchange, Nature, 258:121–125.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Schmid, W., 1976, The micronucleus test for cytogenetic analysis, in: “Chemical Mutagens: Principles and Methods for their Detection,” Vol. 4, A. Hollaender, ed., Plenum Press, New York, pp. 31–53.Google Scholar
  15. Shepard, T. H., 1976, “A catalogue of Teratogenic Agents,” second ed., Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 246 pages.Google Scholar
  16. Simmon, V. F., 1978a, In vitro microbiological mutagenicity and unscheduled DNA synthesis studies of eighteen pesticides, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 600/79-041, October 1979.Google Scholar
  17. Simmon, V. F., 1978b, In vivo and in vitro mutagenicity assay of selected pesticides, in: “A Rational Evaluation of Pesticidal vs. Mutagenic/Carcinogenic Action,” R. W. Hart, H. F. Kraybill, and F. J. de Serres, eds., U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare Publication 78-1306, pp. 27-71.Google Scholar
  18. Stetka, D. G., and Wolff, S., 1976, Sister chromatid exchange as an assay for genetic damage induced by mutagens/carcinogens. II. In vitro test for compounds requiring metabolic activation, Mutat. Res., 41:343–349.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Waters, M. D., Sandhu, S. S., Simmon, V. F., Mortelmans, K. E., Mitchell, A. D., Jorgenson, T. A., Jones, D. C. L., Valencia, R., and Garrett, N. E., 1982, Study of pesticide genotoxicity, in: “Genetic Toxicology: An Agricultural Perspective,” R. A. Fleck, and A. Hollaender, eds., Plenum Press, New York, pp. 275–326.Google Scholar
  20. Waters, M. D., Simmon, V. F., Mitchell, A. D., Jorgenson, T. A., and, Valencia, R., 1980, An overview of short-term tests for the mutagenic and carcinogenic potential of pesticides, J. Environ. Sci. Health, B15:867–906.Google Scholar
  21. Würgler, F. E., Sobels, F. H., and Vogel, E., 1977, Drosophila as an assay system for detecting genetic changes, in: “Handbook of Mutagenicity Test Procedures,” B. J. Kilbey, M. Legator, W. Nichols, and C. Ramel, eds., Elsevier/North-Holland Biomedical Press, Amsterdam, pp. 335–373.Google Scholar
  22. Zimmermann, F. K., 1975, Procedures used in the induction of mitotic recombination and mutation in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Mutat. Res., 31:71–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Zimmermann, F. K., Kern, R., and Rasenberger, H., 1975, A yeast strain for simultaneous detection of induced mitotic crossing over, mitotic gene conversion and reverse mutation, Mutat. Res., 28:381–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zura, K. D., and Grant, W. F., 1981, The role of the hydronium ion in the induction of chromosomal aberrations by weak acid solutions, Mutat. Res., 84:349–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shahbeg S. Sandhu
    • 1
  • Michael D. Waters
    • 1
  • Vincent F. Simmon
    • 2
  • Kristien E. Mortelmans
    • 3
  • Ann D. Mitchell
    • 3
  • Ted Jorgenson
    • 3
  • David C. L. Jones
    • 3
  • Ruby Valencia
    • 4
  • Frank Stack
    • 5
  1. 1.Genetic Toxicology DivisionU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyResearch Triangle ParkUSA
  2. 2.Genex LaboratoriesRockvilleUSA
  3. 3.SRI InternationalMenlo ParkUSA
  4. 4.Zoology DepartmentUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  5. 5.Environmental SciencesNorthrop Services, Inc.Research Triangle ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations