Advertisement

From Bacteria to Man, the Evolution of Mutagenicity Testing

  • Marvin S. Legator
  • Barbara L. Harper

Abstract

In a little over a decade the field of toxicology has seen an unprecendented growth in the sub-area known as Genetic Toxicology or Molecular Toxicology. In the early development of this field, a great deal of optimism was generated as a result of identification of mutagen-carcinogenic agents in simple bacterial tester strains. This optimism has slowly given way to a more realistic understanding of the area, and the realization of a need for more complex studies that can be conducted with microorganisms. In recent years, the need to evaluate the effects of chemicals on the complex organization of DNA in mammalian systems, and the necessity of intact animal studies, where pharmacokinetic effects and relevant host metabolic pathways can be taken into account, is generally accepted as a pre-requisite for chemical evaluation. In addition to animal procedures, we now have the unique capability of detecting potential carcinogens in man by a variety of short-term procedures. The unique contribution of this field to the fundamental understanding of the modification of the genetic process by chemicals and its potential for alleviating some of the major afflictions occuring in man, however, remains unchallenged.

Keywords

Chemical Carcinogen Chemical Mutagenesis Carcinogenic Potency Genetic Toxicology Recessive Lethal 
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.
    Adams, P.M., Fabricant, J.D., Legator, M.S. Cyclophosphamideinduced spermatogenic effects detected in the F generation by behavioral testing. Science 211: 80–82 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ames, B.N., Lee, F.D. and Durston, W.E. An improved bacterial test system for the detection and classification of mutagens and carcinogens. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 70: 782–786 (1973).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anderson, D. and Styles, J.A. An evaluation of 6 short-term test for detecting organic chemical carcinogens. Appendix 2. The bacterial mutation test. Br. J. Cancer 37: 924–930 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Archer, V.E., Wagonner, J.K. and Lundin, F.E. Jr. Uranium mining and cigarette smoking effects on man. J. Occup. Med. 15: 204 (1972).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ashby. J. The significance and interpretation of in vitro carcinogenicity assay results. in: K. H. Norpoth and R. C. Garner, eds. Short-term tests systems for detecting carcinogens. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 74–93 (1980).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bartsch, H., Malaveille, C. Camus, A.M., Brun, G., and Hautefeville, A. Validity of bacterial short-term tests for the detection of chemical carcinogens in K. H. Norpoth and R. C. Garner, eds. Short-term tests systems for detecting carcinogens. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 58–73. (1980).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Belser, W. L., Shaffer, S. D., Bliss, R. D., Hynds, P.M., Yamamoto, L., Phihs, J.N. and Winer, J.A., A standardized procedure for quantification of the Ames Salmonella/mammalian-microsome mutagenicity test. Env. Mut. 3: 123–139 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bigger, C.A.H., Tomaszewski, J.E. and Dipple, A. Differences between products of binding 7,12-dimethylben(a)anthracene to DNA in mouse skin and in a rat liver microsomal system. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 80: 229–235 (1978).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bigger, C.A.H., Tomaszewski, J.E., Andrews, A.W., and Dipple, A. Evaluation of metabolic activation of 7,12-dimethylben(a)anthracene in vitro by Aroclor 1254-induced rat liver S-9 fractions. Cancer Res. 40: 655–661 (1980).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bridges, B.A. Some general principles of mutagenicity testing and a positive framework for testing procedures. Environ. Health Perspec. 6: 221–227 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brimfield, A.A., and Street, J.C. Mammalian bistransformation of chlordane: in vivo and primary hepatic considerations. A.N.Y.A.S. 320: 247–256 (1979).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brouns, R.M.E., van Doorn, R., Bos, R.P. Mulleners, L.J.S., and Henderson, P.T. Metabolic activation of 2-aminofluorene by isolated rat liver cells through different pathways leading to hepatocellular DNA-repair and bacterial mutagenesis. Toxicol. 19: 67–75 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brusick, D.J., Observations and recommendations regarding routine use of bacterial mutagenesis assays as indicators of potential chemical carcinogens. in B. E. Butterworth, ed. Strategies for Short-term Testing for Mutagens/Carcinogens. CRC Press New York pp. 3–12(1980).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chu, K.C., Cueto, C. and Ward, J.M. Factors in the evaluation of 200 National Cancer Institute Carcinogen bioassays. J. Tox. Env. Health 8: 251–280 (1981).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Clayson, D.B., Comparison between in vitro and in vivo tests for carcinogenicity. Mutat. Res 75: 205–213 (1980).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Corbett, T.H., Cornell, R. G., Endres, J.L. and Lieding, K. Birth defects among children of nurse-anesthetists. Anest. 41: 341–344 (1975).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Crump, K.S., Hoel, D.G., Langley, C.H. and Peto, R. Fundamental carcinogenic processes and their implication for low dose risk assessment. Cancer Res. 36: 2973–2979 (1976).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dunkel, V.C., Collaborative studies on the Salmonella/microsome mutagenicity assay. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 62: 874–882 (1979).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Glatt, H.R., Schwind, H., Schectman, L.M., Beard, S., Kouri, R.E., Zajdela, F., Croisy, A., Perin, F., Jacquignon, P.C., and Oesch, F., Mutagenicity of closely related carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic compounds using various metabolizing systems and target cells. in: K.H. Norpoth and R. C. Garner. Short-term tests systems for detecting carcinogens. Springer-Verlag. New York, pp. 103–126 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Grafe, A., Mattern, I. E. and Green, M. A.European collaborative study of the Ames assay. I. Results and general interpretation. Mutat. Res 85: 391–410 (1981).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gruneberg, H. Das problem der mutations belastung. In: Geuetik and Gessel Schaft. G. G. Wendt (ed.), pp. 72–77, Stuttgart: Wisenschaft liche Verlagsanstalt (1979).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hammond, E.C. and Selikoff, I.J. Relation of cigarette smoking to risk of death of asbestos associated disease among insulation workers in the Unites States. In: Biological Effects of Asbestos, P. Bogovski, et al., eds. Scientific Publication No. 8 (Lyon France: Int. agency Res. Cancer, 1973) PP. 312–317.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Harper. B.L., Rinkus, S.J., Scott. M. Ammenhauser, M., Bang, K.M., Lowery, M. and Legator, M.S., Correlation of NCI and IARC carcinogens with their mutagenicity in Salmonella. This volume.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hartman, P.E., Bacterial mutagenesis: review of new insights. Env. Mut. 2: 3–16 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hite, M., Pechamo, M., Smith, I. and Thornton, S. The effect of benzene in the micronucleus test. Mutat. Res. 77: 149–155 (1980).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Irving, C.C. Species and tissue variations in the metabolic activation of aromatic amines. in: A.C. Griffin and C.R. Shaw, eds. Carcinogens: Identification and Mechanisms of Action. Raven Press, New York, pp. 211–227 (1979).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kawachi, T., Yahagi, T., Kada, T., Tazima, Y., Ishidate, M., Sasaki, M., and Sugiyama, T., Cooperative programme on short-term assays for carcinogenicity in Japan. in: R. Montesano, ed. Molecular and cellular aspects of carcinogen screening tests. IARC Publ. No 27, Lyon, pp. 323–330 (1980).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    King, H.W.S., Thompson, M.H. and Brooks, P. The benzo(a)pyrene deoxyribonucleoside products isolated from DNA after metabolism of benzo(a)pyrene by rat liver microsomes in the presence of DNA. Cancer Res. 35: 1263–1269 (1975).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Legator, M.S., and Rinkus, S.J., Mutagenicity testing: problems in application. in: H.F. Stich and R.H.C. San. Short-term tests for Chemicals Carcinogens. Springer-Verlag, New York. pp. 483–504 (1981).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Matsushima, T., Sugimura, T., Nagao, M. Yahagi, T. Shirai, A., and Sawamura, M. Factors modulating mutagenicity in microbial tests in: K.H. Norpoth and R.C. Garner, eds. Short-term test systems for detecting carcingogens Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 273–285 (1980).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    McCann, J., Choi, E., Yamasaki, E., and Ames, B.N. Detection of carcinogens as mutagens in the Salmonella/microsome test: assay of 300 chemicals. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 72: 5135–5139 (1975).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Office Technology Assessment. Assessment of technologies for determining cancer risks from the environment. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Peters, J.M., Preston-Martin, S. and Yer, M.C. Science 213: 235–237 (1981).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Purchase, I.F.H., Procedure for Screening chemicals for carcinogenesis. Br. J. Indus. Med. 37: 1–10 (1980).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rinkus, S. J. and Legator, M.S. The need for both in vitro and in vivo systems in mutagenicity screening. in F.J. de Serres and A. Hollaender, eds. Chemical Mutagens vol. 6. Plenum Pub. Co., New York, pp. 365–473 (1980).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rosenkranz, H.S., Karpinsky, G., and McCoy, E.C. Microbial assays: evaluation and application to the elucidation of the etiology of colon cancer. in K. H. Norpoth and R.C. Garner, eds. Short-term test systems for detecting carcinogens. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 19–57 (1980).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Salmeen, I., and Durisin, A.M. Some effects of bacteria population on quantitation of Ames salmonella-histidine reversion mutagenesis assays. Mutat. Res. 85: 109–118 (1981).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sawada, M. and Ishidate, M., Jr. Colchicine-like effect of diethyl-stilbesteros (DES) on mammalian cells in-vitro. Mutat. Res. 57: 175–182 (1978).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    SelkirK, J.A., Comparison of epoxide and free-radical methods for activation of benzo(a)pyrene by Sprague-Dawley rat liver microsomes. JNCI 64: 771–774 (1980).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Selkirk, J.A. Divergence of metabolic activation systems for short-term mutagenesis assays. Nature 270: 601–608 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Shimazu, H., Shiraishy, N., Akenatsu, T., Veda, N. and Sugiyama, T. Carcinogenicity screening tests on induction of chromosomal aberrations in rat bone marrow cells in vivo. Mutat. Res. 38: 347 (1976).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Simmon. V.F. In vitro mutagenicity assays of chemical carcinogens and related compounds with Salmonella typhimurium. JNCI 62: 893–899 (1979).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sincock, A.M. Preliminary studies of the in vitro cellular effects of asbestos and fine class dust. In: Origins of Human Cancer, Book A., H.H. Hiatt, J.D. Watson and J.A. Winsten (eds.), New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, pp. 941–954 (1977).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Squire, R.A. Ranking animal carcinogens: a proposed regulatory approach. Science 214: 877–880 (1981).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Thompson, M.H., Osborne, M.R., King, H.W.S. and Brookes, P. the 7-methylbenz(a) antracene deoxyribonucleoside products isolated from DNA after metabolism of the carcinogen by rat liver microsomes in the presence of DNA. Chem.-Biol. Interact. 14: 13–19 (1976).Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tomatis, L., Cabral, J.R.P., Likhhachev, A.J. and Ponomarkovv, M. Int. J. Cancer 27: 465–478 (1981).Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Vogel, E., Soebels, F.H. The function of drosophila in genetic toxicology testing. In: Chemical Mutagens: Principles and Methods for Their Detection, A. Hollaender (ed.), New York: Plenum Press, pp. 93–142 (1976).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Vogel, E. Identification of carcinogens by mutagen testing in drosophila: The relative reliability for the kinds of genetic damage measured. In: Origins of Human Cancer Book C, H.H. Hiatt, J.D. Watson and W.A. Winsten (eds)., New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, pp. 1483–1497 (1977).Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Weisburger, J.H. and Williams, G.M. The decision point approach for systematic carcinogen testing. Food Cosmet. Toxic. 19: 561–566 (1981).Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wild, D. Cytogenetic effects in the mouse of 17 chemical mutagens and carcinogens evaluated by the micronucleus test. Mutat. Res 56: 319–327 (1978).Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wodicka, V.E., Golberg, L. and Carr, C.J., eds. Proposed System for Food Safety Assessment. Food Safety Council, Washington, D.C. (1980).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marvin S. Legator
    • 1
  • Barbara L. Harper
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Preventive Medicine and Community HealthUniversity of Texas Medical BranchGalvestonUSA

Personalised recommendations