Advertisement

Studies on the Detection of Carcinogens Using a Mammalian Cell Transformation Assay with Liver Homogenate Activation

  • J. A. Styles

Summary

The transformation of mammalian cells in vitro has been used to study the mechanism of carcinogenesis. There are many cell transformation assays, each having a different end-point such as changes in morphology, plating efficiency, serum requirement, nuclear size, enzyme activity, growth in semi-solid agar, cyto-skeletal structure and antigenicity. These changes appear to be acquired by primary cells at different times following exposure to a carcinogen and may not all be mutational in origin. Growth in semi-solid agar is usually the last characteristic to appear in transformed cells and appears to be a mutational event. The only unequivical end-point in relation to tumorigenesis is transplantation of transformed cells into a suitable host followed by the evolution on an invasive tumour. While there is a close relationship between growth in semi-solid agar and tumour formation following transplantation this correlation is not of overriding importance in the use of in vitro transformation as a short-term predictive assay for chemical carcinogens. A test method using BHK C1 13 cells in semi-solid agar and including liver homogenates for metabolic activation has been used to screen organic chemicals and found to be very accurate in discriminating between carcinogens and non-carcinogens and has detected several classes of carcinogen which were not identified by the Salmonella reverse mutation assay. Our experience with the cell transformation assay so far indicates that it cannot be used for predicting the potency of a carcinogen.

Keywords

Syrian Hamster Chemical Carcinogen Ames Test Chemical Carcinogenesis Transformation Assay 
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.
    Di Paolo JA (1974) Quantitative aspects of in vitro chemical carcinogenesis. Biochem Dis 4:433Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Di Paolo JA (1974) Quantitative aspects of in vitro chemical carcinogenesis. In: Ts’o Po, Di Paolo JA (eds) Chemical carcinogenesis (Part B). Dekker, New York, pp 443–455Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Heidelberger C (1973) Chemical oncogenesis in culture. Adv Cancer Res 18:317–366PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Heidelberger C (1973) Current trends in chemical carcinogenesis. Fed Proc 32:2154–2161PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heidelberger C (1975) Chemical carcinogenesis. Annu Rev Biochem 44:79–121PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cairns J (1975) The cancer problem. Sci Am 233:64–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Higginson J, Muir CS (1973) Epidemiology. In: Holland JF, Frei E III (eds) Cancer medicine, Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia, p 241Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ts’o POP (1977) Some aspects of the basic mechanisms of chemical carcinogenesis. J Toxicol Environ Health 2:1305–1315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ts’o POP (1978) The relationship between neoplastic transformation and the cellular genetic apparatus. Abstract No 209 In Vitro 14:385Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weinstein IB, Wigler M, Stadler U (1976) Analysis of the mechanism of chemical carcinogenesis of epithelial cell cultures. In: Montesano R, Bartsch, H, Tomatis L (eds) Screening tests in chemical carcinogenesis. IARC Scientific Publication 12:355–387Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weinstein B, Yamaguchi N, Gebert R, Kaighn ME (1975) Use of epithelial cell cultures for studies on the mechanism of transformation by chemical carcinogens. In Vitro 11:130–141Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brookes P, Serres F de (1976) Report on the workshop on the mutagenicity of chemical carcinogens. Mutat Res 38:155–160Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stoltz DR, Poirier LA, Irving CC, Stich HF, Weisburger JH, Grice HC (1974) Evaluation of short term tests for carcinogenicity. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 29:157–180PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Montesano R, Bartsch H, Tomatis L (1976) Screening tests in chemical carcinogenesis. IARC/WHO Sci Publ 12Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ames BN, Durston WE, Yamasaki E, Lee FD (1973) Carcinogens are mutagens: a simple test system combining liver homogenates for activation and bacteria for detection. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 70:2281–2285PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ames BN, McCann J, Yamasaki E (1975) Methods for detecting carcinogens and mutagens with the Salmonella/mammalian-microsome mutagenicity test. Mutat Res 31:347–364PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McCann J, Choi E, Yamasaki E, Ames BN (1975) Detection of carcinogens as mutagens in the Salmonella/microsome test, part 1. Assay of 300 chemicals. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 72:5135–5139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McCann J, Ames BN (1976) Detection of carcinogens as mutagens in the Salmonella/microsome test: assay of 300 chemicals: part II. Discussion. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 73:950–954PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Purchase IFH, Longstaff E, Ashby J, Styles JA, Anderson D, Lefevre PA, Westwood FE (1976) Evaluation of six short term tests for detecting organic chemical carcinogens and recommendation for their use. Nature 264:624–627PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Purchase IFH, Longstaff E, Ashby J, Styles JA, Anderson D, Lefevre PA, Westwood FR (1978) Evaluation of six short term tests for detecting organic chemical carcinogens and recommendations for their use. Br J Cancer 37:873–959PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Styles JA (1977) A method for detecting carcinogenic organic chemicals using mammalian cell in culture. Br J Cancer 36:558–563PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ashby J, Styles JA (1978) Does carcinogenic potency correlate with mutagenic potency in the Ames assay? Nature 271:452–455PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Styles JA (1978) Cell transformation assays. In: Paget GE (ed) Mutagenesis in sub-mammalian systems, status and significance. Lancaster, MTP Press Limited, pp 147–163Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Styles JA (1979) Tissue culture methods for evaluating biocompatibility of polymers. In: Williams DF (ed) CRC reviews in biocompatibility, Vol 1. Fundamental aspects of biocompatibility. Florida, CRC Press IncGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    MacPherson I, Montagnier L (1964) Agar suspension culture for the selective assay of cells transformed by polyoma virus. Virology 23:291–294PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Di Mayorca G, Greenblatt M, Trauthen T, Soller A, Giordano R (1973) Malignant transformation of BHK 21 clone 13 cells in vitro by nitrosamines — a conditional state. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 70:46–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mishra NK, Di Mayorca G (1974) In vitro malignant transformation of cells by chemical carcinogens. Biochim Biophys Acta 355:205–219PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ashby J (1978) Implications of Carcinogenicity. In: Paget GE (ed) Mutagenesis in sub-mammalian systems, status and significant. Lancaster, MTP Press Limited, pp 165–189Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ashby J, Purchase IFH (1977) The selection of appropriate chemical controls for use with short term tests for potential carcinogenicity. Ann Occup Hyg 20:297–301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bouck N, Di Mayorca G (1976) Somatic mutation as the basis for malignant transformation of BHK cells by chemical carcinogens. Nature 264:722–727PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ishii Y, Elliott JA, Mishra NK, Lieberman MW (1977) Quantitative studies of transformation by chemical carcinogens and ultraviolet radiation using a subclone of BHK 21 clone 13 Syrian hamster cells. Cancer Res 37: 2023–2029PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sugimura T, Kawachi T, Matsushima T, Nagao M, Sato S, Yahagi T (1977) A critical review of submammalian systems for mutagen detection. In: Scott D, Bridges BA, Sobels GH (eds) Progress in genetic toxicology. Elsevier/North Holland Biomedical Press, Amsterdam, pp 126–154Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nagao M, Yahagi T, Honda M, Seino Y, Matsushima T, Sugimura T (1977) Demonstration of mutagenicity of aniline and o-toluidine by norharman. Proc Jpn Acad 53:34–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nagao M, Yahagi T, Kawachi T, Sugimura T, Kosuge T, Tsuji K, Wakabayashi K, Mizusaki S, Matsumototo T (1977) Comutagenic action of norharman and harman. Proc Jpn Acad 53:95–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ashby J, Styles JA, Anderson D, Paton D (1978) Saccharin: an epigenetic carcinogen/mutagen? Fd Cosmet Toxicol 16:95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mondai S, Brankow DW, Heidelberg C (1978) Enhancement of oncogenesis in C3H/10T1/2 mouse embryo cell cultures by saccharin. Science 201:1141–1142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ashby J, Styles JA, Anderson D (1977) Selection of an in vitro carcinogenicity test for derivatives of the carcinogen hexamethylphosphoramide. Br J Cancer 36:564–571PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ashby J, Styles JA, Paton D (1978) Potentially carcinogenic analogues of the carcinogen hexamethylphosphoramide: evaluation in vitro. Br J Cancer 38:418–427PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ashby J, Styles JA, Paton D (1978) In vitro evaluation of some derivatives of the carcinogen butter yellow: implications for environmental screening. Br J Cancer 38:34–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ashby J, Styles JA (1978) Cornutagenicity, competitive enzyme substrates, and in vitro carcinogenicity assays. Mutat Res 54:105–112PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Pienta RJ (1979) A hamster embryo cell model system for identifying carcinogens. In: Griffin AC, Shaw CR (eds) Carcinogens: identification and mechanisms action. Raven Press, New York, pp 121–141Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. A. Styles
    • 1
  1. 1.Central Toxicology LaboratoryImperial Chemical Industries, LimitedMacClesfield, CheshireUK

Personalised recommendations