Genetic Toxicology pp 55-67

Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 817) | Cite as

Mammalian Cell HPRT Gene Mutation Assay: Test Methods

Protocol

Abstract

Using the combination of bacterial gene mutation assay and chromosomal aberrations test in mammalian cells may not detect a small proportion of mammalian specific mutagenic agents. Therefore, at the current time a third assay should be used, except for compounds for which there is little or no exposure (DOH (2000) Department of Health Guidance for the testing of chemicals for Mutagenicity. Committee on Mutagenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment). The hypoxanthine phosphorybosyl transferase (HPRT) gene is on the X chromosome of mammalian cells, and it is used as a model gene to investigate gene mutations in mammalian cell lines. The assay can detect a wide range of chemicals capable of causing DNA damage that leads to gene mutation. The test follows a very similar methodology to the thymidine kinase (TK) mouse lymphoma assay (MLA), and both are included in the guidelines for mammalian gene mutation tests (OECD (1997) Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Ninth addendum to the OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals. In Vitro Mammalian Cell Gene Mutation Test: 476). The HPRT methodology is such that mutations which destroy the functionality of the HPRT gene and or/protein are detected by positive selection using a toxic analogue, and HPRT mutants are seen as viable colonies. Unlike bacterial reverse mutation assays, mammalian gene mutation assays respond to a broad spectrum of mutagens, since any mutation resulting in the ablation of gene expression/function produces a HPRT mutant. Human cells are readily used, and mechanistic studies using the HPRT test methodology with modifications, such as knock-out cell lines for DNA repair, can provide details of the mode of action (MOA) of the test compound (24).

This chapter provides the methodology for carrying out the assay in different cell lines in the presence and absence of metabolism with technical information and general advice on how to carry out the test.

Key words

HPRT gene mutation Mammalian cell mutation Mutation testing Human cells 

References

  1. 1.
    DOH (2000) Department of Health Guidance for the testing of chemicals for Mutagenicity. Committee on Mutagenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    OECD (1997) Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Ninth addendum to the OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals. In Vitro Mammalian Cell Gene Mutation Test: 476.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    DeMarini D M, Brockman H E, de Serres F J, Evans H H, Stankowski, Jr L F and Hsie AW (1989) Specific-locus mutations induced in eukaryotes (especially mammalian cells) by radiation and chemicals: a perspective, Mutat Res 220: 11–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moore M M, Honma M, Clements J, Awogi T, Bolcsfoldi G, Cole J, Gollapudi B, Harrington-Brock K, Mitchell A, Muster W, Myhr B, O’Donovan M, Ouldelhkim M C, San R, Shimada H and Stankowski, Jr L F (2000) Mouse lymphoma thymidine kinase locus gene mutation assay: International Workshop on Genotoxicity Test Procedures Workgroup Report, Environ Mol Mutagen 35: 185190.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Furth E E, Thilly W G, Penman B W, Liber W L and Rand W M (1981) Quantitative assay for mutation in diploid human lymphoblasts using microtiter plates, Anal Biochem 110: 1–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moore M M, Parker L, Huston J, Harrington-Brock K and Dearfield K L (1991) Comparison of mutagenicity results for nine compounds evaluated at the hgprt locus in the standard and suspension CHO assays, Mutagenesis 6: 7785.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Crespi C L, Gonzalez F J, Steimel D T, Turner T R, Gelboin H V, Penman B W and Langenbach R (1991) A metabolically competent human cell line expressing five cDNAs encoding procarcinogen-activating enzymes: application to mutagenicity testing, Chem Res Toxicol 4: 566–572.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Crespi C L and Thilly W G (1984) Assay for gene mutation in a human lymphoblast line, AHH-1, competent for xenobiotic metabolism, Mutat Res 128: 221–230.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Doak S H (2008) Aneuploidy in upper gastro-intestinal tract cancers – a potential prognostic marker? Mutat Res 651: 93–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Parry J M, Parry E M, Johnson G, Quick E and Waters E M (2005) The detection of genotoxic activity and the quantitative and qualitative assessment of the consequences of exposures, Exp Toxicol Pathol 57: Suppl 1 205–212.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Caskey C T and Kruh G D (1979) The HPRT locus, Cell 16: 1–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen T, Harrington-Brock K and Moore M M (2002) Mutant frequency and mutational spectra in the Tk and Hprt genes of N-ethyl-N-nitrosourea-treated mouse lymphoma cells, Environ Mol Mutagen 39: 296–305.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tindall K R and Stankowski Jr L F (1989) Molecular analysis of spontaneous mutations at the gpt locus in Chinese hamster ovary (AS52) cells, Mutation Research/Reviews in Genetic Toxicology 220: 241–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tindall K R, Stankowski Jr L F, Machanoff R and Hsie A W (1986) Analyses of mutation in pSV2gpt-transformed CHO cells, Mutation Research/Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis 160: 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moore M M, DeMarini D M, DeSerres F J and Tindall K R (1987) Banbury Report 28: Mammalian Cell Mutagenesis in: N.Y. Cold Sprind Harbor Laboratory, New York (Ed.).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tates A D, van Dam F J, de Zwart F A,van Teylingen C M and Natarajan A T (1994) Development of a cloning assay with high cloning efficiency to detect induction of 6-thioguanine-resistant lymphocytes in spleen of adult mice following in vivo inhalation exposure to 1,3-butadiene, Mutat Res 309: 299–306.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van Dam F J, Natarajan A T and Tates A D (1992) Use of a T-lymphocyte clonal assay for determining HPRT mutant frequencies in individual rats, Mutat Res 271: 231–242.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Albertini R J (2001) HPRT mutations in humans: biomarkers for mechanistic studies, Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research 489: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Woodruff N W, Durant J L, Donhoffner L L, Penman B W and Crespi C L (2001) Human cell mutagenicity of chlorinated and unchlorinated water and the disinfection byproduct 3-chloro-4-(dichloromethyl)-5-hydroxy-2(5 H)-furanone (MX), Mutat Res 495: 157–168.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McPherson M, Taylor G and Quirke P (1991) PCR 1: A Practical Approach (Practical Approach S.), Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gentest (1994) AHH-1 TK+/− Human Lymphoblastoid Cells. Routine cell culture, metabolite production and gene-locus mutation assay. Procedures for use. Gentest corporation, Woburn, MA 01801, USA.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    DeMarini D M, Brock K H, Doerr C L and Moore M M (1988) Mutagenicity and clastogenicity of proflavin in L5178Y/TK +/− −3.7.2.C cells, Mutat Res 204: 323–328.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Doak S H, Jenkins G L, Johnson G E, Quick E, Parry E M and Parry J M (2007) Mechanistic influences for mutation induction curves after exposure to DNA-reactive carcinogens, Cancer Res 67: 3904–3911.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zair Z M, Jenkins G J, Doak S H, Singh R, Brown K and Johnson G E (2011) N-Methylpurine DNA Glycosylase Plays a Pivotal Role in the Threshold Response of Ethyl Methanesulfonate-Induced Chromosome Damage. Toxicological Sciences, 119: 346–358.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Johnson G E, Quick E L, Parry E M and Parry J M (2010) Metabolic influences for mutation induction curves after exposure to Sudan-1 and para red. Mutagenesis, 25: 327–333.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Johnson G E, Doak S H, Griffiths S M, Quick E L, Skibinski D O F, Zaïr Z M and Jenkins G J (2009) Non-linear dose-response of DNA-reactive genotoxins: Recommendations for data analysis. Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis, 678: 95–100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DNA Damage Group, School of MedicineSwansea UniversitySwanseaUK

Personalised recommendations