SHORT-TERM MUTAGENICITY and CARCINOGENICITY TESTS

Year 2020, Volume: 1 Issue: 1, 1 - 15, 31.01.2020

Nermin Gozukirmizi , Elif Karlık

Abstract

The millions of natural and/or synthetic substances with the unknown biological effects found in our environment, their mutagenic and carcinogenic potentials are still unknown. For this reason, it is very important to evaluate the mutagenic and carcinogenic potentials of natural and/or synthetic substances that are placed in our daily lives. Considering the cost and duration of the tests, researchers have developed tests are easy to use and inexpensive in a short time. The most common short-term test systems are bacterial mutagenicity tests. Various tests for the detection of mutagenic and carcinogenic activities of chemicals in bacteria, insects, plants and all mammalian cells for DNA damage, chromosome alterations, and cell cycle are often used at the same time. Recently retrotransposon based systems came into consideration. Use of various molecular markers in an effort to establish high-throughput screening methods that could revolutionize future toxicology studies.

Keywords

Carsinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Short-term tests

References

• 1-Ames BN, Durston WE, Yamasaki E, et al. Carcinogens are mutagens: a simple test system combining liver homogenates for activation and bacteria for detection. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1973; 70(8):2281–2285.
• 2-Ashby J, De Serres FJ, Shelby MD, et al. “Evaluation of short-term tests for carcinogens”. Report on the International Programme on Chemical Safety’s Collaborative Study on in vivo assays. Vols.I/II, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1988.
• 3-Bayram E, Yilmaz S, Hamad-Mecbur H, et al. 2012. Nikita retrotransposon movements in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) callus culture. Plantomics. 2012; 5(3):211-215
• 4-Bonchev G, Georgiev S, Pearce S. Retrotransposons and ethyl methanesulfonate-induced diversity in hexaploid wheat and Triticale. Cent Eur J Biol. 2010; 5(6):765-776.
• 5-Brennan RJ, Schiestl RH. Detecting carcinogens with the yeast DEL assay. Genetic Recombination. Methods in Molecular Biology. 2004; 262:111–124.
• 6-Choy WN. Genetic toxicology and cancer risk assessment. New York: Marcel Dekker. 2001.
• 7-Collins AR. The comet assay for DNA damage and repair: Principles, applications, and limitations. Mol. Biotechnol. 2004; 26:249–261.
• 8-COM. Guidance On A Strategy For Genotoxicity Testing Of Chemical Substances. 2011.
• 9-COM. Guidance On A Strategy For Genotoxicity Testing Of Chemical Substances. 2018.
• 10-Constantine MJ, Owens ET. Introduction and perspectives of plant genetic and cytogenetic assays, A report of the US Environmental Protection Agency Genotox Program. Mut Res. 1982; 99:1-12.
• 11-Doherty AT. The in vitro micronucleus assay. Methods Mol Biol. 2012; 817:121–141.
• 12-Eastmond DA, Hartwig A, Anderson D, et al. Mutagenicity testing for chemical risk assessment: update of the WHO/IPCS Harmonized Scheme. Mutagenesis. 2009; 24:341–349.
• 13-Fernandes TG, Diogo MM, Clark DS, et al. High-throughput cellular microarray platforms: applications in drug discovery, toxicology and stem cell research. Trends Biotechnol. 2009; 27(6):342–349.
• 14-FiskesjöG.The Allium test as a standard in environmental monitoring Hereditas.1985;102:99112. Flückiger-Isler S, Baumeister M, Braun K, et al. Assessment of the performance of the Ames II assay: a collaborative study with 19 coded compounds. Mutat Res. 2004; 558:181-197.
• 15-Grant VF. Plant Speciation. New York: Columbia University Press. 1981.
• 16-rant WF. The present status of higher plant bioassays for the detection of environmental mutagens. Mut Res. 1994; 310:175-185.
• 17-Grant WF. Higher plant assays for the detection of chromosomal aberrations and gene mutationsda brief historical background on their use for screening and monitoring environmental chemicals. Mutat Res. 1999; 426:107e112.
• 18-Hamad- Mecbur H, Yilmaz S, Temel A, et al. Effects of epirubicin on barley seedlings. Toxicol Ind Health. 2012; 30(1):52-59.
• 19-Howe K, Clark MD, Torroja CF, et al. The zebrafish reference genome sequence and its relationship to the human genome. Nature. 2013; 496(7446):498–503.
• 20-Kari G, Rodeck U, Dicker AP. Zebrafish: an emerging model system for human disease and drug discovery. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007; 82:70‐ 80.
• 21-Kihlman BA, Andersson HC. Root tips of Vicia faba for the study of the induction of chromosomal aberrations and sister chromatid exchanges. Handbook of Mutagenicity Test Procedures. Eds: Kilbey BJ, Legator M, Nichols W, Ramel C. Amsterdam, New York, Oxford: Elsevier. 1984.
• 22-Knight AW, Birrell L, Walmsley RM. Development and validation of a higher throughput screening approach to genotoxicity testing using the GADD45a-GFP GreenScreen HC assay. J Biomol Screen. 2009; 14(1):16–30.
• 23-Lee MY, Kumar RA, Sukumaran SM, et al. Three-dimensional cellular microarray for high-throughput toxicology assays. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA. 2008; 105:59–63.
• 24-Ma TH, Xu ZD, Xu C, et al. 1995. The improved Allium/Vicia root tip micronucleus assay for clastogenicity of environmental pollutants. Mut Res. 1995; 334:185-195.
• 25-Ma TH, Cabrera GL, Owens E. Genotoxic agents detected by plant bioassays. Rev Environ Health. 2005; 20:1–13.
• 26-Musgrove C, Camps M. Models for detection of genotoxicity in vivo: present and future. In: Mishra DR, editor. Mutagenesis. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech; 2012; 31–50.
• 27-National Center for Biotechnology Information. PubChem Database. Source=NCGC, AID=743292, https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioassay/743292 (accessed on Jan. 9, 2020).
• 28-Powell JR, Bennett MR, Evans KE, et al. 3D-DIP-Chip: a microarraybased method to measure genomic DNA damage. Sci Rep. 2015; 5:7975.
• 29-Ranganatha R, Chakravarthy S, Sukumaran S. High-throughput approaches for genotoxicity testing in drug development: recent advances. 2016; 6:1-12.
• 30-Redei GP. Mutagen assay with Arabidopsis: A report of the US Environmental Protection Agency Gene-Tox Program. Mut Res. 1982; 99:243-255.
• 31-SABiosciences. Oligo GEArray® human DNA damage signaling pathway microarray. Available from:http://saweb2.sabiosciences.com/gene_array_product/HTML/OHS-029.html. (accessed on Nov. 4, 2015).
• 32-Simpson K, Bevan N, Hastwell P, et al. The BlueScreen-384 assay as an indicator of genotoxic hazard potential in early-stage drug discovery. J Biomol Screen. 2013; 18(4):441–452.
• 33-Speit G, Hartmann A. The comet assay (single-cell gel test). A sensitive genotoxicity test for the detection of DNA damage and repair. Methods Mol Biol. 1999; 113:203–212.
• 34-Uhl M, Plewa M, Majer BJ, et al. Basic principles of genetic toxicology with an emphasis on plant bioassays”. Bioassays in plant cells for improvement of ecosystem and human health. Editörler: Maluszynska, J., Plewa, M. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego. 2003.
• 35-Van’t Hof J, Schairer LA. Tradescantia assay system for gaseous mutagens report of the US Environmental Protection Agency GeneTox Program. Mut Res. 1982; 99:303-315.
• 36-Walmsley RM, Tate M. The GADD45a-GFP GreenScreen HC assay. Methods Mol Biol. 2012; 817:231–250.
• 37-Yılmaz S, Gozukirmizi N. Variation of Retrotransposon Movement in Callus Culture and Regenerated Shoots of Barley. Biotechnol Biotechnol Equip. 2013; 27:4227-4230.
• 38-Yilmaz S, Marakli S, Gozukirmizi N. BAGY2 retrotransposon analyses in barley calli cultures and regenerated plantlets. Biochem Genet. 2014; 52:233-244. Zanella F, Lorens JB, Link W. High content screening: seeing is believing. Trends Biotechnol. 2010; 28(5), 237–245.