评估地下水代谢物三项测试遗传毒理学电池。

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q3 GENETICS & HEREDITY
Mutagenesis Pub Date : 2024-03-12 DOI:10.1093/mutage/gead037
Paul Fowler, Alessandra Bearzatto, Carol Beevers, Ewan D Booth, E Maria Donner, Lin Gan, Kerstin Hartmann, Krista Meurer, Maaike E Schutte, Raja S Settivari
{"title":"评估地下水代谢物三项测试遗传毒理学电池。","authors":"Paul Fowler, Alessandra Bearzatto, Carol Beevers, Ewan D Booth, E Maria Donner, Lin Gan, Kerstin Hartmann, Krista Meurer, Maaike E Schutte, Raja S Settivari","doi":"10.1093/mutage/gead037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The two-test in vitro battery for genotoxicity testing (Ames and micronucleus) has in the majority of cases replaced the three-test battery (as two-test plus mammalian cell gene mutation assay) for the routine testing of chemicals, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and agrochemical metabolites originating from food and feed as well as from water treatment. The guidance for testing agrochemical groundwater metabolites, however, still relies on the three-test battery. Data collated in this study from 18 plant protection and related materials highlights the disparity between the often negative Ames and in vitro chromosome aberration data and frequently positive in vitro mammalian cell gene mutation assays. Sixteen of the 18 collated materials with complete datasets were Ames negative, and overall had negative outcomes in in vitro chromosome damage tests (weight of evidence from multiple tests). Mammalian cell gene mutation assays (HPRT and/or mouse lymphoma assay (MLA)) were positive in at least one test for every material with this data. Where both MLA and HPRT tests were performed on the same material, the HPRT seemed to give fewer positive responses. In vivo follow-up tests included combinations of comet assays, unscheduled DNA synthesis, and transgenic rodent gene mutation assays, all gave negative outcomes. The inclusion of mammalian cell gene mutation assays in a three-test battery for groundwater metabolites is therefore not justified and leads to unnecessary in vivo follow-up testing.</p>","PeriodicalId":18889,"journal":{"name":"Mutagenesis","volume":" ","pages":"146-155"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10928834/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of the three-test genetic toxicology battery for groundwater metabolites.\",\"authors\":\"Paul Fowler, Alessandra Bearzatto, Carol Beevers, Ewan D Booth, E Maria Donner, Lin Gan, Kerstin Hartmann, Krista Meurer, Maaike E Schutte, Raja S Settivari\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/mutage/gead037\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The two-test in vitro battery for genotoxicity testing (Ames and micronucleus) has in the majority of cases replaced the three-test battery (as two-test plus mammalian cell gene mutation assay) for the routine testing of chemicals, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and agrochemical metabolites originating from food and feed as well as from water treatment. The guidance for testing agrochemical groundwater metabolites, however, still relies on the three-test battery. Data collated in this study from 18 plant protection and related materials highlights the disparity between the often negative Ames and in vitro chromosome aberration data and frequently positive in vitro mammalian cell gene mutation assays. Sixteen of the 18 collated materials with complete datasets were Ames negative, and overall had negative outcomes in in vitro chromosome damage tests (weight of evidence from multiple tests). Mammalian cell gene mutation assays (HPRT and/or mouse lymphoma assay (MLA)) were positive in at least one test for every material with this data. Where both MLA and HPRT tests were performed on the same material, the HPRT seemed to give fewer positive responses. In vivo follow-up tests included combinations of comet assays, unscheduled DNA synthesis, and transgenic rodent gene mutation assays, all gave negative outcomes. The inclusion of mammalian cell gene mutation assays in a three-test battery for groundwater metabolites is therefore not justified and leads to unnecessary in vivo follow-up testing.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18889,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mutagenesis\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"146-155\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10928834/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mutagenesis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/mutage/gead037\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GENETICS & HEREDITY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mutagenesis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/mutage/gead037","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在大多数情况下,用于基因毒性测试的两试验体外电池(艾姆斯和微核试验)已经取代了三试验电池(两试验加哺乳动物细胞基因突变试验),用于对源自食品和饲料以及水处理的化学品、药品、化妆品和农用化学品代谢物进行常规测试。然而,农用化学品地下水代谢物的检测指南仍依赖于三项检测方法。本研究整理了 18 种植物保护和相关材料的数据,这些数据凸显了艾姆斯和体外染色体畸变数据经常呈阴性与哺乳动物细胞体外基因突变检测经常呈阳性之间的差异。在整理的 18 种具有完整数据集的材料中,有 16 种是艾姆斯阴性,体外染色体损伤试验的结果总体上也是阴性(多项试验的证据权重)。哺乳动物细胞基因突变检测(HPRT 和/或 MLA)在每种材料的至少一次检测中都呈阳性。在对同一种材料同时进行 MLA 和 HPRT 试验时,HPRT 的阳性反应似乎较少。体内后续试验包括彗星试验、非计划 DNA 合成和转基因啮齿动物基因突变试验,所有这些试验的结果均为阴性。因此,将哺乳动物细胞基因突变检测纳入地下水代谢物的三项检测中是不合理的,会导致不必要的体内后续检测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessment of the three-test genetic toxicology battery for groundwater metabolites.

The two-test in vitro battery for genotoxicity testing (Ames and micronucleus) has in the majority of cases replaced the three-test battery (as two-test plus mammalian cell gene mutation assay) for the routine testing of chemicals, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and agrochemical metabolites originating from food and feed as well as from water treatment. The guidance for testing agrochemical groundwater metabolites, however, still relies on the three-test battery. Data collated in this study from 18 plant protection and related materials highlights the disparity between the often negative Ames and in vitro chromosome aberration data and frequently positive in vitro mammalian cell gene mutation assays. Sixteen of the 18 collated materials with complete datasets were Ames negative, and overall had negative outcomes in in vitro chromosome damage tests (weight of evidence from multiple tests). Mammalian cell gene mutation assays (HPRT and/or mouse lymphoma assay (MLA)) were positive in at least one test for every material with this data. Where both MLA and HPRT tests were performed on the same material, the HPRT seemed to give fewer positive responses. In vivo follow-up tests included combinations of comet assays, unscheduled DNA synthesis, and transgenic rodent gene mutation assays, all gave negative outcomes. The inclusion of mammalian cell gene mutation assays in a three-test battery for groundwater metabolites is therefore not justified and leads to unnecessary in vivo follow-up testing.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Mutagenesis
Mutagenesis 生物-毒理学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
3.70%
发文量
22
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Mutagenesis is an international multi-disciplinary journal designed to bring together research aimed at the identification, characterization and elucidation of the mechanisms of action of physical, chemical and biological agents capable of producing genetic change in living organisms and the study of the consequences of such changes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信