4.1 Article

SFTG international collaborative study on in vitro micronucleus test - IV. Using CHL cells

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2006.04.003

关键词

CHL cells; in vitro micronucleus assay; cytochalasin 13; clastogens; aneugens

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this report, are presented the results of an international collaborative study on the in vitro micronucleus assay, using CHL cells. Fourteen laboratories participated in this study which was coordinated by an organizing committee supported by the SFTG (the French branch of the European Environmental Mutagen Society). Nine coded substances, having different modes of action and at different levels were assessed in the in vitro micronucleus test, using a common protocol. Mitomycin C was used as a positive control. In order to help to define a standard protocol on CHL cells, short and long treatment periods followed by various recovery times, with or without cytochalasin B, were compared. After an evaluation of the acceptability of the assays, the tested chemicals were classified as negative, positive or equivocal. Mannitol and clofibrate were judged as negative in all treatment schedules. Bleomycin was positive in all the treatment schedules, with an increase in the number of micronucleated cells in both mononucleate and binucleate cells when using cytochalasin B. This was also shown for the aneugens colchicine, diethylstilboestrol and griseofulvin, as expected. Urethane was judged as equivocal only after long treatment with cytochalasin B, and negative in all other treatment schedules. In any case, no genotoxic compound would have been missed with schedules including a short and a long treatment time, whether the treatment was followed by a recovery period or not and whether cytochalasin B was used or not. Thus, these results show that CHL cells were suitable for accurately detecting clastogenic and aneugenic compounds of various types in the in vitro micronucleus test. (c) 2006 Published by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据