4.2 Article

Population doubling: A simple and more accurate estimation of cell growth suppression in the in vitro assay for chromosomal aberrations that reduces irrelevant positive results

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL AND MOLECULAR MUTAGENESIS
卷 43, 期 1, 页码 36-44

出版社

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/em.10207

关键词

cell growth; population doubling; high-dose selection; cytotoxicity; chromosomal aberrations

向作者/读者索取更多资源

International guidelines for cytotoxicity limits for the in vitro chromosomal aberration assay require reductions in cell growth of greater than 50%. This sets no upper limit on toxicity and there is concern about the number of false or irrelevant results obtained in the aberration assay, i.e., positive results at toxic dose levels only, with no evidence for primary DNA damaging ability and with negative results in the other genotoxicity tests. We have previously proposed that no truly genotoxic compound would be missed if the toxicity of the highest dose did not exceed 50%. Cell growth measured by cell counts as a percentage of controls can underestimate toxicity. For example, if we seed half a million cells per culture, and the controls double to 150% of the control. Measurement of population doublings (PDs) more accurately assesses cell growth. To assess the use of PD in dose selection, we examined previous data from this lab and data from new experiments with true, primary DNA damaging clastogens, and with clastogens, including drugs, thought to act indirectly, through cytotoxicity-associated mechanisms. We compared aberration results where the highest doses scored were based on 50% reductions in final cell counts with results obtained when the highest doses were based on PD. The PD method allows detection of true clastogens, including those that are active in a range with some toxicity, and reduces the number of toxicity-related false-positive results. (C) 2004 Wiley Liss, Inc. million during the experiment, a culture that truly has no growth will still have a cell count

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

4.2
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