SOS显色试验综述

Philippe Quillardet, Maurice Hofnung
{"title":"SOS显色试验综述","authors":"Philippe Quillardet,&nbsp;Maurice Hofnung","doi":"10.1016/0165-1110(93)90019-J","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The SOS chromotest is reviewed through over 100 publications corresponding to the testing of 751 chemicals. 404 (54%) of these chemicals present a genotoxic activity detectable in the SOS chromotest. Their SOS inducing potencies span more than 8 orders of magnitude.</p><p>For 452 compounds, the results obtained in the SOS chromotest could be compared to those obtained in the Ames test. It was found that 373 (82%) of these compounds give similar responses in both tests (236 positive and 137 negative responses). Thus the discrepancies between both tests concern 79 compounds (18%). A case by case analysis shows that many of these compounds are at the same time very weak SOS inducers and very weak mutagens. Thus we think that, most of the time, the discrepancies between the two tests may be accounted for by differences in the interpretation of the results rather than by the experimental results themselves. However, there are some compounds which are clearly SOS inducers but devoid of mutagenic activity in the Ames test (such as quinoline-1-oxide) and to a larger extent, clearly mutagenic compounds which do not induce the SOS response in the SOS chromotest (such as benzidine, cyclophosphamide, acridines, ethidium bromide).</p><p>We also analyzed the correlation between SOS induction, mutagenesis and carcinogenesis according to the classification of Lewis. For 65 confirmed carcinogens (class 1), the sensitivity, i.e., the capacity to identify carcinogens, was 62% with the SOS chromotest and 77% with the Ames test. For 44 suspected carcinogens (class 2), the sensitivity was 66% with the SOS chromotest and 68% with the Ames test.</p><p>Thus, we confirmed previous observations made on 83 compounds that there is a close correlation between the results given by both bacterial tests. The capacity of the Ames test to identify carcinogens is higher than that of the SOS chromotest. However, because the number of false positive compounds was lower in the SOS chromotest, the specificity, i.e., the capacity to discriminate between carcinogens and non-carcinogens of the SOS chromotest, appeared higher than that of the Ames test. Thus, the results of the SOS chromotest and of the Ames test can complement each other.</p><p>The SOS chromotest is one of the most rapid and simple short-term test for genotoxins and is easily adaptable to various conditions, so that it could be used as an early - perhaps the earliest - test in a battery.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100940,"journal":{"name":"Mutation Research/Reviews in Genetic Toxicology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1993-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0165-1110(93)90019-J","citationCount":"242","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The SOS chromotest: a review\",\"authors\":\"Philippe Quillardet,&nbsp;Maurice Hofnung\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/0165-1110(93)90019-J\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The SOS chromotest is reviewed through over 100 publications corresponding to the testing of 751 chemicals. 404 (54%) of these chemicals present a genotoxic activity detectable in the SOS chromotest. Their SOS inducing potencies span more than 8 orders of magnitude.</p><p>For 452 compounds, the results obtained in the SOS chromotest could be compared to those obtained in the Ames test. It was found that 373 (82%) of these compounds give similar responses in both tests (236 positive and 137 negative responses). Thus the discrepancies between both tests concern 79 compounds (18%). A case by case analysis shows that many of these compounds are at the same time very weak SOS inducers and very weak mutagens. Thus we think that, most of the time, the discrepancies between the two tests may be accounted for by differences in the interpretation of the results rather than by the experimental results themselves. However, there are some compounds which are clearly SOS inducers but devoid of mutagenic activity in the Ames test (such as quinoline-1-oxide) and to a larger extent, clearly mutagenic compounds which do not induce the SOS response in the SOS chromotest (such as benzidine, cyclophosphamide, acridines, ethidium bromide).</p><p>We also analyzed the correlation between SOS induction, mutagenesis and carcinogenesis according to the classification of Lewis. For 65 confirmed carcinogens (class 1), the sensitivity, i.e., the capacity to identify carcinogens, was 62% with the SOS chromotest and 77% with the Ames test. For 44 suspected carcinogens (class 2), the sensitivity was 66% with the SOS chromotest and 68% with the Ames test.</p><p>Thus, we confirmed previous observations made on 83 compounds that there is a close correlation between the results given by both bacterial tests. The capacity of the Ames test to identify carcinogens is higher than that of the SOS chromotest. However, because the number of false positive compounds was lower in the SOS chromotest, the specificity, i.e., the capacity to discriminate between carcinogens and non-carcinogens of the SOS chromotest, appeared higher than that of the Ames test. Thus, the results of the SOS chromotest and of the Ames test can complement each other.</p><p>The SOS chromotest is one of the most rapid and simple short-term test for genotoxins and is easily adaptable to various conditions, so that it could be used as an early - perhaps the earliest - test in a battery.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100940,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mutation Research/Reviews in Genetic Toxicology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1993-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0165-1110(93)90019-J\",\"citationCount\":\"242\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mutation Research/Reviews in Genetic Toxicology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016511109390019J\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mutation Research/Reviews in Genetic Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016511109390019J","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 242

摘要

SOS显色法通过与751种化学品测试相对应的100多份出版物进行审查。这些化学物质中404(54%)在SOS染色试验中可检测到基因毒性活性。它们的SOS诱导能力超过8个数量级。对452个化合物,SOS显色试验结果与Ames试验结果一致。结果发现,这些化合物中有373种(82%)在两种测试中具有相似的反应(236种阳性反应和137种阴性反应)。因此,两种测试之间的差异涉及79种化合物(18%)。逐个分析表明,这些化合物中的许多同时是非常弱的SOS诱导剂和非常弱的诱变剂。因此,我们认为,在大多数情况下,两个测试之间的差异可能是由于对结果的解释不同,而不是实验结果本身。然而,有一些化合物在Ames试验中明显是SOS诱导剂,但没有诱变活性(如喹啉-1-氧化物),在更大程度上,明显是诱变化合物,但在SOS显色试验中不诱导SOS反应(如联苯胺、环磷酰胺、吖啶、溴化乙啶)。我们还根据Lewis分类分析了SOS诱导、诱变与癌变的相关性。对于65种已确认的致癌物(1类),SOS染色试验的灵敏度,即识别致癌物的能力为62%,Ames试验为77%。对于44种疑似致癌物(2类),SOS染色试验的敏感性为66%,Ames试验的敏感性为68%。因此,我们证实了先前对83种化合物的观察结果,即两种细菌测试的结果之间存在密切的相关性。Ames试验鉴别致癌物的能力高于SOS染色试验。然而,由于SOS染色试验中假阳性化合物的数量较低,因此SOS染色试验的特异性,即区分致癌物和非致癌物的能力,似乎高于Ames试验。因此,SOS显色试验和Ames试验的结果可以相互补充。SOS显色试验是基因毒素最快速、最简单的短期检测方法之一,易于适应各种条件,因此它可以作为电池的早期——也许是最早的——检测方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The SOS chromotest: a review

The SOS chromotest is reviewed through over 100 publications corresponding to the testing of 751 chemicals. 404 (54%) of these chemicals present a genotoxic activity detectable in the SOS chromotest. Their SOS inducing potencies span more than 8 orders of magnitude.

For 452 compounds, the results obtained in the SOS chromotest could be compared to those obtained in the Ames test. It was found that 373 (82%) of these compounds give similar responses in both tests (236 positive and 137 negative responses). Thus the discrepancies between both tests concern 79 compounds (18%). A case by case analysis shows that many of these compounds are at the same time very weak SOS inducers and very weak mutagens. Thus we think that, most of the time, the discrepancies between the two tests may be accounted for by differences in the interpretation of the results rather than by the experimental results themselves. However, there are some compounds which are clearly SOS inducers but devoid of mutagenic activity in the Ames test (such as quinoline-1-oxide) and to a larger extent, clearly mutagenic compounds which do not induce the SOS response in the SOS chromotest (such as benzidine, cyclophosphamide, acridines, ethidium bromide).

We also analyzed the correlation between SOS induction, mutagenesis and carcinogenesis according to the classification of Lewis. For 65 confirmed carcinogens (class 1), the sensitivity, i.e., the capacity to identify carcinogens, was 62% with the SOS chromotest and 77% with the Ames test. For 44 suspected carcinogens (class 2), the sensitivity was 66% with the SOS chromotest and 68% with the Ames test.

Thus, we confirmed previous observations made on 83 compounds that there is a close correlation between the results given by both bacterial tests. The capacity of the Ames test to identify carcinogens is higher than that of the SOS chromotest. However, because the number of false positive compounds was lower in the SOS chromotest, the specificity, i.e., the capacity to discriminate between carcinogens and non-carcinogens of the SOS chromotest, appeared higher than that of the Ames test. Thus, the results of the SOS chromotest and of the Ames test can complement each other.

The SOS chromotest is one of the most rapid and simple short-term test for genotoxins and is easily adaptable to various conditions, so that it could be used as an early - perhaps the earliest - test in a battery.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
DNA adducts and chronic degenerative diseases. Pathogenetic relevance and implications in preventive medicine Carbon tetrachloride: Genetic effects and other modes of action Dr. Hans F. Stich, Professor Emeritus of the University of British Columbia, 1927–1995 Product review Foreword
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1