» Articles » PMID: 6358881

Unscheduled DNA Synthesis Tests. A Report of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Gene-Tox Program

Overview
Journal Mutat Res
Publisher Elsevier
Specialty Genetics
Date 1983 Dec 1
PMID 6358881
Citations 16
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The utility of unscheduled DNA synthesis (UDS) testing for screening potentially hazardous chemicals was evaluated using the published papers and technical reports available to the UDS Work Group. A total of 244 documents were reviewed. Based on criteria defined in advance for evaluation of the results, 169 were rejected. From the 75 documents accepted, results were reviewed for 136 chemicals tested using autoradiographic approaches and for 147 chemicals tested using liquid scintillation counting (LSC) procedures; 38 chemicals were tested by both approaches to measure UDS. Since there were no documents available that provided detailed recommendations of UDS screening protocols or criteria for evaluating the results, the UDS Work Group presents suggested protocols and evaluation criteria suitable for measuring and evaluating UDS by autoradiography in primary rat hepatocytes and diploid human fibroblasts and by the LSC approach in diploid human fibroblasts. UDS detection is an appropriate system for inclusion in carcinogenicity and mutagenicity testing programs, because it measures the repair of DNA damage induced by many classes of chemicals over the entire mammalian genome. However, for this system to be utilized effectively, appropriate metabolic activation systems for autoradiographic measurements of UDS in human diploid fibroblasts must be developed, the nature of hepatocyte-to-hepatocyte variability in UDS responses must be determined, and the three suggested protocols must be thoroughly evaluated by using them to test a large number of coded chemicals of known in vivo mutagenicity and carcinogenicity.

Citing Articles

The hen's egg test for micronucleus induction (HET-MN): validation data set.

Reisinger K, Fieblinger D, Heppenheimer A, Kreutz J, Liebsch M, Luch A Mutagenesis. 2021; 37(2):61-75.

PMID: 34080017 PMC: 9071061. DOI: 10.1093/mutage/geab016.


A Novel Strategy to Predict Carcinogenicity of Antiparasitics Based on a Combination of DNA Lesions and Bacterial Mutagenicity Tests.

Liu Q, Lei Z, Zhu F, Ihsan A, Wang X, Yuan Z Front Public Health. 2017; 5:288.

PMID: 29170735 PMC: 5684118. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00288.


Accumulation of nuclear DNA damage or neuron loss: molecular basis for a new approach to understanding selective neuronal vulnerability in neurodegenerative diseases.

Brasnjevic I, Hof P, Steinbusch H, Schmitz C DNA Repair (Amst). 2008; 7(7):1087-97.

PMID: 18458001 PMC: 2919205. DOI: 10.1016/j.dnarep.2008.03.010.


Cyproterone acetate: is it hepato- or genotoxic?.

Rabe T, Feldmann K, Heinemann L, RUNNEBAUM B Drug Saf. 1996; 14(1):25-38.

PMID: 8713486 DOI: 10.2165/00002018-199614010-00004.


A novel technique for the detection of DNA single-strand breaks in human white blood cells and its combination with the unscheduled DNA synthesis assay.

Krause T, Einhaus M, Holz O, Meissner R, Baumgartner E, Rudiger H Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 1993; 65(2):77-82.

PMID: 8253514 DOI: 10.1007/BF00405723.