Multilaboratory comparison of in vitro tests for chromosome aberrations in CHO and CHL cells tested under the same protocols
Different test results have been reported for the same chemicals in two in vitro chromosome aberration test systems, CHL cells tested by a Japanese protocol and CHO cells tested by the US National Toxicology Program [Sofuni et al., Mutat Res 241:173–213,1990]. Here, laboratories in Japan, the US and...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Environmental and molecular mutagenesis 1997, Vol.29 (2), p.189-207 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 207 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 189 |
container_title | Environmental and molecular mutagenesis |
container_volume | 29 |
creator | Galloway, Sheila M. Sofuni, Toshio Shelby, Michael D. Thilagar, A. Kumaroo, V. Kaur, Parvinder Gulati, Dushant Putman, Donald L. Murli, Hemalatha Marshall, Richard Tanaka, Noriho Anderson, B. Zeiger, Errol Ishidate Jr, Motoi |
description | Different test results have been reported for the same chemicals in two in vitro chromosome aberration test systems, CHL cells tested by a Japanese protocol and CHO cells tested by the US National Toxicology Program [Sofuni et al., Mutat Res 241:173–213,1990]. Here, laboratories in Japan, the US and the UK tested 9 such chemicals in CHL and CHO cells using the same protocols and found all 9 positive in both cell types; differences in earlier conclusions with these chemicals were due mainly to test protocol, not to different sensitivities of the cells. The most important protocol difference is sampling time. Chemicals that were negative in the NTP series using a sampling time of 10 to 13 hours often produced positive results when retested here with a 20‐ to 24‐hour sampling time. While positive resultswere obtained in both cell types, CHL cells sometimes had higher aberration levels and survived at higher doses than CHO cells would tolerate. This may reflect some intrinsic difference in sensitivity but may also be affected by factors such as cell cycle length and culture media (e.g., oxygen scavenging capacity). The collaboration reported here also contributed to a better understanding of scoring aberrations, especially “gaps”; there was good agreement on what types of aberrations should be included in the totals when scoring criteria were clearly defined, for example, many changes classified as “gaps” by the Japanese system were classified as “breaks” in the scoring systems used in the United States and the United Kingdom, and were appropriately included in total aberration counts. Environ. Mol. Mutagen 29:189–207, 1997. ® 1997 Wiley‐Liss, Inc. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2280(1997)29:2<189::AID-EM10>3.0.CO;2-A |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_16028762</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>16028762</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5200-e9ac3e4870a72ecd0dc847b3014aa4f5548e3e57c07ec8bda0f55e5bb5db3d393</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kV1v0zAUhi0EGmXwE5B8gdB2keKPfNgFIVVhbEXtKtgQ3B05jqMFkrjYCVCJH4-zVuViE1dH9nnPc16dF6EZJVNKCHt1crXIF6eUSBExJsgJlTI7ZXLG3lAhZ7P54l10tqLkLZ-Sab5-zaL5AzQ5yB-iCRGSR2kq2WP0xPtvhFAaS3aEjiQNhIxO0J_V0PR1owrrVG_dFmvbbpSrve2wrXDd4Z917yzuje89rqzD-sbZ1nrbGqwK48JYbTs_KvOLNVZdGeoSa9M0_nbKlHjoSuNwf2OwV2Fs42xvtW38U_SoUo03z_b1GH1-f3adX0TL9fkiny8jnTBCIiOV5iYWGVEZM7okpRZxVnBCY6XiKkliYbhJMk0yo0VRKhL-TFIUSVnwkkt-jF7uuGHzjyF4grb2o0PVGTt4oClhIktZEH7aCbWz3jtTwcbVrXJboATGSADGSGC8MYw3hjESYBIYhIMChEhgjAQ4EMjX4XseoM_324eiNeUBuc8g9F_s-8pr1VROdbr2BxlLmZBU_vP2q27M9o6x__q6x9btO0CjHbQOQf0-QJX7DmnGswS-XJ6DvP7wdfUxvYQr_hfBIsNr</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>16028762</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Multilaboratory comparison of in vitro tests for chromosome aberrations in CHO and CHL cells tested under the same protocols</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>Galloway, Sheila M. ; Sofuni, Toshio ; Shelby, Michael D. ; Thilagar, A. ; Kumaroo, V. ; Kaur, Parvinder ; Gulati, Dushant ; Putman, Donald L. ; Murli, Hemalatha ; Marshall, Richard ; Tanaka, Noriho ; Anderson, B. ; Zeiger, Errol ; Ishidate Jr, Motoi</creator><creatorcontrib>Galloway, Sheila M. ; Sofuni, Toshio ; Shelby, Michael D. ; Thilagar, A. ; Kumaroo, V. ; Kaur, Parvinder ; Gulati, Dushant ; Putman, Donald L. ; Murli, Hemalatha ; Marshall, Richard ; Tanaka, Noriho ; Anderson, B. ; Zeiger, Errol ; Ishidate Jr, Motoi</creatorcontrib><description>Different test results have been reported for the same chemicals in two in vitro chromosome aberration test systems, CHL cells tested by a Japanese protocol and CHO cells tested by the US National Toxicology Program [Sofuni et al., Mutat Res 241:173–213,1990]. Here, laboratories in Japan, the US and the UK tested 9 such chemicals in CHL and CHO cells using the same protocols and found all 9 positive in both cell types; differences in earlier conclusions with these chemicals were due mainly to test protocol, not to different sensitivities of the cells. The most important protocol difference is sampling time. Chemicals that were negative in the NTP series using a sampling time of 10 to 13 hours often produced positive results when retested here with a 20‐ to 24‐hour sampling time. While positive resultswere obtained in both cell types, CHL cells sometimes had higher aberration levels and survived at higher doses than CHO cells would tolerate. This may reflect some intrinsic difference in sensitivity but may also be affected by factors such as cell cycle length and culture media (e.g., oxygen scavenging capacity). The collaboration reported here also contributed to a better understanding of scoring aberrations, especially “gaps”; there was good agreement on what types of aberrations should be included in the totals when scoring criteria were clearly defined, for example, many changes classified as “gaps” by the Japanese system were classified as “breaks” in the scoring systems used in the United States and the United Kingdom, and were appropriately included in total aberration counts. Environ. Mol. Mutagen 29:189–207, 1997. ® 1997 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0893-6692</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1098-2280</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2280(1997)29:2<189::AID-EM10>3.0.CO;2-A</identifier><identifier>PMID: 9118971</identifier><identifier>CODEN: EMMUEG</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</publisher><subject>Animals ; Biological and medical sciences ; Chemical mutagenesis ; CHO and CHL cells ; CHO Cells ; Chromosome Aberrations ; Cricetinae ; Japan ; Medical sciences ; Mutagenicity Tests ; Mutagens - toxicity ; Reference Standards ; test protocols ; Toxicology ; United Kingdom ; United States</subject><ispartof>Environmental and molecular mutagenesis, 1997, Vol.29 (2), p.189-207</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 1997 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.</rights><rights>1997 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5200-e9ac3e4870a72ecd0dc847b3014aa4f5548e3e57c07ec8bda0f55e5bb5db3d393</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2F%28SICI%291098-2280%281997%2929%3A2%3C189%3A%3AAID-EM10%3E3.0.CO%3B2-A$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2F%28SICI%291098-2280%281997%2929%3A2%3C189%3A%3AAID-EM10%3E3.0.CO%3B2-A$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1416,4022,27922,27923,27924,45573,45574</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=2628919$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9118971$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Galloway, Sheila M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sofuni, Toshio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shelby, Michael D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thilagar, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kumaroo, V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaur, Parvinder</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gulati, Dushant</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Putman, Donald L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murli, Hemalatha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marshall, Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tanaka, Noriho</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anderson, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zeiger, Errol</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ishidate Jr, Motoi</creatorcontrib><title>Multilaboratory comparison of in vitro tests for chromosome aberrations in CHO and CHL cells tested under the same protocols</title><title>Environmental and molecular mutagenesis</title><addtitle>Environ. Mol. Mutagen</addtitle><description>Different test results have been reported for the same chemicals in two in vitro chromosome aberration test systems, CHL cells tested by a Japanese protocol and CHO cells tested by the US National Toxicology Program [Sofuni et al., Mutat Res 241:173–213,1990]. Here, laboratories in Japan, the US and the UK tested 9 such chemicals in CHL and CHO cells using the same protocols and found all 9 positive in both cell types; differences in earlier conclusions with these chemicals were due mainly to test protocol, not to different sensitivities of the cells. The most important protocol difference is sampling time. Chemicals that were negative in the NTP series using a sampling time of 10 to 13 hours often produced positive results when retested here with a 20‐ to 24‐hour sampling time. While positive resultswere obtained in both cell types, CHL cells sometimes had higher aberration levels and survived at higher doses than CHO cells would tolerate. This may reflect some intrinsic difference in sensitivity but may also be affected by factors such as cell cycle length and culture media (e.g., oxygen scavenging capacity). The collaboration reported here also contributed to a better understanding of scoring aberrations, especially “gaps”; there was good agreement on what types of aberrations should be included in the totals when scoring criteria were clearly defined, for example, many changes classified as “gaps” by the Japanese system were classified as “breaks” in the scoring systems used in the United States and the United Kingdom, and were appropriately included in total aberration counts. Environ. Mol. Mutagen 29:189–207, 1997. ® 1997 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Chemical mutagenesis</subject><subject>CHO and CHL cells</subject><subject>CHO Cells</subject><subject>Chromosome Aberrations</subject><subject>Cricetinae</subject><subject>Japan</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Mutagenicity Tests</subject><subject>Mutagens - toxicity</subject><subject>Reference Standards</subject><subject>test protocols</subject><subject>Toxicology</subject><subject>United Kingdom</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>0893-6692</issn><issn>1098-2280</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1997</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kV1v0zAUhi0EGmXwE5B8gdB2keKPfNgFIVVhbEXtKtgQ3B05jqMFkrjYCVCJH4-zVuViE1dH9nnPc16dF6EZJVNKCHt1crXIF6eUSBExJsgJlTI7ZXLG3lAhZ7P54l10tqLkLZ-Sab5-zaL5AzQ5yB-iCRGSR2kq2WP0xPtvhFAaS3aEjiQNhIxO0J_V0PR1owrrVG_dFmvbbpSrve2wrXDd4Z917yzuje89rqzD-sbZ1nrbGqwK48JYbTs_KvOLNVZdGeoSa9M0_nbKlHjoSuNwf2OwV2Fs42xvtW38U_SoUo03z_b1GH1-f3adX0TL9fkiny8jnTBCIiOV5iYWGVEZM7okpRZxVnBCY6XiKkliYbhJMk0yo0VRKhL-TFIUSVnwkkt-jF7uuGHzjyF4grb2o0PVGTt4oClhIktZEH7aCbWz3jtTwcbVrXJboATGSADGSGC8MYw3hjESYBIYhIMChEhgjAQ4EMjX4XseoM_324eiNeUBuc8g9F_s-8pr1VROdbr2BxlLmZBU_vP2q27M9o6x__q6x9btO0CjHbQOQf0-QJX7DmnGswS-XJ6DvP7wdfUxvYQr_hfBIsNr</recordid><startdate>1997</startdate><enddate>1997</enddate><creator>Galloway, Sheila M.</creator><creator>Sofuni, Toshio</creator><creator>Shelby, Michael D.</creator><creator>Thilagar, A.</creator><creator>Kumaroo, V.</creator><creator>Kaur, Parvinder</creator><creator>Gulati, Dushant</creator><creator>Putman, Donald L.</creator><creator>Murli, Hemalatha</creator><creator>Marshall, Richard</creator><creator>Tanaka, Noriho</creator><creator>Anderson, B.</creator><creator>Zeiger, Errol</creator><creator>Ishidate Jr, Motoi</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</general><general>Wiley-Liss</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope></search><sort><creationdate>1997</creationdate><title>Multilaboratory comparison of in vitro tests for chromosome aberrations in CHO and CHL cells tested under the same protocols</title><author>Galloway, Sheila M. ; Sofuni, Toshio ; Shelby, Michael D. ; Thilagar, A. ; Kumaroo, V. ; Kaur, Parvinder ; Gulati, Dushant ; Putman, Donald L. ; Murli, Hemalatha ; Marshall, Richard ; Tanaka, Noriho ; Anderson, B. ; Zeiger, Errol ; Ishidate Jr, Motoi</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5200-e9ac3e4870a72ecd0dc847b3014aa4f5548e3e57c07ec8bda0f55e5bb5db3d393</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1997</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Chemical mutagenesis</topic><topic>CHO and CHL cells</topic><topic>CHO Cells</topic><topic>Chromosome Aberrations</topic><topic>Cricetinae</topic><topic>Japan</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Mutagenicity Tests</topic><topic>Mutagens - toxicity</topic><topic>Reference Standards</topic><topic>test protocols</topic><topic>Toxicology</topic><topic>United Kingdom</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Galloway, Sheila M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sofuni, Toshio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shelby, Michael D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thilagar, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kumaroo, V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaur, Parvinder</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gulati, Dushant</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Putman, Donald L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murli, Hemalatha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marshall, Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tanaka, Noriho</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anderson, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zeiger, Errol</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ishidate Jr, Motoi</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Environmental and molecular mutagenesis</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Galloway, Sheila M.</au><au>Sofuni, Toshio</au><au>Shelby, Michael D.</au><au>Thilagar, A.</au><au>Kumaroo, V.</au><au>Kaur, Parvinder</au><au>Gulati, Dushant</au><au>Putman, Donald L.</au><au>Murli, Hemalatha</au><au>Marshall, Richard</au><au>Tanaka, Noriho</au><au>Anderson, B.</au><au>Zeiger, Errol</au><au>Ishidate Jr, Motoi</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Multilaboratory comparison of in vitro tests for chromosome aberrations in CHO and CHL cells tested under the same protocols</atitle><jtitle>Environmental and molecular mutagenesis</jtitle><addtitle>Environ. Mol. Mutagen</addtitle><date>1997</date><risdate>1997</risdate><volume>29</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>189</spage><epage>207</epage><pages>189-207</pages><issn>0893-6692</issn><eissn>1098-2280</eissn><coden>EMMUEG</coden><abstract>Different test results have been reported for the same chemicals in two in vitro chromosome aberration test systems, CHL cells tested by a Japanese protocol and CHO cells tested by the US National Toxicology Program [Sofuni et al., Mutat Res 241:173–213,1990]. Here, laboratories in Japan, the US and the UK tested 9 such chemicals in CHL and CHO cells using the same protocols and found all 9 positive in both cell types; differences in earlier conclusions with these chemicals were due mainly to test protocol, not to different sensitivities of the cells. The most important protocol difference is sampling time. Chemicals that were negative in the NTP series using a sampling time of 10 to 13 hours often produced positive results when retested here with a 20‐ to 24‐hour sampling time. While positive resultswere obtained in both cell types, CHL cells sometimes had higher aberration levels and survived at higher doses than CHO cells would tolerate. This may reflect some intrinsic difference in sensitivity but may also be affected by factors such as cell cycle length and culture media (e.g., oxygen scavenging capacity). The collaboration reported here also contributed to a better understanding of scoring aberrations, especially “gaps”; there was good agreement on what types of aberrations should be included in the totals when scoring criteria were clearly defined, for example, many changes classified as “gaps” by the Japanese system were classified as “breaks” in the scoring systems used in the United States and the United Kingdom, and were appropriately included in total aberration counts. Environ. Mol. Mutagen 29:189–207, 1997. ® 1997 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</pub><pmid>9118971</pmid><doi>10.1002/(SICI)1098-2280(1997)29:2<189::AID-EM10>3.0.CO;2-A</doi><tpages>19</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0893-6692 |
ispartof | Environmental and molecular mutagenesis, 1997, Vol.29 (2), p.189-207 |
issn | 0893-6692 1098-2280 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_16028762 |
source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library All Journals |
subjects | Animals Biological and medical sciences Chemical mutagenesis CHO and CHL cells CHO Cells Chromosome Aberrations Cricetinae Japan Medical sciences Mutagenicity Tests Mutagens - toxicity Reference Standards test protocols Toxicology United Kingdom United States |
title | Multilaboratory comparison of in vitro tests for chromosome aberrations in CHO and CHL cells tested under the same protocols |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-11T19%3A44%3A10IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Multilaboratory%20comparison%20of%20in%20vitro%20tests%20for%20chromosome%20aberrations%20in%20CHO%20and%20CHL%20cells%20tested%20under%20the%20same%20protocols&rft.jtitle=Environmental%20and%20molecular%20mutagenesis&rft.au=Galloway,%20Sheila%20M.&rft.date=1997&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=189&rft.epage=207&rft.pages=189-207&rft.issn=0893-6692&rft.eissn=1098-2280&rft.coden=EMMUEG&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2280(1997)29:2%3C189::AID-EM10%3E3.0.CO;2-A&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E16028762%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=16028762&rft_id=info:pmid/9118971&rfr_iscdi=true |