Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (9)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cunha, K. S.
Right arrow Articles by Rodrigues de Andrade, H. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cunha, K. S.
Right arrow Articles by Rodrigues de Andrade, H. H.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Mutagenesis, Vol. 17, No. 2, 141-147, March 2002
© 2002 UK Environmental Mutagen Society/Oxford University Press

Comparison of camptothecin derivatives presently in clinical trials: genotoxic potency and mitotic recombination

Kênya Silva Cunha, Maria Luíza Reguly1, Ulrich Graf2 and Heloisa Helena Rodrigues de Andrade1,3

Departamento de Ciências Fisiológicas, Universidade Federal de Goiás, CP 131, 74001-970 Goiânia, GO, Brasil, 1 Laboratório de Mutagênese, Departamento de Genética, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, CP 15053, 91501-970 Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil and 2 Institute of Animal Sciences, Section Physiology and Animal Husbandry, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Zürich, CH-8603 Schwerzenbach, Switzerland

The genotoxicity of camptothecin (CPT) and its clinical antineoplastic analogues irinotecan (CPT-11) and topotecan (TPT) were evaluated using the wing somatic mutation and recombination test (SMART) in Drosophila melanogaster. These compounds stabilize and trap the topoisomerase I–DNA complex, preventing the religation step of the breakage/rejoining reaction mediated by the enzyme. The standard version of the wing SMART was used to evaluate the three compounds and to compare the wing spots induced in marker-heterozygous and balancer-heterozygous flies. The results demonstrate that all compounds tested have a significant genotoxic effect in both genotypes analysed. At the same time, a comparison of the clone induction frequencies in marker-heterozygous and balancerheterozygous flies shows that mitotic recombination is the prevalent mechanism through which the three compounds induce all categories of wing spots (78–93% recombination). TPT was the most genotoxic compound, probably because substitutions of amino groups for the 9-carbon of the CPT A ring leads to compounds with greater in vivo activity. CPT and CPT-11 induced, respectively, about 7 and 28 times fewer mutant clones per millimolar exposure unit than TPT.

3 To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel: +55 51 33166741; Fax: +55 51 33167311; Email: heloisa.andrade{at}ufrgs.br


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.