Skip Navigation



Mutagenesis Advance Access published online on May 15, 2009

Mutagenesis, doi:10.1093/mutage/gep017
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
24/4/359    most recent
gep017v1
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 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 arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kamber, M.
Right arrow Articles by Zeiger, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kamber, M.
Right arrow Articles by Zeiger, E.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the UK Environmental Mutagen Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.

Comparison of the Ames II and traditional Ames test responses with respect to mutagenicity, strain specificities, need for metabolism and correlation with rodent carcinogenicity

Markus Kamber*, Sini Flückiger-Isler, Günter Engelhardt1, Rudolf Jaeckh2 and Errol Zeiger3

Xenometrix AG, Gewerbestrasse 25, CH-4123 Allschwil, Switzerland 1Experimental Toxicology and Ecology, BASF SE Product Safety 2Regulations, Toxicology and Ecology, BASF SE Product Safety, 67056 Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Germany 3Errol Zeiger Consulting, Chapel Hill, NC 27514, USA

The Ames II Salmonella mutagenicity assay procedure was used to test 71 chemicals, and the results were compared with those from the traditional Ames Salmonella test using the NTP database as the reference. All Ames II tests were performed using a fluctuation procedure in microplate format, using TAMix for the detection of base pair substitutions and TA98 to detect frameshift mutations. There was 84% agreement between the two procedures in identifying mutagens and non-mutagens, which is equivalent to the intra- and interlaboratory reproducibility of 87% for the traditional test. The two tests also performed similarly in their predictions of rodent carcinogenicity.

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel: +41 61 482 14 34; Fax: +41 61 482 20 72; Email: mk{at}xenometrix.ch

Received on March 17, 2009; revised on April 14, 2009; accepted on April 20, 2009.


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.