Comparison of SYBR® Green I nucleic acid gel stain mutagenicity and ethidium bromide mutagenicity in the Salmonella/mammalian microsome reverse mutation assay (Ames test)

Isolation of Ethidium Bromide Degrading Bacteria from Jharkhand

“…5B it is evident that EtBr exhibit some inhibitory effect as some of the bacteria (C-1, C-3, O-3 and T-5) did not grow on EtBr. Toxicity effect of EtBr has been shown in other bacteria at EtBr concentration 10-20 g/ml which supports our finding in case of agricultural field isolates but is contradictory to our finding with BR3 and BR4 (Singer et al, 1999). To test the ideal concentration for further study the appearance/size of non-fluorescent zone was tested at different concentration of EtBr.…”

“…Due to its characteristic structure it intercalates between stacked nucleotide bases of nucleic acids and manifests carcinogenic and mutagenic effects via affecting biological processes of DNA replication, transcription, structural and functional alteration of the cell (Andre et al, 1997;Kuypers et al, 2013;Röding et al, 1986;Waring 1965). There are other dyes available as an alternative to EtBr such as methylene blue, thiazole orange homodimer and dihydroethidium and others which are reported to be non-mutagenic, less toxic or converted to mutagenic form within the cells only (Budd et al, 1997;Saiki et al, 1986;Singer et al, 1999;Wilke et al, Research Article 1994). Despite availability of alternatives to EtBr, application of this carcinogenic and mutagenic agent is widespread and inevitable in research.…”

“…EtBr, though inhibits microbial growth at higher concentration, can be degraded by microbes residing in nature either under normal condition or EtBr contaminated sites (Singer et al, 1999 Sukhumungoon et al, 2013). Based on literature cited above and necessity to utilize indigenous microbes to decontaminate EtBr at source.…”

Development of a SYBR safe™ technique for the sensitive detection of DNA in cesium chloride density gradients for stable isotope probing assays

“…This technique has numerous disadvantages. EtBr, because of its tendency to intercalate between DNA bases, is known as a carcinogenic and mutagenic agent (Singer et al, 1999). Moreover, several studies have shown that UV exposure can damage DNA through photochemical reactions (Cariello et al, 1988;Emanuele et al, 2005) and subsequently compromise its use in downstream molecular biology analyses (Hartman, 1991;Gründemann and Schomig, 1996).…”

Ensaio cometa em microalgas marinhas: danos no DNA de Dunaliella tertiolecta Butcher 1959 causados pela exposição à 4-nitroquinolina-N-óxido e ao benzo [a] pireno

“…Segundo Gichner et al (2006), cometas corados com DAPI ou com YOYO-1 dão resultados de porcentagem de DNA na cauda semelhantes aos cometas corados em EtBr, podendo ser usados com a mesma eficiência. No entanto, para corantes fluorescentes, além da necessidade de um microscópio de epifluorescência de alta qualidade, com lâmpada de mercúrio de 100 W e com uma câmera acoplada (no caso do uso do software de análise de imagem), sabe-se que corantes fluorescentes como o EtBr são potenciais carcinogênicos (Singer et al, 1999). Nadin et al (2001) compararam a eficiência da coloração com iodeto de propídio e com prata, e observaram que analisados segundo o método de índice de danos, não há diferença entre cometas corados com iodeto de propídio, cometas corados com prata, e cometas corados com prata após coloração com iodeto de propídio.…”