2020
DOI: 10.1186/s41021-020-00154-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of episomally encoded DNA polymerases on chemically induced mutagenesis at the hisG46 target in Ames test

Abstract: Background:The standard Ames test strains owe their high sensitivity to chemical and physical mutagens to the episomal Y-family DNA polymerase RI encoded by the mucAB operon. The S. typhimurium test strains carry also another related samAB operon on a 60-kDa cryptic plasmid. In contrast to the chromosomally encoded Y-family DNA polymerases V and IV, these plasmid born polymerase genes have no direct counterpart in mammalian cells. By replicating damaged templates, DNA polymerases play a central role in mutagen… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
1
1

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
(82 reference statements)
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To assess the ability of these chemostats to detect lower concentrations of mutagens, we first focused on testing the DNA methylating agent methyl methanesulfonate (MMS) [ 42 ]. Given that the limit of detection for the Ames test is approximately 2.2–4.4 mg MMS/L [ 43 , 44 ], we began by growing yeast in four parallel chemostats with 0, 0.1 1.0, and 10 mg MMS/L ( Fig 2A ). Our lowest concentration of MMS tested, 0.1 mg MMS/L, corresponds to 22 times lower than the Ames test detection limit.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…To assess the ability of these chemostats to detect lower concentrations of mutagens, we first focused on testing the DNA methylating agent methyl methanesulfonate (MMS) [ 42 ]. Given that the limit of detection for the Ames test is approximately 2.2–4.4 mg MMS/L [ 43 , 44 ], we began by growing yeast in four parallel chemostats with 0, 0.1 1.0, and 10 mg MMS/L ( Fig 2A ). Our lowest concentration of MMS tested, 0.1 mg MMS/L, corresponds to 22 times lower than the Ames test detection limit.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The blue box represents the normalized average for the number of Can-resistant colonies in the no mutagen control (that is, 1) + normalized standard deviation. The Ames test limits of detection are 2.2-4.4 mg MMS/L[43,44] and 2.0 μg EtBr/L[21]. A Tukey-HSD test was used to determine statistical significance ( � = p < 0.05, �� = p < 0.01, ��� = p < 0.001).https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235303.g002…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To assess the ability of these chemostats to detect lower concentrations of mutagens, we first focused on testing the DNA methylating agent methylmethane sulfonate (MMS) [31]. Given that the limit of detection for the Ames test is approximately 2.2 - 4.4 mg MMS/L [32,33], we began by growing yeast in four parallel chemostats with 0, 0.1, 1.0, and 10 mg MMS/L ( Fig 2A ). About every three days for a month, yeast from each chemostat were plated on synthetic media plates without arginine and supplemented with canavanine.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For other conditions, the number of Can-resistant colonies is represented as the normalized average +/-normalized standard deviation. The Ames test limit of detections are 2.2 - 4.4 mg MMS/L [32,33] and 2.0 - 31.5 [33,35] μg EtBr/L.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%