Cargando…

Bacterial genotoxicity bioreporters

Ever since the introduction of the Salmonella typhimurium mammalian microsome mutagenicity assay (the ‘Ames test’) over three decades ago, there has been a constant development of additional genotoxicity assays based upon the use of genetically engineered microorganisms. Such assays rely either on r...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Biran, Alva, Yagur‐Kroll, Sharon, Pedahzur, Rami, Buchinger, Sebastian, Reifferscheid, Georg, Ben‐Yoav, Hadar, Shacham‐Diamand, Yosi, Belkin, Shimshon
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3815808/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21255340
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-7915.2009.00160.x
_version_ 1782289446003015680
author Biran, Alva
Yagur‐Kroll, Sharon
Pedahzur, Rami
Buchinger, Sebastian
Reifferscheid, Georg
Ben‐Yoav, Hadar
Shacham‐Diamand, Yosi
Belkin, Shimshon
author_facet Biran, Alva
Yagur‐Kroll, Sharon
Pedahzur, Rami
Buchinger, Sebastian
Reifferscheid, Georg
Ben‐Yoav, Hadar
Shacham‐Diamand, Yosi
Belkin, Shimshon
author_sort Biran, Alva
collection PubMed
description Ever since the introduction of the Salmonella typhimurium mammalian microsome mutagenicity assay (the ‘Ames test’) over three decades ago, there has been a constant development of additional genotoxicity assays based upon the use of genetically engineered microorganisms. Such assays rely either on reversion principles similar to those of the Ames test, or on promoter–reporter fusions that generate a quantifiable dose‐dependent signal in the presence of potential DNA damaging compounds and the induction of repair mechanisms; the latter group is the subject of the present review. Some of these assays were only briefly described in the scientific literature, whereas others have been developed all the way to commercial products. Out of these, only one, the umu‐test, has been fully validated and ISO‐ and OECD standardized. Here we review the main directions undertaken in the construction and testing of bacterial‐based genotoxicity bioassays, including the attempts to incorporate at least a partial metabolic activation capacity into the molecular design. We list the genetic modifications introduced into the tester strains, compare the performance of the different assays, and briefly describe the first attempts to incorporate such bacterial reporters into actual genotoxicity testing devices.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3815808
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher Blackwell Publishing Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38158082014-02-12 Bacterial genotoxicity bioreporters Biran, Alva Yagur‐Kroll, Sharon Pedahzur, Rami Buchinger, Sebastian Reifferscheid, Georg Ben‐Yoav, Hadar Shacham‐Diamand, Yosi Belkin, Shimshon Microb Biotechnol Minireviews Ever since the introduction of the Salmonella typhimurium mammalian microsome mutagenicity assay (the ‘Ames test’) over three decades ago, there has been a constant development of additional genotoxicity assays based upon the use of genetically engineered microorganisms. Such assays rely either on reversion principles similar to those of the Ames test, or on promoter–reporter fusions that generate a quantifiable dose‐dependent signal in the presence of potential DNA damaging compounds and the induction of repair mechanisms; the latter group is the subject of the present review. Some of these assays were only briefly described in the scientific literature, whereas others have been developed all the way to commercial products. Out of these, only one, the umu‐test, has been fully validated and ISO‐ and OECD standardized. Here we review the main directions undertaken in the construction and testing of bacterial‐based genotoxicity bioassays, including the attempts to incorporate at least a partial metabolic activation capacity into the molecular design. We list the genetic modifications introduced into the tester strains, compare the performance of the different assays, and briefly describe the first attempts to incorporate such bacterial reporters into actual genotoxicity testing devices. Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2010-07 2010-06-24 /pmc/articles/PMC3815808/ /pubmed/21255340 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-7915.2009.00160.x Text en Copyright © 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 Society for Applied Microbiology and Blackwell Publishing Ltd
spellingShingle Minireviews
Biran, Alva
Yagur‐Kroll, Sharon
Pedahzur, Rami
Buchinger, Sebastian
Reifferscheid, Georg
Ben‐Yoav, Hadar
Shacham‐Diamand, Yosi
Belkin, Shimshon
Bacterial genotoxicity bioreporters
title Bacterial genotoxicity bioreporters
title_full Bacterial genotoxicity bioreporters
title_fullStr Bacterial genotoxicity bioreporters
title_full_unstemmed Bacterial genotoxicity bioreporters
title_short Bacterial genotoxicity bioreporters
title_sort bacterial genotoxicity bioreporters
topic Minireviews
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3815808/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21255340
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-7915.2009.00160.x
work_keys_str_mv AT biranalva bacterialgenotoxicitybioreporters
AT yagurkrollsharon bacterialgenotoxicitybioreporters
AT pedahzurrami bacterialgenotoxicitybioreporters
AT buchingersebastian bacterialgenotoxicitybioreporters
AT reifferscheidgeorg bacterialgenotoxicitybioreporters
AT benyoavhadar bacterialgenotoxicitybioreporters
AT shachamdiamandyosi bacterialgenotoxicitybioreporters
AT belkinshimshon bacterialgenotoxicitybioreporters