Comparative evaluation of different pairs of DNA repair-deficient and DNA repair-proficient bacterial tester strains for rapid detection of chemical mutagens and carcinogens

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the usefulness of different pairs of DNA repair-deficient and DNA repair-proficient bacterial tester strains in a mutagenicity/carcinogenicity screen, possibly as complements to the Ames test. 70 carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic compounds, representing a variety of chemical structures, were tested for their DNA-damaging effects, using 6 different DNA-repair-deficient bacterial strains. 2 Bacillus subtilis systems, H17/M45 and HLL3g/HJ-15, were used. The susceptibility of Escherichia coli AB1157 was compared with the susceptibility of 4 recombination-deficient mutants, JC5547, JC2921, JC2926 and JC5519. The test compounds were applied onto paper disks (spot test, ST), or incorporated into a top agar layer (agar-incorporation test, AT). The 2 B. subtilis systems were generally found to be more sensitive and reliable than the assays using E. coli. The incorporation of the test compounds in the agar increased the sensitivity of the test for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and other poorly water-soluble compounds. Hydrazines and several other highly polar chemicals could be tested more efficiently when applied onto paper disks. About 30% of the test compounds did not induce any growth inhibition and so could not be tested properly. In order to evaluate the ability of these DNA-repair tests to complement the Ames Salmonella mutagenicity test in a genetic toxicology screening program, results from this study were compared with published data both on mutagenicity in the Ames test and on carcinogenicity. 8 carcinogens generally found to be non-mutagenic for Salmonella were tested: 2 showed DNA-damaging properties (mitomycin C, 1,2-dimethylhydrazine), 5 failed to do so (actinomycin D, griseofulvin, thioacetamide, diethylstilbestrol, safrole), and one (thiourea) was not toxic, so that no classification was possible. 2 non-carcinogenic bacterial mutagens were examined; one, sodium azide, was equitoxic for repair-proficient and -deficient strains, while the other, nitrofurantoin, primarily inhibited repair-deficient strains. The DNA-repair tests failed to indicate the mutagenic and carcinogenic properties of acridine orange. Nalidixic acid, a non-mutagenic DNA synthesis inhibitor, damaged bacterial DNA. Apart from the differences summarized above, carcinogenicity was indicated correctly by the Salmonella S9 assay and most sets of DNA-repair-deficient and DNA-repair-proficient tester strains evaluated in this study. Thus, several more carcinogens could be detected by performing the Ames test and the bacterial DNA-repair tests in tandem than by using either test alone. Nevertheless, the use of both bacterial in vitro systems in a battery of short-term tests for mutagenicity/carcinogenicity evaluation is not considered to be ideal, since the Ames test and the pairs of DNA-repair-deficient and DNA-repair-proficient tester strains used had several shortcomings in common under the conditions of this study.