The Ames Salmonella/microsome mutagenicity assay (Salmonella test; Ames test) is a short-term bacterial reverse mutation assay specifically designed to detect a wide range of chemical substances that can produce genetic damage that leads to gene mutations. The test employs several histidine dependent Salmonella strains each carrying different mutations in various genes in the histidine operon. These mutations act as hot spots for mutagens that cause DNA damage via different mechanisms. When the Salmonella tester strains are grown on a minimal media agar plate containing a trace of histidine, only those bacteria that revert to histidine independence (his(+)) are able to form colonies. The number of spontaneously induced revertant colonies per plate is relatively constant. However, when a mutagen is added to the plate, the number of revertant colonies per plate is increased, usually in a dose-related manner. The Ames test is used world-wide as an initial screen to determine the mutagenic potential of new chemicals and drugs. The test is also used for submission of data to regulatory agencies for registration or acceptance of many chemicals, including drugs and biocides. International guidelines have been developed for use by corporations and testing laboratories to ensure uniformity of testing procedures. This review provides historical aspects of how the Ames was developed and detailed procedures for performing the test, including the design and interpretation of results.

http://people.uleth.ca/%7Eselibl/Biol3200/AmesTest/AmesTestreview.pdf

The Ames Salmonella/microsome mutagenicity assay

1. The in vivo alkaline comet (single cell gel electrophoresis) assay (hereafter called simply the comet assay) is used for the detection of DNA strand breaks in cells or nuclei isolated from multiple tissues of animals, usually rodents, that have been exposed to potentially genotoxic material(s). The comet assay has been reviewed and recommendations have been published by various expert groups (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10). This Test Guideline is part of a series of Test Guidelines on genetic toxicology. A document presented as an Introduction to the Test Guidelines on genotoxicity (11) can also be referred to and provides succinct and useful guidance to users of these Test Guidelines.

Oecd guideline for testing of chemicals

Four widely used in vitro assays for genetic toxicity were evaluated for their ability to predict the carcinogenicity of selected chemicals in rodents. These assays were mutagenesis in Salmonella and mouse lymphoma cells and chromosome aberrations and sister chromatid exchanges in Chinese hamster ovary cells. Seventy-three chemicals recently tested in 2-year carcinogenicity studies conducted by the National Cancer Institute and the National Toxicology Program were used in this evaluation. Test results from the four in vitro assays did not show significant differences in individual concordance with the rodent carcinogenicity results; the concordance of each assay was approximately 60 percent. Within the limits of this study there was no evidence of complementarity among the four assays, and no battery of tests constructed from these assays improved substantially on the overall performance of the Salmonella assay. The in vitro assays which represented a range of three cell types and four end points did show substantial agreement among themselves, indicating that chemicals positive in one in vitro assay tended to be positive in the other in vitro assays.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/236/4804/933.full.pdf

Prediction of chemical carcinogenicity in rodents from in vitro genetic toxicity assays.

The performance of a battery of three of the most commonly used in vitro genotoxicity tests--Ames+mouse lymphoma assay (MLA)+in vitro micronucleus (MN) or chromosomal aberrations (CA) test--has been evaluated for its ability to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens, from a large database of over 700 chemicals compiled from the CPDB ("Gold"), NTP, IARC and other publications. We re-evaluated many (113 MLA and 30 CA) previously published genotoxicity results in order to categorise the performance of these assays using the response categories we established. The sensitivity of the three-test battery was high. Of the 553 carcinogens for which there were valid genotoxicity data, 93% of the rodent carcinogens evaluated in at least one assay gave positive results in at least one of the three tests. Combinations of two and three test systems had greater sensitivity than individual tests resulting in sensitivities of around 90% or more, depending on test combination. Only 19 carcinogens (out of 206 tested in all three tests, considering CA and MN as alternatives) gave consistently negative results in a full three-test battery. Most were either carcinogenic via a non-genotoxic mechanism (liver enzyme inducers, peroxisome proliferators, hormonal carcinogens) considered not necessarily relevant for humans, or were extremely weak (presumed) genotoxic carcinogens (e.g. N-nitrosodiphenylamine). Two carcinogens (5-chloro-o-toluidine, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane) may have a genotoxic element to their carcinogenicity and may have been expected to produce positive results somewhere in the battery. We identified 183 chemicals that were non-carcinogenic after testing in both male and female rats and mice. There were genotoxicity data on 177 of these. The specificity of the Ames test was reasonable (73.9%), but all mammalian cell tests had very low specificity (i.e. below 45%), and this declined to extremely low levels in combinations of two and three test systems. When all three tests were performed, 75-95% of non-carcinogens gave positive (i.e. false positive) results in at least one test in the battery. The extremely low specificity highlights the importance of understanding the mechanism by which genotoxicity may be induced (whether it is relevant for the whole animal or human) and using weight of evidence approaches to assess the carcinogenic risk from a positive genotoxicity signal. It also highlights deficiencies in the current prediction from and understanding of such in vitro results for the in vivo situation. It may even signal the need for either a reassessment of the conditions and criteria for positive results (cytotoxicity, solubility, etc.) or the development and use of a completely new set of in vitro tests (e.g. mutation in transgenic cell lines, systems with inherent metabolic activity avoiding the use of S9, measurement of genetic changes in more cancer-relevant genes or hotspots of genes, etc.). It was very difficult to assess the performance of the in vitro MN test, particularly in combination with other assays, because the published database for this assay is relatively small at this time. The specificity values for the in vitro MN assay may improve if data from a larger proportion of the known non-carcinogens becomes available, and a larger published database of results with the MN assay is urgently needed if this test is to be appreciated for regulatory use. However, specificity levels of <50% will still be unacceptable. Despite these issues, by adopting a relative predictivity (RP) measure (ratio of real:false results), it was possible to establish that positive results in all three tests indicate the chemical is greater than three times more likely to be a rodent carcinogen than a non-carcinogen. Likewise, negative results in all three tests indicate the chemical is greater than two times more likely to be a rodent non-carcinogen than a carcinogen. This RP measure is considered a useful tool for industry to assess the likelihood of a chemical possessing carcinogenic potential from batteries of positive or negative results.

Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens: I. Sensitivity, specificity and relative predictivity

Short-term tests for carcinogens and mutagens

The Salmonella assay has been in use for almost 15 years and can be defined as a routine test for mutagenicity and for predicting potential carcinogenicity It detects the majority of animal carcinogens and consequently plays an important role in safety assessment The test is also routinely used as the frontline screen for environmental samples (complex mixtures) isolated from air, water and food This role will continue to remain an area of growth as or because sample volumes associated with these testing areas are generally very limited and more extensive testing is generally impossible While this test, like all others, has some limitations, it is recommended that it be regularly included in all genetic testing batteries

The Salmonella typhimurium/mammalian microsomal assay. A report of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Gene-Tox Program.

Literature reports were surveyed, with results noted from experiments in seven nonmammalian assay systems used for the detection of mutagenicity or other related genetic effects. A comparison was made of the activities of 54 selected noncarcinogens, procarcinogens, and ultimate carcinogens as revealed by these test systems. Of the compounds tested, 49 (91%) were active in one or more of the assays, and 42 (78%) were positive in at least one system without having to be metabolically activated. In one or more test systems, 17/17 (100%) of the ultimate carcinogens, 27/28 (96%) of the procarcinogens, and 6/9 (67%) of the noncarcinogens were positive. The Ames Salmonella-microsome assay responded with increased mutation frequency to 37/44 (84%) of the carcinogenic compounds but to only 2/8 (25%) of the noncarcinogens tested. The Drosophila system responded to 19/21 (90%) of the carcinogens and to 3/6 (50%) of the noncarcinogens. Prophages were induced when lysogenic bacteria were exposed to 12/21 (57%) of the carcinogens, but not enough tests were done with the noncarcinogens (1/3, or 33%) for a comparison. The other systems reviewed, such as the killing of repair-deficient bacteria, mutations in Escherichia coli and Neurospora crassa, and the host-mediated assay, were not challenged by enough of the compounds for valid comparisons.

M.M. Brown

Papers

The Salmonella typhimurium/mammalian microsomal assay. A report of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Gene-Tox Program.

Literature Survey of Bacterial, Fungal, and Drosophila Assay Systems Used in the Evaluation of Selected Chemical Compounds for Mutagenic Activity