Overview
- Editors:
-
-
Aftab A. Ansari
-
Northrop Services, Inc., USA
-
Frederick J. Serres
-
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, USA
Access this book
Other ways to access
Table of contents (11 chapters)
-
Front Matter
Pages i-xvii
-
- George Stamatoyannopoulos, Peter Nute, Dale Lindsley, Margaret Farquhar, Martha Brice, Betty Nakamoto et al.
Pages 1-35
-
- William L. Bigbee, Elbert W. Branscomb
Pages 37-58
-
- Masroor A. Baig, Aftab A. Ansari
Pages 59-80
-
- Richard J. Albertini, Philip C. Kelleher, David Sylwester
Pages 81-97
-
-
-
- James W. Allen, Karen Brock, James Campbell, Yousuf Sharief
Pages 145-163
-
- Ann D. Mitchell, Jon C. Mirsalis
Pages 165-216
-
- Robert R. Racine, Bernhard E. Matter
Pages 217-231
-
- Donald J. Zack, Matthew D. Scharff
Pages 233-264
-
- Marvin S. Legator, Robert W. Kapp Jr.
Pages 265-277
-
Back Matter
Pages 279-289
About this book
There is general agreement that increased environmental pollution poses a potential health hazard to humans and that effective control of such genetic injury requires monitoring the exposed individuals for genetic damage and identifying chemicals that may cause mutation or cancer. Tests available for identifying mutagens or carcinogens range from relatively simple, rapid assays in prokaryotes and test systems utilizing mammalian cells in tissue culture to highly elaborate tests in intact animals. No single test can provide data for an unequivocal assessment of the mutagenicity of a given chemical and the risk it might pose to human health. A tier approach, therefore, was suggested for mutagenicity testing in which the suspected agents would be initially evaluated with simple, inexpensive tests that would give qualitative results. Chemicals found to be positive in the first-tier testing would then be evaluated with more complex tests, including those based on mammalian cells in culture. Testing in the final tier requires whole-animal studies, and is expensive and time-consum ing, and even the results from these studies need to be extrapolated for human risk assessment. The mutation systems based on whole animals require scoring large num bers of animals, and therefore are not practical for the routine testing of muta gens. As an alternative to monitoring the pedigree, cells from exposed individ uals may be considered for screening for point mutations through the use of an appropriate marker protein.
Editors and Affiliations
-
Northrop Services, Inc., USA
Aftab A. Ansari
-
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, USA
Frederick J. Serres
