Genetic toxicity of methyl methanethiosulfonate on Salmonella typhimurium, Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Nicotiana tabacum

Dorange, J.L.; Aranda, G.; Cornu, A.; Dulieu, H.

doi:10.1016/0165-7992(83)90092-1

Cited by 19 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This was even pointed out by Dorange et al (1983). Therefore bacterial test systems and yeast assays are not appropriate to evaluate genotoxicity of thiosulphonates.…”

Section: Sister Chromatid Exchangementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Methyl methanethiosulfonate was negative in chromosomal aberration assays conducted in Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain D7 or S. cerevisiae haploid strain N123 at concentrations of up to 300 µg/ml (Dorange et al, 1983).…”

Section: In Vitromentioning

confidence: 99%

“…No evidence of mutagenicity was observed when the structurally related substances tetrahydrothiophene, 2-methylpropane-2-thiol and methyl methanethiosulfonate were incubated with EFSA Journal 2010; 8(10):1337 S. typhimurium strains TA98, TA100,TA1535, TA1537, TA1538 and/or TA2637 with and without metabolic activation at concentrations of up to 10 000 µg/plate (Dorange et al, 1983;Pennwalt Corporation, 1987e;Phillips Petroleum Company, 1990a). …”

Section: In Vitromentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yeast assay S. cerevisiae Haploid strain N123 1-100 µg/ml Negative (±S9) (Dorange et al, 1983) Test is not appropriate for antimicrobial agents 6 .…”

Section: Sister Chromatid Exchangementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nicotiana tabacum seeds -2 -4 mg/ml (2000 -4000 µg/ml) Negative (Dorange et al, 1983) Heterozygotic seeds were used. After exposure, the seeds were blotted on filter paper and planted in earthenware pots in medium normally used for planting tobacco.…”

Section: In Vivo Gene Mutationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Flavouring Group Evaluation 91 (FGE.91): Consideration of simple aliphatic and aromatic sulphides and thiols evaluated by JECFA (53rd and 68th meetings) structurally related to aliphatic and alicyclic mono-, di-, tri-, and polysulphides with or without ad

Flavourings¹

2010

EFSA Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Suggested citation: EFSA ; Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 91 (FGE.91): Consideration of simple aliphatic and aromatic sulphides and thiols evaluated by JECFA (53rd and 68th meetings) structurally related to aliphatic and alicyclic mono-, di-, tri-, and polysulphides with or without additional oxygenated functional groups evaluated by EFSA in FGE.08Rev1 (2009). EFSA Journal 2010; 8(10) The Panel concluded that all the 45 substances in the JECFA flavouring groups of simple aliphatic and aromatic sulphides and thiols are structurally related to the aliphatic and alicyclic mono-, di-, tri-, and polysulphides with or without additional oxygenated functional groups evaluated by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 08, Revision 1 (FGE.08Rev1). The 45 JECFA evaluated substances are distributed into eight subgroups of structurally related substances. The subgrouping is the same as used in FGE.08Rev1.The Panel agrees with the way the application of the Procedure has been applied by the JECFA for 34 of the 45 substances. However, for 11 substances 12.085, 12.108, 12.114, 12.137, 12.138, 12.145, 12.252 12.256, 12.259 and 12.272], the Panel did not agree with the way the application of the Procedure was applied by the JECFA for the following reasons:Eight of these substances cannot be evaluated at all through the Procedure (the seven tertiary thiols 12.085, 12.137, 12.138, 12.145, 12.252 and 12.259 .057] (subgroup VII, mono-, di-, tri-and polysulphides with thioacetal structure) and .159] (subgroup X, sulphoxides/sulphones and sulphonates)} for which the Panel had identified concerns with respect to genotoxicity. Consequently adequate genotoxicity data are needed before these substances can be evaluated through the Procedure.For the two trisulphides , contrary to the JECFA, the Panel concluded that no adequate NOAEL exists and that additional toxicity data are required.Finally, the Panel did not agree with the application of the Procedure by the JECFA for the substance .108], which has been cleared by the JECFA at step B5 (the MSDI < 1.5 μg person per day). However, the Panel considers that an adequate NOAEL exists for the subgroup IIIa to which this substance belongs and accordingly concluded at step B4 no safety concern at the estimated level of intake.For the remaining 35 substances the Panel agrees with the JECFA conclusion "No safety concern at estimated levels of intake as flavouring substances" based on the MSDI approach.Overall, for 36 of the 45 substances, use levels have been provided by the Industry. The mTAMDI figures calculated for the five substances 12.284, 12.274, 12.108 and 12.139] are above the threshold of concern for their structural classes. For these substances more reliable data are needed. On the basis of such data the flavouring substances should be reconsidered using the Procedure. For the remaining nine of the 45 substances 12.085, 12.137, 12.138, 12.145, 12.265, 12.267, 12.272 and 17.036] for which use levels have not been provide...

show abstract

“…This was even pointed out by Dorange et al (1983). Therefore bacterial test systems and yeast assays are not appropriate to evaluate genotoxicity of thiosulphonates.…”

Section: Sister Chromatid Exchangementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: In Vitromentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: In Vitromentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yeast assay S. cerevisiae Haploid strain N123 1-100 µg/ml Negative (±S9) (Dorange et al, 1983) Test is not appropriate for antimicrobial agents 6 .…”

Section: Sister Chromatid Exchangementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: In Vivo Gene Mutationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations