Genotoxicity of ethyl carbamate (urethane) in Salmonella, yeast and human lymphoblastoid cells

Hübner, Philipp; Groux, Philippe; Weibel, Béatrice; Sengstag, Christian; Horlbeck, Janine; Leong-Morgenthaler, Phaik-Mooi; Lüthy, Jürg

doi:10.1016/s0165-1218(96)00160-7

Cited by 33 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Six genotoxic carcinogens; diethylstilbestrol, urethane, chlorambucil, dibenz (a,h)anthracene, methyl methanesulfonate, and N-nitroso-Nmethylurea, were chosen (Gladek and Liehr, 1989;Hübner et al, 1997;Mlcoch et al, 1993;Palmer et al, 1984;Tinwell et al, 1998;Zarbl et al, 1985). In addition, six nongenotoxic carcinogens; O-nitrotoluene, 1,4-dioxane, tetrachloroethylene, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxine (TCDD), chloroprene, nitrobenzene, and nitromethane were selected (Biswas et al, 2008;Hetch, 2002;Hsu et al, 2007;Hurst, 2007;Paulu et al, 1999;Sills et al, 2004;Stickney et al, 2003).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moesin Is a Biomarker for the Assessment of Genotoxic Carcinogens in Mouse Lymphoma

Lee

Choi

Sheen

et al. 2012

Molecules and Cells

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moesin Is a Biomarker for the Assessment of Genotoxic Carcinogens in Mouse Lymphoma

Lee

Choi

Sheen

et al. 2012

Molecules and Cells

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Seven carcinogens were additionally selected on the basis of literature information; these were glycidol; diethylstilbestrol; urethane; methylcarbamate; 1,4-dioxane, tetrachloroethylene; and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxine (TCDD). The carcinogenic properties of these compounds have been reported in previous studies (Biswas et al, 2008;Gladek and Liehr, 1989;Hübner et al, 1997;Kwon et al, 2007;Paulu et al, 1999;Stickney et al, 2003;Yamamoto et al, 2001). Also seven noncarcinogens were selected for testing; these were 8-hydroxyquinoline; acetonitrile; L-ascorbic acid; A B Fig.…”

Section: Ebp50 Can Be a Specific Biomarker For Carcinogensmentioning

confidence: 95%

Identification of EBP50 as a Specific Biomarker for Carcinogens Via the Analysis of Mouse Lymphoma Cellular Proteome

Lee

Choi

Sheen

et al. 2012

Molecules and Cells

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To identify specific biomarkers generated upon exposure of L5178Y mouse lymphoma cells to carcinogens, 2-DE and MALDI-TOF MS analysis were conducted using the cellular proteome of L5178Y cells that had been treated with the known carcinogens, 1,2-dibromoethane and Onitrotoluene and the noncarcinogens, emodin and Dmannitol. Eight protein spots that showed a greater than 1.5-fold increase or decrease in intensity following carcinogen treatment compared with treatment with noncarcinogens were selected. Of the identified proteins, we focused on the candidate biomarker ERM-binding phosphoprotein 50 (EBP50), the expression of which was specifically increased in response to treatment with the carcinogens. The expression level of EBP50 was determined by western analysis using polyclonal rabbit anti-EBP50 antibody. Further, the expression level of EBP50 was increased in cells treated with seven additional carcinogens, verifying that EBP50 could serve as a specific biomarker for carcinogens.

show abstract

“…Urethane has been extensively tested in a variety of in vitro tests for genotoxicity. There are sporadic reports of positive results for urethane in in vitro tests (usually in the presence of rat liver S9) [4][5][6], but only when tested at concentrations above internationally agreed-upon limits for relatively non-toxic compounds, i.e., 5 mg/plate in the Ames test and 10 mM in cultured mammalian cell tests. At or below these limits, the compound is uniformly negative.…”

Section: Urethane (Ethyl Carbamate) and Benzenementioning

confidence: 99%

Report of the IWGT working group on strategy/interpretation for regulatory in vivo tests

Tweats

Blakey

Heflich

et al. 2007

Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A survey conducted as part of an International Workshop on Genotoxicity Testing (IWGT) has identified a number of compounds that appear to be more readily detected in vivo than in vitro. The reasons for this property varies from compound to compound and includes metabolic differences; the influence of gut flora; higher exposures in vivo compared to in vitro; effects on pharmacology, in particular folate depletion or receptor kinase inhibition. It is possible that at least some of these compounds are detectable in vitro if a specific in vitro test is chosen as part of the test battery, but the 'correct' choice of test may not always be obvious when testing a compound of unknown genotoxicity. It is noted that many of the compounds identified in this study interfere with cell cycle kinetics and this can result in either aneugenicity or chromosome breakage. A decision tree is outlined as a guide for the evaluation of compounds that appear to be genotoxic agents in vivo but not in vitro. The regulatory implications of these findings are discussed.

show abstract

Genotoxicity of ethyl carbamate (urethane) in Salmonella, yeast and human lymphoblastoid cells

Cited by 33 publications

References 26 publications

Moesin Is a Biomarker for the Assessment of Genotoxic Carcinogens in Mouse Lymphoma

Moesin Is a Biomarker for the Assessment of Genotoxic Carcinogens in Mouse Lymphoma

Identification of EBP50 as a Specific Biomarker for Carcinogens Via the Analysis of Mouse Lymphoma Cellular Proteome

Report of the IWGT working group on strategy/interpretation for regulatory in vivo tests

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About