loading page

Assessing the Impact of Different Solvents on Mutagenic Responses in the Ames Test
  • +4
  • Satyam N. Patel,
  • Chetan K. Kajavadara,
  • Rushikesh M. Shukla,
  • Darshan T. Valani,
  • Laxit K. Bhatt,
  • Rajesh Sundar,
  • Mukul R. Jain
Satyam N. Patel
Zydus Research Center

Corresponding Author:[email protected]

Author Profile
Chetan K. Kajavadara
Zydus Research Center
Author Profile
Rushikesh M. Shukla
Zydus Research Center
Author Profile
Darshan T. Valani
Zydus Research Center
Author Profile
Laxit K. Bhatt
Zydus Research Center
Author Profile
Rajesh Sundar
Zydus Research Center
Author Profile
Mukul R. Jain
Zydus Research Center
Author Profile

Abstract

The Bacterial reverse mutation (AMES) assay is crucial for detecting the mutagenic potential of chemicals using bacterial strains. The solubility of the test substance is key to achieving the recommended concentration for the assay. DMSO and water are typically preferred solvents due to their compatibility and historical data. The chosen solvent must not react with the test substance and must support bacterial survival and S9 activity. Selecting a solvent compatible with Salmonella typhimurium and Escherichia coli WP2 uvrA strains, considering a maximum cytotoxic concentration of 5 mg/plate, is challenging for genetic toxicologists. This study evaluated various solvents, including N,N-Dimethyl formamide, Acetone, Acetonitrile, Ethyl acetate, 95% Ethanol, Dimethylene Glycol Monomethyl ether, Methanol, P-Dioxane, Tetrahydrofuran, and Dimethyl acetamide. Results showed that all solvents, except Tetrahydrofuran, were compatible up to 100 µL/plate or more, as they did not inhibit bacterial growth or alter bacterial revertant colony counts, making them suitable for use in the Ames assay.
30 Oct 2024Submitted to Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis
30 Oct 2024Submission Checks Completed
30 Oct 2024Assigned to Editor
30 Oct 2024Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
30 Oct 2024Reviewer(s) Assigned
26 Nov 2024Editorial Decision: Revise Minor
05 Dec 20241st Revision Received
05 Dec 2024Assigned to Editor
05 Dec 2024Submission Checks Completed
05 Dec 2024Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
12 Dec 2024Editorial Decision: Revise Minor
17 Dec 20242nd Revision Received
17 Dec 2024Submission Checks Completed
17 Dec 2024Assigned to Editor
17 Dec 2024Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
19 Dec 2024Editorial Decision: Accept