Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The usefulness of the 32P-post-labeling/t.l.c. method for quantitative DNA adduct dosimetry was evaluated. 2-Acetylaminofluorene (2-AAF)-DNA adducts from three systems were characterized qualitatively and quantitatively by the 3H-radiolabeled technique with subsequent analysis by h.p.l.c. (pre-labeling method) and by the 32P-post-labeling method. Both methods showed N-acetoxyacetylaminofluorene (N-OAc-AAF) reaction products with calf thymus DNA were predominantly N-(deoxyguanosin-8-yl)-2-acetylaminofluorene (dG-C8-AAF) with some N-(deoxyguanosin-8-yl)-2-aminofluorene (dG-C8-AF) and N-(deoxyguanosin-N2-yl)-2-acetylaminofluorene (dG-N2-AAF). In contrast, Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells treated with [3H]N-OAc-AAF gave 80 or 90% dG-C8-AF adducts and 20 or 10% dG-C8-AAF adducts with the post- or pre-labeling method, respectively. Likewise in CHO cells treated with 2-AAF in the presence of rat liver homogenate, approximately 90% dG-C8-AF and 10% dG-C8-AAF adducts were detected using the 32P-post-labeling method. In Salmonella typhimurium strain TA1538 treated with 2-AAF or [3H]2-AAF in the presence of a rat liver homogenate, one adduct, dG-C8-AF, was identified. Similar quantitative results were also obtained with the two methods. However, the 32P-post-labeling method was more sensitive and also eliminated the use of radiolabeled-mutagen treatments. Quantitative DNA adduct dosimetry was applied to AAF-induced mutagenesis in the S. typhimurium and CHO/HPRT mutation assays. A linear and reproducible relationship existed between dG-C8-AF levels and AAF-induced mutants in both systems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Arce et al. (1987) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: