Suppr超能文献

在体外以及体内/体外大鼠肝细胞原代培养/DNA修复试验中对24种食品、药物、化妆品和织物染料进行测试。

Testing of 24 food, drug, cosmetic, and fabric dyes in the in vitro and the in vivo/in vitro rat hepatocyte primary culture/DNA repair assays.

作者信息

Kornbrust D, Barfknecht T

出版信息

Environ Mutagen. 1985;7(1):101-20. doi: 10.1002/em.2860070106.

Abstract

Twenty-four dyes currently or previously used in the food, drug, cosmetic, and textile industries were tested in the in vitro rat hepatocyte primary culture/DNA repair (HPC/DR) assay and, to a limited extent, in the in vivo/in vitro HPC/DR assay. The positive control, Solvent Yellow 3 (o-aminoazotoluene), and five other dyes (4-dimethylaminobenzeneazo-1-naphthalene, 4-dimethylaminobenzeneazo-2-naphthalene, Direct Blue 53, Acid Blue 9, and 4-dimethylaminostilbene) induced DNA repair in rat hepatocytes both in vitro and in vivo, while 13 of the dyes (Food Red 1, Food Red 5, Food Orange 4, Food Red 7, Acid Red 14, Acid Red 27, Pigment Red 53, Acid Yellow 23, Food Black 1, Food Green 3, Acid Red 51, Acid Blue 74, and Natural Red 4) did not produce any detectable DNA repair in either the in vitro or in vivo/in vitro assays. Direct Blue 14 had weak activity in vitro but none was detected in vivo. In contrast, Solvent Yellow 5 was not active in vitro, but produced a weak positive response in vivo. Negative responses were also obtained for Solvent Yellow 14 and Acid Green 5 in the in vitro assay, whereas the responses produced by these dyes in the in vivo/in vitro assay were judged to be equivocal. An equivocal response was also obtained for Direct Red 28 in the in vivo/in vitro assay as well as in the in vitro assay. These findings provide information about the potential genotoxicity of a number of dyes for which previous genotoxicity data has been inconsistent or inadequate. For some dyes (eg, Solvent Yellow 5), discrepancies between the results obtained in the in vitro and in vivo/in vitro assays may implicate a role for intestinal microflora in their metabolic activation.

摘要

对目前或以前在食品、药品、化妆品和纺织工业中使用的24种染料进行了体外大鼠肝细胞原代培养/DNA修复(HPC/DR)试验,并在一定程度上进行了体内/体外HPC/DR试验。阳性对照溶剂黄3(邻氨基偶氮甲苯)和其他五种染料(4-二甲基氨基苯偶氮-1-萘、4-二甲基氨基苯偶氮-2-萘、直接蓝53、酸性蓝9和4-二甲基氨基芪)在体外和体内均可诱导大鼠肝细胞的DNA修复,而13种染料(食用红色1号、食用红色5号、食用橙色4号、食用红色7号、酸性红色14号、酸性红色27号、颜料红色53号、酸性黄色23号、食用黑色1号、食用绿色3号、酸性红色51号、酸性蓝色74号和天然红色4号)在体外或体内/体外试验中均未产生任何可检测到的DNA修复。直接蓝14在体外活性较弱,但在体内未检测到活性。相比之下,溶剂黄5在体外无活性,但在体内产生了微弱的阳性反应。在体外试验中,溶剂黄14和酸性绿5也得到了阴性反应,而这些染料在体内/体外试验中产生的反应被判定为不明确。直接红28在体内/体外试验以及体外试验中也得到了不明确的反应。这些发现为许多染料的潜在遗传毒性提供了信息,而此前关于这些染料的遗传毒性数据一直不一致或不充分。对于某些染料(如溶剂黄5),体外试验和体内/体外试验结果之间的差异可能意味着肠道微生物群在其代谢活化中起作用。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验