Quillardet P, Hofnung M
Unité de Programmation Moléculaire et Toxicologie Génétique, CNRS URA 1444, Institut Pasteur, Paris, France.
Mutat Res. 1993 Oct;297(3):235-79. doi: 10.1016/0165-1110(93)90019-j.
The SOS chromotest is reviewed through over 100 publications corresponding to the testing of 751 chemicals. 404 (54%) of these chemicals present a genotoxic activity detectable in the SOS chromotest. Their SOS inducing potencies span more than 8 orders of magnitude. For 452 compounds, the results obtained in the SOS chromotest could be compared to those obtained in the Ames test. It was found that 373 (82%) of these compounds give similar responses in both tests (236 positive and 137 negative responses). Thus the discrepancies between both tests concern 79 compounds (18%). A case by case analysis shows that many of these compounds are at the same time very weak SOS inducers and very weak mutagens. Thus we think that, most of the time, the discrepancies between the two tests may be accounted for by differences in the interpretation of the results rather than by the experimental results themselves. However, there are some compounds which are clearly SOS inducers but devoid of mutagenic activity in the Ames test (such as quinoline-1-oxide) and to a larger extent, clearly mutagenic compounds which do not induce the SOS response in the SOS chromotest (such as benzidine, cyclophosphamide, acridines, ethidium bromide). We also analyzed the correlation between SOS induction, mutagenesis and carcinogenesis according to the classification of Lewis. For 65 confirmed carcinogens (class 1), the sensitivity, i.e., the capacity to identify carcinogens, was 62% with the SOS chromotest and 77% with the Ames test. For 44 suspected carcinogens (class 2), the sensitivity was 66% with the SOS chromotest and 68% with the Ames test. Thus, we confirmed previous observations made on 83 compounds that there is a close correlation between the results given by both bacterial tests. The capacity of the Ames test to identify carcinogens is higher than that of the SOS chromotest. However, because the number of false positive compounds was lower in the SOS chromotest, the specificity, i.e., the capacity to discriminate between carcinogens and non-carcinogens of the SOS chromotest, appeared higher than that of the Ames test. Thus, the results of the SOS chromotest and of the Ames test can complement each other. The SOS chromotest is one of the most rapid and simple short-term test for genotoxins and is easily adaptable to various conditions, so that it could be used as an early--perhaps the earliest--test in a battery.
通过100多篇与751种化学品测试相关的出版物对SOS色变试验进行了综述。这些化学品中有404种（54%）在SOS色变试验中呈现出可检测到的基因毒性活性。它们的SOS诱导能力跨越了8个以上的数量级。对于452种化合物，在SOS色变试验中获得的结果可与在艾姆斯试验中获得的结果进行比较。结果发现，这些化合物中有373种（82%）在两种试验中给出了相似的反应（236个阳性反应和137个阴性反应）。因此，两种试验之间的差异涉及79种化合物（18%）。逐个案例分析表明，这些化合物中的许多同时是非常弱的SOS诱导剂和非常弱的诱变剂。因此，我们认为，在大多数情况下，两种试验之间的差异可能是由于结果解释的不同，而不是实验结果本身。然而，有一些化合物明显是SOS诱导剂，但在艾姆斯试验中没有诱变活性（如喹啉-1-氧化物），在更大程度上，有一些明显具有诱变活性的化合物在SOS色变试验中不诱导SOS反应（如联苯胺、环磷酰胺、吖啶、溴化乙锭）。我们还根据刘易斯分类法分析了SOS诱导、诱变和致癌之间的相关性。对于65种已确认的致癌物（1类），SOS色变试验的灵敏度，即识别致癌物的能力为62%，艾姆斯试验为77%。对于44种可疑致癌物（2类），SOS色变试验的灵敏度为66%，艾姆斯试验为68%。因此，我们证实了之前对83种化合物的观察结果，即两种细菌试验给出的结果之间存在密切相关性。艾姆斯试验识别致癌物的能力高于SOS色变试验。然而，由于SOS色变试验中假阳性化合物的数量较少，SOS色变试验的特异性，即区分致癌物和非致癌物的能力，似乎高于艾姆斯试验。因此，SOS色变试验和艾姆斯试验的结果可以相互补充。SOS色变试验是用于检测基因毒素的最快速、最简单的短期试验之一，并且很容易适应各种条件，因此它可以用作一系列试验中的早期——也许是最早的——试验。
