
==== Front
J CarcinogJournal of Carcinogenesis1477-3163BioMed Central London 1477-3163-4-41567606510.1186/1477-3163-4-4ResearchMutagenicity testing with transgenic mice. Part II: Comparison with the mouse spot test Wahnschaffe Ulrich 1ulrich.wahnschaffe@t-online.deBitsch Annette 1bitsch@item.fraunhofer.deKielhorn Janet 1kielhorn@item.fraunhofer.deMangelsdorf Inge 1mangelsdorf@item.fraunhofer.de1 Fraunhofer Institute of Toxicology and Experimental Medicine ITEM, Department of Chemical Risk Assessment, Nikolai-Fuchs-Str. 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany2005 27 1 2005 4 4 4 19 5 2004 27 1 2005 Copyright © 2005 Wahnschaffe et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.2005Wahnschaffe et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

The mouse spot test, an in vivo mutation assay, has been used to assess a number of chemicals. It is at present the only in vivo mammalian test system capable of detecting somatic gene mutations according to OECD guidelines (OECD guideline 484). It is however rather insensitive, animal consuming and expensive type of test. More recently several assays using transgenic animals have been developed. From data in the literature, the present study compares the results of in vivo testing of over twenty chemicals using the mouse spot test and compares them with results from the two transgenic mouse models with the best data base available, the lacI model (commercially available as the Big Blue® mouse), and the lacZ model (commercially available as the Muta™ Mouse). There was agreement in the results from the majority of substances. No differences were found in the predictability of the transgenic animal assays and the mouse spot test for carcinogenicity. However, from the limited data available, it seems that the transgenic mouse assay has several advantages over the mouse spot test and may be a suitable test system replacing the mouse spot test for detection of gene but not chromosome mutations in vivo.
==== Body
Background
This is the second presentation from a project for the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) evaluating the possible use of transgenic animal mutagenicity assays in toxicity testing and mechanistic research. Part I, preceeding this article, discussed comparison of effects of chemicals using certain transgenic assays with results using the bone marrow micronucleus test.

The assessment of the potential genotoxicity of chemicals in vivo is important for both the verification and confirmation of intrinsic mutagenicity and for establishing the mode of action of chemical carcinogens. Although the present trend is to reduce animal testing, in vitro data must be confirmed by testing in in vivo conditions which take into account whole animal processes like absorption, tissue distribution, metabolism and excretion of the chemical and its metabolites, and overall toxicity [1]. In the mid 1980s, the mouse spot test [2] was suggested as a complementary in vivo test to the bacterial mutagenicity assay for detection of mutagenic substances and as a confirmatory test for the identification of carcinogens [3]. The mouse spot test has been used to assess a number of chemicals (see e.g. Additional file 1, see separate file). It is at present the only in vivo mammalian test system capable of detecting somatic gene mutations according to OECD guidelines (OECD guideline 484 [4]). However to achieve an acceptable sensitivity, a large number of animals are necessary and it is therefore an expensive type of test and seldom used. More recently assays using transgenic animals have been developed for testing in vivo gene mutagenicity. The two transgenic mouse models with the best data base available are the lacI model (commercially available as the Big Blue® mouse), and the lacZ model (commercially available as the Muta™ Mouse). The present study compares the results of in vivo testing of a number of chemicals using the mouse spot test and compares it with results from these two transgenic mouse models.

Descriptions of test systems
Mouse spot test
In the spot test, mouse embryos which are heterozygous for different recessive coat colour genes, are treated in utero at gestation day 9–11 with the test substance. The exposed embryo at gestation day 10 contains about 150–200 melanoblasts and each melanoblast has 4 coat colour genes under study [2,5]. The in utero exposure may result in an alteration or loss of a specific wild-type allele in a pigment precursor cell resulting in a colour spot in the coat of the adult animal. The frequency of spots is compared with the frequency in sham-exposed controls [2,4].

In the mouse spot test there are 4 possible mechanisms by which the recessive coat-colour alleles can be expressed: 1) gene mutation in the wild-type allele, 2) deficiency (large or small) of a chromosomal segment involving the wild-type allele, 3) nondisjunctional (or other) loss of the chromosome carrying the wild-type allele and 4) somatic recombination (marker gene then homozygous) [5]. Gene mutagenic but also clastogenic effects are detected by this test system.

Transgenic mouse models
The transgenic mutation test systems the lacI model (Big Blue® mouse), and the lacZ model (Muta™ Mouse) are described in detail in the preceding article: Mutagenicity testing with transgenic mice. Part I: Comparison with the mouse bone marrow micronucleus test

Methods
Data presented in this documentation are the results of an extensive literature research. Concerning data on transgenic mouse assays only primary literature was used. Data on the mouse spot test were extracted from reliable reviews on this item or from primary literature. For all other data informations from secondary literature or data banks were used.

Results and Discussion
Comparison of the mouse spot test with transgenic mouse model systems
In the literature search chemicals have been identified that had been tested using the spot test and the Muta™ mouse assay (n = 20) or the Big Blue® mouse assay (n = 9) or both transgenic mutation assays (n = 8). The results (including references) are given in Additional file 1.

The results on 15 out of 20 substances (2-acetylaminofluorene, acrylamide, benzo[a]pyrene, 1,3-butadiene, cyclophosphamide, ethylmethanesulfonate, N-ethyl-N-nitrosourea, N-methyl-N'-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine, N-methyl-N-nitrosourea, 4-nitroquino-line-1-oxide, N-nitrosodiethylamine, N-nitrosodimethylamine, procarbazine, 4-acetylaminofluorene and N-propyl-N-nitrosourea) showed agreement between the Muta™ mouse and the mouse spot test. No agreement was seen with 5 out of 20 substances (4-acetylaminofluorene, 2-amino-3-methylimidazo(4,5-f)quinoline (IQ), hydrazine, mitomycin C, trichloroethylene).

The positive results obtained with the Big Blue® mouse assay agreed with results in the mouse spot test for 7 out of 9 substances (2-acetylaminofluorene, benzo[a]pyrene, 1,3-butadiene, cyclophosphamide, N-ethyl-N-nitrosourea, N-methyl-N-nitrosourea, N-nitrosodimethylamine); one (di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate) was negative in both test systems and only one (methyl methanesulfonate) showed no agreement between the two test systems.

With two exceptions, 4-acetylaminofluorene and N-propyl-N-nitrosourea (discussed later), all of the tested substances showed also clearly positive results in in vitro gene mutation assays (exception of 1,3-butadiene, negative results) and in the majority of in vivo studies on this endpoint. Further they induced carcinogenic effects in long-term studies on mice.

Although no data on carcinogenicity on mice is available on N-propyl-N-nitrosourea, this substance might also be included in the category mentioned above, since carcinogenic effects were reported in rats [113] and in vitro gene mutation assays revealed clearly positive results.

The following substances did not show agreement between results in the mouse spot test and transgenic mouse assays or negative results were reported in both test systems (see Additional file 1). These are therefore discussed in more detail here; for references see Additional file 1.

Table 1 Characteristics of the Muta™ mouse assay and the Big Blue® mouse assay for predicting mouse carcinogenicity in comparison with the mouse spot test

Term#	Calculation* for the mouse spot test	Calculation* for Muta™ and/or Big Blue® mouse combined **	
Sensitivity	84% (16/18)	79% (15/18)	
Specificity	0 (0/0)	0 (0/0)	
Positive predictability	100% (16/16)	100% (15/15)	
Negative predictability	0 (0/2)	0 (0/3)	
Overall accuracy	84% (16/18)	79% (15/18)	
# Sensitivity = % of carcinogens with a positive result in the specified test system (STS)

Specificity = % of noncarcinogens with a negative result in the STS

Positive predictivity = % of positive results in the STS that are carcinogens

Negative predictivity = % of negative results in the STS that are noncarcinogens

Overall accuracy = % of chemicals tested where STS results agree with the carcinogenicity results

*: carcinogens with genotoxic and nongenotoxic mechanisms were considered but not substances without data on carcinogenicity; only data on mice were used

**: judged as positive in transgenic assays if positive in one of the two test systems

For methylmethanesulfonate, the weak positive results were judged as positive.

Trichloroethylene was not included in the calculation (inconclusive results in the mouse spot test).

4-Acetylaminofluorene
This substance showed mutagenic activity in the Muta™ mouse assay [19] but negative results in the mouse spot test [12,13]. No data on carcinogenicity are available on 4-acetylaminofluorene. However, data on two in vitro test systems indicated gene mutagenic activity supporting results in the transgenic assay [15-18].

2-Amino-3-methylimidazo(4,5-f)quinol (IQ)
IQ is mutagenic in the Muta™ mouse assay [28] but negative results were obtained in the mouse spot test [29]. This negative result in the mouse spot test is in contrast to all other in vivo gene mutation assays on rodents and insects which revealed positive results [27]. Furthermore, gene mutagenic activity was detected in in vitro test systems and carcinogenic effects were observed in long-term studies on mice [27]. The results in the Muta™ mouse assay are in accordance with these data.

Di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Negative results in the mouse spot test [51] are in agreement with the negative Big Blue® assay [11]. Furthermore no gene mutagenic or questionable activity was reported in in vitro tests and in tests on Drosophila. Carcinogenic effects were obtained in studies on mice but nongenotoxic mechanisms are presumed.

Hydrazine
This substance induced mutagenic effects in the mouse spot test [72] but negative results were observed in the Muta™ mouse assay [71]. Other in vivo as well as in vitro test systems revealed gene mutagenic effects [70]. Increased tumor incidences were observed in carcinogenicity studies on mice. Overall, the mouse spot test but not the Muta™ mouse assay reflects data on genotoxicity and carcinogenicity. However, a single exposure was used in the Muta™ mouse assay [71]. Studies on other in vivo genotoxicity endpoints have shown generally negative results after single exposure but genotoxic activity after repeated application, for example the mouse bone marrow micronucleus assay was positive [20]. It is possible that positive results may be found using another experimental design in the Muta™ mouse assay e.g. repeated exposure.

Methyl methanesulfonate
Only weak mutagenic effects were observed in the Muta™ mouse [19,57,75-77] and negative results in the Big Blue® mouse [63-65,78]. In the mouse spot test this carcinogenic substance is mutagenic [3] as well as in other gene mutation assays in vitro and in vivo [73,74]. However, there is evidence that the chromosome mutagenic activity is detectable at much lower doses than the gene mutagenic activity. Tinwell et al. [19] have shown in Muta™ mice a weak gene mutagenic effect in the liver but no effect in the bone marrow. The same dose induced in these animals a significant increase in bone marrow micronuclei indicating clear clastogenic activity. However, the transgenic mutation assay is less suitable for detection of these effects [1].

Mitomycin C
No mutagenic activity was observed in the Muta™ mouse assay after single application and ambiguous results after repeated exposure [93] but positive results were obtained with the mouse spot test [2,3] and other gene mutation assays in vitro and in vivo with this carcinogenic substance [90-92]. The reason for this discrepancy is similar to that presumed for methyl methanesulfonate above. Clastogenicity in bone marrow but no gene mutagenic activity in liver and bone marrow has been shown in the same animals in the Muta™ mouse assay combined with a micronucleus assay [93]. However, using another experimental design for detection of gene mutations in the Muta™ mouse assay (dose level up to the MTD, repeated exposure) positive results might be obtained.

Trichloroethylene
Also with this carcinogenic substance, no mutagenicity was detected in the Muta™ mouse assay [117], the mouse spot test was positive [3], but this result is possibly related to contaminations with epoxides [116]. Further in vitro and in vivo assays on gene mutation resulted in weak positive, questionable, or negative effects [116]. Results in chromosome mutation assays are equivocal. However, a further (simple) reason for this discrepancy between the Muta™ mouse assay and the mouse spot test might be that the MTD was not reached in the Muta™ mouse assay presented by Douglas et al. [117].

In general, from the studies on genotoxic carcinogens given above, the results do not seem to give a preference for either the spot test or transgenic mouse model system.

However, considering the mechanisms of action of specific substances there is some evidence, that the mouse spot test detects gene mutations as well as chromosome mutations whereas the transgenic mouse assays are restricted to gene mutations. Evidence for this hypothesis has been shown with the examples methyl methanesulfonate, mitomycin C, and trichloroethylene. In the mouse spot test, there are four possible mechanisms by which the recessive coat-colour alleles can be expressed (see introduction) including gene and chromosome mutations. Although the chromosome mutations have to survive several mitoses to cause the expression of the recessive allele [118], there is evidence that also predominantly clastogenic substances might result in a positive mouse spot test. In contrast, the transgenic mutation assays detected point mutations and maximal small deletions and insertions [1].

Predictivity of the transgenic animal assays and the mouse spot test for carcinogenicity
The sensitivity, specificity and predictivity of carcinogenicity for the transgenic mouse model (Muta™ mouse assay and the Big Blue® mouse assay combined) and the mouse spot test are documented in Table 1. Data on 18 substances (see Additional file 1) are available on carcinogenicity in mice and mutagenic effects in transgenic mice as well as mutagenic effects in the mouse spot test (trichloroethylene not included because of inconclusive results in the mouse spot test).

Although the data pool is not sufficient for a comprehensive comparison, there is some indication, that no significant differences were detectable between the two test systems.

Advantages and disadvantages of both test systems
Sensitivity of the test system
In comparison to models using endogenous genes like the target genes in the mouse spot test, the spontaneous mutant frequency in transgenic animals is relatively high. This might be due to the fact that bacterial DNA is the target gene (high methylation rate) and/or the transgene is silent and no transcription related repair occurs as in endogenous genes which are more efficiently repaired [1]. However, comparing the number of cells and genes at risk at the time of exposure, the mouse spot test is numerical inferior to the transgenic mouse mutation assays. In the mouse spot test, the exposed embryo at gestation day 10 contains about 150–200 melanoblasts and each melanoblast has 4 coat colour genes under study [2,5]. In the transgenic Big Blue® mouse, for example, 30–40 copies of the target gene (the constructed λLIZα shuttle vector) are integrated on chromosome 4 of each cell of the animal [1].

Other factors
To achieve an acceptable sensitivity, a large number of animals are necessary in the mouse spot test. Many pregnant dams have to be in one treatment group to get a sufficient number of surviving F1-animals, since the test substance may induce maternal and developmental toxicity. Fahrig [2] suggested that 30–40 pregnant mice are needed per treatment group for evaluation of spots in the progeny. At least 150 F1-mice are recommended for the concurrent vehicle control [5] and at least two dose groups are used (OECD guideline 484 [4]). Therefore, the mouse spot test is an expensive type of in vivo test.

In contrast, in transgenic mutation assays ca. 20 animals (3 dose groups and 1 concurrent vehicle control group in laboratories which already established this test system) are recommended per species and gender [119-121].

In the mouse spot test the discrimination between spots of mutagenic and non-mutagenic origin may be problematic [2].

A comparison of both test systems is presented in Table 2.

Table 2 Advantages and Disadvantages of mouse spot test compared to the transgenic Big Blue® and Muta™ mouse assays

	Mouse spot test [2-5]	Transgenic mouse mutation assay[1, 122]	
Age restriction	Exposure restricted to embryos at gestation day 9–11	Usually less than 3 months	
Toxicokinetics and metabolism	Restrictions in toxicokinetics: test substance reaches the fetal melanoblasts after administration to the dams and absorption of the test substance itself or the toxic metabolites via the placenta	No further barrier like the placenta after absorption and distribution	
Target tissue	Restricted to melanoblasts	No tissue restriction; analysis of mutagenic potency in different organs	
Type of mutation	Detects 1) gene mutation, 2) large or small deletions, 3) loss of the chromosome carrying the wild-type allele and 4) somatic recombination (marker gene then homozygous)	Detects 1) gene mutation, 2) small deletions or insertions	
Dependency of effects on application route	Only systemic effects can be detected; no application route specific effects	For different routes systemic as well as local mutagenic effects can be detected	
Target gene/cell	4 genes per cell in ca. 200 melanocytes	Ca. 40 (Big Blue) or ca. 80 (Muta™ mouse) copies of the transgene per nucleus of each cell of the organismk	
Number of animals	Animal consuming test system	Not more than 5 animals per gender per dose necessary	
Specificity of test system	Discrimination between spots of mutagenic and non-mutagenic origin may be problematically	Identifying and isolating mutated genes with a high specificity	
Characterisation of mutations by molecular methods	Less suitable for identification of mutations in DNA analysis due to size of the genes	detection of the "molecular signature" of a particular mutagen by DNA sequence analysis with standardized methods	
Possibility of parallel investigation of several genetic endpoints	No combination with other genotoxic endpoints possible	The transgenic mouse assay can be combined with other in vivo genotoxic endpoints in the same animal: e.g. micronuclei, chromosomal aberration, unsheduled DNA synthesis, sister chromatid exchange	
Endogenous versus foreign target gene	The mouse spot test shows an in situ end point (expression of the target genes)	Target genes are integrated parts of foreign DNA and consequently no "normal" mutational target	
Costs	Expensive type of in vivo test	Less expensive	
Conclusions
Although the mouse spot test is a standard genotoxicity test system according to the OECD guidelines, this system has seldom been used for detection of somatic mutations in vivo in the last decades. This is partly due to considerations of cost effectiveness and number of animals needed for testing but also for toxicological considerations. The usefulness of the mouse spot test in toxicology is limited by restrictions in toxicokinetics, sensitivity, target cell/organ, and molecular genetics. From the limited data available, it seems that the transgenic mouse assay has several advantages over the mouse spot test and may be a suitable test system replacing the mouse spot test for detection of gene but not chromosome mutations in vivo.

Author's contributions
UW was the main author. The other authors were involved in the discussions, writing small parts of text and in final preparation of the manuscript.

Supplementary Material
Additional File 1
Results in the transgenic mouse assay versus mouse spot test

Click here for file

 Acknowledgements
This paper is based on work performed by the authors in preparation of an Environmental Health Criteria document on 'Transgenic Animals in Mutagenicity Testing' for the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS). However, opinions expressed in this paper are the sole responsibility of the authors. We acknowledge the financial support of the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety.
==== Refs
RIVM  Mutagenicity of chemicals in genetically modified animals RIVM Report no 650210 002, TNO Report no V991097 2000 Bilthoven: National Institute of Public Health and the Environmenta (RIVM) 
Fahrig R  The mammalian spot test (Fellfleckentest) with mice Arch Toxicol 1977 38 87 98 199140 10.1007/BF00293666 
Styles JA Penman MG  The mouse spot test. Evaluation of its performance in identifying chemical mutagens and carcinogens Mutat Res 1985 154 183 204 3900714 
OECD  OECD 484; Genetic toxicology: mouse spot test; OECD guideline for testing of chemicals 1986 
Russell LB Selby PB von Halle E Sheridan W Valcovic L  Use of the mouse spot test in chemical mutagenesis: interpretation of past data and recommendations for future work Mutat Res 1981 86 355 379 7029265 
Shephard SE Sengstag C Lutz WK Schlatter C  Mutations in liver DNA of lacI transgenic mice (Big Blue) following subchronic exposure to 2-acetylaminofluorene Mutat Res 1993 302 91 96 7684510 10.1016/0165-7992(93)90009-K 
Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB) 2003, 2-Acetylaminofluorene, CAS: 53-96-3 
National toxicology programm (NTP) 2001, 2-Acetylaminofluorene, Factsheet CAS: 53-96-3 
Brooks TM Szegedi M Rosher P Dean SW  The detection of gene mutation in transgenic mice (Muta Mouse) following a single oral dose of 2-acetylaminofluorene Mutagenesis 1995 10 149 150 7603332 
Ross JA Leavitt SA  Induction of mutations by 2-acetylaminofluorene in lacI transgenic B6C3F1 mouse liver Mutagenesis 1998 13 173 179 9568591 
Gunz D Shephard SE Lutz WK  Can nongenotoxic carcinogens be detected with the lacI transgenic mouse mutation assay? Environ Mol Mutagen 1993 21 209 211 8462524 
Hüttner E Braun R Schöneich J  Ashby J  Mammalian spot test with the mouse for detection of transplacental genetic effects induced by 2-acetylaminofluorene and 4-acetylaminofluorene Evaluation of short-term tests for carcinogens: Report of the International Programme on Chemical Safety's collaborative study on in vivo assays 1988 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 164 167 
Fahrig R  Positive response of 2-Acetylaminofluorene, negative response of 4-Acetylaminofluorene in the mammalian spot test Evaluation of short-term tests for carcinogens 1988 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 159 163 
Gocke E Wild D Eckhardt K King MT  Mutagenicity studies with the mouse spot test Mutat Res 1983 117 201 212 6835259 
Schinz HR Fritz-Niggli H Campbell TW Schmid H  Krebsbildung durch Aminofluorene und verwandte Körper Oncologia 1955 8 233 245 13245052 
Morris HP Velat CA Wagner BP Dahlgard M Ray FE  Studies of carcinogenicity in the rate of derivates of aromatic amines related to N-2-fluorenylacetamide J Natl Cancer Inst 1960 24 149 180 14424329 
Genetic Toxicology (GENETOX) 1998, 4-Acetylaminofluorene, CAS: 28322-02-3 
Chemical carcinogenesis research information system (CCRIS) 1995, 4-Acetylaminofluorene, CAS: 28322-02-3 
Tinwell H Lefevre PA Ashby J  Relative activities of methyl methanesulphonate (MMS) as a genotoxin, clastogen and gene mutagen to the liver and bone marrow of Muta Mouse mice Environ Mol Mutagen 1998 32 163 172 9776179 
Morita T Asano N Awogi T Sasaki Y Sato S Shimada H Sutou S Suzuki T Wakata A Sofuni T Hayashi M  Evaluation of the rodent micronucleus assay in the screening of IARC carcinogens (groups 1, 2A and 2B) the summary report of the 6th collaborative study by CSGMT/JEMS MMS. collaborative study of the micronucleus group test. mammaliam mutagenicity study group Mutat Res 1997 389 3 122 9062586 
IARC  Acrylamide Some Industrial Chemicals Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, No 60 1994 Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 389 433 
Chemical Carcinogenesis Research Info System (CCRIS) 1996, Acrylamide, CAS: 79-06-1 
Myhr B  Validation studies with muta mouse: a transgenic mouse model for detecting mutations in vivo Environ Mol Mutagen 1991 18 308 315 1836178 
Hoorn AJW Custer LL Myhr BC Brusick D Gossen J Vijg J  Detection of chemical mutagens using Muta Mouse: a transgenic mouse model Mutagenesis 1993 8 7 10 8450770 
Krebs O Favor J  Somatic and germ cell mutagenesis in lambda lacZ transgenic mice traeted with acrylamide or ethylnitrosourea Mutat Res 1997 388 239 248 9057886 
Neuhäuser-Klaus A Schmahl W  Mutagenic and teratogenic effects of acrylamide in the mammalian spot test Mutat Res 1989 226 157 162 2747730 10.1016/0165-7992(89)90013-4 
IARC  IQ (2-Amino-3-methylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoline Some Naturally Occuring Substances: Food Items and Constituents, Heterocyclic Aromatic Amines and Mycotoxins IARC Monographs on the Evaluation on Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, No56 1993 Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 165 195 
Davis CD Dacquel EJ Schut HAJ Thorgeirsson SS Snyderwine EG  In vivo mutagenicity and DNA adduct levels of heterocyclic amines in Muta Mice and c-myc/lacZ double transgenic mice Mutat Res 1996 356 287 296 8841498 
Wild D Gocke E Harnasch D Kaiser G King MT  Differential mutagenic activity of IQ (2-Amino-3-methylimidazo(4,5-F)quinoline) in Salmonella Typhimurium strains in vitro and in vivo, in Drosophila, and in mice Mutat Res 1985 156 93 102 3923347 
WHO  Selected Non-heterocyclic Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 1998 International Programme on Chemical Safety, Environmental Health Criteria 202, Geneva: World Health Organization 
Chemical carcinogenesis research information system (CCRIS) 2003, Benzo(a)pyrene, CAS: 50-32-8 
Hakura A Tsutsui Y Sonoda J Kai J Imade T Shimada M Sugihara Y Mikami T  Comparison between in vivo mutagenicity and carcinogenicity in multiple organs by benzo[a]pyrene in the lacZ transgenic mouse (Muta Mouse) Mutat Res 1998 398 123 130 9626972 
Hakura A Tsutsui Y Sonoda J Mikami T Tsukidate K Sagami F Kerns WD  Multiple organ mutation in the lacZ transgenic mouse (Muta Mouse) 6 months after oral traetment (5 days) with benzo[a]pyrene Mutat Res 1999 426 71 77 10320752 
Kohler SW Provost GS Fieck A Kretz PL Bullock WO Putman DL Sorge JA Short JM  Analysis of spontaneous and induced mutations in transgenic mice using a lambda ZAP/lacI shuttle vector Environ Mol Mutagen 1991 18 316 321 1836179 
Kohler SW Provost GS Fieck A Kretz PL Bullock WO Sorge JA Putman DL Short JM  Spectra of spontaneous and mutagen-induced mutations in the lacI gene in transgenic mice Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1991 88 7958 7962 1832771 
Skopek TR Kort KL Marino DR Mittal LV Umbenhauer DR Laws GM Adams SP  Mutagenic response of the endogenous hprt gene and lacI transgene in benzo[a]pyrene-treated Big Blue B6C3F1 mice Environ Mol Mutagen 1996 28 376 384 8991066 
Shane BS Lockhart AM Winston GW Tindall KR  Mutant frequency of lacI in transgenic mice following benzo[a]pyrene treatment and partial hepatectomy Mutat Res 1997 377 1 11 9219573 
Shane BS de Boer J Watson DE Haseman JK Glickman BW Tidall KR  LacI mutation spectra following benzo[a]pyrene treatment of Big Blue mice Carcinogenesis 2000 21 715 725 10753208 10.1093/carcin/21.4.715 
IARC  1,3-butadiene Re-evaluation of some organic chemicals, hydrazine and hydrogen peroxide (part one) Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, No 71 1999 Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 109 225 
Recio L Bond JA Pluta LJ Sisk SC  Use of transgenic mice for assessing the mutagenicity of 1,3-butadiene in vivo IARC (Int Agency Res Cancer) Sci Pub 1993 127 235 243 
Sisk SC Pluta L Bond JA Recio L  Molecular analysis of lacI mutants from bone marrow of B6C3F1 transgenic mice following inhalation exposure to 1,3-butadiene Carcinogenesis 1994 15 471 477 8118931 
Recio L Meyer KG Pluta LJ Moss OR Saranko CJ  Assessment of 1,3-butadiene mutagenicity in the bone marrow of B6C3F1 lacI transgenic mice (Big Blue): a review of mutational spectrum and lacI mutant frequency after a 5-day 625 ppm 1,3-butadiene exposure Environ Mol Mutagen 1996 28 424 429 8991073 
Adler I-D Cao J Filser JG Gassner P Kessler W Kliesch U Neuhäuser-Klaus A Nüsse M  Mutagenicity of 1,3-butadiene inhalation in somatic and germinal cells of mice Mutat Res 1994 309 307 314 7520990 
IARC  Cyclophosphamide Some antineoplastic and immunosuppressive agents Monographs on the evaluation of the carcinogenic risk chemicals to humans, No 26 1981 Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 165 202 
IARC  Cyclophosphamide (Group 1) Overall evaluations of carcinogenicity: An updating of IARC MOnographs volumes 1 to 42 Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, Suppl 7 1987 Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 182 184 
Gorelick NJ Andrews JL de Boer JG Young R Gibson DP Walker VE  Tissue-specific mutant frequencies and mutational spectra in cyclophosphamide-treated lacI transgenic mice Environ Mol Mutagen 1999 34 154 166 10529740 
Walker VE Andrews JL Upton PB Skopek TR deBoer JG Walker DM Shi X Sussman HE Gorelick NJ  Detection of cyclophosphamide-induced mutations at the Hprt but not the lacI locus in splenic lymphocytes of exposed mice Environ Mol Mutagen 1999 34 167 181 10529741 
Hoyes KP Wadeson PJ Sharma HL Hendry JH Morris ID  Mutation studies in lacI transgenic mice after exposure to radiation or cyclophosphamide Mutagenesis 1998 13 607 612 9862192 
Hart J  The mouse spot test: results with a new cross Arch Toxicol 1985 58 1 4 3935091 10.1007/BF00292607 
DFG  Henschler D  Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalat (DEHP) Gesundheitsschädliche Arbeitsstoffe: toxikologisch-arbeitsmedizinische Begründung von MAK-Werten Gase, Dämpfe, Aerosole; Diazinon bis N,N-Dimethylanilin 2002 Weinheim: Verlag Chemie 1 81 
Fahrig R Steinkamp-Zucht A  Co-recombinogenic and anti-mutagenic effects of diethylhexylphthalate, inactiveness of pentachlorophenol in the spot test with mice Mutat Res 1996 354 59 67 8692207 
IARC  Ethyl methanesulfonate Some anti-thyroid and related substances, nitrofurans and industrial chemicals Monographs on the evaluation of the carcinogenic risk of chemicals to man, No 7 1974 Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 245 251 
DECOS (Dutch expert committee for occupational standards)  Health-based recommended occupational exposure limits for Ethyl Methanesulphonate (EMS) and Methyl Methanesulphonate (MMS) 1989 Voorburg: Directorate-General of Labour 
Chemical Carcinogenesis Research Info System (CCRIS) 2001, Ethyl methanesulphonate, CAS: 62-50-0 
Genetic toxicology (GENETOX) 1995, Ethyl methanesulphonate, CAS: 62-50-0 
Suzuki T Hayashi M Wang X Yamamoto K Ono T Myhr BC Sofuni T  A comparison of the genotoxicity of ethylnitrosourea and ethyl methanesulfonate in lacZ transgenic mice (Muta Mouse) Mutat Res 1997 395 75 82 9465915 
Suzuki T Hayashi M Sofuni T  Initial experiences and future directions for transgenic mouse mutation assays Mutat Res 1994 307 489 494 7514722 
Mientjes EJ Luiten-Schuite A van der Wolf E Borsboom Y Bergmanns A Berends F Lohman PHM Baan RA van Delft JHM  DNA adducts, mutant frequencies, and mutation spectra in various organs of <lambda>lacZ mice exposed to ethylating agents Environ Mol Mutagen 1998 31 18 31 9464312 
IARC  N-Nitroso-N-Ethylurea Some N-Nitro Compounds Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans, No 17 1978 Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 191 215 
Genetic Toxicology (GENETOX) 1998, 1-Ethyl-1-Nitrosourea, CAS: 759-73-9 
JEMS/MMS  Organ variation in the mutagenicity of ethylnitrosourea in Muta Mouse: results of the collaborative study on the transgenic mutation assay by JEMS/MMS Environ Mol Mutagen 1996 28 363 375 8991065 
Douglas GR Jiao J Gingerich JD Gossen JA Soper LM  Temporal and molecular characteristics of mutations induced by ethylnitrosourea in germ cells isolated from seminiferous tubules and in spermatozoa of lacZ transgenic mice Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1995 92 7485 7489 7638217 
Gorelick NJ Andrews JL Gibson DP Carr GJ Aardema MJ  Evaluation of lacI mutation in germ cells and micronuclei in peripheral blood after treatment of male lacI transgenic mice with ethylnitrosourea, isopropylmethane sulfonate or methylmethane sulfonate Mutat Res 1997 388 187 195 9057880 
Putman D Penn Ritter A Carr GJ Young RR  Evaluation of spontaneous and chemical-induced lacI mutations in germ cells from lambda/lacI transgenic mice Mutat Res 1997 388 137 143 9057874 
Winegar RA Carr G Mirasalis JC  Analysis of the mutagenic potential of ENU and MMS in germ cells of male C57BL/6 lacI transgenic mice Mutat Res 1997 388 175 178 9057878 
Katoh M Horiya N Valdivia RPA  Mutations induced in male germ cells after treatment of transgneic mice with ethylnitrosourea Mutat Res 1997 388 229 237 9057885 
Zimmer DM Harbach PR Mattes WB Aaron CS  Comparison of mutant frequencies at the transgenic lambda LacI and cII/cI loci in control and ENU-treated Big Blue mice Environ Mol Mutagen 1999 33 249 256 10334627 
Provost GS Short JM  Characterization of mutations induced by ethylnitrosourea in seminiferous tubule germ cells of transgenic B6C3F1 mice Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1994 91 6564 6568 8022821 
Skopek TR Kort KL Marino DR  Relative sensitivity of the endogenous hprt gene and lacI transgene in ENU-treated Big Blue B6C3F1 mice Environ Mol Mutagen 1995 26 9 15 7641713 
BUA (Beratergremium für umweltrelevante Altstoffe)  Hydrazin, Hydrazinhydrat und Hydrazinsulfate BUA Stoffbericht 205 1996 Stuttgart: S. Hirzel Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft 
Douglas GR Gingerich JD Soper LM  Evidence for in vivo non-mutagenicity of the carcinogen hydrazine sulfate in target tissues of lacZ transgenic mice Carcinogenesis 1995 16 801 804 7728958 
Neuhäuser-Klaus A Chauhan PS  Studies on somatic mutation induction in the mouse with isoniazid and hydrazine Mutat Res 1987 191 111 116 3600692 10.1016/0165-7992(87)90138-2 
IARC  Methyl methanesulfonate Re-evaluation of some organic chemicals, hydrazine and hydrogen peroxide Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, No 71/3 1999 Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 1059 1079 
IARC  Methyl methanesulphonate Some anti-thyroid and related substances, nitrofurans and industrial chemicals Monographs on the evaluation of the carcinogenic risk of chemicals to man, No 7 1974 Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 253 260 
Renault D Brault D Thybaud V  Effect of ethylnitrosourea and methyl methanesulfonate on mutation frequency in Muta™ Mouse germ cells (seminiferous tubule cells and epididymis spermatozoa) Mutat Res 1997 388 145 153 9057875 
Brooks TM Dean SW  The detection of gene mutation in the tubular sperm of Muta™ Mice following a single intraperitoneal treatment with methyl methanesulphonate or ethylnitrosourea Mutat Res 1997 388 219 222 9057883 
Itoh S Miura M Shimada H  Germ cell mutagenesis in lacZ transgenic mice treated with methyl methanesulfonate Mutat Res 1997 388 223 228 9057884 
Mirsalis JC Provost GS Matthews CD Hamner RT Schindler JE O'Loughlin KG MacGregor JT Short JM  Induction of hepatic mutations in lacI transgenic mice Mutagenesis 1993 8 265 271 8332090 
IARC  N-methyl-N'-nitro-n-nitrosoguanidine Some aromatic amines, hydrazine and related substances, N-nitroso compounds and miscellaneous alkylating agents Monographs on the evaluation of the carcinogenic risk of chemicals to man, No 4 1974 Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 183 195 
IARC  N-methyl-N'-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine Genetic and related effects: an updating of selected IARC monographs from volumes 1 to 42 Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, Suppl 6 1987 Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 394 398 
IARC  N-methyl-N'-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine (Group 2B) Overall evaluations of carcinogenicity: an updating of IARC Monographs Volume 1 to 42 Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, Suppl 7 1987 Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 248 250 
Brooks TM Dean SW  Detection of gene mutation in skin, stomach and liver of Muta Mouse following oral or topical treatment with N-methyl-N'-nitro-N-nitrosguanidine or 1-chloromethylpyrene: some preliminary observations Mutagenesis 1996 11 529 532 8921517 
Brault D Bouilly C Renault D Thybaud V  Tissue-specific induction of mutations by acute oral administration of N-methyl-N'-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine and <beta>-propiolactone to the Muta Mouse: preliminary data on stomach, liver and bone marrow Mutat Res 1996 360 83 87 8649468 
IARC  N-nitroso-n-methylurea Some n-nitroso compounds Monographs on the evaluation on carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans, No 17 1978 Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 227 255 
Genetic Toxicology (GENETOX) 1998, 1-Methyl-1-Nitrosourea, CAS: 684-93-5 
von Pressentin MdM Kosinska W Guttenplan JB  Mutagenesis induced by oral carcinogens in lacZ mouse (Muta Mouse) tongue and other oral tissues Carcinogenesis 1999 20 2167 2170 10545421 10.1093/carcin/20.11.2167 
Shephard SE Gunz D Schlatter C  Genotoxicity of agaritine in the lacI transgenic mouse mutation assay: evaluation of the health risk of mushroom consumption Food Chem Toxicol 1995 33 257 264 7737599 10.1016/0278-6915(94)00142-B 
Provost GS Kretz P Hamner RT Matthews CD Rogers BJ Lundberg KS Dycaico MJ Short JM  Transgenic systems for in vivo mutation analysis Mutat Res 1993 288 133 149 7686257 
Monroe JJ Kort KL Miller JE Marino DR Skopek TR  A comparative study of in vivo mutation assays: analysis of hprt, lacI, cII/cI as mutational targets for N-nitroso-N-methylurea and benzo[a]pyrene in Big Blue mice Mutat Res 1998 421 121 136 9748534 
IARC  Mitomycin C Some naturally occuring substances Monographs on the evaluation of the carcinogenic risk of chemicals to man, No 10 1976 Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 171 179 
Chemical Carcinogenesis Research Info System (CCRIS) 2002, Mitomycin C, CAS: 50-07-7 
Genetic Toxicology (GENETOX) 1998, Mitomycin C, CAS: 50-07-7 
Suzuki T Hayashi M Sofuni T Myhr BC  The concomitant detection of gene mutation and micronucleus induction by mitomycin C in vivo using lacZ transgenic mice Mutat Res 1993 285 219 224 7678894 
Genetic toxicology (GENETOX) 1998, 4-Nitroquinoline 1-Oxide, CAS: 56-57-5 
Chemical carcinogenesis research information system (CCRIS) 2003, 4-Nitroquinoline 1-Oxide, CAS: 56-57-5 
Nakajima M Kikuchi M Saeki K Miyata Y Terada M Kishida F Yamamoto R Furihata C Dean SW  Mutagenicity of 4-nitroquinoline 1-oxide in the Muta Mouse Mutat Res 1999 444 321 336 10521672 
IARC  N-Nitrosodiethylamine Some N-Nitro Compounds Monographs on the evaluation of the carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans, No 17 1978 Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 83, 89 106 
Chemical Carcinogenesis Research Info System (CCRIS) 2003, N,N-Diethylnitrosamine, CAS: 55-18-5 
Genetic Toxicology (GENETOX) 1998, Diethylnitrosamine, CAS: 55-18-5 
Okada N Honda A Kawabata M Yajima N  Sodium phenobarbital-enhanced mutation frequency in the liver DNA of lacZ transgenic mice treated with diethylnitrosamine Mutagenesis 1997 12 179 184 9175645 
Suzuki T Hayashi M Myhr B Sofuni T  Diethylnitrosamine is mutagenic in liver but not in bone marrow of lacZ transgenic mice (Muta Mouse) Honyu Dobutsu Shiken Bunkakai Kaiho 1995 3 33 39 
IARC  N-nitrosodimethylamine Some N-Nitroso Compounds Monographs on the evaluation of the carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans, No 17 1978 Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 125 175 
Genetic toxicology (GENETOX) 1995, Dimethylnitrosamine, CAS: 62-75-9 
Schmezer P Eckert C Liegibel U Klein R Bartsch H  Use of transgenic mutational test systems in risk assessment of carcinogens Arch Toxicol 1998 321 330 
Ashby J Short JM Jones NJ Lefevre PA Provost GS Rogers BJ Martin EA Parry JM Burnette K Glickman BW Tinwell H  Mutagenicity of o-anisidine to the bladder of lacI- transgenic B6C3F1 mice: absence of 14C or 32P bladder DNA adduction Carcinogenesis 1994 15 2291 2296 7955069 
Cunningham ML Hayward JJ Shane BS Tindall KR  Distinction of mutagenic carcinogens from a mutagenic noncarcinogen in the Big Blue transgenic mouse Environ Health Perspect 1996 104 683 686 8781405 
Shane BS Smith-Dunn DL de Boer JG Glickman BW Cunningham ML  Mutant frequencies and mutation spectra of dimethylnitrosamine (DMN) at the lacI and cII loci in the livers of Big Blue transgenic mice Mutat Res 2000 452 197 210 11024479 
IARC  Procarbazine hydrochloride Some Antineoplastic and Immunosuppressive Agents Monographs on the evaluation of the carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans, No 26 1981 Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 311 339 
IARC  Procarbazine hydrochlorine (Group2A) Overall evaluations of carcinogenicity: an updating of IARC Monographs Volumes 1 to 42 Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, Suppl 7 1987 Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 327 328 
Suzuki T Uno Y Idehara K Baba T Maniwa J Ohkouchi A Wang X Hayashi M Sofuni T Tsuruoka M Miyajima H Kondo K  Procarbazine genotoxicity in the Muta Mouse; strong clastogenicity and organ-specific induction of lacZ mutations Mutat Res 1999 444 269 281 10521668 
Pletsa V Valavanis C van Delft JHM Steenwinkel M-JST Kyrtopoulos SA  DNA damage and mutagenesis induced by procarbazine in <lambda>lacZ transgenic mice: evidence that bone marrow mutations do not arise primarily through miscoding by O6-methylguanine Carcinogenesis 1997 18 2191 2196 9395220 10.1093/carcin/18.11.2191 
Neuhäuser A  Die Wirksamkeit von Natulan im Fellflecken-Test mit der Maus GSF-Ber B 1977 798 42 44 
Chemical Carcinogenesis Research Info System (CCRIS) 2000, N-Propyl-N-nitrosourea, CAS: 816-57-9 
Genetic Toxicology (GENETOX) 1992, N-Propyl-N-nitrosourea, CAS: 816-57-9 
Hara T Hirano K Hirano N Tamura H Sui H Shibuya T Hyogo A Hirashio T Tokai H Yamashita Y Kura K  Mutation induction by N-propyl-N-Nitrosourea in eight Muta Mouse organs Mutat Res 1999 444 297 307 10521670 
DFG  Trichloroethylene Occupational toxicants Critical data evaluation for MAK values and classification of carcinogens, Volume 10 1996 Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG). Weinheim: Wiley-VCH 201 244 
Douglas GR Gingerich JD Soper LM Potvin M Bjarnason S  Evidence for the lack of base-change and small-deletion mutation induction by trichloroethylene in lacZ transgenic mice Environ Mol Mutagen 1999 34 190 194 10529743 
Fahrig R  Genetic effects of dioxins in the spot test with mice Environ Health Perspect 1993 101 257 261 8143627 
Mirsalis J Monforte J Winegar R  Transgenic animal models for detection of in vivo mutations Annu Rev Pharm Toxicol 1995 35 145 164 10.1146/annurev.pa.35.040195.001045 
Heddle JA Dean S Nohmi T Boerrigter M Casciano D Douglas GR Glickman BW Gorelick NJ Mirsalis JC Martus H-J Skopek TR Thybaud V Tindall KR Yajima N  In vivo transgenic mutation assays Environ Mol Mutagen 2000 35 253 259 10737959 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2280(2000)35:3<253::AID-EM11>3.0.CO;2-J 
Thybaud V Dean S Nohmi T de Boer J Douglas GR Glickman BW Gorelick NJ Heddle JA Heflich RH Lambert I Martus HJ Mirsalis JC Suzuki T Yajima N  In vivo transgenic mutation assays Mutat Res 2003 540 141 151 14550498 
Nohmi T Suzuki T Masumura K-I  Recent advances in the protocols of transgenic mouse mutation assays Mutat Res 2000 455 191 215 11113476

