TY  - JOUR
A1  - Kugler-Steigmeier, M. E.
A1  - Friederich, U.
A1  - Graf, U.
A1  - Lutz, Werner K.
A1  - Maier, P.
A1  - Schlatter, C.
T1  - Genotoxicity of aniline derivatives in various short-term tests
N2  - Various substituted aniline derivatives were tested for genotoxicity in several short-term tests in order to examine the hypothesis that a Substitution at both ortho positions (2,6-disubstitution) could prevent genotoxicity due to steric hindrance of an enzymatic activation to electrophilic intermediates. In the Salmonellajmicrosome assay, 2,6-dialkylsubstituted anilines and 2,4,6-trimethylaniline (2,4,6-TMA) were weakly mutagenic in strain TA100 when 20% S9 mixwas used, although effects were small compared to those of 2,4-dimethylaniline and 2,4,5-trimethylaniline (2,4,5-TMA). In Drosophila me/anogaster, however, 2,4,6-TMA and 2,4,6-trichloroaniline (TCA) were mutagenic in the wing spottestat 2-3 times lower doses than 2,4,5-TMA. In the 6-thioguanine resistance test in cultured fibroblasts, 2,4,6-TMA was again mutagenic at lower doses than 2,4,5-TMA. Two methylene-bis-aniline derivatives were also tested with the above methods: 4,4'-methylene-bis-(2-chloroaniline) (MOCA) was moderately genotoxic in al1 3 test systems whereas 4,4'-methylene-bis-(2-ethyl-6-methylaniline) (MMEA) showed no genotoxicity at all. DNA binding sturlies in rats, however, revealed that both MOCA and MMEA produced DNA adducts in the liver at Ievels typically found for moderately strong genotoxic carcinogens. These results indicate that the predictive value of the in vitro test systems and particularly the Salmonellajmicrosome assay is inadequate to detect genotoxicity in aromatic amines. Genotoxicity seems to be a general property of aniline derivatives and does not seem to be greatly influenced by substitution at both ortho positions.
KW  - Toxikologie
KW  - Aniline derivatives
KW  - Genotoxicity
KW  - Short-term tests
KW  - Covalent DNA binding
Y1  - 1989
U6  - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-60857
ER  - 
TY  - JOUR
A1  - Lutz, Werner K.
A1  - Maier, P.
T1  - Genotoxic and epigenetic chemical carcinogenesis: one process, different mechanisms
N2  - Chemieals that induce cancer in an intact organism are called carcinogens. This term does not differentiale between their various modes of action. In this review, Werner Lutz and Peter Maier make a mechanistic distinction between carcinogens that alter the genetic information and carcinogens that interfere with epigenetic processes. They considercardnogenesis tobe an ongoing, part1y unavoidable process which is based on a succession of mutations, most likely in stem cells, leading to autonomaus cellular growth regulation. Chemical carcinogens either induce such changes through mutations (genotoxic carcinogens) or they aceeierate the accumulation of critica1 spontaneaus mut11tions (epigenetic carcinogens). Examples are given for both classes of carcinogens, and for the processes that act at genoto:tic/nuclear 11nd epigenetic/mitotic Ievels.
KW  - Toxikologie
Y1  - 1988
U6  - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-60884
ER  -