Abstract
Chromosome aberration analysis has been the basis of one of core tests in genetic toxicology since guidelines were first established (DHSS (1981) Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals for Mutagenicity. Prepared by the Committee on Mutagenicity of Chemcials in Food, Consumer Products, and the Environment, Department of Health and Social Security. Report on Health and Social Subjects, No. 24. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London; IPCS (1985) Guide to short-term tests for detecting mutagenic and carcinogenic chemicals prepared for the IPCS by the International Commission for Protection against Environmental Mutagens and Carcinogens. Geneva, WHO). The technique consists of microscope examination of preparations of chromosomes, usually mammalian, for clastogenicity (chromosome breakage events), and agents which induce such changes are considered genotoxic.
There are a number of different types of aberrations, and within types, considerable variation in their appearance. This chapter addresses aberration classification, their appearance, frequency and fate, and the range within aberration types, potential mis-classifications, and data recording and interpretation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
DHSS (1981) Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals for Mutagenicity. Prepared by the Committee on Mutagenicity of Chemcials in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, Department of Health and Social Security. Report on Health and Social Subjects, No. 24. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London.
IPCS (1985) Guide to short-term tests for detecting mutagenic and carcinogenic chemicals prepared for the IPCS by the International Commission for Protection against Environmental Mutagens and Carcinogens. Geneva, WHO.
Savage, J. R. K. (1975) Annotation: Classification and relationships of induced chromosomal structural changes J Med Genet 12 103–22.
Savage, J. R. K. (1983) Some practical notes on chromosomal aberrations Clin Cytogenet Bull 1 64–76.
Therman, E. (1986) Human Chromosomes, Structure, Behaviour, Effects Second Ed. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Satya-Prakash, K. L., Hsu, T. C. and Pathak, S. (1981) Chromosome lesions and chromosome core morphology Cytogenet Cell Genet 30 248–52.
Scott, D., Danford, N. D., Dean, B. J. and Kirkland, D. J. (1990) Metaphase chromosome aberration assays in vitro In UKEMS Sub-committee on Guidelines for Mutagenicity Testing. Report. Part 1 revised. Basic mutagenicity tests: UKEMS recommended procedures ed. D. J. Kirkland et al, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 62–86.
ISCN (1985) An International System for Human Cytogenetic Nomenclature ed. D. G. Harnden et al S. Karger, Switzerland.
ISCN (2009) An International System for Human Cytogenetic Nomenclature (2009) ed. L. G. Shaffer et al S. Karger, Switzerland.
Preston, R. J., San Sebastian, J. R. and McFee, A. F. (1987) The in vitro human lymphocyte assay for assessing the clastogenicity of chemical agents Mutat Res 189 175–83.
Richardson, C., Williams, D. A., Allen, J. A., Amphlett, G., Chanter, D. O. and Phillips, B. (1990) Analysis of data from in vitro cytogenetic assays In UKEMS Sub-committee on Guidelines for Mutagenicity Testing. Report. Part 111. Statistical evaluation of mutagenicity test data ed. D. J. Kirkland et al, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 141–54.
Brewen, G. (1982) Chromosome aberrations in mammals as genetic parameters in determining mutagenic potential and assessory genetic risk. Prog Mutat Res 3 Eds. K. C. Bora et al. Elsevier Biomedical Press, Amsterdam.
Scott, D., Galloway, S. M., Marshall, R. R., Ishidate, M. Jr., Brusick, D., Ashby, J. and Myhr, B. (1991) ICPEMC, Genotoxicity under extreme culture conditions. Mutat Res 257 147–204.
Acknowledgements
The author is very grateful for discussions on practicalities of scoring chromosome aberrations from cytogeneticists in a number of laboratories, in particularly the following: CiToxLAB France, Covance Laboratories Ltd., Harrogate, UK, Sanofi-Aventis Alfortville, France and Frankfurt, Deutchland, and Sequani Ltd., Ledbury, UK.
Thanks also to Paul Fowler (Covance) for information on variation in cell selection between analysts.
For information on training courses in chromosome aberration analysis, go to http://www.microptic.com.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this protocol
Cite this protocol
Danford, N. (2012). The Interpretation and Analysis of Cytogenetic Data. In: Parry, J., Parry, E. (eds) Genetic Toxicology. Methods in Molecular Biology, vol 817. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-61779-421-6_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-61779-421-6_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-61779-420-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-61779-421-6
eBook Packages: Springer Protocols