Advertisement

Are Chromosomal Aberrations Reliable Indicators of Environmental Hazards?

  • John R. K. Savage

Abstract

A very large number of agents and treatments are now known to produce structural chromosome aberrations. The types produced appear to be qualitatively (but not quantitatively) identical, and can be accommodated for scoring purposes within the classifications developed for aberrations produced by ionizing radiations.

The majority of the cellular test systems have intrinsic problems which need to be appreciated when planning and interpreting experiments.

Given that a treatment induces aberrations, the question of their significance must be considered at at least three levels; that of the cell, that of the organsim, where significance will vary from tissue to tissue, and that of the organism’s progeny. Extrapolation between these levels is often very difficult.

The actual resolution afforded by visually detectable aberrations is extremely poor in molecular terms, so that their absence after a particular treatment cannot be used as a criterion for safety.

Keywords

Chromosome Aberration Environmental Hazard Sulphur Mustard Radiation Biol Aberration Formation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abrahamson, S., Bender, M.A., Conger, A.D. and Wolff, S.: Uniformity of radiation-induced mutation rates among different species. Nature, New Biol. 245 (1973) 460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bigger, T.R.L., Savage, J.R.K. and Watson, G.E.: A scheme for characterising ASG banding and an illustration of its use in identifying complex chromosomal rearrangements in irradiated human skin. Chromosoma 39 (1972) 297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carrano, A.V. and Heddie, J. A.: The fate of chromosome aberrations. J. Theoret. Biol. 38 (1973) 289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Catcheside, D.G.: Genetic effects of radiations. Advan. Genet. 2 (1948) 271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coakley, W.T., Hughes, D.E., Slade, J.S. and Laurence, K.M.: Chromosome aberrations after exposure to ultrasound. Brit. Med. J. 1 (1971) 109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Evans, H.J.: Chromosome aberrations and target theory. pp. 8–40 Radiation Induced Chromosome Aberrations (Wolff, S. Ed.). Columbia University Press, New York (1963).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grote, S.J. and Revell, S.H.: Correlation of chromosome damage and colony-forming ability in Syrian hamster cells in culture irradiated in G1. Curr. Top. Radiation Res. Quart. 7 (1972) 303.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kilhman, B.A.: Actions of Chemicals on Dividing Cells. Prentice Hall, N.J., U.S.A. (1966).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Macintosh, I.J.C. and Davey, D.A.: Relationship between intensity of ultrasound and induction of chromosome aberrations. Brit. J. Radiol. 45 (1972) 320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Paris Conference (1971): Standardization in human cytogenetics. Birth defects: Original article series, VIII, 7. New York: The National Foundation 1972.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Preston, R.J.: Current research in neutron-irradiation effects on plant chromosomes. pp. 349-371, Symposium on Neutrons in Radiobiology. USAEC Conf.-691109 (1970).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Revell, S.H.: The breakage-and-reunion theory and the exchange theory for chromosomal aberrations induced by ionizing radiations: a short history. Advan. Radiation Biol. 4 (1974) 367.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rich, A.: Molecular structure of the nucleic acids. Rev. Mod. Phys. 31 (1959) 191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Savage, J.R.K.: Non-interaction of radiation-induced chromosome lesions in Tradescantia microspores. I. Fractionated x-ray dose studies. Int. J. Radiation Biol. 11 (1966) 287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Savage, J.R.K.: The use and abuse of chromosomal aberrations as an indicator of genetic damage. Intern. J. Environmental Stud. 1 (1971) 233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Savage, J.R.K. and Papworth, D.G.: The effect of variable G2 duration upon the interpretation of yield-time curves of radiation-induced chromatid aberrations. J. Theoret. Biol. 38 (1973) 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sax, K.: Types and frequencies of chromosomal aberrations induced by x-rays. Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol. 9 (1941) 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Scott, D. and Bigger, T.R.L.: The induction of chromosomal aberrations by sulphur mustard in marsupial lymphocytes. Chromosomes Today (Darlington, C.D., Lewis, K.R. Eds.) 3 (1972) 162.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Searie, A.G.: Mutation induction in mice. Advan. Radiation Biol. 4 (1974) 131.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sumner, A.T., Evans, H.J. and Buckland, R.A.: New technique for distinguishing between human chromosomes. Nature New Biol. 232 (1971) 31.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    United Nations General Assembly, 1969. Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the effects of Atomic Radiation, 24th Session, Suppl. 13 (A/7613) New York.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Williams, R.T.: Detoxication Mechanisms. Chapman Hall, London, (1959).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1975

Authors and Affiliations

  • John R. K. Savage
    • 1
  1. 1.M.R.C. Radiobiology UnitHarwell, Didcot, Oxon.England

Personalised recommendations