[Title 40 CFR 798.5500]
[Code of Federal Regulations (annual edition) - July 1, 2002 Edition]
[Title 40 - PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT]
[Chapter I - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (CONTINUED)]
[Subchapter R - TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT (CONTINUED)]
[Part 798 - HEALTH EFFECTS TESTING GUIDELINES]
[Subpart F - Genetic Toxicity]
[Sec. 798.5500 - Differential growth inhibition of repair proficient and repair deficient bacteria: ``Bacterial DNA damage or repair tests.'']
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]


40PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT282002-07-012002-07-01falseDifferential growth inhibition of repair proficient and repair deficient bacteria: ``Bacterial DNA damage or repair tests.''798.5500Sec. 798.5500PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENTENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (CONTINUED)TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT (CONTINUED)HEALTH EFFECTS TESTING GUIDELINESGenetic Toxicity
Sec. 798.5500  Differential growth inhibition of repair proficient and repair deficient bacteria: ``Bacterial DNA damage or repair tests.''

    (a) Purpose. Bacterial DNA damage or repair tests measure DNA damage 
which is expressed as differential cell killing or growth inhibition of 
repair deficient bacteria in a set of repair proficient and deficient 
strains. These tests do not measure mutagenic events per se. They are 
used as an indication of the interaction of a chemical with genetic 
material implying the potential for genotoxicity.
    (b) Definition. Test for differential growth inhibition of repair 
proficient and repair deficient bacteria measure differences in 
chemically induced cell killing between wild-type strains with full 
repair capacity and mutant strains deficient in one or more of the 
enzymes which govern repair of damaged DNA.
    (c) Reference substances. These may include, but need not be limited 
to, chloramphenicol or methyl methanesulfonate.
    (d) Test method--(1) Principle. The tests detect agents that 
interact with cellular DNA to produce growth inhibition or killing. This 
interaction is recognized by specific cellular repair systems. The 
assays are based upon the use of paired bacterial strains that differ by 
the presence of absence of specific DNA repair genes. The response is 
expressed in the preferential inhibition of growth or the preferential 
killing of the DNA repair deficient strain since it is incapable of 
removing certain chemical lesions from its DNA.

[[Page 206]]

    (2) Description. Several methods for performing the test have been 
described. Those described here are:
    (i) Tests performed on solid medium (diffusion tests).
    (ii) Tests performed in liquid culture (suspension tests).
    (3) Strain selection--(i) Designation. At the present time, 
Escherichia coli polA (W3110/p3478) or Bacillus subtilis rec (H17/M45) 
pairs are recommended. Other pairs may be utilized when appropriate.
    (ii) Preparation and storage. Stock culture preparation and storage, 
growth requirements, method of strain identification and demonstration 
of appropriate phenotypic requirements should be performed using good 
microbiological techniques and should be documented.
    (4) Bacterial growth. Good microbiological techniques should be used 
to grow fresh cultures of bacteria. The phase of growth and cell density 
should be documented and should be adequate for the experimental design.
    (5) Metabolic activation. Bacteria should be exposed to the test 
substance both in the presence and absence of an appropriate metabolic 
activation system. The most commonly used system is a cofactor 
supplemented postmitochondrial fraction prepared from the livers of 
rodents treated with enzyme inducing agents. The use of other species, 
tissues or techniques may also be appropriate.
    (6) Control groups--(i) Concurrent controls. Concurrent positive, 
negative, and vehicle controls should be included in each assay.
    (ii) Negative controls. The negative control should show 
nonpreferential growth inhibition (i.e., should affect both strains 
equally). Chloramphenicol is an example of a negative control.
    (iii) Genotype specific controls. Examples of genotype specific 
positive controls are methyl methanesulfonate for polA strains and 
mitomycin C for rec strains.
    (iv) Positive controls to ensure the efficacy of the activation 
system. The positive control reference substance for tests including a 
metabolic activation system should be selected on the basis of the type 
of activation system used in the test.
    (v) Other positive controls. Other positive control reference 
substances may be used.
    (7) Test chemicals--(i) Vehicle. Test chemicals and positive and 
negative control reference substances should be dissolved in an 
appropriate vehicle and then further diluted in vehicle for use in the 
assay.
    (ii) Exposure concentrations. The test should initially be performed 
over a broad range of concentrations. Among the criteria to be taken 
into consideration for determining the upper limits of test chemical 
concentration are cytotoxicity and solubility. Cytotoxicity of the test 
chemical may be altered in the presence of metabolic activation systems. 
For freely soluble nontoxic chemicals, the upper test chemical 
concentration should be determined on a case by case basis. Because 
results are expressed as diameters of zones of growth inhibition in the 
diffusion test, it is most important that the amounts of chemical on the 
disc (or in the wells) are exact replicates. When appropriate, a 
positive response should be confirmed by testing over a narrow range of 
concentrations.
    (e) Test performance--(1) Diffusion assay--(i) Disc diffusion 
assays. Disc diffusion assays. may be performed in two ways:
    (A) A single strain of bacteria may be added to an agar overlay or 
spread on the surface of the agar and the test chemical placed on a 
filter disc on the surface of the agar or;
    (B) DNA repair proficient and DNA repair deficient bacteria may be 
streaked in a line on the surface of the agar of the same plate and a 
disc saturated with test chemical placed on the surface of the agar in 
contact with the streaks.
    (ii) Well diffusion assays. In well diffusion assays, bacteria may 
be either added to the agar overlay or spread onto the surface of the 
agar. A solution of the test chemical is then placed into a well in the 
agar.
    (2) Suspension assays. (i) A bacterial suspension may be exposed to 
the test chemical and the number of surviving bacteria determined (as 
colony-forming units) either as a function of time of

[[Page 207]]

treatment or as a function of the concentration of test agent.
    (ii) Nonturbid suspensions of bacteria may be exposed to serial 
dilutions of the test agent and a minimal inhibitory concentration for 
each strain determined, as evidenced by the presence or absence of 
visible growth after a period of incubation.
    (iii) Paired bacterial suspensions (usually with some initial 
turbidity) may be treated with a single dose of the chemical. Positive 
results are indicated by a differential inhibition in the rate of 
increase of turbidity of the paired cultures.
    (3) Number of cultures. When using a plate diffusion procedure, at 
least two independent plates should be used at each dilution. In liquid 
suspension assays, at least two independent specimens for determination 
of the number of viable cells should be plated.
    (4) Incubation conditions. All plates in a given test should be 
incubated for the same time period. This incubation period should be for 
18 to 24 hrs at 37 [deg] C.
    (f) Data and report--(1) Treatment of results--(i) Diffusion assays. 
Results should be expressed in diameters of zones of growth inhibition 
in millimeters or as areas derived therefrom as mm2. Dose-
response data, if available, should be presented using the same units.
    (ii) Liquid suspension assays. (A) Survival data can be presented as 
dose responses, preferably as percentage of survivors or fractional 
survival of each strain or as a relative survival (ratio) of the two 
strains.
    (B) Results can also be expressed as the concentrations required to 
effect a predetermined survival rate (e.g., D37, the dose 
permitting 37 percent survival). These data are derived from the 
survival curve. The concentration should be expressed as weight per 
volume, as moles, or as molarity.
    (C) Similarly, results can be expressed as minimal inhibitory 
concentration or as minimal lethal dose. The former is determined by the 
absence of visible growth in liquid medium and the latter is determined 
by plating dilutions onto semisolid media.
    (iii) In all tests, concentrations must be given as the final 
concentrations during the treatment. Raw data, prior to transformation, 
should be provided. These should include actual quantities measured, 
e.g., neat numbers. For measurement of diffusion, the diameters of the 
discs and/or well should be indicated and the measurements should 
indicate whether the diameter of the discs and/or well was subtracted. 
Moreover, mention should be made as to whether the test chemical gave a 
sharp, diffuse, or double-zone of growth inhibition. If it is the 
latter, the investigator should indicate whether the inner or the outer 
zone was measured.
    (iv) Viability data should be given as the actual plate counts with 
an indication of the dilution used and the volume plated or as derived 
titers (cells per ml). Transformed data alone in the absence of 
experimental data are not acceptable (i.e, ratios, differences, survival 
fraction).
    (2) Statistical evaluation. Data should be evaluated by appropriate 
statistical methods.
    (3) Interpretation of results. (i) There are several criteria for 
determining a positive result, one of which is a statistically 
significant dose-related preferential inhibition or killing of the 
repair deficient strain. Another criterion may be based upon detection 
of a reproducible and statistically significant positive response for at 
least one of the test points.
    (ii) A test substance which does not produce either a statistically 
significant dose-related preferential inhibition or killing of the 
repair deficient strain or a statistically significant and reproducible 
positive response at any one of the test points is considered not to 
interact with the genetic material of the organisms used in assay.
    (iii) Both biological and statistical significance should be 
considered together in the evaluation.
    (4) Test evaluation. DNA damage tests in bacteria do not measure DNA 
repair per se nor do they measure mutations. They measure DNA damage 
which is expressed as cell killing or growth inhibition. A positive 
result in a DNA damage test in the absence of a positive result in 
another system is difficult to evaluate in the absence of a better data 
base.
    (5) Test report. In addition to the reporting recommendations as 
specified

[[Page 208]]

under 40 CFR part 792, subpart J the following specific information 
should be reported:
    (i) Bacterial strains used.
    (ii) Phase of bacterial cell growth at time of use in the assay.
    (iii) Media composition.
    (iv) Details of both the protocol used to prepare the metabolic 
activation system and its use in the assay.
    (v) Treatment protocol, including doses used and rationale for dose 
selection, positive and negative controls.
    (vi) Method used for determination of degree of cell kill.
    (vii) Dose-response relationship, if applicable.
    (g) References. For additional background information on this test 
guideline the following references should be consulted:
    (1) Ames, B.N., McCann, J., Yamasaki, E. ``Methods for detecting 
carcinogens and mutagens with the Salmonella/mammalian-microsome 
mutagenicity test,'' Mutation Research, 31:347-364 (1975).
    (2) Kada, T., Sadie, Y., Tutikawa, K. ``In vitro and host-mediated 
``rec-assay'' procedures for screening chemical mutagens; and phloxine, 
a mutagenic red dye detected,'' Mutation Research, 16:165-174 (1972).
    (3) Leifer, Z., Kada, T., Mandel, M., Zeiger, E., Stafford, R., 
Rosenkranz, H.S. ``An evaluation of bacterial DNA repair tests for 
predicting genotoxicity and carcinogenicity: A report of the U.S. EPA's 
Gene-Tox Program,'' Mutation Research, 87:211-297 (1981).
    (4) Slater, E.E., Anderson, M.D., Rosenkranz, H.S. ``Rapid detection 
of mutagens and carcinogens.'' Cancer Research, 31:970-973 (1971).