SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Secondary Metabolite / 2021 / Volume: 8 Issue: 4

A Study on the Possible Mutagenicity of Different Types of Plant Growth Regulators

Sevilay Yapıcı(ESKİŞEHİR TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-2298-4832
Güven Uraz(GAZI UNIVERSITY)
Ebru Beyzi(GAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, SAĞLIK HİZMETLERİ MESLEK YÜKSEKOKULU)0000-0002-5292-9554
Pages
—
Publication Date
2021-12-26
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

According to the results, a 2500 µg/plate dose of Kinetin was to be found mutagenic on the strain TA 98 in the presence and in the absence of S9 enzyme, and on the strain TA 100 in the absence of the S9 enzyme.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:It is known that most chemicals, which have been increasingly used since ancient times, have carcinogenic and mutagenic effects.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Experiments were performed in the presence (+ S9) or absence (-S9) of metabolic activation enzymes using TA 98 and TA 100 strains of Salmonella typhimurium. 5 non-cytotoxic doses for each test substance were investigated.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to the results, a 2500 µg/plate dose of Kinetin was to be found mutagenic on the strain TA 98 in the presence and in the absence of S9 enzyme, and on the strain TA 100 in the absence of the S9 enzyme.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Ames test · Mutagenicity · Plant growth regulators

Abstract

It is known that most chemicals, which have been increasingly used since ancient times, have carcinogenic and mutagenic effects. As an alternative to these chemicals, natural compounds, such as plant growth regulators (PGRs) have been used. However, are the PGRs used to obtain efficient plants in agriculture as harmless as it is thought today when it is essential to access natural foods in the food and agriculture sectors? Therefore, this study investigates the mutagenic activity of two plant growth regulators (Kinetin, Chlormequat chloride (CCC)) using the Ames/Salmonella short-time test system. Experiments were performed in the presence (+ S9) or absence (-S9) of metabolic activation enzymes using TA 98 and TA 100 strains of Salmonella typhimurium. 5 non-cytotoxic doses for each test substance were investigated. The results were evaluated by comparing them with spontaneous control plates. According to the results, a 2500 µg/plate dose of Kinetin was to be found mutagenic on the strain TA 98 in the presence and in the absence of S9 enzyme, and on the strain TA 100 in the absence of the S9 enzyme. The other substance CCC did not cause mutagenic effects on the bacterial strains.

Özet

It is known that most chemicals, which have been increasingly used since ancient times, have carcinogenic and mutagenic effects. As an alternative to these chemicals, natural compounds, such as plant growth regulators (PGRs) have been used. However, are the PGRs used to obtain efficient plants in agriculture as harmless as it is thought today when it is essential to access natural foods in the food and agriculture sectors? Therefore, this study investigates the mutagenic activity of two plant growth regulators (Kinetin, Chlormequat chloride (CCC)) using the Ames/Salmonella short-time test system. Experiments were performed in the presence (+ S9) or absence (-S9) of metabolic activation enzymes using TA 98 and TA 100 strains of Salmonella typhimurium. 5 non-cytotoxic doses for each test substance were investigated. The results were evaluated by comparing them with spontaneous control plates. According to the results, a 2500 µg/plate dose of Kinetin was to be found mutagenic on the strain TA 98 in the presence and in the absence of S9 enzyme, and on the strain TA 100 in the absence of the S9 enzyme. The other substance CCC did not cause mutagenic effects on the bacterial strains.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yapıcı, S., Uraz, G., Beyzi, E. (2021). A Study on the Possible Mutagenicity of Different Types of Plant Growth Regulators. International Journal of Secondary Metabolite, Volume: 8 Issue: 4. https://doi.org/10.21448/ijsm.952423

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (41)

  1. Akman, Y., & Darıcı, C. (1998). Bitki Fizyolojisi (Beslenme ve Gelişme Fizyolojisi) [Plant Physiology (Nutrition and Development Physiology)]. Kariyer Matbaacılık
  2. Ames, B.N., Lee, F.D., & Durston, W.E., (1973). An Improved Bacterial Test System for the Detection of Classification of Mutagens and Carcinogens. Proc. of the Nat. Acad. of Sci., 70, 782-786.
  3. Ames, B.N., (1985). Food Constituents as a Source of Mutagens, Carcinogens and Anticarcinogens, Genetic Toxicology of the Diet, proceeding of a Satellite Symposium of the Fourth International Conference on Environmental Mutagens Held in Copenhagen, Denmark, Ed. B. knudsen, 3-32.
  4. Bağcı, H., (1985). Yaz Okulu Moleküler Biyoloji Ders Notları [Summer School Molecular Biology Lecture Notes]. ODTÜ, pp 25-55.
  5. Basra, A.S., (2000). Plant Growth Regulators in Agriculture and Horticulture: Their Role and Commercial Uses. Haworth Press.
  6. Çetinkaya, A.M., & Baydan, E., (2006). Bitki Gelişim Düzenleyicilerin Zehirliliğine Genel Bir Bakış [An Overview of the Toxicity of Plant Growth Regulators]. Veteriner Hekimler Derneği Dergisi, 77(4), 26-31.
  7. Dean, B.J., Brooks, T.M., Hodson–Walker, G., & Hutson, D.H. (1985). Genetic toxicology testing of 41 industrial chemicals. Mutat. Res, 153, 57-77
  8. Dökmeci, I., (1988). Toksikoloji, Akut zehirlenmelerde Tanı ve Tedavi [Toxicology, Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute Poisoning]. Nobel Kitap kitabevi.
  9. EFSA (2008). Conclusion regarding the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance chlormequat (considered variant chlormequat chlorid). EFSA Scientific Report 179. pp.1-77.
  10. Emig, M., Reinhardt, A., & Mersch Sunderman, V. (1996). A comparative study of five nitro musk compounds for genotoxicity in the SOS choromotest and Salmonella mutagenicity. Toxicol. Letter., 85, 151-156.
  11. Ennever, F.K., & Rosenkraz, H.J. (1986). Evaluating Batteries of Short-Term Genotoxicity Tests. Mutagenesis, 1, 293-298.
  12. Forman, D. & Ames, B., (1991). The Ames Test and the Causes of Cancer. Br. Med. J. Vol. 303, 428-429.
  13. Güleryüz, M. (1982). Bahçe ziraatında büyütücü ve engelleyici maddelerin kullanılması ve önemi [The use and importance of growth and inhibitory substances in horticulture]. Atatürk Üniversitesi Yayınları, 279.
  14. Halloran, N., & Kasım, M.U. (2002). Meyve ve Sebzelerde Büyüme Düzenleyici Madde Kullanımı ve Kalıntı Düzeyleri [Use and Residues of plant Growth Regulators in Fruit and Vegetable Production (Turkish with English Abstract)]. Gıda, 27(5), 351-359.
  15. Harms, C.L., & Oplinger, E.S. (1988). Plant Growth Regulators: Their Use in Crop Production. North Central Region Extension Publication 303, Wisconsin.
  16. Hofnung, M., & Quillardet, P. (1986). Recent developments in bacterial short-term for the detection of genotoxic agents. Mutagenesis, 1(5), 319-330.
  17. Merck Inc. (2021a). Merck KgaA. Retrieved from https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/TR/en/product/sigma/48130?gclid=Cj0KCQiA7oyNBhDiARIsADtGRZa37fnvMOKezsUvqJThNSu-QTyIkXNEolVEP3kYNwbu3EwMX99us_4aAi08EALw_wcB
  18. Merck Inc. (2021b). Merck KgaA. Retrieved from https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/substance/chlormequatchloride1580799981511?lang=en&region=TR
  19. Merck Inc. (2021c). Merck KgaA. Retrieved from https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/TR/en/product/aldrich/438456?gclid=CjwKCAiA4veMBhAMEiwAU4XRr7YCvB3B_LldPRU8gFcRhW44-sYzAJWgZ4uswFhKFcOtZVpDxA5wjBoC_ucQAvD_BwE
  20. Merck Inc. (2021d). Merck KgaA. Retrieved from https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/TR/en/product/aldrich/a55500?gclid=CjwKCAiA4veMBhAMEiwAU4XRrxjiXsuivNKt3xEsz4F23jC5zSDDbdu27iccMM9_V2Bh5x_wb3fWiRoCVHsQAvD_BwE
  21. Merck Inc. (2021e). Merck KgaA. Retrieved from https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/TR/en/product/aldrich/108898
  22. Kappas, A. (1983). Genotoxic avtivity of plant growth regulating hormones in Aspergillus nidulans, Carcinogenesis, 4(11), 1409-11.
  23. Kaynak, L., & Ersoy, N. (1997). Bitki Büyüme Düzenleyicilerinin Genel Özellikleri ve Kullanım Alanları [General Properties and Uses of Plant Growth Regulators]. Akdeniz Üni. Zir. Fak. Dergisi, 10, 223-236.
  24. Maron, D.M., & Ames, B.N. (1983). Revised methods for the mutagenicity test. Mutat. Res., 113, 173-215.
  25. Mc Daniels, C.C., & Stelma, G.N.Jr. (1990). Comparision of the Salmonella (Ames) test, UMU tests and SOS chromotests for detecting genetoxines. Environ. And Mol. Mutagenesis, 16, 204-215.
  26. McCann, J., Choi, E., Yamasaki, E., & Ames, B.N. (1975). Detection of carcinogens as mutagens in the Salmonella/microsome test. Assay of 300 chemicals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA; 72, 5135-5139.
  27. Morsünbül, T., Solmaz, S.K.A., Üstün, G.E., & Yonar, T. (2010). Bitki Gelişim Düzenleyici (BGD)’lerin Çevresel Etkileri ve Çözüm Önerileri [Environmental Effects of Plant Growth Regulators and Some Solutions Proposal]. Uludağ University Journal of The Faculty of Engineering, 15(1), 1-11.
  28. Mortelmans, K., & Zeiger, E. (2000). The Ames Salmonella/microsome mutagenicity assay. Mutation Research, 455, 29–60.
  29. Öncül, Ö., (2009). Bazı Gıda Boyalarının Mutajenik Potansiyellerinin Ames/Mikrozom Testi ile Araştırılması ve β –Galaktozidaz Üzerine Etkileri [Investigation of Mutagenic Potentials of Some Food Dyes by Ames/Microsome Test and Their Effects on β-Galactosidase] [Doctoral Thesis, Gazi University], Gazi University, Institute of Science and Technology, Ankara pp 1-50
  30. Özen, H.Ç. & Onay, A., (1999). Bitki Büyüme ve Gelişme Fizyolojisi [Plant Growth and Development Physiology]. Dicle Üniversitesi Basımevi.
  31. Pillco A., de la Peña E. (2014) Ames Test (Bacterial Reverse Mutation Test): Why, When, and How to Use. In: Sierra L., Gaivão I. (eds) Genotoxicity and DNA Repair. Methods in Pharmacology and Toxicology. Humana Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1068-7_1
  32. Quillardet, P., & Hofnung, M. (1988). “The screening, diagnosis and evaluation of genotoxic agents with batteries of bacterial tests’’, Mutat. Res., 216:251-257.
  33. Sağlam, N. (1991). Bitki Büyümesini Düzenleyiciler ve Kullanım Alanları [Plant Growth Regulators and Their Uses]. Tarımda Kaynak, 2(3), 52-55.
  34. Sussmuth, R., & Lingens, F. (1976). Mutagenic actions of chlorocholine chloride. Mutat. Res., 40(3):229-35
  35. Tiaz, L., & Zeiger, E. (2008). Bitki fizyolojisi. 3. baskıdan çeviri [Plant physiology. translation from the 3rd edition], ed; İsmail Türkan, Palme Yayıncılık.
  36. Tomatis, L., (1979). The Predictive Value of Rodent Carcinogenicity Tests in The Evaluation of Human Risks. Ann. Rev. Pharmacol, Toxical, 19, 511-530.
  37. Uysal, A., Durak, Y., & Aladağ, M.O. (2010). Investigation of Mutagenic Effects of Some Plant Growth Regulators Salmonella/ Microsome Test System. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 19(12b), 3094-3099
  38. Vural, N., (1984). Toksikoloji [Toxicology]. Ank. Üniv., Ecz. Fak., Yayınları, No: 56.
  39. Yeşilada, E., (2000). Drosophila melanogaster’de EMS ile indüklenmiş somatik mutasyon ve rekombinasyon üzerine kinetin, gibberellik asit ve indol asetik asitin etkisi, Turkish Journal of Biology, 24, 279-284.
  40. Westwood, M.N. (1993). Hormones and growth regulators. In: Westwood MN (ed) Temperate-zone pomology, physiology, and culture. 3rd ed. Timber Press Inc., Portland, 364-381
  41. Zeiger, E., Haseman, J.K., Shelby, M.D., Margolin, B.H., & Tennant, R.W. (1990). Evaluation of four in vitro genetic toxicity tests for predicting rodent carcinogenicity: confirmation of earlier results with 41 additional chemicals. Environ. Mol. Mutagen., 16 (Suppl. 18), 1-14.