Summary
Fibroblasts of a patient with Bloom syndrome (GM-1492) were cultured in the presence of either mitomycin C, ethylmethanesulfonate, or 4-nitroquinoline-1-oxide, (4-NQ1-O) and sister chromatid exchange was determined. The mutagens enhanced the sister chromatid exchange rate to different degrees, 4-NQ1-O being the most potent substance. Bloom corrective factor, which is present in normal cell-conditioned culture medium, reduced the spontaneously increased SCE in Bloom syndrome cells by about 20 SCE per metaphase but failed to reduce the additional mutagen-induced SCE increase. These findings indicate that only spontaneously, but not mutagen-indeuced, SCE in Bloom syndrome fibroblasts can be decreased by the Bloom corrective factor.
References
Bertram CR, Rüdiger HW, Passarge E (1979) Frequency of sister chromatid exchanges in Bloom syndrome fibroblasts reduced by cocultivation with normal cells. Hum Genet 46:331–334
Bartram CR, Rüdiger HW, Schmidt-Preuß U, Passarge E (1981) Functional deficiency of fibroblasts heteroxzygous for Bloom syndrome as specific manifestation of the primary defect. Am J Hum Genet (in press)
Krepinsky AB, Heddle JA, German J (1979) Sensitivity of Bloom's syndrome lymphocytes to ethyl methanesulfonate. Hum Genet 50:151–156
Rüdiger HW, Bartram CR, Harder W, Passarge E (1980) Rate of sister chromatid exchanges in Bloom syndrome fibroblasts reduced by cocultivation with normal fibroblasts. Am J Hum Genet 32:150–157
Shiraishi Y, Sandberg A (1978) Effects of mitomycin C on sister chromatid exchanges in normal and Bloom's syndrome cells. Mutat Res 49:233–238
Wolff S, Rodin B, Cleaver JE (1977) Sister chromatid exchanges induced by mutagenic carcinogens in normal and xeroderma pigmentosum cells. Nature 265:347–349
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schmidt-Preuß, U., Maack, P., Bartram, C.R. et al. Mutagen-induced sister chromatid exchange rate in Bloom syndrome remains unaltered in the presence of Bloom corrective factor. Hum Genet 58, 432–433 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00282831
Received:
Revised:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00282831