A modified suspension test for estimating the mutagenicity of samples containing free and (or) protein-bound histidine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Ames test has not been very effective in estimating the mutagenicity of histidine-containing samples because external free and (or) protein-bound histidine in these samples would allow the histidine auxotrophs in such test samples to grow more compared with the negative controls that were used as the reference. This could give rise to a false positive.n this study, a modified suspension mutagenicity assay (MS assay) was developed. The tester strains were incubated in Luria-Bertani (LB) broth containing different concentrations of traditional Chinese medicines (TCMs) until the declining phase, and the test samples were assayed to be mutagenic or not by observing whether statistically significant differences were demonstrated in the relative reversion frequencies (RRFs) between the negative control groups and the test groups. Collectively, using LB broth as the test medium and comparing the RRFs in the declining phase made this assay less influenced by the presence of histidine in the test samples.The mutagenicity of some TCMs was measured with the MS assay. The results in MS assay were consistent with those in the mammalian bone marrow chromosomal aberration test, which indicated that the MS assay was appropriate to estimate the mutagenicity of samples containing free and (or) protein-bound histidine.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".