Research Article

Inducible Protective Processes in Animal Systems XIII: Comparative Analysis of Induction of Adaptive Response by EMS and MMS in Ehrlich Ascites Carcinoma Cells

Table 1

Frequency of chromosomal aberrations observed after conditioning, challenging, and combined treatments of EMS in EAC cells at 24 h recovery time.

TreatmentChromosomal aberrationsTotal
aberrations
Exp. numberB′B′′RB′RB′B′′MinutesDicRingsID

Control1819 (3.00)
2718 (2.67)
366 (2.00)
Mean ± SE 7.67 ± 0.88a (2.56)

Conditioning 1224438445 (15.00)
22333361241 (13.67)
3243225541 (13.67)
Mean ± SE 42.33 ± 1.33b (14.11)

Challenging195152023293212199 (66.33)
28613212120218172 (57.33)
38217221824219175 (58.33)
Mean ± SE 182.00 ± 8.54c (60.67)

Combined 16511192020218146 (48.67)
27210171819116144 (48.00)
36810201516215137 (45.67)
Mean ± SE 142.33 ± 2.73d (47.44)

Note: data of 3 independent experiments; 3 animals per experiment were used; 100 cells per animal scored; and a total of 900 cells scored per dose. B′: chromatid break, B′′: isochromatid break, RB′′: chromatid exchange, RB′B′′: triradials, Dic: dicentrics, and ID: intrachromatid deletion. Values with same superscripts are not significantly different , whereas values with different superscripts are significantly different from one another. Parentheses show the percentage of total aberrations.