Registration Dossier

Data platform availability banner - registered substances factsheets

Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.

The new ECHA CHEM database has been released by ECHA, and it now contains all REACH registration data. There are more details on the transition of ECHA's published data to ECHA CHEM here.

Diss Factsheets

Toxicological information

Genetic toxicity: in vivo

Currently viewing:

Administrative data

Endpoint:
in vivo mammalian somatic cell study: cytogenicity / erythrocyte micronucleus
Remarks:
Type of genotoxicity: chromosome aberration
Type of information:
experimental study
Adequacy of study:
supporting study
Reliability:
2 (reliable with restrictions)
Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:
other: Well documented non GLP study, although the isomer tested was not specified.

Data source

Reference
Reference Type:
publication
Title:
Activity of coded compounds in the micronucleus test.
Author:
Tsuchimoto,T. and Matter,B.E.
Year:
1981
Bibliographic source:
In de Serres,F.J and Ashby,J. (eds), Progress in Mutation Research, Vol. 1, Evaluation of Short-term Tests for Carcinogens. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 705–711.

Materials and methods

Test guideline
Qualifier:
equivalent or similar to guideline
Guideline:
OECD Guideline 474 (Mammalian Erythrocyte Micronucleus Test)
GLP compliance:
no
Type of assay:
micronucleus assay

Test material

Constituent 1
Chemical structure
Reference substance name:
DL-methionine
EC Number:
200-432-1
EC Name:
DL-methionine
Cas Number:
59-51-8
Molecular formula:
C5H11NO2S
IUPAC Name:
methionine
Details on test material:
- Name of test material (as cited in study report): Methionine

Test animals

Species:
mouse
Strain:
CD-1
Sex:
male/female
Details on test animals or test system and environmental conditions:
TEST ANIMALS
- Source: Charles-River, Paris

Administration / exposure

Route of administration:
intraperitoneal
Vehicle:
- Vehicle(s)/solvent(s) used: water
Frequency of treatment:
each substance was administered i.p. twice, 24 hr apart
Doses / concentrationsopen allclose all
Remarks:
Doses / Concentrations:
250 mg/kg
Basis:
other: injected
Remarks:
Doses / Concentrations:
500 mg/kg
Basis:
other: injected
Remarks:
Doses / Concentrations:
1000 mg/kg
Basis:
other: injected
No. of animals per sex per dose:
each group consisted of two males and two females
Control animals:
yes

Examinations

Tissues and cell types examined:
femoral bone marrow cells
Details of tissue and slide preparation:
TREATMENT AND SAMPLING TIMES ( in addition to information in specific fields):
Animals were killed 6h after the 2nd application
Femoral bone marrow cells were obtained and smears were prepared according to the method described by Schmid (1973, 1974).

DETAILS OF SLIDE PREPARATION:
For staining the slides phosphate buffer pH 6.88 was used instead of distilled water.

METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Screening of the slides was performed using 10x16 magnification, for regions where cells were well spread and optimally stained.
1500 polychromatic erythrocytes per animal were analyzed under oil-immeresion high power magnification (10x100). The number of micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes (MPEs) were counted.

OTHER:
Evaluation criteria:
A substance was judged positive when the following criteria were met:
1. two or more mice per group with MPE frequencies above 0.4%
2. one or more treated groups with mean MPE frequencies above 0.3%
3. statistical significance (Kastenbaum and Bowman, 1970) in one or more treated groups

The substance was judged negative if none of the criteria was met and it was judged questionable if only one or two criteria were met.

Results and discussion

Test results
Sex:
male/female
Genotoxicity:
negative
Toxicity:
not specified
Additional information on results:
Micornucleated polychromatic erytrocytes (%):

negative control => 0.03 (0.00-0.07)
low-dose group => 0.13 (0.07-0.2
mid-dose group => 0.08 (0.07-0.13)
high-dose group => 0.03 (0.00-0.07)

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Conclusions:
Interpretation of results (migrated information): negative