Table 14.

Summary of Ames test done with cigarette smoke

StrainsSmoking conditionsCigarettesAnalyte*ResultsReference
TA98 and TA100FTCEuropean commercial cigarettesCSC (Cambridge method)S9 treated with Aroclor 1254 mutagenic in both strains.De Ratt, WK 1979 (198)
TA98 and TA100ISO; Corresta no. 10Commercial nonfilter cigarettes of American blendCSC (Cold trap)None of the fractions induced an increase in revertants.Curvall, mol/L 1985(66)
TA100 and TA1538FTC16 low-tar cigarettes from 1-10 mg tar and a high-tar cigaretteWS (Solvent trap)WS from light tar cigarettes were less mutagenic compared with high tar cigarettes on a revertant/milligram basis.Chortyk, OT 1990 (293)
TA98, TA100, TA1535, TA1537, and TA1538FTC or until complete consumption of heat source1R4F reference cigarette, commercial cigarettes and cigarettes that heat but do not burnTPM (Cambridge method)CSC from 1R4F, ULT and ULT-menthol: concentration-dependent increase in revertant number with TA98, TA100, TA1537, and TA1538 CSC from TEST cigarettes did not cause an increase in the number of revertantsDoolittle, DJ 1990 (163)
TA98 and TA100FTC1R4F, regular cigarette that heat tobacco, menthol cigarette that heat tobaccoMWS (Cambridge method)1R4F induced dose-dependent mutagenicity, neither regular or menthol cigarettes that heat tobacco were mutagenic in TA98 or TA100Lee, CK 1990 (282)
TA98 and TA100FTCK1R4F and 73 brand styles of U.S. market cigarettesTPM (Cambridge method)No significant differences between the mutagenicity of U.S. market brand cigarettes and K1R4FSteele, RH 1995 (294)
TA98, TA100, YG1021, YG1024, YG1026, YG1029, TA98NR, TA100-DNP6, TA98-1,8-DNP6, and TA100NRN/ACommercial cigarettesCSC (Solvent trap)All strains showed dose-dependent response with S9. Strains were ranked according to mutagenic response.De Flora, S 1995 (291)
TA98, TA100, and TA1538IARC2R1MS and CSC (DCM-eluted glass fiber filter)Dose-response observed. Probe hybridization showed different frequencies of mutational events. Two or three freeze thaw cycles did not significantly alter mutagenicity.DeMarini, DM 1995 (295)
TA98, TA100, TA1535, TA1537, and TA1538FTC1R4F, 1R5F, and a cigarette that heats tobacco (TOB-HT)CSC (Cambridge method)1R4F induced concentration-dependent increases in all strains except TA1535. 1R5F induced concentration-dependent increases in TA98, TA100, TA1538. TOB-HT negative.Bombick, BR 1997 (60)
TA98FTCCommercial cigarettes and cigarettes with a novel carbon filter with varying nitrogen contentsCSC (Cambridge method)Tobacco nitrogen content modified the mutagenicity more than filter typeBombick, DW 1997 (59)
TA98 and TA100FTCK1R4F Kentucky Reference CigaretteCSC (Cambridge method)CSC was mutagenic in both TA98 and TA100Putnam, KP 1999 (43)
TA98 and TA100FTCCigarettes of 100% Flue cured or 100% burley tobacco with and without treatment for protein removalTPM (Cambridge method)Reduced mutagenicity was observed in cigarettes treated for protein removal in both strainsClapp, W. L. 1999
TA98 and TA100FTCK1R4F, K1R5F and commercial cigarettes with different tar yieldsCSC (Cambridge method)No statistical differences between full flavor low tar and 1R4F. Ultra low tar more mutagenic than 1R5F on a revertant/cigarette basis.Chepiga, TA 2000 (296)
TA98 and TA100Different temperatures0.25 g tobacco tabletsN/AMutagenicity increases as temperature increases from 400-550°CWhite, JL 2001 (297)
TA98, TA100, TA102, TA1535, and TA1537ISOK1R4F, cigarettes with different casing materials, flavorings and tobacco, including mentholCSC (Glassimpaction trap)Dose-response increase observed with TA98, TA100 and TA1537, and TA98 and TA100, there were no statistically significant differences among the test cigarettesRoemer, E 2002 (72)
TA98 and TA100FTCStandard commercial blend with and without honeyTPM (Cambridge method)No statistically significant differences in mutagenicity were detected between test cigarettesStavanja, MS 2003 (223)
TA98 and TA100FTCFreon or propane expanded tobacco blend and reference cigarettesCSC (Cambridge method)Dose-dependent increase observed, no differences were detected between test and reference cigarettesTheophilus, EH 2003 (70)
TA98, TA100, TA102, TA1535 and TA1537ISOTypical U.S. blends with different casings and flavoringCSC (Cambridge method)Addition of ingredients to test cigarettes did not increase the mutagenic activityBaker, RR 2004 (78)
TA98FTC, FTC intense (50/30/2), HC and MDPHEclipse and commercial ultralightsCSC (Cambridge method)Mutagenicity of Eclipse CSC was statistically lower than the other cigarettes for almost all comparisonsFoy, JW 2004 (61)
TA98 and TA100FTCCigarettes containing increasing amounts expanded shredded tobacco stemsCSC (Cambridge method)Dose-dependent increase observed, no differences were detected between test and reference cigarettesTheophilus, EH 2004 (67)
TA98, TA100, TA1535, TA1537, and TA102ISO1R4F or 2R4F, test cigarettes containing typical commercial tobacco blend no additives with cellulose acetate filtersCSC (Glass impaction)No significant increase in mutagenicity in licorice treated cigarettes compared with control cigarettesCarmines, EL 2005 (132)
TA98, TA100, TA1535, TA1537, and TA102ISO1R4F or 2R4F, test cigarettes containing typical commercial tobacco blend no additives with cellulose acetate filtersCSC (Glass impaction)No significant increase in mutagenicity in glycerin treated cigarettes compared with control cigarettesCarmines, EL 2005 (131)
TA98 and TA100FTCCommercial cigarettes and test cigarettes with different fructose corn syrup amountsCSC (Cambridge method)Dose response increase in mutagenicity observed, no difference with fructoseStavanja, MS 2006 (140)
TA98, TA100, and TA1537FTC1R4F and 2R4FTPM (Cambridge method)No significant differences between 2R4F and 1R4F with TA100 and TA1537, 2R4F mutagenicity was lower than 1R4F by revertant/milligram tar basis in TA98Counts, ME 2006 (130)
TA98 and TA100ISO (modified for cigars, bidis, and pipe tobacco)2R4F, five commercial cigarettes, two brands of cigars, two brands of cigarillos, two brands of bidis, and two brands of pipe tobaccoTPM (Cambridge method)Concentration-dependent response observed. Air-cured products showed higher mutagenicity on a revertant/milligram nicotine basis.Rickert, WS 2007 (217)
TA98 and TA100ISO2R4FWS and GVP (Exposure chamber)Dose-dependent increase observed, highest response observed with 30% S9 activation. Flow rate and dilution rate influenced mutagenicity.Aufderheide, M 2007 (298)
TA98 and TA100ISO and HCIK1R4F, K1R5F, and Canadian MonitorTPM (Cambridge method), CSC (Electrostatic collection method)No significant effect on TPM activity between CFP method and ESP method. Specific activity of TPM prepared under ISO is greater than that prepared under HCIRickert, WS 2007 (141)
TA98 and TA100FTCStandard American tobacco blend, three test cigarettes with banded cigarette paper technologies and control cigaretteCSC (Cambridge method)Slopes of control and test cigarettes were similarTheophilus, EH 2007 (68)
TA1535, TA1537, TA1538, TA98, TA100, TA102, WP2uvrApKM101, YG1026, YG1029, YG1042ISOK2R4F and commercially available light and ultralight cigarettesWS and GVPDose response reported for WS and GVPAufderheide, mol/L 2008 (82)
TA98 and TA100FTCQuest low-nicotine and nicotine-free cigarettes and 2R4FCSC (Cambridge method)On a revertant/milligram TPM basis there was no statistical difference in the dose-response slopes of the three CSCs in TA98. TA100 produced similar data.Chen, J 2008 (146)
TA98, TA100, TA1535, TA1537, and TA102ISOResearch cigarettes consistent with American tobacco blends with and without potassium sorbate, 2R4FTPM (Cambridge method), GVP (Solvent trap)Mutagenic response observed in TA98, TA100, and TA1537. No difference between test and control cigarettes.Gaworski, CL 2008 (133)
TA98 and TA1041FTC, MDPH2R4F, six commercial, and three experimental cigarettes with single tobacco typesCSC (Cambridge method)All 10 CSCs were mutagenic in both strains; the low-tar cigarette smoked under the MDPH intense conditions was four times more mutagenic than the same cigarette smoked with the FTC method on a revertant/μg CSC basisDeMarini, DM 2008 (62)
TA98, TA100, TA102,TA1537, and TA1535FTC/ISO, MDPH, HPPTwo EHC prototypes, eight commercial cigarettes, and K1R4FTPM (Cambridge filters)Mutagenic activity of the EHC–AMP per milligram TPM was more than 90% lower than that of conventional cigarettes.Roemer, E 2008 (224)
TA98, TA100, TA102, TA1535, TA1537ISO1R4F, three commercial cigarettesTPM (Cambridge method)Differences reported for some strains on a per milligram TPM and per cigarette basisPatskan, GJ 2008 (127)
TA98 and TA100FTCReference cigarette, test cigarettes with different levels of DAP, urea and cut rolled expanded stemsCSC (Cambridge method)Dose-response increase in mutagenicity observed, no difference when reported on a revertant/milligram tar or cigarette between reference and test CSCStavanja, MS 2008 (197)
TA98, TA100, TA102, TA1535, and TA1537ISO, HPPTwo Marlboro brands, 2R4F, and EHCTPM (Cambridge method)Mutagenic activity of the mainstream smoke condensate from the EHC was lower than Marlboro brandsWerley, MS 2008 (129)
TA98 and TA100FTCReference cigarette, commercial tobacco blend, with and without cast sheetsTPM (Cambridge method)TA98- No statistically significant differences seen between the reference and test cigarettes on either revertant/milligram tar or revertant/cigarette. TA100- cigarettes containing 15% cast sheet showed significantly higher mutagenicity on a revertant/cigarette basis but not a revertant/milligram TPM basis.Potts, RJ 2009 (84)
TA98 & TA100FTC with modifications for tar production1R5F, 2R4F, 2R1FTPM (Glass fiber filter) CSC (impaction trap)TPM smoked according to FTC showed dose-dependent increases, different cigarettes smoked to the same TPM yield showed no significant differencesRoemer, E 2009 (274)
  • *TPM or CSC indicated as reported in publication, but actual method shown in parenthesis.