Login

Join for Free!
119294 members


Ethidium

Discussion of all aspects of biological molecules, biochemical processes and laboratory procedures in the field.

Moderator: BioTeam

Ethidium

Postby thirdtime » Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:44 pm

Hi!

I was wondering how ethidium was handeld in labs 10-20 years ago. Was it treated with the same fear as nowadays? A lot of people in our lab are quite hysterical about the stuff and although I am always very careful with the stuff and wear my gloves I am not sure whether this panic is justified.

We have a designated EB workplace, but not one for acrylamide, phenol etc, which I would expect to be much more toxic, aren't they?

I have just been worrying a lot recently, as i had an accident with an EB contaminated needle performing CsCl gradients some time ago, didn't worry to much at the time (washed the wound well etc.) but am getting a little nervous at the moment (since in this lab - don't want to have induced cancer or disabilities to future kids).

How would you judge the dangers of the EB at the concentrations we use is in the lab?

Best Wishes,

Tom
thirdtime
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:36 pm

Postby MrMistery » Tue Dec 15, 2009 2:04 pm

if you're talking about EtBr like the stuff you have in a bottle then yes, it's an extremely potent mutagen. Last month my lab had an EtBr spill and we couldn't go into the room for 2 days until they cleaned it up. If you're talking about a buffer that you put 1 uL of EtBr in, then that's not nearly as dangerous.
But yes, I think for the most part the fear is justified. It is, after all, something you keep with the sole purpose of interacting with DNA.
"As a biologist, I firmly believe that when you're dead, you're dead. Except for what you live behind in history. That's the only afterlife" - J. Craig Venter
User avatar
MrMistery
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 6832
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Romania(small and unimportant country)

Postby JackBean » Wed Dec 16, 2009 10:38 am

MrMistery: yes, that's true, but why it is so much restricted, while others (like acrylamide or phenol, as mention above) are not?
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5692
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm


Postby mith » Thu Dec 17, 2009 11:20 am

there's probably some toxicity regulations
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Re: Ethidium

Postby zami'87. » Thu Dec 17, 2009 12:42 pm

Ethidium Bromide is intercalating agent.Intercalating agents can cause single nucleotide pair insertions/deletions and because of that frameshift mutations.
Acrylamide is neurotoxin that destroys neurofilaments in axons and you can feel tingeling as skin absorbs it..

Here's also an article you may find useful..

Acrylamide; induction of DNA damage, chromosomal aberrations and cell transformation without gene mutations.

The genotoxic potential of acrylamide monomer (AA), a compound familiar as a raw material of polyacrylamide electrophoresis gel, was extensively investigated in vitro. The results were clear cut: AA did not induce any gene mutations in Salmonella/microsome test systems (TA98, TA100, TA1535, TA1537), Escherichia coli/microsome assay (WP2 uvrA-) up to a dose of 50 mg AA/plate, or in HPRT-locus in Chinese hamster V79H3 cells (AA, 1-7 mM, 24 h treatment). On the other hand, AA showed a strong positive response: (a) in a Bacillus subtilis spore-rec assay (DNA damage) at 10-50 mg/disc, (b) to a chromosomal structural change test (AA, 2-5 mM, 24 h treatment), (c) to a polyploidy test (AA, 1-5 mM, 24 h treatment) in Chinese hamster V79H3 cells, (d) to a cell transformation assay in mouse BALB/c3T3 cells (AA, 1-2 mM, 72 h treatment). Sister chromatid exchange was also weakly but significantly induced by AA (AA, 1-2.5 mM, 24 h treatment) in Chinese hamster V79H3 cells. Carcinogenic potential of AA was reported in mice and rats several years ago. AA thus seems to be a typical clastogenic rodent carcinogen without any gene mutation potential. Furthermore, this experiment showed for the first time positive response of AA to a microbial test system (B. subtilis spore-rec assay).
http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/s ... ~SRDXO2:13
Every man is a star whose light can make shadows dance differently and change our view of landscape permanently***
User avatar
zami'87.
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 6:56 pm
Location: Serbia

Postby JackBean » Thu Dec 17, 2009 9:31 pm

So, do you think, that acrylamide is less dangerous than EtBr?
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5692
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm


Return to Molecular Biology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest