Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Mar 7.
Published in final edited form as: Mutat Res. 2011 Dec 14;731(1-2):92–98. doi: 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2011.12.004

Table 2.

Roles of NER and TLS in formaldehyde mutagenesis

Forward Mutation (CAN1)
Median Mutant Frequency, 10−6
Frameshift Reversion (lys2ΔA746)
Median Mutant Frequency, 10−8
NER, TLS control HCHO- -fold control HCHO- -fold
Genotype na (sham) (95% CI) treated (95% CI) changeb (sham) (95% CI) treated (95% CI) changeb












wild-type 24 1.73 (1.09 –2.18) 1.69 (1.01 – 2.09) 1.0 0.43 (0 – 0.63) 0.32 (0 – 0.80) 0.7
rad14 23 2.95 (1.85 – 4.56) 6.24 (5.06 – 8.40) 2.1 0.60 (0 – 2.31) 2.00 (0.89 – 3.31) 3.3
rad14 rev3 16 0.48 (0.26 – 1.07) 0.57 (0.33 – 1.32) 1.2 0.43 (0 – 1.68) 0.82 (0 – 1.37) 1.9
rad14 rad30 24 2.61 (1.90 – 3.29) 5.58 (4.43 – 6.76) 2.1 0.78 (0 – 1.50) 1.59 (0.77 – 4.36) 2.1
rad14 rad30 rev3 24 0.72 (0.56 – 1.27) 0.74 (0.45 – 1.12) 1.0 0.49 (0 – 0.96) 0.52 (0 – 1.60) 1.0
a

Number of independent cultures split into two and subjected to sham vs. formaldehyde treatment

b

Ratio of treated:control mutant frequencies