The Ames test has become one of the most commonly used tests to assess the mutagenic potential of medicinal plants since they have several biological activities and thus have been used in traditional medicine and in the pharmaceutical industry as a source of raw materials. Accordingly, this review aims to report previous use of the Ames test to evaluate the mutagenic potential of medicinal plants. A database was constructed by curating literature identified by a search on the electronic databases Medline (via Pubmed), Science Direct, Scopus, and Web of Science from 1975 to April 2020, using the following terms: "genotoxicity tests" OR "mutagenicity tests" OR "Ames test" AND "medicinal plants." From the research, 239 articles were selected, including studies of 478 species distributed across 111 botanical families, with Fabaceae, Asteraceae and Lamiaceae being the most frequent. It was identified that 388 species were non-mutagenic. Of these, 21% (83/388) showed antimutagenic potential, most notable in the Lamiaceae family. The results also indicate that 18% (90/478) of the species were mutagenic, of which 54% were mutagenic in the presence and absence of S9. Strains TA98 and TA100 showed a sensitivity of 93% in detecting plant extracts with mutagenic potential. However, the reliability of many reviewed studies regarding the botanical extracts may be questioned due to technical issues, such as testing being performed only in the presence or absence of S9, use of maximum doses below 5 mg/plate and lack of information on the cytotoxicity of tested doses. These methodological aspects additionally demonstrated that a discussion about the doses used in research on mixtures, such as the ones assessed with botanical extracts and the most sensitive strains employed to detect the mutagenic potential, should be included in a possible update of the guidelines designed by the regulatory agencies.
Keywords: Ames test; Genotoxicity; Medicinal plants; Pharmacological safety; Preclinical trials; Traditional medicine.
Published by Elsevier B.V.