Search

Good cell culture practice and characterization of the cell lines used are of critical importance in in vitro genotoxicity testing. The objective of this initiative was to make continuously available stocks of the characterized isolates of the most frequently used mammalian cell lines in genotoxicity testing anywhere in the world ('IVGT' cell lines). This project was organized under the auspices of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI) Project Committee on the Relevance and Follow-up of Positive Results in In Vitro Genetic Toxicity (IVGT) Testing. First, cell isolates were identified that are as close as possible to the isolate described in the initial publications reporting their use in genotoxicity testing. The depositors of these cell lines managed their characterization and their expansion for preparing continuously available stocks of these cells that are stored at the European Collection of Cell Cultures (ECACC, UK) and the Japanese Collection of Research Bioresources (JCRB, Japan). This publication describes how the four 'IVGT' cell lines, i.e. L5178Y TK+/- 3.7.2C, TK6, CHO-WBL and CHL/IU, were prepared for deposit at the ECACC and JCRB cell banks. Recommendations for handling these cell lines and monitoring their characteristics are also described. The growth characteristics of these cell lines (growth rates and cell cycles), their identity (karyotypes and genetic status) and ranges of background frequencies of select endpoints are also reported to help in the routine practice of genotoxicity testing using these cell lines.

This report summarizes the discussion, conclusions, and points of consensus of the IWGT Working Group on Quantitative Approaches to Genetic Toxicology Risk Assessment (QWG) based on a meeting in Foz do Iguacu, Brazil October 31–November 2, 2013. Topics addressed included (1) the need for quantitative dose–response analysis, (2) methods to analyze exposure–response relationships & derive point of departure (PoD) metrics, (3) points of departure (PoD) and mechanistic threshold considerations, (4) approaches to define exposure-related risks, (5) empirical relationships between genetic damage (mutation) and cancer, and (6) extrapolations across test systems and species. This report discusses the first three of these topics and a companion report discusses the latter three. The working group critically examined methods for determining point of departure metrics (PoDs) that could be used to estimate low-dose risk of genetic damage and from which extrapolation to acceptable exposure levels could be made using appropriate mode of action information and uncertainty factors. These included benchmark doses (BMDs) derived from fitting families of exponential models, the N o O bserved G enotoxic E ffect L evel (NOGEL), and “threshold” or breakpoint dose (BPD) levels derived from bilinear models when mechanistic data supported this approach. The QWG recognizes that scientific evidence suggests that thresholds below which genotoxic effects do not occur likely exist for both DNA-reactive and DNA-nonreactive substances, but notes that small increments of the spontaneous level cannot be unequivocally excluded either by experimental measurement or by mathematical modeling. Therefore, rather than debating the theoretical possibility of such low-dose effects, emphasis should be placed on determination of PoDs from which acceptable exposure levels can be determined by extrapolation using available mechanistic information and appropriate uncertainty factors. This approach places the focus on minimization of the genotoxic risk, which protects against the risk of the development of diseases resulting from the genetic damage. Based on analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of each method, the QWG concluded that the order of preference of PoD metrics is the statistical lower bound on the BMD > the NOGEL > a statistical lower bound on the BPD. A companion report discusses the use of these metrics in genotoxicity risk assessment, including scaling and uncertainty factors to be considered when extrapolating below the PoD and/or across test systems and to the human.

In genotoxicity testing of pharmaceuticals the rodent alkaline comet assay is being increasingly used as a second in vivo assay in addition to the in vivo micronucleus assay to mitigate in vitro positive results as recommended by the ICH S2(R1) guideline. This paper summarizes a survey suggested by the Safety Working Party of European Medicines Agency (EMA), and conducted by the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) to investigate the experience among European pharmaceutical companies by conducting the in vivo comet assay for regulatory purpose. A special focus was given on the typology of the obtained results and to identify potential difficulties encountered with the interpretation of study data. The participating companies reported a total of 147 studies (conducted in-house or outsourced) and shared the conclusion on the comet assay response for 136 studies. Most of the studies were negative (118/136). Only about 10% (14/136 studies) of the comet assays showed a positive response. None of the positive comet assay results were clearly associated with organ toxicity indicating that the positive responses are not due to cytotoxic effects of the compound in the tissue examined. The number of comet assays with an equivocal or inconclusive response was rare, respectively

A collaborative trial was conducted to evaluate the possibility of integrating the rat-liver Comet assay into repeat-dose toxicity studies. Fourteen laboratories from Europe, Japan and the USA tested fifteen chemicals. Two chemicals had been previously shown to induce micronuclei in an acute protocol, but were found negative in a 4-week Micronucleus (MN) Assay (benzo[a]pyrene and 1,2-dimethylhydrazine; Hamada et al., 2001); four genotoxic rat-liver carcinogens that were negative in the MN assay in bone marrow or blood (2,6-dinitrotoluene, dimethylnitrosamine, 1,2-dibromomethane, and 2-amino-3-methylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoline); three compounds used in the ongoing JaCVAM (Japanese Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods) validation study of the acute liver Comet assay (2,4-diaminotoluene, 2,6-diaminotoluene and acrylamide); three pharmaceutical-like compounds (chlordiazepoxide, pyrimethamine and gemifloxacin), and three non-genotoxic rodent liver carcinogens (methapyrilene, clofibrate and phenobarbital). Male rats received oral administrations of the test compounds, daily for two or four weeks. The top dose was meant to be the highest dose producing clinical signs or histopathological effects without causing mortality, i.e. the 28-day maximum tolerated dose. The liver Comet assay was performed according to published recommendations and following the protocol for the ongoing JaCVAM validation trial. Laboratories provided liver Comet assay data obtained at the end of the long-term (2- or 4-week) studies together with an evaluation of liver histology. Most of the test compounds were also investigated in the liver Comet assay after short-term (1-3 daily) administration to compare the sensitivity of the two study designs. MN analyses were conducted in bone marrow or peripheral blood for most of the compounds to determine whether the liver Comet assay could complement the MN assay for the detection of genotoxins after long-term treatment. Most of the liver genotoxins were positive and the three non-genotoxic carcinogens gave negative result in the liver Comet assay after long-term administration. There was a high concordance between short- and long-term Comet assay results. Most compounds when tested up to the maximum tolerated dose were correctly detected in both short- and long-term studies. Discrepant results were obtained with 2,6 diaminotoluene (negative in the short-term, but positive in the long-term study), phenobarbital (positive in the short-term, but negative in the long-term study) and gemifloxacin (positive in the short-term, but negative in the long-term study). The overall results indicate that the liver Comet assay can be integrated within repeat-dose toxicity studies and efficiently complements the MN assay in detecting genotoxins. Practical aspects of integrating genotoxicity endpoints into repeat-dose studies were evaluated, e.g. by investigating the effect of blood sampling, as typically performed during toxicity studies, on the Comet and MN assays. The bleeding protocols used here did not affect the conclusions of the Comet assay or of the MN assays in blood and bone marrow. Although bleeding generally increased reticulocyte frequencies, the sensitivity of the response in the MN assay was not altered. These findings indicate that all animals in a toxicity study (main-study animals as well as toxicokinetic (TK) satellite animals) could be used for evaluating genotoxicity. However, possible logistical issues with scheduling of the necropsies and the need to conduct electrophoresis promptly after tissue sampling suggest that the use of TK animals could be simpler. The data so far do not indicate that liver proliferation or toxicity confound the results of the liver Comet assay. As was also true for other genotoxicity assays, criteria for evaluation of Comet assay results and statistical analyses differed among laboratories. Whereas comprehensive advice on statistical analysis is available in the literature, agreement is needed on applying consistent criteria.

In vitro genotoxicity assays are often used to screen and predict whether chemicals might represent mutagenic and carcinogenic risks for humans. Recent discussions have focused on the high rate of positive results in in vitro tests, especially in those assays performed in mammalian cells that are not confirmed in vivo. Currently, there is no general consensus in the scientific community on the interpretation of the significance of positive results from the in vitro genotoxicity assays. To address this issue, the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI), held an international workshop in June 2006 to discuss the relevance and follow-up of positive results in in vitro genetic toxicity assays. The goals of the meeting were to examine ways to advance the scientific basis for the interpretation of positive findings in in vitro assays, to facilitate the development of follow-up testing strategies and to define criteria for determining the relevance to human health. The workshop identified specific needs in two general categories, i.e., improved testing and improved data interpretation and risk assessment. Recommendations to improve testing included: (1) re-examine the maximum level of cytotoxicity currently required for in vitro tests; (2) re-examine the upper limit concentration for in vitro mammalian studies; (3) develop improved testing strategies using current in vitro assays; (4) define criteria to guide selection of the appropriate follow-up in vivo studies; (5) develop new and more predictive in vitro and in vivo tests. Recommendations for improving interpretation and assessment included: (1) examine the suitability of applying the threshold of toxicological concern concepts to genotoxicity data; (2) develop a structured weight of evidence approach for assessing genotoxic/carcinogenic hazard; and (3) re-examine in vitro and in vivo correlations qualitatively and quantitatively. Conclusions from the workshop highlighted a willingness of scientists from various sectors to change and improve the current paradigm and move from a hazard identification approach to a "realistic" risk-based approach that incorporates information on mechanism of action, kinetics, and human exposure..

Workshop participants agreed that genotoxicity tests in mammalian cells in vitro produce a remarkably high and unacceptable occurrence of irrelevant positive results (e.g. when compared with rodent carcinogenicity). As reported in several recent reviews, the rate of irrelevant positives (i.e. low specificity) for some studies using in vitro methods (when compared to this "gold standard") means that an increased number of test articles are subjected to additional in vivo genotoxicity testing, in many cases before, e.g. the efficacy (in the case of pharmaceuticals) of the compound has been evaluated. If in vitro tests were more predictive for in vivo genotoxicity and carcinogenicity (i.e. fewer false positives) then there would be a significant reduction in the number of animals used. Beyond animal (or human) carcinogenicity as the "gold standard", it is acknowledged that genotoxicity tests provide much information about cellular behaviour, cell division processes and cellular fate to a (geno)toxic insult. Since the disease impact of these effects is seldom known, and a verification of relevant toxicity is normally also the subject of (sub)chronic animal studies, the prediction of in vivo relevant results from in vitro genotoxicity tests is also important for aspects that may not have a direct impact on carcinogenesis as the ultimate endpoint of concern. In order to address the high rate of in vitro false positive results, a 2-day workshop was held at the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM), Ispra, Italy in April 2006. More than 20 genotoxicity experts from academia, government and industry were invited to review data from the currently available cell systems, to discuss whether there exist cells and test systems that have a reduced tendency to false positive results, to review potential modifications to existing protocols and cell systems that might result in improved specificity, and to review the performance of some new test systems that show promise of improved specificity without sacrificing sensitivity. It was concluded that better guidance on the likely mechanisms resulting in positive results that are not biologically relevant for human health, and how to obtain evidence for those mechanisms, is needed both for practitioners and regulatory reviewers. Participants discussed the fact that cell lines commonly used for genotoxicity testing have a number of deficiencies that may contribute to the high false positive rate. These include, amongst others, lack of normal metabolism leading to reliance on exogenous metabolic activation systems (e.g. Aroclor-induced rat S9), impaired p53 function and altered DNA repair capability. The high concentrations of test chemicals (i.e. 10 mM or 5000 microg/ml, unless precluded by solubility or excessive toxicity) and the high levels of cytotoxicity currently required in mammalian cell genotoxicity tests were discussed as further potential sources of false positive results. Even if the goal is to detect carcinogens with short in vitro tests under more or less acute conditions, it does not seem logical to exceed the capabilities of cellular metabolic turnover, activation and defence processes. The concept of "promiscuous activation" was discussed. For numerous mutagens, the decisive in vivo enzymes are missing in vitro. However, if the substrate concentration is increased sufficiently, some other enzymes (that are unimportant in vivo) may take over the activation-leading to the same or a different active metabolite. Since we often do not use the right enzyme systems for positive controls in vitro, we have to rely on their promiscuous activation, i.e. to use excessive concentrations to get an empirical correlation between genotoxicity and carcinogenicity. A thorough review of published and industry data is urgently needed to determine whether the currently required limit concentration of 10mM or 5000 microg/ml, and high levels of cytotoxicity, are necessary for the detection of in vivo genotoxins and DNA-reactive, mutagenic carcinogens. In addition, various measures of cytotoxicity are currently allowable under OECD test guidelines, but there are few comparative data on whether different measures would result in different maximum concentrations for testing. A detailed comparison of cytotoxicity assessment strategies is needed. An assessment of whether test endpoints can be selected that are not intrinsically associated with cytotoxicity, and therefore are less susceptible to artefacts produced by cytotoxicity, should also be undertaken. There was agreement amongst the workshop participants that cell systems which are p53 and DNA-repair proficient, and have defined Phase 1 and Phase 2 metabolism, covering a broad set of enzyme forms, and used within the context of appropriately set limits of concentration and cytotoxicity, offer the best hope for reduced false positives. Whilst there is some evidence that human lymphocytes are less susceptible to false positives than the current rodent cell lines, other cell systems based on HepG2, TK6 and MCL-5 cells, as well as 3D skin models based on primary human keratinocytes also show some promise. Other human cell lines such as HepaRG, and human stem cells (the target for carcinogenicity) have not been used for genotoxicity investigations and should be considered for evaluation. Genetic engineering is also a valuable tool to incorporate missing enzyme systems into target cells. A collaborative research programme is needed to identify, further develop and evaluate new cell systems with appropriate sensitivity but improved specificity. In order to review current data for selection of appropriate top concentrations, measures and levels of cytotoxicity, metabolism, and to be able to improve existing or validate new assay systems, the participants called for the establishment of an expert group to identify the in vivo genotoxins and DNA-reactive, mutagenic carcinogens that we expect our in vitro genotoxicity assays to detect as well as the non-genotoxins and non-carcinogens we expect them not to detect.

As part of the Fourth International Workshop on Genotoxicity Testing (IWGT), held 9-10 September 2005 in San Francisco, California, an expert working group on the Comet assay was convened to review and discuss some of the procedures and methods recommended in previous documents. Particular attention was directed at the in vivo rodent, alkaline (pH >13) version of the assay. The aim was to review those protocol areas which were unclear or which required more detail in order to produce a standardized protocol with maximum acceptability by international regulatory agencies. The areas covered were: number of dose levels required, cell isolation techniques, measures of cytotoxicity, scoring of comets (i.e., manually or by image analysis), and the need for historical negative/positive control data. It was decided that a single limit dose was not sufficient although the required number of dose levels was not stipulated. The method of isolating cells was thought not to have a qualitative effect on the assay but more data were needed before a conclusion could be drawn. Concurrent measures of cytotoxicity were required with histopathological examination of tissues for necrosis or apoptosis as the "Gold Standard". As for analysing the comets, the consensus was that image analysis was preferred but not required. Finally, the minimal number of studies required to generate a historical positive or negative control database was not defined; rather the emphasis was placed on demonstrating the stability of the negative/positive control data. It was also agreed that a minimum reporting standard would be developed which would be consistent with OECD in vivo genotoxicity test method guidelines.

This report summarizes the proceedings of the September 9-10, 2005 meeting of the Expert Working Group on Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment in Relation to In Vitro Testing, part of an initiative on genetic toxicology. The objective of the Working Group was to develop recommendations for interpretation of results from tests commonly included in regulatory genetic toxicology test batteries, and to propose an appropriate strategy for follow-up testing when positive in vitro results were obtained in these assays. The Group noted the high frequency of positive in vitro findings in the genotoxicity test batteries with agents found not to be carcinogenic and thought not to pose a carcinogenic health hazard to humans. The Group agreed that a set of consensus principles for appropriate interpretation and follow-up testing when initial in vitro tests are positive was needed. Current differences in emphasis and policy among different regulatory agencies were recognized as a basis of this need. Using a consensus process among a balanced group of recognized international authorities from industry, government, and academia, it was agreed that a strategy based on these principles should include guidance on: (1) interpretation of initial results in the "core" test battery; (2) criteria for determining when follow-up testing is needed; (3) criteria for selecting appropriate follow-up tests; (4) definition of when the evidence is sufficient to define the mode of action and the relevance to human exposure; and (5) definition of approaches to evaluate the degree of health risk under conditions of exposure of the species of concern (generally the human). A framework for addressing these issues was discussed, and a general "decision tree" was developed that included criteria for assessing the need for further testing, selecting appropriate follow-up tests, and determining a sufficient weight of evidence to attribute a level of risk and stop testing. The discussion included case studies based on actual test results that illustrated common situations encountered, and consensus opinions were developed based on group analysis of these cases. The Working Group defined circumstances in which the pattern and magnitude of positive results was such that there was very low or no concern (e.g., non-reproducible or marginal responses), and no further testing would be needed. This included a discussion of the importance of the use of historical control data. The criteria for determining when follow-up testing is needed included factors, such as evidence of reproducibility, level of cytotoxicity at which an increased DNA damage or mutation frequency is observed, relationship of results to the historical control range of values, and total weight of evidence across assays. When the initial battery is negative, further testing might be required based on information from the published literature, structure activity considerations, or the potential for significant human metabolites not generated in the test systems. Additional testing might also be needed retrospectively when increase in tumors or evidence of pre-neoplastic change is seen. When follow-up testing is needed, it should be based on knowledge about the mode of action, based on reports in the literature or learned from the nature of the responses observed in the initial tests. The initial findings, and available information about the biochemical and pharmacological nature of the agent, are generally sufficient to conclude that the responses observed are consistent with certain molecular mechanisms and inconsistent with others. Follow-up tests should be sensitive to the types of genetic damage known to be capable of inducing the response observed initially. It was recognized that genotoxic events might arise from processes other than direct reactivity with DNA, that these mechanisms may have a non-linear, or threshold, dose-response relationship, and that in such cases it may be possible to determine an exposure level below which there is negligible concern about an effect due to human exposures. When a test result is clearly positive, consideration of relevance to human health includes whether other assays for the same endpoint support the results observed, whether the mode or mechanism of action is relevant to the human, and - most importantly - whether the effect observed is likely to occur in vivo at concentrations expected as a result of human exposure. Although general principles were agreed upon, time did not permit the development of recommendations for the selection of specific tests beyond those commonly employed in initial test batteries.

In this report, results are presented from an international study of the in vitro micronucleus assay using Chinese hamster ovary cells. This study was coordinated by an organizing committee supported by the SFTG (the French branch of the European Environmental Mutagen Society). Test chemicals included mannitol, bleomycin, cytosine arabinoside, urethane and diethylstilboestrol. Mitomycin C was used as a positive control. Each chemical was evaluated in at least two laboratories following a variety of different protocols (short and long exposures, varying recovery times, with and without cytochalasin B) in order to help determine a standard protocol for routine testing in Chinese hamster ovary cells. Mannitol and urethane were negative, while bleomycin, cytosine arabinoside and diethylstilboestrol induced a dose dependent increase in micronucleated cells. In the presence of cytochalasin B, increases in micronuclei were observed in binucleated as well as mononucleated cells in cultures treated with bleomycin, cytosine arabinoside or diethylstilboestrol. Importantly, all three of these chemicals were detected in each of the different treatment/recovery regimens. No differences were seen in the sensitivity or accuracy of the responses in the presence of absence of cytochalasin B. Overall, these results demonstrate the suitability of Chinese hamster ovary cells for the in vitro micronucleus assay.

This study, coordinated by the SFTG (French branch of European Environmental Mutagen Society), included 38 participants from Europe, Japan and America. Clastogens (bleomycin, urethane), including base and nucleoside analogs (5-fluorouracil and cytosine arabinoside), aneugens and/or polyploidy inducers (colchicine, diethylstilboestrol, griseofulvin and thiabendazole), as well as non-genotoxic compounds (mannitol and clofibrate), were tested. Four cell types were used, i.e. human lymphocytes in the presence of cytochalasin B and CHO, CHL and L5178Y cell lines, in the presence or absence of cytochalasin B, with various treatment-recovery schedules. Mitomycin C was used as a positive control for all cell types. Mannitol and clofibrate were consistently negative in all cell types and with all treatment-recovery conditions. Urethane, known to induce questionable clastogenicity, was not found as positive. Bleomycin and mitomycin C were found positive in all treatment-recovery conditions. The base and nucleoside analogs were less easy to detect, especially 5-fluorouracil due to the interference with cytotoxicity, while cytosine arabinoside was detected in all cell types depending on the treatment-recovery schedule. Aneugens (colchicine, diethylstilboestrol and griseofulvin) were all detected in all cell types. In this study, the optimal detection was ensured when a short treatment followed by a long recovery was associated with a long continuous treatment without recovery. There was no impact of the presence or absence of cytochalasin B on the detection of micronucleated cells on cell lines. Scoring micronucleated cells in both mononucleated and binucleated cells when using cytochalasin B was confirmed to be useful for the detection and the identification of aneugens. In conclusion, these results, together with previously published validation studies, provide a useful contribution to the optimisation of a study protocol for the detection of both clastogens and aneugens in the in vitro micronucleus test.

This study on the in vitro micronucleus assay, comprising 11 laboratories using human lymphocytes, was coordinated by an organizing committee supported by the SFTG (the French branch of the European Environmental Mutagen Society). Nine coded substances were assessed for their ability to induce micronuclei in human lymphocytes in vitro, mitomycin C being used as a positive control. Cultures were exposed to the test substances for a short (early or late) time or for a long time, followed by a short or long recovery period, in the presence of cytochalasin B. Each chemical was evaluated, generally in two laboratories, using three treatment schedules at least twice. The data were assessed for acceptability, and then classified as negative, positive or equivocal. Two of seven genotoxic compounds, namely colchicine and bleomycin, clearly induced micronuclei. Reproducible results were difficult to obtain for some substances, which tended to be those acting at specific stages of the cell cycle. Cytosine arabinoside, diethylstilboestrol and 5-fluorouracil were classified as equivocal. Urethane and thiabendazole were classified as negative. The two presumed non-genotoxic compounds, mannitol and clofibrate, did not induce micronuclei. Repeat testing, exposing cells at both an early and late time after mitogenic stimulation, was needed to detect substances classified as equivocal. These results show the importance of achieving sufficient inhibition of nuclear division to avoid the possibility of missing an effect. The evaluation of micronuclei in mononucleated as well as binucleated cells was particularly useful to detect aneugens. There were no false positive results using lymphocytes, indicating a high specificity. It is concluded that the clastogenic or aneugenic potential in vitro of the substances tested was correctly identified in this study, but that refining the protocol to take into account factors such as the stages of the cell cycle exposed to the compound, or the duration of recovery would be likely to improve the sensitivity of detection using lymphocytes.

Because of its rapidness, simplicity and potential for automation, the measurement of micronucleated cells in vivo is not only equivalent to the analysis of chromosome aberrations, but often even preferred within routine genotoxicity testing. In order to evaluate the correlation between the in vitro micronucleus assay (MNT) and the in vitro chromosome aberration test (CA), we collected data from four pharmaceutical companies obtained either in Chinese hamster cell lines (CHO-K5, CHO-K1, V79) or in human peripheral blood lymphocytes. Among the 57 compounds included in this comparison, 45 compounds gave rise to concordant results in both assays (26 compounds negative in both assays; 19 compounds positive in both assays). The high percentage of concordance, i.e. about 79% is very promising and can be even increased to about 88% by omitting the 3 aneugenic compounds and 2 compounds inducing endoreduplicated chromosomes which were found positive only in the in vitro MNT. The results are remarkable in particular considering that most of the compounds evaluated are 'standard' pharmaceutical compounds and thus are at most weak inducers of chromosome damage. Our comparison strongly supports that the in vitro micronucleus test is a suitable alternative to the in vitro chromosome aberration assay. Moreover, the MNT has the potential of not only detecting clastogens but additionally aneuploidy inducing chemicals.

Experimental features of a positive selection transgenic mouse mutation assay based on a lambda lacZ transgene are considered in detail, with emphasis on results using germ cells as the target tissue. Sources of variability in the experimental protocol that can affect the statistical nature of the observations are examined, with the goal of identifying sources of excess variation in the observed mutant frequencies. The sources include plate-to-plate (within packages), package-to-package (within animals), and animal-to-animal variability. Data from five laboratories are evaluated in detail. Results suggest only scattered patterns of excess variability below the animal-to-animal level, but, generally, significant excess variability at the animal-to-animal level. Using source of variability analyses to guide the choice of statistical methods, control-vs-treatment comparisons are performed for assessing the male germ cell mutagenicity of ethylnitrosourea (ENU), isopropyl methanesulfonate (iPMS), and methyl methanesulfonate (MMS). Results on male germ cell mutagenesis of ethyl methanesulfonate (EMS) and methylnitrosourea (MNU) are also reported.