Search

The rodent cancer bioassay has been the standard approach to fulfill regulatory requirements for assessing human carcinogenic potential of agrochemicals, food additives, industrial chemicals, and pharmaceuticals. Decades of research have described the limitations of the rodent cancer bioassay leading to international initiatives to seek alternatives and establish approaches that modernize carcinogenicity assessment. Biologically relevant approaches can provide mechanistic information and increased efficiency for evaluating hazard and risk of chemical carcinogenicity to humans. The application of human-relevant mechanistic understanding to support new approaches to carcinogenicity assessment will be invaluable for regulatory decision-making. The present work outlines the challenges and opportunities that authorities should consider as they come together to build a roadmap that leads to global acceptance and incorporation of fit-for-purpose, scientifically defensible new approaches for human-relevant carcinogenicity assessment of agrochemicals., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Co-author Jyotigna Mehta reports financial support was provided by ADAMA Agricultural Solutions Ltd. Jyotigna Mehta reports a relationship with ADAMA Agricultural Solutions Ltd that includes: employment. Co-author Douglas C Wolf reports financial support was provided by Syngenta Crop Protection LLC. Douglas C Wolf reports a relationship with Syngenta Crop Protection LLC that includes: employment., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Omics methodologies are widely used in toxicological research to understand modes and mechanisms of toxicity. Increasingly, these methodologies are being applied to questions of regulatory interest such as molecular point-of-departure derivation and chemical grouping/read-across. Despite its value, widespread regulatory acceptance of omics data has not yet occurred. Barriers to the routine application of omics data in regulatory decision making have been: 1) lack of transparency for data processing methods used to convert raw data into an interpretable list of observations; and 2) lack of standardization in reporting to ensure that omics data, associated metadata and the methodologies used to generate results are available for review by stakeholders, including regulators. Thus, in 2017, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Extended Advisory Group on Molecular Screening and Toxicogenomics (EAGMST) launched a project to develop guidance for the reporting of omics data aimed at fostering further regulatory use. Here, we report on the ongoing development of the first formal reporting framework describing the processing and analysis of both transcriptomic and metabolomic data for regulatory toxicology. We introduce the modular structure, content, harmonization and strategy for trialling this reporting framework prior to its publication by the OECD., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Currently the only methods for non-genotoxic carcinogenic hazard assessment accepted by most regulatory authorities are lifetime carcinogenicity studies. However, these involve the use of large numbers of animals and the relevance of their predictive power and results has been scientifically challenged. With increased availability of innovative test methods and enhanced understanding of carcinogenic processes, it is believed that tumour formation can now be better predicted using mechanistic information. A workshop organised by the European Partnership on Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing brought together experts to discuss an alternative, mechanism-based approach for cancer risk assessment of agrochemicals. Data from a toolbox of test methods for detecting modes of action (MOAs) underlying non-genotoxic carcinogenicity are combined with information from subchronic toxicity studies in a weight-of-evidence approach to identify carcinogenic potential of a test substance. The workshop included interactive sessions to discuss the approach using case studies. These showed that fine-tuning is needed, to build confidence in the proposed approach, to ensure scientific correctness, and to address different regulatory needs. This novel approach was considered realistic, and its regulatory acceptance and implementation can be facilitated in the coming years through continued dialogue between all stakeholders and building confidence in alternative approaches., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The bacterial reverse mutation test (Ames test) is the most commonly used genotoxicity test; it is a primary component of the chemical safety assessment data required by regulatory agencies worldwide. Within the current accepted in vitro genotoxicity test battery, it is considered capable of revealing DNA reactivity, and identifying substances that can produce gene mutations via different mechanisms. The previously published consolidated EURL ECVAM Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity Database, which includes substances that elicited a positive response in the Ames test, constitutes a collection of data that serves as a reference for a number of regulatory activities in the area of genotoxicity testing. Consequently, we considered it important to expand the database to include substances that fail to elicit a positive response in the Ames test, i.e., Ames negative substances. Here, we describe a curated collection of 211 Ames negative substances, with a summary of complementary data available for other genotoxicity endpoints in vitro and in vivo, plus available carcinogenicity data. A descriptive analysis of the data is presented. This includes a representation of the chemical space formed by the Ames-negative database with respect to other substances (e.g. REACH registered substances, approved drugs, pesticides, etc.) and a description of the organic functional groups found in the database. We also provide some suggestions on further analyses that could be made., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

EU regulations call for the use of alternative methods to animal testing. During the last decade, an increasing number of alternative approaches have been formally adopted. In parallel, new 3Rs-relevant technologies and mechanistic approaches have increasingly contributed to hazard identification and risk assessment evolution. In this changing landscape, an EPAA meeting reviewed the challenges that different industry sectors face in the implementation of alternative methods following a science-driven approach. Although clear progress was acknowledged in animal testing reduction and refinement thanks to an integration of scientifically robust approaches, the following challenges were identified: i) further characterization of toxicity pathways; ii) development of assays covering current scientific gaps, iii) better characterization of links between in vitro readouts and outcome in the target species; iv) better definition of alternative method applicability domains, and v) appropriate implementation of the available approaches. For areas having regulatory adopted alternative methods (e.g., vaccine batch testing), harmonised acceptance across geographical regions was considered critical for broader application. Overall, the main constraints to the application of non-animal alternatives are the still existing gaps in scientific knowledge and technological limitations. The science-driven identification of most appropriate methods is key for furthering a multi-sectorial decrease in animal testing., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In 2008 we published recommendations on chemicals that would be appropriate to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of new/modified mammalian cell genotoxicity tests, in particular to avoid misleading positive results. In light of new data it is appropriate to update these lists of chemicals. An expert panel was convened and has revised the recommended chemicals to fit the following different sets of characteristics: • Group 1: chemicals that should be detected as positive in in vitro mammalian cell genotoxicity tests. Chemicals in this group are all in vivo genotoxins at one or more endpoints, either due to DNA-reactive or non DNA-reactive mechanisms. Many are known carcinogens with a mutagenic mode of action, but a sub-class of probable aneugens has been introduced. • Group 2: chemicals that should give negative results in in vitro mammalian cell genotoxicity tests. Chemicals in this group are usually negative in vivo and non-DNA-reactive. They are either non-carcinogenic or rodent carcinogens with a non-mutagenic mode of action. • Group 3: chemicals that should give negative results in in vitro mammalian cell genotoxicity tests, but have been reported to induce gene mutations in mouse lymphoma cells, chromosomal aberrations or micronuclei, often at high concentrations or at high levels of cytotoxicity. Chemicals in this group are generally negative in vivo and negative in the Ames test. They are either non-carcinogenic or rodent carcinogens with an accepted non-mutagenic mode of action. This group contains comments as to any conditions that can be identified under which misleading positive results are likely to occur. This paper, therefore, updates these three recommended lists of chemicals and describes how these should be used for any test evaluation program., (Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The Japanese Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods (JaCVAM) sponsored an international prevalidation and validation study of the in vivo rat alkaline pH comet assay. The main objective of the study was to assess the sensitivity and specificity of the assay for correctly identifying genotoxic carcinogens, as compared with the traditional rat liver unscheduled DNA synthesis assay. Based on existing carcinogenicity and genotoxicity data and chemical class information, 90 chemicals were identified as primary candidates for use in the validation study. From these 90 chemicals, 46 secondary candidates and then 40 final chemicals were selected based on a sufficiency of carcinogenic and genotoxic data, differences in chemical class or genotoxic or carcinogenic mode of action (MOA), availability, price, and ease of handling. These 40 chemicals included 19 genotoxic carcinogens, 6 genotoxic non-carcinogens, 7 non-genotoxic carcinogens and 8 non-genotoxic non-carcinogens. "Genotoxicity" was defined as positive in the Ames mutagenicity test or in one of the standard in vivo genotoxicity tests (primarily the erythrocyte micronucleus assay). These chemicals covered various chemicals classes, MOAs, and genotoxicity profiles and were considered to be suitable for the purpose of the validation study. General principles of chemical selection for validation studies are discussed., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The in vivo rodent alkaline comet assay (comet assay) is used internationally to investigate the in vivo genotoxic potential of test chemicals. This assay, however, has not previously been formally validated. The Japanese Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods (JaCVAM), with the cooperation of the U.S. NTP Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM)/the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM), the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM), and the Japanese Environmental Mutagen Society/Mammalian Mutagenesis Study Group (JEMS/MMS), organized an international validation study to evaluate the reliability and relevance of the assay for identifying genotoxic carcinogens, using liver and stomach as target organs. The ultimate goal of this validation effort was to establish an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) test guideline. The purpose of the pre-validation studies (i.e., Phase 1 through 3), conducted in four or five laboratories with extensive comet assay experience, was to optimize the protocol to be used during the definitive validation study., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The in vivo rodent alkaline comet assay (comet assay) is used internationally to investigate the in vivo genotoxic potential of test chemicals. This assay, however, has not previously been formally validated. The Japanese Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods (JaCVAM), with the cooperation of the U.S. NTP Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM)/the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM), the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM), and the Japanese Environmental Mutagen Society/Mammalian Mutagenesis Study Group (JEMS/MMS), organized an international validation study to evaluate the reliability and relevance of the assay for identifying genotoxic carcinogens, using liver and stomach as target organs. The ultimate goal of this exercise was to establish an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) test guideline. The study protocol was optimized in the pre-validation studies, and then the definitive (4th phase) validation study was conducted in two steps. In the 1st step, assay reproducibility was confirmed among laboratories using four coded reference chemicals and the positive control ethyl methanesulfonate. In the 2nd step, the predictive capability was investigated using 40 coded chemicals with known genotoxic and carcinogenic activity (i.e., genotoxic carcinogens, genotoxic non-carcinogens, non-genotoxic carcinogens, and non-genotoxic non-carcinogens). Based on the results obtained, the in vivo comet assay is concluded to be highly capable of identifying genotoxic chemicals and therefore can serve as a reliable predictor of rodent carcinogenicity., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

This is the report from the "ECVAM-EFPIA workshop on 3T3 NRU Phototoxicity Test: Practical Experience and Implications for Phototoxicity Testing", jointly organized by ECVAM and EFPIA and held on the 25-27 October 2010 in Somma Lombardo, Italy. The European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) was established in 1991 within the European Commission Joint Research, based on a Communication from the European Commission (1991). The main objective of ECVAM is to promote the scientific and regulatory acceptance of alternative methods which are of importance to the biosciences and which reduce, refine and replace the use of laboratory animals. The European Federation of Pharmaceuticals Industries and Association (EFPIA) represent the pharmaceutical industry operating in Europe. Through its direct membership of 31 national associations and 40 leading pharmaceutical companies, EFPIA is the voice on the EU scene of 2200 companies committed to researching, developing and bringing to patients new medicines that improve health and the quality of life around the world. The workshop, co-chaired by Joachim Kreysa (ECVAM) and Phil Wilcox (GSK, EFPIA) involved thirty-five experts from academia, regulatory authorities and industry, invited to contribute with their experiences in the field of phototoxicology. The main objectives of the workshop were: -to present 'in use' experience of the pharmaceutical industry with the 3T3 Neutral Red Uptake Phototoxicity Test (3T3 NRU-PT), -to discuss why it differs from the results in the original validation exercise, -to discuss technical issues and consider ways to improve the usability of the 3T3 NRU-PT for (non-topical) pharmaceuticals, e.g., by modifying the threshold of chemical light absorption to trigger photo-toxicological testing, and by modifying technical aspects of the assay, or adjusting the criteria used to classify a positive response. During the workshop, the assay methodology was reviewed by comparing the OECD Test Guideline (TG 432) with the protocols used in testing laboratories, data from EFPIA and JPMA 'surveys' were presented and possible reasons for the outcomes were discussed. Experts from cosmetics and pharmaceutical industries reported on their experience with the 3T3 NRU-PT and evidence was presented for phototoxic clinical symptoms that could be linked to certain relevant molecules. Brainstorming sessions discussed if the 3T3 NRU-PT needed to be improved and whether alternatives to the 3T3 NRU-PT exist. Finally, the viewpoint from EU and US regulators was presented. In the final session, the conclusions of the meeting were summarized, with action points. It was concluded that the 3T3 NRU-PT identifies phototoxicological hazards with a 100% sensitivity, and thus is accepted as the tier one test that correctly identifies the absence of phototoxic potential. Consequently, positive results in the 3T3 NRU-PT often do not translate into a clinical phototoxicity risk. Possible ways to improve the practical use of this assay include: (i) adaptation of changed UV/vis-absorption criteria as a means to reduce the number of materials tested, (ii) reduction of the highest concentration to be tested, and (iii) consideration of modifying the threshold criteria for the prediction of a positive call in the test., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Two year rodent bioassays play a key role in the assessment of carcinogenic potential of chemicals to humans. The seventh amendment to the European Cosmetics Directive will ban in 2013 the marketing of cosmetic and personal care products that contain ingredients that have been tested in animal models. Thus 2-year rodent bioassays will not be available for cosmetics/personal care products. Furthermore, for large testing programs like REACH, in vivo carcinogenicity testing is impractical. Alternative ways to carcinogenicity assessment are urgently required. In terms of standardization and validation, the most advanced in vitro tests for carcinogenicity are the cell transformation assays (CTAs). Although CTAs do not mimic the whole carcinogenesis process in vivo, they represent a valuable support in identifying transforming potential of chemicals. CTAs have been shown to detect genotoxic as well as non-genotoxic carcinogens and are helpful in the determination of thresholds for genotoxic and non-genotoxic carcinogens. The extensive review on CTAs by the OECD (OECD (2007) Environmental Health and Safety Publications, Series on Testing and Assessment, No. 31) and the proven within- and between-laboratories reproducibility of the SHE CTAs justifies broader use of these methods to assess carcinogenic potential of chemicals., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The potential for a compound to induce carcinogenicity is a key consideration when ascertaining hazard and risk assessment of chemicals. Among the in vitro alternatives that have been developed for predicting carcinogenicity, in vitro cell transformation assays (CTAs) have been shown to involve a multistage process that closely models important stages of in vivo carcinogenesis and have the potential to detect both genotoxic and non-genotoxic carcinogens. These assays have been in use for decades and a substantial amount of data demonstrating their performance is available in the literature. However, for the standardised use of these assays for regulatory purposes, a formal evaluation of the assays, in particular focusing on development of standardised transferable protocols and further information on assay reproducibility, was considered important to serve as a basis for the drafting of generally accepted OECD test guidelines. To address this issue, a prevalidation study of the CTAs using the BALB/c 3T3 cell line, SHE cells at pH 6.7, and SHE cells at pH 7.0 was coordinated by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) and focused on issues of standardisation of protocols, test method transferability and within- and between-laboratory reproducibility. The study resulted in the availability of standardised protocols that had undergone prevalidation [1,2]. The results of the ECVAM study demonstrated that for the BALB/c 3T3 method, some modifications to the protocol were needed to obtain reproducible results between laboratories, while the SHE pH 6.7 and the SHE pH 7.0 protocols are transferable between laboratories, and results are reproducible within- and between-laboratories. It is recommended that the BALB/c 3T3 and SHE protocols as instituted in this prevalidation study should be used in future applications of these respective transformation assays. To support their harmonised use and regulatory application, the development of an OECD test guideline for the SHE CTAs, based on the protocol published in this issue, is recommended. The development of an OECD test guideline for the BALB/c 3T3 CTA should likewise be further pursued upon the availability of additional supportive data and improvement of the statistical analysis., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Recent changes in the European legislation of chemical-related substances have forced the scientific community to speed up the search for alternative methods that could partly or fully replace animal experimentation. The Sixth Framework Program project carcinoGENOMICS was specifically raised to develop omics-based in vitro screens for testing the carcinogenic potential of chemical compounds in a pan-European context. This paper provides an in-depth analysis of the complexity of choosing suitable reference compounds used for creating and fine-tuning the in vitro carcinogenicity assays. First, a number of solid criteria for the selection of the model compounds are defined. Secondly, the strategy followed, including resources consulted, is described and the selected compounds are briefly illustrated. Finally, limitations and problems encountered during the selection procedure are discussed. Since selecting an appropriate set of chemicals is a frequent impediment in the early stages of similar research projects, the information provided in this paper might be extremely valuable.

At a recent ECVAM workshop considering ways to reduce the frequency of irrelevant positive results in mammalian cell genotoxicity tests [D. Kirkland, S. Pfuhler, D. Tweats, M. Aardema, R. Corvi, F. Darroudi, A. Elhajouji, H.-R. Glatt, P. Hastwell, M. Hayashi, P. Kasper, S. Kirchner, A. Lynch, D. Marzin, D. Maurici, J.-R. Meunier, L. Müller, G. Nohynek, J. Parry, E. Parry, V. Thybaud, R. Tice, J. van Benthem, P. Vanparys, P. White, How to reduce false positive results when undertaking in vitro genotoxicity testing and thus avoid unnecessary followup animal tests: Report of an ECVAM Workshop, Mutat. Res. 628 (2007) 31-55], recommendations for improvements/modifications to existing tests, and suggestions for new assays were made. Following on from this, it was important to identify chemicals that could be used in the evaluation of modified or new assays. An expert panel was therefore convened and recommendations made for chemicals to fit three different sets of characteristics, namely: This paper therefore contains these three recommended lists of chemicals and describes how these should be used for any test-evaluation programme.