Search

It is often assumed that genotoxic substances will be detected more easily by using in vitro rather than in vivo genotoxicity tests since higher concentrations, more cytotoxicity and static exposures can be achieved. However, there is a paucity of data demonstrating whether genotoxic substances are detected at lower concentrations in cell culture in vitro than can be reached in the blood of animals treated in vivo. To investigate this issue, we compared the lowest concentration required for induction of chromosomal damage in vitro (lowest observed effective concentration, or LOEC) with the concentration of the test substance in blood at the lowest dose required for biologically relevant induction of micronuclei in vivo (lowest observed effective dose, or LOED). In total, 83 substances were found for which the LOED could be identified or estimated, where concentrations in blood and micronucleus data were available via the same route of administration in the same species, and in vitro chromosomal damage data were available. 39.8 % of substances were positive in vivo at blood concentrations that were lower than the LOEC in vitro, 22.9 % were positive at similar concentrations, and 37.3 % of substances were positive in vivo at higher concentrations. Distribution analysis showed a very wide scatter of > 6 orders of magnitude across these 3 categories. When mode of action was evaluated, the distribution of clastogens and aneugens across the 3 categories was very similar. Thus, the ability to detect induction of micronuclei in bone marrow in vivo regardless of the mechanism for micronucleus induction, is clearly not solely determined by the concentration of test substance which induced chromosomal damage in vitro.

A committee was constituted within the International Workshop on Genetic Toxicology Testing (IWGT) to evaluate the current criteria for a valid Ames test and to provide recommendations for interpretation of test results. Currently, determination of a positive vs. a negative result is made by applying various data evaluation procedures for comparing dosed plates with the concurrent solvent control plates. These evaluation procedures include a requirement for a specific fold increase (2- or 3-fold, specific to the bacterial strain), formal statistical procedures, or subjective (expert judgment) evaluation. After extensive discussion, the workgroup was not able to reach consensus recommendations in favor of any of these procedures. There was a consensus that combining additional evaluation criteria to the comparison between dosed plates and the concurrent solvent control plates improves test interpretation. The workgroup recommended using these additional criteria because the induction of mutations is a continuum of responses and there is no biological relevance to a strict dividing line between a positive (mutagenic) and not-positive (nonmutagenic) response. The most useful additional criteria identified were a concentration-response relationship and consideration of a possible increase above the concurrent control in the context of the laboratory’s historical solvent control values for the particular tester strain. The workgroup also emphasized the need for additional testing to resolve weak or inconclusive responses, usually with altered experimental conditions chosen based on the initial results. Use of these multiple criteria allowed the workgroup to reach consensus on definitions of “clear positive” and “clear negative” responses which would not require a repeat test for clarification. The workgroup also reached consensus on recommendations to compare the responses of concurrent positive and negative controls to historical control distributions for assay acceptability, and the use of control charts to determine the validity of the individual test.

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.