Search

This document describes the lifecycle of cross‐cutting guidance documents in EFSA. Cross‐cutting guidance documents deal with matters of a horizontal nature in fields that affect scientific areas covered by more than one Panel. The main objective of developing cross‐cutting guidance documents is to harmonise food and feed safety risk assessment in EFSA. The document outlines the procedures for the identification of needs for cross‐cutting guidance documents, their development, implementation, their review and revision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) carried out a public consultation to receive input from the scientific community and all interested parties on the genotoxicity assessment of chemical mixtures. The draft statement was prepared by a dedicated working group of the Scientific Committee and endorsed by the Scientific Committee for public consultation at its 89th plenary meeting of 28‐29 May 2018. The public consultation for this document was open from 26 June until 9 September 2018. EFSA received 73 comments from 16 interested parties. EFSA's Scientific Committee wishes to thank all stakeholders for their contributions. This report presents statistics on the comments received and provides a summarised description of how the comments were addressed in the finalisation of the document. The stakeholders valuable and detailed comments were taken into account by the Scientific Committee to prepare an updated version of the statement on genotoxicity assessment of mixtures. The statement was discussed and adopted at the Scientific Committee plenary meeting on 22 November 2018, and is published in the EFSA Journal. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Journal article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5519/full [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Scientific Committee was asked to provide guidance on the most appropriate in vivo tests to follow up on positive in vitro results for aneugenicity, and on the approach to risk assessment for substances that are aneugenic but not clastogenic nor causing gene mutations. The Scientific Committee confirmed that the preferred approach is to perform an in vivo mammalian erythrocyte micronucleus test with a relevant route of administration. If this is positive, it demonstrates that the substance is aneugenic in vivo . A negative result with evidence that the bone marrow is exposed to the test substance supports a conclusion that aneugenic activity is not expressed in vivo . If there is no evidence of exposure to the bone marrow, a negative result is viewed as inconclusive and further studies are required. The liver micronucleus assay, even though not yet fully validated, can provide supporting information for substances that are aneugenic following metabolic activation. The gastrointestinal micronucleus test, conversely, to be further developed, may help to assess aneugenic potential at the initial site of contact for substances that are aneugenic in vitro without metabolic activation. Based on the evidence in relation to mechanisms of aneugenicity, the Scientific Committee concluded that, in principle, health-based guidance values can be established for substances that are aneugenic but not clastogenic nor causing gene mutations, provided that a comprehensive toxicological database is available. For situations in which the toxicological database is not sufficient to establish health-based guidance values, some approaches to risk assessment are proposed. The Scientific Committee recommends further development of the gastrointestinal micronucleus test, and research to improve the understanding of aneugenicity to support risk assessment., (© 2021 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The Panel received a mandate from the European Commission to assess the genotoxic potential of triazine amine based on available information submitted by the applicants. Available information includes experimental genotoxicity data on triazine amine, Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) analysis and read across with structurally similar compounds. Based on the overall weight of evidence, the Panel, in agreement with the cross-cutting Working Group Genotoxicity, concluded that there is no concern for the potential of triazine amine to induce gene mutations and clastogenicity; however, the potential to induce aneugenicity was not adequately investigated. For a conclusion, an in vitro micronucleus assay performed with triazine amine would be needed., (© 2020 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Scientific Committee addressed in this document the peculiarities related to the genotoxicity assessment of chemical mixtures. The EFSA Scientific Committee suggests that first a mixture should be chemically characterised as far as possible. Although the characterisation of mixtures is relevant also for other toxicity aspects, it is particularly significant for the assessment of genotoxicity. If a mixture contains one or more chemical substances that are individually assessed to be genotoxic in vivo via a relevant route of administration, the mixture raises concern for genotoxicity. If a fully chemically defined mixture does not contain genotoxic chemical substances, the mixture is of no concern with respect to genotoxicity. If a mixture contains a fraction of chemical substances that have not been chemically identified, experimental testing of the unidentified fraction should be considered as the first option or, if this is not feasible, testing of the whole mixture should be undertaken. If testing of these fraction(s) or of the whole mixture in an adequately performed set of in vitro assays provides clearly negative results, the mixture does not raise concern for genotoxicity. If in vitro testing provides one or more positive results, an in vivo follow-up study should be considered. For negative results in the in vivo follow-up test(s), the possible limitations of in vivo testing should be weighed in an uncertainty analysis before reaching a conclusion of no concern with respect to genotoxicity. For positive results in the in vivo follow-up test(s), it can be concluded that the mixture does raise a concern about genotoxicity., (© 2019 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The European Commission requested EFSA to provide advice on the following: (1) the suitability of the unscheduled DNA synthesis (UDS) in vivo assay to follow-up positive results in in vitro gene mutation tests; (2) the adequacy to demonstrate target tissue exposure in in vivo studies, particularly in the mammalian erythrocyte micronucleus test; (3) the use of data in a weight-of-evidence approach to conclude on the genotoxic potential of substances and the consequent setting of health-based guidance values. The Scientific Committee concluded that the first question should be addressed in both a retrospective and a prospective way: for future assessments, it is recommended no longer performing the UDS test. For re-assessments, if the outcome of the UDS is negative, the reliability and significance of results should be carefully evaluated in a weight-of-evidence approach, before deciding whether more sensitive tests such as transgenic assay or in vivo comet assay would be needed to complete the assessment. Regarding the second question, the Scientific Committee concluded that it should be addressed in lines of evidence of bone marrow exposure: toxicity to the bone marrow in itself provides sufficient evidence to allow concluding on the validity of a negative outcome of a study. All other lines of evidence of target tissue exposure should be assessed within a weight-of-evidence approach. Regarding the third question, the Scientific Committee concluded that any available data that may assist in reducing the uncertainty in the assessment of the genotoxic potential of a substance should be taken into consideration. If the overall evaluation leaves no concerns for genotoxicity, health-based guidance values may be established. However, if concerns for genotoxicity remain, establishing health-based guidance values is not considered appropriate., (© 2017 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

EFSA is committed to assess and communicate the risks occurring in the food and feed chain from farm to fork and to provide other forms of scientific advice. This work, carried out by EFSA since its inception, has resulted in the adoption of thousands of scientific assessments. EFSA is obliged to re-assess past assessments in specific regulatory contexts such as those on food and feed additives, active substances in plant protection products and genetically modified food and feed. In other sectors, the consideration for updating past EFSA scientific assessments is taken on an ad hoc basis mainly depending on specific requests by risk managers or on EFSA self-tasking. If safety is potentially at stake in any area within EFSA's remit, the readiness to update past scientific assessments is important to keep EFSA at the forefront of science and to promote an effective risk assessment. Although this task might be very complex and resource demanding, it is fundamental to EFSA's mission. The present EFSA Scientific Committee opinion deals with scientific motivations and criteria to contribute to the timely updating of EFSA scientific assessments. It is recognised that the decision for updating should be agreed following careful consideration of all the relevant elements by the EFSA management, in collaboration with risk managers and stakeholders. The present opinion addresses the scientific approaches through which it would be possible for EFSA to increase the speed and effectiveness of the acquisition of new data, as well as, to improve the consequent evaluations to assess the relevance and reliability of new data in the context of contributing to the better definition of whether to update past scientific assessments., (© 2017 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Little is known about the genetic and molecular events leading to the early stages of human astrocytoma formation. To examine this issue, we analyzed the significance of sequential accumulation of two somatic point mutations (R267W and E258D) in the TP53 gene during the initiation of astrocytoma in a patient born with a single germ-line p53 point mutation (R283H). We adapted a p53 transcriptional assay in yeast to establish the temporal occurrence and allelic distribution of the p53 mutations present in the patient and characterized these mutations through functional assays and structural modeling. Our results show that the first somatic mutation occurred at codon 267 on the p53 allele harboring the germ-line mutation R283H, whereas the second somatic mutation occurred in the remaining wild-type (wt) allele at codon 258. These two mutations induced the formation of tumor cells with the genotype p53(267W+283H/258D), which comprised 70% of the cells in the primary WHO grade II astrocytoma. Another 8% of cells within the tumor had the partially mutated genotype p53(267W+283H/WT) and represented the remnants of a clinically undetectable intermediate stage of astrocytic neoplastic transformation. The remaining 22% of cells had the constitutive p53(283H/WT) genotype and likely consisted of nontumor cells. Functional analysis of the p53 alleles present in the patient's tumor indicated that the germ-line p53(R283H) could transactivate the CDKN1A((p21, WAF1, cip1, SDI1)) but not the BAX gene and retained the ability to induce growth arrest of human glioblastoma cells. The p53(R267W+R283H) and p53(E258D) were incapable of transactivating either promoter or inducing growth arrest. Modeling of p53 interaction with DNA suggests that R283H mutation may weaken the sequence-specific interaction of p53 lysine 120 with the BAX gene but not the CDKN1A p53-responsive elements. Taken together, these results have characterized, for the first time, the genetic events defining a clinically undetectable precursor lesion leading to a grade II astrocytoma. They also suggest that astrocytoma initiation in this patient resulted from monoclonal evolution driven by a sequential loss of proapoptotic and growth arrest functions of p53.