Search

We present a hypothetical case study to examine the use of a next-generation framework developed by the Genetic Toxicology Technical Committee of the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute for assessing the potential risk of genetic damage from a pharmaceutical perspective. We used etoposide, a genotoxic carcinogen, as a representative pharmaceutical for the purposes of this case study. Using the framework as guidance, we formulated a hypothetical scenario for the use of etoposide to illustrate the application of the framework to pharmaceuticals. We collected available data on etoposide considered relevant for assessment of genetic toxicity risk. From the data collected, we conducted a quantitative analysis to estimate margins of exposure (MOEs) to characterize the risk of genetic damage that could be used for decision-making regarding the predefined hypothetical use. We found the framework useful for guiding the selection of appropriate tests and selecting relevant endpoints that reflected the potential for genetic damage in patients. The risk characterization, presented as MOEs, allows decision makers to discern how much benefit is critical to balance any adverse effect(s) that may be induced by the pharmaceutical. Interestingly, pharmaceutical development already incorporates several aspects of the framework per regulations and health authority expectations. Moreover, we observed that quality dose response data can be obtained with carefully planned but routinely conducted genetic toxicity testing. This case study demonstrates the utility of the next-generation framework to quantitatively model human risk based on genetic damage, as applicable to pharmaceuticals.

A genotoxic carcinogen, N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), was detected as a synthesis impurity in some valsartan drugs in 2018, and other N-nitrosamines, such as N-nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA), were later detected in other sartan products. N-nitrosamines are pro-mutagens that can react with DNA following metabolism to produce DNA adducts, such as O6 -alkyl-guanine. The adducts can result in DNA replication miscoding errors leading to GC>AT mutations and increased risk of genomic instability and carcinogenesis. Both NDMA and NDEA are known rodent carcinogens in male and female rats. The DNA repair enzyme, methylguanine DNA-methyltransferase can restore DNA integrity via the removal of alkyl groups from guanine in an error-free fashion and this can result in nonlinear dose responses and a point of departure or "practical threshold" for mutation at low doses of exposure. Following International recommendations (ICHM7; ICHQ3C and ICHQ3D), we calculated permissible daily exposures (PDE) for NDMA and NDEA using published rodent cancer bioassay and in vivo mutagenicity data to determine benchmark dose values and define points of departure and adjusted with appropriate uncertainty factors (UFs). PDEs for NDMA were 6.2 and 0.6 μg/person/day for cancer and mutation, respectively, and for NDEA, 2.2 and 0.04 μg/person/day. Both PDEs are higher than the acceptable daily intake values (96 ng for NDMA and 26.5 ng for NDEA) calculated by regulatory authorities using simple linear extrapolation from carcinogenicity data. These PDE calculations using a bench-mark approach provide a more robust assessment of exposure limits compared with simple linear extrapolations and can better inform risk to patients exposed to the contaminated sartans.

We previously described a multiplexed in vitro genotoxicity assay based on flow cytometric analysis of detergent-liberated nuclei that are simultaneously stained with propidium iodide and labeled with fluorescent antibodies against p53, γH2AX, and phospho-histone H3. Inclusion of a known number of microspheres provides absolute nuclei counts. The work described herein was undertaken to evaluate the interlaboratory transferability of this assay, commercially known as MultiFlow® DNA Damage Kit-p53, γH2AX, Phospho-Histone H3. For these experiments, seven laboratories studied reference chemicals from a group of 84 representing clastogens, aneugens, and nongenotoxicants. TK6 cells were exposed to chemicals in 96-well plates over a range of concentrations for 24 hr. At 4 and 24 hr, cell aliquots were added to the MultiFlow reagent mix and following a brief incubation period flow cytometric analysis occurred, in most cases directly from a 96-well plate via a robotic walk-away data acquisition system. Multiplexed response data were evaluated using two analysis approaches, one based on global evaluation factors (i.e., cutoff values derived from all interlaboratory data), and a second based on multinomial logistic regression that considers multiple biomarkers simultaneously. Both data analysis strategies were devised to categorize chemicals as predominately exhibiting a clastogenic, aneugenic, or nongenotoxic mode of action (MoA). Based on the aggregate 231 experiments that were performed, assay sensitivity, specificity, and concordance in relation to a priori MoA grouping were ≥ 92%. These results are encouraging as they suggest that two distinct data analysis strategies can rapidly and reliably predict new chemicals' predominant genotoxic MoA based on data from an efficient and transferable multiplexed in vitro assay. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 58:146-161, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) recently revised the test guidelines (TGs) for genetic toxicology. This article describes the main issues addressed during the revision process, and the new and consistent recommendations made in the revised TGs for: (1) demonstration of laboratory proficiency; (2) generation and use of robust historical control data; (3) improvement of the statistical power of the tests; (4) selection of top concentration for in vitro assays; (5) consistent data interpretation and determination of whether the result is clearly positive, clearly negative or needs closer consideration; and, (6) consideration of 3R's for in vivo assay design. The revision process resulted in improved consistency among OECD TGs (including the newly developed ones) and more comprehensive recommendations for the conduct and the interpretation of the assays. Altogether, the recommendations made during the revision process should improve the efficiency, by which the data are generated, and the quality and reliability of test results. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 58:284-295, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

In May 2017, the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute's Genetic Toxicology Technical Committee hosted a workshop to discuss whether mode of action (MOA) investigation is enhanced through the application of the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) framework. As AOPs are a relatively new approach in genetic toxicology, this report describes how AOPs could be harnessed to advance MOA analysis of genotoxicity pathways using five example case studies. Each of these genetic toxicology AOPs proposed for further development includes the relevant molecular initiating events, key events, and adverse outcomes (AOs), identification and/or further development of the appropriate assays to link an agent to these events, and discussion regarding the biological plausibility of the proposed AOP. A key difference between these proposed genetic toxicology AOPs versus traditional AOPs is that the AO is a genetic toxicology endpoint of potential significance in risk characterization, in contrast to an adverse state of an organism or a population. The first two detailed case studies describe provisional AOPs for aurora kinase inhibition and tubulin binding, leading to the common AO of aneuploidy. The remaining three case studies highlight provisional AOPs that lead to chromosome breakage or mutation via indirect DNA interaction (inhibition of topoisomerase II, production of cellular reactive oxygen species, and inhibition of DNA synthesis). These case studies serve as starting points for genotoxicity AOPs that could ultimately be published and utilized by the broader toxicology community and illustrate the practical considerations and evidence required to formalize such AOPs so that they may be applied to genetic toxicity evaluation schemes. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 61:114-134, 2020. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

We live in an era of 'big data', where the volume, velocity, and variety of the data being generated is increasingly influencing the way toxicological sciences are practiced. With this in mind, a workgroup was formed for the 2017 International Workshops on Genotoxicity Testing (IWGT) to consider the use of high information content data in genetic toxicology assessments. Presentations were given on adductomics, global transcriptional profiling, error-reduced single-molecule sequencing, and cellular phenotype-based assays, which were identified as methodologies that are relevant to present-day genetic toxicology assessments. Presenters and workgroup members discussed the state of the science for these methodologies, their potential use in genetic toxicology, current limitations, and the future work necessary to advance their utility and application. The session culminated with audience-assisted SWOT (strength, weakness, opportunities, and threats) analyses. The summary report described herein is structured similarly. A major conclusion of the workgroup is that while conventional regulatory genetic toxicology testing has served the public well over the last several decades, it does not provide the throughput that has become necessary in modern times, and it does not generate the mechanistic information that risk assessments ideally take into consideration. The high information content assay platforms that were discussed in this session, as well as others under development, have the potential to address aspect(s) of these issues and to meet new expectations in the field of genetic toxicology.

A database of 91 chemicals with published data from both transgenic rodent mutation (TGR) and rodent comet assays has been compiled. The objective was to compare the sensitivity of the two assays for detecting genotoxicity. Critical aspects of study design and results were tabulated for each dataset. There were fewer datasets from rats than mice, particularly for the TGR assay, and therefore, results from both species were combined for further analysis. TGR and comet responses were compared in liver and bone marrow (the most commonly studied tissues), and in stomach and colon evaluated either separately or in combination with other GI tract segments. Overall positive, negative, or equivocal test results were assessed for each chemical across the tissues examined in the TGR and comet assays using two approaches: 1) overall calls based on weight of evidence (WoE) and expert judgement, and 2) curation of the data based on a priori acceptability criteria prior to deriving final tissue specific calls. Since the database contains a high prevalence of positive results, overall agreement between the assays was determined using statistics adjusted for prevalence (using AC1 and PABAK). These coefficients showed fair or moderate to good agreement for liver and the GI tract (predominantly stomach and colon data) using WoE, reduced agreement for stomach and colon evaluated separately using data curation, and poor or no agreement for bone marrow using both the WoE and data curation approaches. Confidence in these results is higher for liver than for the other tissues, for which there were less data. Our analysis finds that comet and TGR generally identify the same compounds (mainly potent mutagens) as genotoxic in liver, stomach and colon, but not in bone marrow. However, the current database content precluded drawing assay concordance conclusions for weak mutagens and non-DNA reactive chemicals.

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.

For several decades, regulatory testing schemes for genetic damage have been standardized where the tests being utilized examined mutations and structural and numerical chromosomal damage. This has served the genetic toxicity community well when most of the substances being tested were amenable to such assays. The outcome from this testing is usually a dichotomous (yes/no) evaluation of test results, and in many instances, the information is only used to determine whether a substance has carcinogenic potential or not. Over the same time period, mechanisms and modes of action (MOAs) that elucidate a wider range of genomic damage involved in many adverse health outcomes have been recognized. In addition, a paradigm shift in applied genetic toxicology is moving the field toward a more quantitative dose-response analysis and point-of-departure (PoD) determination with a focus on risks to exposed humans. This is directing emphasis on genomic damage that is likely to induce changes associated with a variety of adverse health outcomes. This paradigm shift is moving the testing emphasis for genetic damage from a hazard identification only evaluation to a more comprehensive risk assessment approach that provides more insightful information for decision makers regarding the potential risk of genetic damage to exposed humans. To enable this broader context for examining genetic damage, a next generation testing strategy needs to take into account a broader, more flexible approach to testing, and ultimately modeling, of genomic damage as it relates to human exposure. This is consistent with the larger risk assessment context being used in regulatory decision making. As presented here, this flexible approach for examining genomic damage focuses on testing for relevant genomic effects that can be, as best as possible, associated with an adverse health effect. The most desired linkage for risk to humans would be changes in loci associated with human diseases, whether in somatic or germ cells. The outline of a flexible approach and associated considerations are presented in a series of nine steps, some of which can occur in parallel, which was developed through a collaborative effort by leading genetic toxicologists from academia, government, and industry through the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI) Genetic Toxicology Technical Committee (GTTC). The ultimate goal is to provide quantitative data to model the potential risk levels of substances, which induce genomic damage contributing to human adverse health outcomes. Any good risk assessment begins with asking the appropriate risk management questions in a planning and scoping effort. This step sets up the problem to be addressed (e.g., broadly, does genomic damage need to be addressed, and if so, how to proceed). The next two steps assemble what is known about the problem by building a knowledge base about the substance of concern and developing a rational biological argument for why testing for genomic damage is needed or not. By focusing on the risk management problem and potential genomic damage of concern, the next step of assay(s) selection takes place. The work-up of the problem during the earlier steps provides the insight to which assays would most likely produce the most meaningful data. This discussion does not detail the wide range of genomic damage tests available, but points to types of testing systems that can be very useful. Once the assays are performed and analyzed, the relevant data sets are selected for modeling potential risk. From this point on, the data are evaluated and modeled as they are for any other toxicology endpoint. Any observed genomic damage/effects (or genetic event(s)) can be modeled via a dose-response analysis and determination of an estimated PoD. When a quantitative risk analysis is needed for decision making, a parallel exposure assessment effort is performed (exposure assessment is not detailed here as this is not the focus of this discussion; guidelines for this assessment exist elsewhere). Then the PoD for genomic damage is used with the exposure information to develop risk estimations (e.g., using reference dose (RfD), margin of exposure (MOE) approaches) in a risk characterization and presented to risk managers for informing decision making. This approach is applicable now for incorporating genomic damage results into the decision-making process for assessing potential adverse outcomes in chemically exposed humans and is consistent with the ILSI HESI Risk Assessment in the 21st Century (RISK21) roadmap. This applies to any substance to which humans are exposed, including pharmaceuticals, agricultural products, food additives, and other chemicals. It is time for regulatory bodies to incorporate the broader knowledge and insights provided by genomic damage results into the assessments of risk to more fully understand the potential of adverse outcomes in chemically exposed humans, thus improving the assessment of risk due to genomic damage. The historical use of genomic damage data as a yes/no gateway for possible cancer risk has been too narrowly focused in risk assessment. The recent advances in assaying for and understanding genomic damage, including eventually epigenetic alterations, obviously add a greater wealth of information for determining potential risk to humans. Regulatory bodies need to embrace this paradigm shift from hazard identification to quantitative analysis and to incorporate the wider range of genomic damage in their assessments of risk to humans. The quantitative analyses and methodologies discussed here can be readily applied to genomic damage testing results now. Indeed, with the passage of the recent update to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in the US, the new generation testing strategy for genomic damage described here provides a regulatory agency (here the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), but suitable for others) a golden opportunity to reexamine the way it addresses risk-based genomic damage testing (including hazard identification and exposure). Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 58:264-283, 2017. © 2016 The Authors. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The ICH S6(R1) recommendations on safety evaluation of biotherapeutics have led to uncertainty in determining what would constitute a cause for concern that would require genotoxicity testing. A Health and Environmental Sciences Institute's Genetic Toxicology Technical Committee Workgroup was formed to review the current practice of genotoxicity assessment of peptide/protein-related biotherapeutics. There are a number of properties of peptide/protein-related biotherapeutics that distinguish such products from traditional 'small molecule' drugs and need to be taken into consideration when assessing whether genotoxicity testing may be warranted and if so, how to do it appropriately. Case examples were provided by participating companies and decision trees were elaborated to determine whether and when genotoxicity evaluation is needed for peptides containing natural amino acids, non-natural amino acids and other chemical entities and for unconjugated and conjugated proteins. From a scientific point of view, there is no reason for testing peptides containing exclusively natural amino acids irrespective of the manufacturing process. If non-natural amino acids, organic linkers and other non-linker chemical components have already been tested for genotoxicity, there is no need to re-evaluate them when used in different peptide/protein-related biotherapeutics. Unless the peptides have been modified to be able to enter the cells, it is generally more appropriate to evaluate the peptides containing the non-natural amino acids and other non-linker chemical moieties in vivo where the cleavage products can be formed. For linkers, it is important to determine if exposure to reactive forms are likely to occur and from which origin. When the linkers are anticipated to be potential mutagenic impurities they should be evaluated according to ICH M7. If linkers are expected to be catabolic products, it is recommended to test the entire conjugate in vivo, as this would ensure that the relevant 'free' linker forms stemming from in vivo catabolism are tested.

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.

The recent revisions of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) genetic toxicology test guidelines emphasize the importance of historical negative controls both for data quality and interpretation. The goal of a HESI Genetic Toxicology Technical Committee (GTTC) workgroup was to collect data from participating laboratories and to conduct a statistical analysis to understand and publish the range of values that are normally seen in experienced laboratories using TK6 cells to conduct the in vitro micronucleus assay. Data from negative control samples from in vitro micronucleus assays using TK6 cells from 13 laboratories were collected using a standard collection form. Although in some cases statistically significant differences can be seen within laboratories for different test conditions, they were very small. The mean incidence of micronucleated cells/1000 cells ranged from 3.2/1000 to 13.8/1000. These almost four-fold differences in micronucleus levels cannot be explained by differences in scoring method, presence or absence of exogenous metabolic activation (S9), length of treatment, presence or absence of cytochalasin B or different solvents used as vehicles. The range of means from the four laboratories using flow cytometry methods (3.7-fold: 3.5-12.9 micronucleated cells/1000 cells) was similar to that from the nine laboratories using other scoring methods (4.3-fold: 3.2-13.8 micronucleated cells/1000 cells). No laboratory could be identified as an outlier or as showing unacceptably high variability. Quality Control (QC) methods applied to analyse the intra-laboratory variability showed that there was evidence of inter-experimental variability greater than would be expected by chance (i.e. over-dispersion). However, in general, this was low. This study demonstrates the value of QC methods in helping to analyse the reproducibility of results, building up a 'normal' range of values, and as an aid to identify variability within a laboratory in order to implement processes to maintain and improve uniformity.

Genetic toxicity tests currently used to identify and characterize potential human mutagens and carcinogens rely on measurements of primary DNA damage, gene mutation, and chromosome damage in vitro and in rodents. The International Life Sciences Institute Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (ILSI-HESI) Committee on the Relevance and Follow-up of Positive Results in In Vitro Genetic Toxicity Testing held an April 2012 Workshop in Washington, DC, to consider the impact of new understanding of biology and new technologies on the identification and characterization of genotoxic substances, and to identify new approaches to inform more accurate human risk assessment for genetic and carcinogenic effects. Workshop organizers and speakers were from industry, academe, and government. The Workshop focused on biological effects and technologies that would potentially yield the most useful information for evaluating human risk of genetic damage. Also addressed was the impact that improved understanding of biology and availability of new techniques might have on genetic toxicology practices. Workshop topics included (1) alternative experimental models to improve genetic toxicity testing, (2) Biomarkers of epigenetic changes and their applicability to genetic toxicology, and (3) new technologies and approaches. The ability of these new tests and technologies to be developed into tests to identify and characterize genotoxic agents; to serve as a bridge between in vitro and in vivo rodent, or preferably human, data; or to be used to provide dose response information for quantitative risk assessment was also addressed. A summary of the workshop and links to the scientific presentations are provided.

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

Genetic toxicology data have traditionally been employed for qualitative, rather than quantitative evaluations of hazard. As a continuation of our earlier report that analyzed ethyl methanesulfonate (EMS) and methyl methanesulfonate (MMS) dose-response data (Gollapudi et al., 2013), here we present analyses of 1-ethyl-1-nitrosourea (ENU) and 1-methyl-1-nitrosourea (MNU) dose-response data and additional approaches for the determination of genetic toxicity point-of-departure (PoD) metrics. We previously described methods to determine the no-observed-genotoxic-effect-level (NOGEL), the breakpoint-dose (BPD; previously named Td), and the benchmark dose (BMD10 ) for genetic toxicity endpoints. In this study we employed those methods, along with a new approach, to determine the non-linear slope-transition-dose (STD), and alternative methods to determine the BPD and BMD, for the analyses of nine ENU and 22 MNU datasets across a range of in vitro and in vivo endpoints. The NOGEL, BMDL10 and BMDL1SD PoD metrics could be readily calculated for most gene mutation and chromosomal damage studies; however, BPDs and STDs could not always be derived due to data limitations and constraints of the underlying statistical methods. The BMDL10 values were often lower than the other PoDs, and the distribution of BMDL10 values produced the lowest median PoD. Our observations indicate that, among the methods investigated in this study, the BMD approach is the preferred PoD for quantitatively describing genetic toxicology data. Once genetic toxicology PoDs are calculated via this approach, they can be used to derive reference doses and margin of exposure values that may be useful for evaluating human risk and regulatory decision making.

Appropriate follow-up actions and decisions are needed when evaluating and interpreting clear positive results obtained in the in vitro assays used in the initial genotoxicity screening battery (i.e., the battery of tests generally required by regulatory authorities) to assist in overall risk-based decision making concerning the potential effects of human exposure to the agent under test. Over the past few years, 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 developed a decision process flow chart to be applied in case of clear positive results in vitro. It provides for a variety of different possibilities and allows flexibility in choosing follow-up action(s), depending on the results obtained in the initial battery of assays and available information. The intent of the Review Subgroup was not to provide a prescriptive testing strategy, but rather to reinforce the concept of weighing the totality of the evidence. The Review Subgroup of the IVGT committee highlighted the importance of properly analyzing the existing data, and considering potential confounding factors (e.g., possible interactions with the test systems, presence of impurities, irrelevant metabolism), and chemical modes of action when analyzing and interpreting positive results in the in vitro genotoxicity assays and determining appropriate follow-up testing. The Review Subgroup also examined the characteristics, strengths, and limitations of each of the existing in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity assays to determine their usefulness in any follow-up testing.

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.

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 established an Emerging Technologies and New Strategies Workgroup to review the current State of the Art in genetic toxicology testing. The aim of the workgroup was to identify promising technologies that will improve genotoxicity testing and assessment of in vivo hazard and risk, and that have the potential to help meet the objectives of the IVGT. As part of this initiative, HESI convened a workshop in Washington, DC in May 2008 to discuss mature, maturing, and emerging technologies in genetic toxicology. This article collates the abstracts of the New and Emerging Technologies Workshop together with some additional technologies subsequently considered by the workgroup. Each abstract (available in the online version of the article) includes a section addressed specifically to the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats associated with the respective technology. Importantly, an overview of the technologies and an indication of how their use might be aligned with the objectives of IVGT are presented. In particular, consideration was given with regard to follow-up testing of positive results in the standard IVGT tests (i.e., Salmonella Ames test, chromosome aberration assay, and mouse lymphoma assay) to add weight of evidence and/or provide mechanism of action for improved genetic toxicity risk assessments in humans.

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.

Accumulated evidence has shown that in vitro mammalian cell genotoxicity assays produce high frequencies of “misleading” positive results, i.e. predicted hazard is not confirmed in in vivo and/or carcinogenicity studies [1], raising the question of relevance to human risk assessment. A recent study of micronucleus (MN) induction [2] showed that commonly used p53-deficient rodent cell lines (CHL, CHO and V79) gave a higher frequency of “misleading” positive results with 9 non-DNA reactive, Ames-negative and in vivo negative chemicals [3] than human p53-competent cells (blood lymphocytes, TK6 and HepG2 cell lines). This raised the question of whether these differences were due to p53 status or species origin. This present study compared human versus mouse and p53-competent versus p53-mutated function. The same 9 chemicals were tested for induction of MN in mouse lymphoma L5178Y (mutated p53), human TK6 (functional p53) and WIL2-NS (TK6 related, with mutated p53) cells. Six chemicals provided clear positive increases in MN frequency in at least one cell type. L5178Y cells yielded clear positive responses with more chemicals than either TK6 or WIL2-NS, indicating origin rather than p53 functionality was most relevant. Apoptosis induction (measured via caspase-3/7) was also investigated with clear differences in the timing and extent of apoptosis induction between mouse and human cells noted. With curcumin in TK6 cells, induction of caspase-3/7 activity coincided with MN induction, whereas for L5178Y cells, MN induction occurred in the absence of increased caspase activity. By contrast, with MMS in TK6 cells, MN induction preceded increased caspase-3/7 activity. These data suggest that MN induction by “misleading positive” genotoxins in p53-competent human cell lines may result from apoptosis, whereas in p53-defective rodent cells such as L5178Y, MN induction may be independent of apoptosis.

This is the second of two reports from the International Workshops on Genotoxicity Testing (IWGT) Working Group on Quantitative Approaches to Genetic Toxicology Risk Assessment (the QWG). The first report summarized the discussions and recommendations of the QWG related to the need for quantitative dose–response analysis of genetic toxicology data, the existence and appropriate evaluation of threshold responses, and methods to analyze exposure-response relationships and derive points of departure (PoDs) from which acceptable exposure levels could be determined. This report summarizes the QWG discussions and recommendations regarding appropriate approaches to evaluate exposure-related risks of genotoxic damage, including extrapolation below identified PoDs and across test systems and species. Recommendations include the selection of appropriate genetic endpoints and target tissues, uncertainty factors and extrapolation methods to be considered, the importance and use of information on mode of action, toxicokinetics, metabolism, and exposure biomarkers when using quantitative exposure-response data to determine acceptable exposure levels in human populations or to assess the risk associated with known or anticipated exposures. The empirical relationship between genetic damage (mutation and chromosomal aberration) and cancer in animal models was also examined. It was concluded that there is a general correlation between cancer induction and mutagenic and/or clastogenic damage for agents thought to act via a genotoxic mechanism, but that the correlation is limited due to an inadequate number of cases in which mutation and cancer can be compared at a sufficient number of doses in the same target tissues of the same species and strain exposed under directly comparable routes and experimental protocols.

Transgenic rodent gene-mutation models provide relatively quick and statistically reliable assays for gene mutations in the DNA from any tissue. This report summarizes those issues that have been agreed upon at a previous IWGT meeting [Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 35 (2000) 253], and discusses in depth those issues for which no consensus was reached before. It was previously agreed that for regulatory applications, assays should be based upon neutral genes, be generally available in several laboratories, and be readily transferable. For phage-based assays, five to ten animals per group should be analyzed, assuming a spontaneous mutant frequency (MF) of approximately 3x10(-5) mutants/locus and 125,000-300,000 plaque or colony forming units (pfu or cfu) per tissue per animal. A full set of data should be generated for a vehicle control and two dose groups. Concurrent positive control animals are only necessary during validation, but positive control DNA must be included in each plating. Tissues should be processed and analyzed in a blocked design, where samples from negative control, positive control and each treatment group are processed together. The total number of pfus or cfus and the MF for each tissue and animal are reported. Statistical tests should consider the animal as the experimental unit. Nonparametric statistical tests are recommended. A positive result is a statistically significant dose-response and/or statistically significant increase in any dose group compared to concurrent negative controls using an appropriate statistical model. A negative result is a statistically non-significant change, with all mean MFs within two standard deviations of the control. During the current workshop, a general protocol was agreed in which animals are treated daily for 28 consecutive days and tissues sampled 3 days after the final treatment. This recommendation could be modified by reducing or increasing the number of treatments or the length of the treatment period, when scientifically justified. Normally male animals alone are sufficient and normally at least one rapidly proliferating and one slowly proliferating tissue should be sampled. Although, as agreed previously, sequencing data are not normally required, they might provide useful additional information in specific circumstances, mainly to identify and correct for clonal expansion and in some cases to determine a mechanism associated with a positive response.

beta-Propiolactone (BPL) and N-methyl-N'-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine (MNNG) are two direct alkylating agents that induce multiple genetic lesions and tumors in the rodent stomach. We measured the kinetics of the induction of DNA damage by using the single-cell gel electrophoresis assay (SCGE) and the induction of gene mutations by using the MutaMouse model in the glandular stomach mucosa of mice exposed to a single oral administration of BPL or MNNG. The aims were to determine the optimal sampling time and to investigate the cause-effect relationship between DNA damage and gene mutations. The induction of comets, evaluated in individual cells with the tail moment, was analyzed 1, 2, 4, 24, and 72 hr after a single oral administration of 25 mg/kg BPL or 20 mg/kg MNNG. The effects of both compounds were most intense at the earlier sampling times (1-2 hr), tailing off 4 hr after treatment and becoming undetectable at 72 hr. The lacZ mutant frequency (MF) was measured 3, 7, 14, 28, and 50 days after a single oral administration of 150 mg/kg BPL or 100 mg/kg MNNG, and 3 and 14 days after a single administration of 25 mg/kg BPL or 20 mg/kg MNNG. The MF was strongly enhanced at the highest doses and all sampling times, the most marked effects being observed 14 days (11.1-fold) and 28 days (19.0-fold) after BPL and MNNG administration, respectively. At the lowest doses, only a small increase in MF ( approximately 2.5- to 3.5-fold) was found at both sampling times. Primary DNA damage detected with SCGE shortly after treatment (1-2 hr) was rapidly (3 days) transformed into stable gene mutations that remained detectable for 50 days. These results illustrate the ability and complementarity of the SCGE and MutaMouse models to assess the genotoxicity of direct alkylating agents in the mouse gastric mucosa in vivo.

Transgenic mouse mutation assays, such as Muta Mouse (lacZ, CD2F1) and Big Blue® (lacI, B6C3F1), afford the opportunity to evaluate the mutagenic potential of chemicals in any target organ in vivo. This paper discusses published data collected from the analysis of the skin, stomach and lung DNA after topical, oral and inhalation exposure, respectively. These data indicate that both Muta Mouse and Big Blue® should play an important part in the evaluation of genotoxicity in vivo, particularly where the endpoint or target tissue available in the more conventional tests is inappropriate. It is concluded that there is a distinct role for this type of assay in genetic toxicology testing. For substances applied to the skin or dosed orally or by inhalation and which are unlikely to reach either the bone marrow or the liver, then data derived from these assays may be more relevant to an assessment of possible risk to man than the currently used unscheduled DNA synthesis in liver and cytogenetics assays in bone marrow or peripheral blood.

© 2014 The Authors.Positive results in the Ames test correlate well with carcinogenic potential in rodents. This correlation is not perfect because mutations are only one of many stages in tumour development. Also, situations can be envisaged where the mutagenic response may be specific to the bacteria or the test protocol, e.g., bacterial-specific metabolism, exceeding a detoxification threshold, or the induction of oxidative damage to which bacteria may be more sensitive than mammalian cells in vitro or tissues in vivo. Since most chemicals are also tested for genotoxicity in mammalian cells, the pattern of mammalian cell results may help identify whether Ames-positive results predict carcinogenic or in vivo mutagenic activity. A workshop was therefore organised and sponsored by the EU Reference Laboratory for Alternatives to Animal Testing (EURL ECVAM) to investigate this further. Participants presented results from other genotoxicity tests with Ames-positive compounds. Data came from published, regulatory agency, and industry sources. The question was posed whether negative results in mammalian cell tests were associated with absence of carcinogenic or in vivo genotoxic activity despite a positive Ames test. In the limited time available, the presented data were combined and an initial analysis suggested that the association of negative in vitro mammalian cell test results with lack of in vivo genotoxic or carcinogenic activity could have some significance. Possible reasons why a positive Ames test may not be associated with in vivo activity and what additional investigations/tests might contribute to a more robust evaluation were discussed. Because a considerable overlap was identified among the different databases presented, it was recommended that a consolidated database be built, with overlapping chemicals removed, so that a more robust analysis of the predictive capacity for potential carcinogenic and in vivo genotoxic activity could be derived from the patterns of mammalian cell test results obtained for Ames-positive compounds.

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.

Genetic toxicology studies are required for the safety assessment of chemicals. Data from these studies have historically been interpreted in a qualitative, dichotomous "yes" or "no" manner without analysis of dose-response relationships. This article is based upon the work of an international multi-sector group that examined how quantitative dose-response relationships for in vitro and in vivo genetic toxicology data might be used to improve human risk assessment. The group examined three quantitative approaches for analyzing dose-response curves and deriving point-of-departure (POD) metrics (i.e., the no-observed-genotoxic-effect-level (NOGEL), the threshold effect level (Td), and the benchmark dose (BMD)), using data for the induction of micronuclei and gene mutations by methyl methanesulfonate or ethyl methanesulfonate in vitro and in vivo. These results suggest that the POD descriptors obtained using the different approaches are within the same order of magnitude, with more variability observed for the in vivo assays. The different approaches were found to be complementary as each has advantages and limitations. The results further indicate that the lower confidence limit of a benchmark response rate of 10% (BMDL(10) ) could be considered a satisfactory POD when analyzing genotoxicity data using the BMD approach. The models described permit the identification of POD values that could be combined with mode of action analysis to determine whether exposure(s) below a particular level constitutes a significant human risk. Subsequent analyses will expand the number of substances and endpoints investigated, and continue to evaluate the utility of quantitative approaches for analysis of genetic toxicity dose-response data.

In order to validate the in vivo micronucleus test in mouse splenocytes using the cytokinesis block method, 14 compounds with various mechanisms of action were tested: three direct alkylating agents (mitomycin C, ethylnitrosourea, beta-propiolactone), seven indirect alkylating agents (cyclophosphamide, benzo[a]pyrene, diethylnitrosamine, dimethylnitrosamine, 4-aminophenol, 4-aminobiphenyl, 1,1-dimethylhydrazine), two intercalating agents (acridine orange, ethidium bromide) and two spindle poisons (vincristine, colchicine). Male mice were dosed once with the compound, and spleen samples were taken 2 or 14 days after treatment. A significant increase in the binucleated micronucleated splenocyte rate was observed with all the alkylating and intercalating agents at at least one sampling time. In contrast, no increase in the binucleated micronucleated splenocyte rate was observed with the spindle poisons. In conclusion, under these experimental conditions, this in vivo test seems appropriate for the detection of clastogenic compounds including compounds that cannot be detected in the bone marrow micronucleus test. The limit of this test, as expected, is the lack of detection of aneugenic compounds.

The Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI), a global branch of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), initiated a project committee entitled “Relevance and Follow-up of Positive Results from In Vitro Genetic Toxicity Testing (IVGT)” with the overall objective of improving the scientific basis for the interpretation of results from genetic toxicology testing. The IVGT committee has also recognized the need to develop follow-up strategies for determining the relevance of in vitro test results to human health, and moving genetic toxicology testing from the sole purpose of hazard identification toward a more quantitative risk assessment approach. In this context, a group of experts evaluated the potential utility of the emerging in vivo mutational assessment model commonly known as the Pig-a gene mutation assay to follow-up positive in vitro genetic toxicology findings and to generate robust dose-response data for quantitative assessment of the in vivo mutagenicity. The IVGT experts participating in this effort represented academia, industry, and government agencies from across the globe and addressed such issues as the optimal sample size and experimental design for generating robust dose-response data. This expert group concluded that the emerging Pig-a gene mutation assay holds great promise as an in vivo mutagenicity assay, either as a stand-alone study or integrated into repeat-dose toxicology studies, and therefore supports further validation of the model. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 2011. © 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

The optimal use of historical control data for the interpretation of genotoxicity results was discussed at the 2009 International Workshop on Genotoxicity Testing (IWGT) in Basel, Switzerland. The historical control working group focused mainly on negative control data although positive control data were also considered to be important. Historical control data are typically used for comparison with the concurrent control data as part of the assay acceptance criteria. Historical control data are also important for providing evidence of the technical competence and familiarization of the assay at any given laboratory. Moreover, historical control data are increasingly being used to aid in the interpretation of genetic toxicity assay results. The objective of the working group was to provide generic advice for historical control data that could be applied to all assays rather than to give assay-specific recommendations. In brief, the recommendations include

At the 2009 International Workshop on Genotoxicity Testing in Basel, an expert group gathered to provide guidance on suitable follow-up tests to describe risk when basic in vivo genotoxicity tests have yielded positive results. The working group agreed that non-linear dose-response curves occur in vivo with at least some DNA-reactive agents. Quantitative risk assessment in such cases requires the use of (1) adequate data, i.e., the use of all available data for the selection of reliable in vivo models to be used for quantitative risk assessment, (2) appropriate mathematical models and statistical analysis for characterizing the dose-response relationships and allowing the use of quantitative and dose-response information in the interpretation of results, (3) mode of action (MOA) information for the evaluation and analysis of risk, and (4) reliable assessments of the internal dose across species for deriving acceptable margins of exposure and risk levels. Hence, the elucidation of MOA and understanding of the mechanism underlying the dose-response curve are important components of risk assessment. The group agreed on the need for (i) the development of in vivo assays, especially multi-endpoint, multi-species assays, with emphasis on those applicable to humans, and (ii) consensus about the most appropriate mathematical models and statistical analyses for defining non-linear dose-responses and exposure levels associated with acceptable risk.

Cytosine arabinoside (a nucleoside analogue that inhibits the gap-filling step of excision repair), vinblastine (an aneugen that inhibits tubulin polymerisation), 5-fluorouracil (a nucleoside analogue with a steep response profile), and 2-aminoanthracene (a metabolism-dependent reference genotoxin) were tested in the in vitro micronucleus assay with L5178Y mouse lymphoma cells, without cytokinesis block. The four chemicals were independently evaluated in two Sanofi Aventis laboratories, one of which used an image analyser to score micronuclei, while the other scored micronucleated cells manually. Very similar results were obtained in the two laboratories, highlighting the robustness of the assay. The four test chemicals induced significant increases in the incidence of micronucleated cells at concentrations that produced no more than a 55 ± 5% reduction in survival growth, as measured with the three parameters recommended in the draft OECD Test Guideline on In Vitro Mammalian Cell Micronucleus Test (MNvit) for chemical testing, namely the relative increase in cell counts, relative population doubling, and the relative cell count. These results support the premise that the relative increase in cell counts and relative population doubling, that take into account both cell death and cytostasis, are appropriate measures of survival growth reduction in the in vitro micronucleus test conducted in the absence of cytokinesis block, as recommended in MNvit.

Based on the assumption that compounds having similar toxic modes of action induce specific gene expression changes, the toxicity of unknown compounds can be predicted after comparison of their molecular fingerprints with those obtained with compounds of known toxicity. These predictive models will therefore rely on the characterization of marker genes. Toxicogenomics (TGX) also provides mechanistic insight into the mode of toxicity, and can therefore be used as an adjunct to the standard battery of genotoxicity tests. Promising results, highlighting the ability of TGX to differentiate genotoxic from non-genotoxic carcinogens, as well as DNA-reactive from non-DNA reactive genotoxins, have been reported. Additional data suggested the possibility of ranking genotoxins according to the nature of their interactions with DNA. This new approach could contribute to the improvement of risk assessment. TGX could be applied as a follow-up testing strategy in case of positive in vitro genotoxicity findings, and could contribute to improve our ability to identify the molecular mechanism of action and to possibly better assess dose-response curves. TGX has been found to be less sensitive than the standard genotoxicity end-points, probably because it measures the whole cell population response, when compared with standard tests designed to detect rare events in a small number of cells. Further validation will be needed (1) to better link the profiles obtained with TGX to the established genotoxicity end-points, (2) to improve the gene annotation tools, and (3) to standardise study design and data analysis and to better evaluate the impact of variability between platforms and bioinformatics approaches.

Gene expression profiling technology is expected to advance our understanding of genotoxic mechanisms involving direct or indirect interaction with DNA. We exposed human lymphoblastoid TK6 cells to 14 anticancer drugs (vincristine, paclitaxel, etoposide, daunorubicin, camptothecin, amsacrine, cytosine arabinoside, hydroxyurea, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil, cisplatin, 1-(2-chloroethyl)-3-cyclohexyl-1-nitrosourea (CCNU), 1,3-bis (2-chloroethyl)-1-nitrosourea (BCNU), and bleomycin) for 4-h and examined them immediately or after a 20-h recovery period. Cytotoxicity and genotoxicity, respectively, were evaluated by cell counting and by in vitro micronucleus assay at 24h. Effects on the cell cycle were determined by flow cytometry at 4 and 24h. Gene expression was profiled at both sampling times by using human Affymetrix U133A GeneChips (22K). Bioanalysis was done with Resolver/Rosetta software and an in-house annotation program. Cell cycle analysis and gene expression profiling allowed us to classify the drugs according to their mechanisms of action. The molecular signature is composed of 28 marker genes mainly involved in signal transduction and cell cycle pathways. Our results suggest that these marker genes could be used as a predictive model to classify genotoxins according to their direct or indirect interaction with DNA.

The multi-lab International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) project on the application of genomics to risk assessment offered the unique opportunity to investigate the influence of variability within and between laboratories on identifying biologically relevant gene expression changes. We assessed the gene expression profiles of mouse lymphoma L5178Y cells treated with hydroxyurea (HU) in three independent studies from two different laboratories, sanofi aventis and Procter & Gamble. Cells were dosed for 4 hr and harvested immediately at the end of the treatment or after a 20-hr recovery period. Cytotoxicity and genotoxicity were evaluated by standard assays. Statistical analysis of these data revealed that, while gene expression responses to HU treatment were markedly different at 4 hr vs. 24 hr, there was otherwise a consistent pattern of dose–response across the three studies. Therefore, the studies were merged and each time point was evaluated separately. At 4 hr, we identified 173 (P < 0.0001) dose-responsive genes with a common trend in all three studies. These were mainly associated with the cell cycle, DNA repair and DNA metabolism, and in particular, the intra-S and G2/M phase checkpoints. At 24 hr, we identified 434 dose-responsive genes common across studies. These genes were involved in lymphocyte-specific activities and the activation of apoptosis via the caspase cascade. Our results show that despite inter-laboratory variability, combining the three studies in a single statistical analysis identifies more significantly-modulated genes than in any of the individual studies, due to improved statistical sensitivity. The genes identified in our study provide information that is relevant to HU biology. Environ. Mol. Mutagen., 2005. © 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

International audience; We assessed the DNA-repair capacity of HepG2 cells, which were derived from a human hepatoma, by the unscheduled DNA synthesis assay, using the autoradiography protocol (UDS-AR). We evaluated DNA repair following exposure to direct mutagens (4-nitroquinoline-N-oxide (4-NQO), methyl methanesulfonate (MMS)), to mutagens requiring metabolic activation (benzo[a]pyrene (B[a]P), 2-acetylaminofluorene (2-AAF), N-dimethylnitrosoamine (NDMA)) or to structurally related non-mutagens such as pyrene and 4-acetylaminofluorene (4-AAF). All positive compounds tested induced UDS in HepG2 cells. With 4-NQO and MMS, a concentration-dependent increase in net nuclear grains per cell was observed, with 73 and 90% of cells, respectively, in repair at the highest concentration. B[a]P, 2-AAF and NDMA displayed similar dose-dependent UDS responses, but the percentage of cells in repair was lower (about 45%) than that for 4-NQO and MMS. We assessed the genotoxicity of the compounds tested by determining IC(5NNG): the concentration required to induce 5NNG. The compounds studied were ranked in order of IC(5NNG) as follows: 4-NQO = B[a]P > 2-AAF > MMS > NDMA. The UDS assay discriminated between mutagens and non-mutagens, as pyrene and 4-AAF failed to induce DNA repair. The present study demonstrates that UDS can be used as an endpoint for the detection of DNA damage in HepG2 cells.

7H-Dibenzo[c,g]carbazole (DBC) is an environmental pollutant that produces DNA adducts and tumors in mouse liver and skin following subcutaneous injection and topical application. The two synthetic derivatives 5,9-dimethyl-DBC (DMDBC) and N7-methyl-DBC (NMDBC) induce tissue-specific lesions. DNA adducts and tumors are observed only in liver following exposure to DMDBC and only in skin following exposure to NMDBC. We used the positive selection MutaMouse model to measure the induction of mutations in the two target organs, 28 days after a single subcutaneous injection or topical application of DBC, DMDBC and NMDBC. In liver, DBC and DMDBC induced 30- to 50-fold increases in mutant frequency (MF), while NMDBC had only a weak effect, regardless of the route of administration. After topical application, DBC and NMDBC produced 3.4- to 7.9-fold increases in MF in skin, while DMDBC had a weak effect. After subcutaneous injection, the three compounds had no or weak effect in skin. This study shows gene mutations arise in the respective target organs in which primary DNA damage and tumors are observed. These results illustrate the relevance of the MutaMouse model for testing organ-specific mutagens.

As part of the Germ Cell Collaborative Study, we used the positive-selection Muta™Mouse model to evaluate the effects of two direct alkylating agents, ethylnitrosourea (ENU) and methyl methanesulfonate (MMS), on male germ cells. The LacZ mutation frequency in seminiferous tubule cells and epididymis spermatozoa was measured 3, 14, 25 and 50 days after a single intraperitoneal (i.p.) administration of 150 mg/kg ENU and 3 and 14 days after a single i.p. administration of 40 mg/kg MMS. Three and 14 days after ENU treatment, the mutation frequency was slightly but significantly increased in seminiferous tubule cells (3.5- and 3.6-fold, respectively), while it remained unchanged in epididymis spermatozoa. After 25 and 50 days, time-dependent increase in the mutation frequency was observed in seminiferous tubule cells (8.9- and 14.3-fold, respectively) and epididymis spermatozoa (3.4- and 7.9-fold, respectively), confirming the sensitivity of premeiotic cells to the mutagenic activity of ENU. Three and 14 days after MMS administration, the mutation frequency remained unchanged in seminiferous tubule cells and epididymis spermatozoa. The inability of Muta™Mouse model to reveal the mutagenic activity of MMS was confirmed in bone marrow cells, 14 days after treatment. These data indicate that the Muta™Mouse model can be used to detect the induction of gene mutations but not chromosome damage in germ cells.