Search

This paper provides compound-specific toxicology limits for 20 widely used synthetic reagents and common by-products that are potential impurities in drug substances. In addition, a 15 μg/day class-specific limit was developed for monofunctional alkyl bromides, aligning this with the class-specific limit previously defined for monofunctional alkyl chlorides. Both the compound- and class-specific toxicology limits assume a lifetime chronic exposure for the general population (including sensitive subpopulations) by all routes of exposure for pharmaceuticals. Inhalation-specific toxicology limits were also derived for acrolein, formaldehyde, and methyl bromide because of their localized toxicity via that route. Mode of action was an important consideration for a compound-specific toxicology limit. Acceptable intake (AI) calculations for certain mutagenic carcinogens assumed a linear dose-response for tumor induction, and permissible daily exposure (PDE) determination assumed a non-linear dose-response. Several compounds evaluated have been previously incorrectly assumed to be mutagenic, or to be mutagenic carcinogens, but the evidence reported here for such compounds indicates a lack of mutagenicity, and a non-mutagenic mode of action for tumor induction. For non-mutagens with insufficient data to develop a toxicology limit, the ICH Q3A qualification thresholds are recommended. The compound- and class-specific toxicology limits described here may be adjusted for an individual drug substance based on treatment duration, dosing schedule, severity of the disease and therapeutic indication.

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.

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.

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.

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 non-genotoxicants. TK6 cells were exposed to chemicals in 96-well plates over a range of concentrations for 24 hrs. At 4 and 24 hrs 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 inter-laboratory 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 non-genotoxic 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Genotoxicity hazard identification is part of the impurity qualification process for drug substances and products, the first step of which being the prediction of their potential DNA reactivity using in silico (quantitative) structure-activity relationship (Q)SAR models/systems. This white paper provides information relevant to the development of the draft harmonized tripartite guideline ICH M7 on potentially DNA-reactive/mutagenic impurities in pharmaceuticals and their application in practice. It explains relevant (Q)SAR methodologies as well as the added value of expert knowledge. Moreover, the predictive value of the different methodologies analyzed in two surveys conveyed in the US and European pharmaceutical industry is compared: most pharmaceutical companies used a rule-based expert system as their primary methodology, yielding negative predictivity values of ⩾78% in all participating companies. A further increase (>90%) was often achieved by an additional expert review and/or a second QSAR methodology. Also in the latter case, an expert review was mandatory, especially when conflicting results were obtained. Based on the available data, we concluded that a rule-based expert system complemented by either expert knowledge or a second (Q)SAR model is appropriate. A maximal transparency of the assessment process (e.g. methods, results, arguments of weight-of-evidence approach) achieved by e.g. data sharing initiatives and the use of standards for reporting will enable regulators to fully understand the results of the analysis. Overall, the procedures presented here for structure-based assessment are considered appropriate for regulatory submissions in the scope of ICH M7.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Ames test is now widely used as a short-term test for the detection of mutagens. Different strains are available with various genetic characteristics, and in the past decade various authors have recommended different associations of strains to give maximum detection potential. However, few studies have been done to compare the sensitivity of individual strains towards a wide range of compounds in a single study. In order to define the best association of strains for screening or regulatory purpose, we have tested 103 direct mutagens (reference genotoxins or in-house compounds) on 7 strains of Salmonella typhimurium: TA1535, TA1537, TA1538, TA97, TA98, TA100 and TA102. 126 different associations of strains have been studied in terms of sensitivity and percentage overlap. Optimum associations of 2, 3, 4 or 5 strains included strains both with and without plasmid pKM101. However, the specificity of detection is greatly diminished by the presence of plasmid pKM101 in the strain, as shown by the high degree of overlap in associations constituted entirely of strains containing the plasmid. The association of strains TA1538 and TA100 detected 86% of the chemicals tested and is therefore recommended for large-scale screening. A rate of detection of 100% was obtained when 6 strains were used. The best associations of 4 and 5 strains, which detected 97 and 99% chemicals respectively, all contained strains TA1537, TA1538 and TA102. Finally, the associations of 4 strains (TA1537, TA1538, TA100, TA102) or 5 strains (TA1535, TA1537, TA1538, TA97, TA102) seemed well adapted to the optimum detection of mutagenic compounds.