Search

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

The report from the 2002 International Workshop on Genotoxicity Tests (IWGT) Strategy Expert Group emphasized metabolic considerations as an important area to address in developing a common strategy for genotoxicity testing. A working group convened at the 2005 4th IWGT to discuss this area further and propose practical strategy recommendations. To propose a strategy, the working group reviewed: (1) the current status and deficiencies, including examples of carcinogens "missed" in genotoxicity testing, established shortcomings of the standard in vitro induced S9 activation system and drug metabolite case examples; (2) the current status of possible remedies, including alternative S9 sources, other external metabolism systems or genetically engineered test systems; (3) any existing positions or guidance. The working group established consensus principles to guide strategy development. Thus, a human metabolite of interest should be represented in genotoxicity and carcinogenicity testing, including evaluation of alternative genotoxicity in vitro metabolic activation or test systems, and the selection of a carcinogenicity test species showing appropriate biotransformation. Appropriate action triggers need to be defined based on the extent of human exposure, considering any structural knowledge of the metabolite, and when genotoxicity is observed upon in vitro testing in the presence of metabolic activation. These triggers also need to be considered in defining the timing of human pharmaceutical ADME assessments. The working group proposed two strategies to consider; a more proactive approach, which emphasizes early metabolism predictions to drive appropriate hazard assessment; and a retroactive approach to manage safety risks of a unique or "major" metabolite once identified and quantitated from human clinical ADME studies. In both strategies, the assessment of the genotoxic potential of a metabolite could include the use of an alternative or optimized in vitro metabolic activation system, or direct testing of an isolated or synthesized metabolite. The working group also identified specific areas where more data or experiences need to be gained to reach consensus. These included defining a discrete exposure action trigger for safety assessment and when direct testing of a metabolite of interest is warranted versus the use of an alternative in vitro activation system, a universal recommendation for the timing of human ADME studies for drug candidates and the positioning of metabolite structural knowledge (through in silico systems, literature, expert analysis) in supporting metabolite safety qualification. Lastly, the working group outlined future considerations for refining the initially proposed strategies. These included the need for further evaluation of the current in vitro genotoxicity testing protocols that can potentially perturb or reduce the level of metabolic activity (potential alterations in metabolism associated with both the use of some solvents to solubilize test chemicals and testing to the guidance limit dose), and proposing broader evaluations of alternative metabolic activation sources or engineered test systems to further challenge the suitability of (or replace) the current induced liver S9 activation source.