Search

Abstract Scientific, financial, and ethical drivers have led to unprecedented interest in implementing human-relevant, mechanistic in vitro and in silico testing approaches. Further, as non-animal approaches are being developed and validated, researchers are interested in strategies that can immediately reduce the use of animals in toxicology testing. Here, we aim to outline a testing strategy for assessing genotoxicity beginning with standard in vitro methods, such as the bacterial reverse mutation test and the in vitro micronucleus test, followed by a second tier of in vitro assays including those using advanced 3D tissue models. Where regulatory agencies require in vivo testing, one demonstrated strategy is to combine genotoxicity studies traditionally conducted separately into a single test or to integrate genotoxicity studies into other toxicity studies. Standard setting organisations and regulatory agencies have encouraged such strategies, and examples of their use can be found in the scientific literature. Employing approaches outlined here will reduce animal use as well as study time and costs.

The EU Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes and other EU regulations, such as REACH and the Cosmetic Products Regulation advocate for a change in the way toxicity testing is conducted. Whilst the Cosmetic Products Regulation bans animal testing altogether, REACH aims for a progressive shift from in vivo testing towards quantitative in vitro and computational approaches. Several endpoints can already be addressed using non-animal approaches including skin corrosion and irritation, serious eye damage and irritation, skin sensitisation, and mutagenicity and genotoxicity. However, for systemic effects such as acute toxicity, repeated dose toxicity and reproductive and developmental toxicity, evaluation of chemicals under REACH still heavily relies on animal tests. Here we summarise current EU regulatory requirements for the human health assessment of chemicals under REACH and the Cosmetic Products Regulation, considering the more critical endpoints and identifying the main challenges in introducing alternative methods into regulatory testing practice. This supports a recent initiative taken by the International Cooperation on Alternative Test Methods (ICATM) to summarise current regulatory requirements specific for the assessment of chemicals and cosmetic products for several human health-related endpoints, with the aim of comparing different jurisdictions and coordinating the promotion and ultimately the implementation of non-animal approaches worldwide. Recent initiatives undertaken at European level to promote the 3Rs and the use of alternative methods in current regulatory practice are also discussed.

In view of the need to enhance the assessment of consumer products called for in the EU Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability, we developed a methodology for evaluating hazard by combining information across different systemic toxicity endpoints and integrating the information with new approach methodologies. This integrates mechanistic information with a view to avoiding redundant in vivo studies, minimising reliance on apical endpoint tests and ultimately devising efficient testing strategies. Here, we present the application of our methodology to carcinogenicity assessment, mapping the available information from toxicity test methods across endpoints to the key characteristics of carcinogens. Test methods are deconstructed to allow the information they provide to be organised in a systematic way, enabling the description of the toxicity mechanisms leading to the adverse outcome. This integrated approach provides a flexible and resource-efficient means of fully exploiting test methods for which test guidelines are available to fulfil regulatory requirements for systemic toxicity assessment as well as identifying where new methods can be integrated. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00204-021-03035-x.

The history of the development of the cell transformation assays (CTAs) is described, providing an overview of in vitro cell transformation from its origin to the new transcriptomic-based CTAs. Application of this knowledge is utilized to address how the different types of CTAs, variously addressing initiation and promotion, can be included on a mechanistic basis within the integrated approach to testing and assessment (IATA) for non-genotoxic carcinogens. Building upon assay assessments targeting the key events in the IATA, we identify how the different CTA models can appropriately fit, following preceding steps in the IATA. The preceding steps are the prescreening transcriptomic approaches, and assessment within the earlier key events of inflammation, immune disruption, mitotic signaling and cell injury. The CTA models address the later key events of (sustained) proliferation and change in morphology leading to tumor formation. The complementary key biomarkers with respect to the precursor key events and respective CTAs are mapped, providing a structured mechanistic approach to represent the complexity of the (non-genotoxic) carcinogenesis process, and specifically their capacity to identify non-genotoxic carcinogenic chemicals in a human relevant IATA.

While regulatory requirements for carcinogenicity testing of chemicals vary according to product sector and regulatory jurisdiction, the standard approach starts with a battery of genotoxicity tests (which include mutagenicity assays). If any of the in vivo genotoxicity tests are positive, a lifetime rodent cancer bioassay may be requested, but under most chemical regulations (except plant protection, biocides, pharmaceuticals), this is rare. The decision to conduct further testing based on genotoxicity test outcomes creates a regulatory gap for the identification of non-genotoxic carcinogens (NGTxC). With the objective of addressing this gap, in 2016, the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) established an expert group to develop an integrated approach to the testing and assessment (IATA) of NGTxC. Through that work, a definition of NGTxC in a regulatory context was agreed. Using the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) concept, various cancer models were developed, and overarching mechanisms and modes of action were identified. After further refining and structuring with respect to the common hallmarks of cancer and knowing that NGTxC act through a large variety of specific mechanisms, with cell proliferation commonly being a unifying element, it became evident that a panel of tests covering multiple biological traits will be needed to populate the IATA. Consequently, in addition to literature and database investigation, the OECD opened a call for relevant assays in 2018 to receive suggestions. Here, we report on the definition of NGTxC, on the development of the overarching NGTxC IATA, and on the development of ranking parameters to evaluate the assays. Ultimately the intent is to select the best scoring assays for integration in an NGTxC IATA to better identify carcinogens and reduce public health hazards. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00204-020-02784-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The rodent cancer bioassay has been the standard approach to fulfill regulatory requirements for assessing human carcinogenic potential of agrochemicals, food additives, industrial chemicals, and pharmaceuticals. Decades of research have described the limitations of the rodent cancer bioassay leading to international initiatives to seek alternatives and establish approaches that modernize carcinogenicity assessment. Biologically relevant approaches can provide mechanistic information and increased efficiency for evaluating hazard and risk of chemical carcinogenicity to humans. The application of human-relevant mechanistic understanding to support new approaches to carcinogenicity assessment will be invaluable for regulatory decision-making. The present work outlines the challenges and opportunities that authorities should consider as they come together to build a roadmap that leads to global acceptance and incorporation of fit-for-purpose, scientifically defensible new approaches for human-relevant carcinogenicity assessment of agrochemicals.

The European Commission Joint Research Centre and the European Standardization Organizations CEN and CENELEC organized the "Putting Science into Standards" workshop, focusing on organ-on-chip technologies. The workshop, held online on 28-29 April, 2021, aimed at identifying needs and priorities for standards development and suggesting possible ways forward.

Organ on chip (OoC) devices represent the cutting edge of biotechnologies, combining advanced cell and tissue culture with microengineering. OoC is accelerating innovation in the life sciences and has the potential to revolutionise many fields including biomedical research, drug development and chemical risk assessment. In order to gain acceptance by end-users of OoC based methods and the data derived from them, and to establish OoC approaches as credible alternatives to animal testing, OoC devices need to go through an extensive qualification process. In this context, standardisation can play a key role in ensuring proper characterisation of individual devices, benchmarking against appropriate reference elements and aiding efficient communication among stakeholders. The development of standards for OoC will address several important issues such as basic terminology, device classification, and technical and biological performance. An analysis of technical and biological aspects related to OoC is presented here to identify standardisation areas specific for OoC, focusing on needs and opportunities. About 90 standards are already available from related fields including microtechnologies, medical devices and in vitro cell culture, laying the basis for future work in the OoC domain. Finally, two priority areas for OoC are identified that could be addressed with standards, namely, characterisation of small molecule absorption and measurement of microfluidic parameters.

Chemical substances are subjected to assessment of genotoxic and carcinogenic effects before being marketed to protect man and the environment from health risks. For agrochemicals, the long-term rodent carcinogenicity study is currently required from a regulatory perspective. Although it is the current mainstay for the detection of nongenotoxic carcinogens, carcinogenicity studies are shown to have prominent weaknesses and are subject to ethical and scientific debate. A transition toward a mechanism-based weight-of-evidence approach is considered a requirement to enhance the prediction of carcinogenic potential for environmental (agro)chemicals. The resulting approach should make optimal use of innovative (computational) tools and be less animal demanding. To identify the various mode of actions (MOAs) underlying the nongenotoxic carcinogenic potential of agrochemicals, we conducted an extensive analysis of 411 unique agrochemicals that have been evaluated for carcinogenicity by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). About one-third of these substances could be categorized as nongenotoxic carcinogens with an average of approximately two tumor types per substance, observed in a variety of organs. For two-third of the tumor cases, an underlying MOA (network) could be identified. This analysis demonstrates that a limited set of MOA (networks) is underlying nongenotoxic carcinogenicity of agrochemicals, illustrating that the transition toward a MOA-driven approach appears manageable. Ultimately the approach should cover relevant MOAs and its associated key events; this will also facilitate the evaluation of the human relevance. This manuscript describes the results of the analysis while identifying knowledge gaps and necessities to achieve a mechanism-based weight-of-evidence approach.

To develop and evaluate scientifically robust and innovative approaches for the safety assessment of chemicals across multiple regulatory sectors, the EU Reference Laboratory for alternatives to animal testing (EURL ECVAM) has started a project to explore how to better use the available information, including that from existing animal studies. The aim is to minimize reliance on in vivo testing to avoid redundancy and to facilitate the integration of novel non-animal methods in the regulatory setting with the ultimate goal of designing sustainable testing strategies. In this thought-starter paper, we present a number of examples to illustrate and trigger further discussions within the scientific and regulatory communities on ways to extrapolate useful information for predicting toxicity from one toxicity endpoint to another or across endpoints based on mechanistic information.

Highlights • EURL ECVAM Consolidated Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity Database extended. • Negative Ames test results were compiled and reviewed. • A database of Ames negative results was constructed. • Database chemical space characterization was conducted. • OFG representation of carcinogens and non-carcinogens was characterised., The bacterial reverse mutation test (Ames test) is the most commonly used genotoxicity test; it is a primary component of the chemical safety assessment data required by regulatory agencies worldwide. Within the current accepted in vitro genotoxicity test battery, it is considered capable of revealing DNA reactivity, and identifying substances that can produce gene mutations via different mechanisms. The previously published consolidated EURL ECVAM Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity Database, which includes substances that elicited a positive response in the Ames test, constitutes a collection of data that serves as a reference for a number of regulatory activities in the area of genotoxicity testing. Consequently, we considered it important to expand the database to include substances that fail to elicit a positive response in the Ames test, i.e., Ames negative substances. Here, we describe a curated collection of 211 Ames negative substances, with a summary of complementary data available for other genotoxicity endpoints in vitro and in vivo, plus available carcinogenicity data. A descriptive analysis of the data is presented. This includes a representation of the chemical space formed by the Ames-negative database with respect to other substances (e.g. REACH registered substances, approved drugs, pesticides, etc.) and a description of the organic functional groups found in the database. We also provide some suggestions on further analyses that could be made.

Use of three-dimensional (3D) tissue equivalents in toxicology has been increasing over the last decade as novel preclinical test systems and as alternatives to animal testing. In the area of genetic toxicology, progress has been made with establishing robust protocols for skin, airway (lung) and liver tissue equivalents. In light of these advancements, a "Use of 3D Tissues in Genotoxicity Testing" working group (WG) met at the 7th IWGT meeting in Tokyo in November 2017 to discuss progress with these models and how they may fit into a genotoxicity testing strategy. The workshop demonstrated that skin models have reached an advanced state of validation following over 10 years of development, while liver and airway model-based genotoxicity assays show promise but are at an early stage of development. Further effort in liver and airway model-based assays is needed to address the lack of coverage of the three main endpoints of genotoxicity (mutagenicity, clastogenicity and aneugenicity), and information on metabolic competence. The IWGT WG believes that the 3D skin comet and micronucleus assays are now sufficiently validated to undergo an independent peer review of the validation study, followed by development of individual OECD Test Guidelines.

The identification of the carcinogenic risk of chemicals is currently mainly based on animal studies. The in vitro Cell Transformation Assays (CTAs) are a promising alternative to be considered in an integrated approach. CTAs measure the induction of foci of transformed cells. CTAs model key stages of the in vivo neoplastic process and are able to detect both genotoxic and some non-genotoxic compounds, being the only in vitro method able to deal with the latter. Despite their favorable features, CTAs can be further improved, especially reducing the possible subjectivity arising from the last phase of the protocol, namely visual scoring of foci using coded morphological features. By taking advantage of digital image analysis, the aim of our work is to translate morphological features into statistical descriptors of foci images, and to use them to mimic the classification performances of the visual scorer to discriminate between transformed and non-transformed foci. Here we present a classifier based on five descriptors trained on a dataset of 1364 foci, obtained with different compounds and concentrations. Our classifier showed accuracy, sensitivity and specificity equal to 0.77 and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.84. The presented classifier outperforms a previously published model.

There is an increased need to develop novel alternative approaches to the two-year rodent bioassay for the carcinogenicity assessment of substances where the rodent bioassay is still a basic requirement, as well as for those substances where animal use is banned or limited or where information gaps are identified within legislation. The current progress in this area was addressed in a EURL ECVAM- ESTIV workshop held in October 2016, in Juan les Pins. A number of initiatives were presented and discussed, including data-driven, technology-driven and pathway-driven approaches. Despite a seemingly diverse range of strategic developments, commonalities are emerging. For example, providing insight into carcinogenicity mechanisms is becoming an increasingly appreciated aspect of hazard assessment and is suggested to be the best strategy to drive new developments. Thus, now more than ever, there is a need to combine and focus efforts towards the integration of available information between sectors. Such cross-sectorial harmonisation will aid in building confidence in new approach methods leading to increased implementation and thus a decreased necessity for the two-year rodent bioassay., Highlights • Need to develop novel alternative approaches to the two-year rodent cancer bioassay • Insight into carcinogenicity mechanisms is essential to drive new developments. • Direct efforts towards the integration of all available information, also across endpoints. • Cross-sector harmonisation to build confidence in new approach methods

The assessment of genotoxicity represents an essential component of the safety assessment of all types of substances. Several in vitro tests are available at different stages of development and acceptance, yet they are not considered at present sufficient to fully replace animal tests needed to evaluate the safety of substances. For an overall improvement of the traditional genotoxicity testing paradigm, several recent activities have taken place. These include the improvement of existing tests, the development of novel tests, as well as, the establishment and exploration of approaches to optimise in vitro testing accuracy. Furthermore, useful tools, such as databases or reference chemical lists have been developed to support advances in this field.

Cell Transformation Assays (CTAs) have long been proposed for the identification of chemical carcinogenicity potential. The endpoint of these in vitro assays is represented by the phenotypic alterations in cultured cells, which are characterized by the change from the non-transformed to the transformed phenotype. Despite the wide fields of application and the numerous advantages of CTAs, their use in regulatory toxicology has been limited in part due to concerns about the subjective nature of visual scoring, i.e. the step in which transformed colonies or foci are evaluated through morphological features. An objective evaluation of morphological features has been previously obtained through automated digital processing of foci images to extract the value of three statistical image descriptors. In this study a further potential of the CTA using BALB/c 3T3 cells is addressed by analysing the effect of increasing concentrations of two known carcinogens, benzo[a]pyrene and NiCl2 , with different modes of action on foci morphology. The main result of our quantitative evaluation shows that the concentration of the considered carcinogens has an effect on foci morphology that is statistically significant for the mean of two among the three selected descriptors. Statistical significance also corresponds to visual relevance. The statistical analysis of variations in foci morphology due to concentration allowed to quantify morphological changes that can be visually appreciated but not precisely determined. Therefore, it has the potential of providing new quantitative parameters in CTAs, and of exploiting all the information encoded in foci. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cancer is a key public health concern, being the second leading cause of worldwide morbidity and mortality after cardiovascular diseases. At the global level, cancer prevalence, incidence and mortality rates are increasing. These trends are not fully explained by a growing and ageing population: with marked regional and socioeconomic disparities, lifestyle factors, the resources dedicated to preventive medicine, and the occupational and environmental control of hazardous chemicals all playing a role. While it is difficult to establish the contribution of chemical exposure to the societal burden of cancer, a number of measures can be taken to better assess the carcinogenic properties of chemicals and manage their risks. This paper discusses how these measures can be informed not only by the traditional data streams of regulatory toxicology, but also by using new toxicological assessment methods, along with indicators of public health status based on biomonitoring. These diverse evidence streams have the potential to form the basis of an integrated and more effective approach to cancer prevention. Keywords: Carcinogenicity testing, Environmental health, Chemical exposure, Cancer risk, REACH

The regulatory assessment of the complex endpoints, carcinogenicity and reproductive and developmental toxicity, still heavily relies on animal testing. This chapter reviews the alternative approaches that have been developed in these areas in the last decades to waive testing and reduce the number of animals used and summarises the lessons learned. The alternative approaches range from the individual test methods, such as the cell transformation assay for carcinogenicity and the embryotoxicity tests for reproductive toxicity, to reduction approaches, such as the International Conference on Harmonisation strategy for pharmaceuticals and the extended-one-generation assay. Currently, these areas are being revitalised due to the broad recognition of the shortcomings of current in vivo testing requirements and the current regulatory environment (e.g. the European Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals and Cosmetics Regulations). More-recent developments aimed at a more human-relevant chemical assessment, which rely on the integration of different sources of information, are also described.

Currently the only methods for non-genotoxic carcinogenic hazard assessment accepted by most regulatory authorities are lifetime carcinogenicity studies. However, these involve the use of large numbers of animals and the relevance of their predictive power and results has been scientifically challenged. With increased availability of innovative test methods and enhanced understanding of carcinogenic processes, it is believed that tumour formation can now be better predicted using mechanistic information. A workshop organised by the European Partnership on Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing brought together experts to discuss an alternative, mechanism-based approach for cancer risk assessment of agrochemicals. Data from a toolbox of test methods for detecting modes of action (MOAs) underlying non-genotoxic carcinogenicity are combined with information from subchronic toxicity studies in a weight-of-evidence approach to identify carcinogenic potential of a test substance. The workshop included interactive sessions to discuss the approach using case studies. These showed that fine-tuning is needed, to build confidence in the proposed approach, to ensure scientific correctness, and to address different regulatory needs. This novel approach was considered realistic, and its regulatory acceptance and implementation can be facilitated in the coming years through continued dialogue between all stakeholders and building confidence in alternative approaches.

The assessment of the carcinogenic potential of chemicals with alternative, human-based in vitro systems has become a major goal of toxicogenomics. The central read-out of these assays is the transcriptome, and while many studies exist that explored the gene expression responses of such systems, reports on robustness and reproducibility, when testing them independently in different laboratories, are still uncommon. Furthermore, there is limited knowledge about variability induced by the data analysis protocols. We have conducted an inter-laboratory study for testing chemical carcinogenicity evaluating two human in vitro assays: hepatoma-derived cells and hTERT-immortalized renal proximal tubule epithelial cells, representing liver and kidney as major target organs. Cellular systems were initially challenged with thirty compounds, genome-wide gene expression was measured with microarrays, and hazard classifiers were built from this training set. Subsequently, each system was independently established in three different laboratories, and gene expression measurements were conducted using anonymized compounds. Data analysis was performed independently by two separate groups applying different protocols for the assessment of inter-laboratory reproducibility and for the prediction of carcinogenic hazard. As a result, both workflows came to very similar conclusions with respect to (1) identification of experimental outliers, (2) overall assessment of robustness and inter-laboratory reproducibility and (3) re-classification of the unknown compounds to the respective toxicity classes. In summary, the developed bioinformatics workflows deliver accurate measures for inter-laboratory comparison studies, and the study can be used as guidance for validation of future carcinogenicity assays in order to implement testing of human in vitro alternatives to animal testing.

The bacterial reverse mutation test (Ames test) is the most commonly used genotoxicity test; it is a primary component of the chemical safety assessment data required by regulatory agencies worldwide. Within the current accepted in vitro genotoxicity test battery, it is considered capable of revealing DNA reactivity, and identifying substances that can produce gene mutations via different mechanisms. The previously published consolidated EURL ECVAM Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity Database, which includes substances that elicited a positive response in the Ames test, constitutes a collection of data that serves as a reference for a number of regulatory activities in the area of genotoxicity testing. Consequently, we considered it important to expand the database to include substances that fail to elicit a positive response in the Ames test, i.e., Ames negative substances. Here, we describe a curated collection of 211 Ames negative substances, with a summary of complementary data available for other genotoxicity endpoints in vitro and in vivo, plus available carcinogenicity data. A descriptive analysis of the data is presented. This includes a representation of the chemical space formed by the Ames-negative database with respect to other substances (e.g. REACH registered substances, approved drugs, pesticides, etc.) and a description of the organic functional groups found in the database. We also provide some suggestions on further analyses that could be made.

EU regulations call for the use of alternative methods to animal testing. During the last decade, an increasing number of alternative approaches have been formally adopted. In parallel, new 3Rs-relevant technologies and mechanistic approaches have increasingly contributed to hazard identification and risk assessment evolution. In this changing landscape, an EPAA meeting reviewed the challenges that different industry sectors face in the implementation of alternative methods following a science-driven approach. Although clear progress was acknowledged in animal testing reduction and refinement thanks to an integration of scientifically robust approaches, the following challenges were identified: i) further characterization of toxicity pathways; ii) development of assays covering current scientific gaps, iii) better characterization of links between in vitro readouts and outcome in the target species; iv) better definition of alternative method applicability domains, and v) appropriate implementation of the available approaches. For areas having regulatory adopted alternative methods (e.g., vaccine batch testing), harmonised acceptance across geographical regions was considered critical for broader application. Overall, the main constraints to the application of non-animal alternatives are the still existing gaps in scientific knowledge and technological limitations. The science-driven identification of most appropriate methods is key for furthering a multi-sectorial decrease in animal testing.

A biological system is more than the sum of its parts – it accomplishes many functions via synergy. Deconstructing the system down to the molecular mechanism level necessitates the complement of reconstructing functions on all levels, i.e., in our conceptualization of biology and its perturbations, our experimental models and computer modelling.Toxicology contains the somewhat arbitrary subclass “systemic toxicities”; however, there is no relevant toxic insult or general disease that is not systemic. At least inflammation and repair are involved that require coordinated signaling mechanisms across the organism. However, the more body components involved, the greater the challenge to reca­pitulate such toxicities using non-animal models. Here, the shortcomings of current systemic testing and the development of alternative approaches are summarized.We argue that we need a systematic approach to integrating existing knowledge as exemplified by systematic reviews and other evidence-based approaches. Such knowledge can guide us in modelling these systems using bioengineering and virtual computer models, i.e., via systems biology or systems toxicology approaches. Experimental multi-organ-on-chip and microphysiological systems (MPS) provide a more physiological view of the organism, facilitating more comprehensive coverage of systemic toxicities, i.e., the perturbation on organism level, without using substitute organisms (animals). The next challenge is to establish disease models, i.e., micropathophysiological systems (MPPS), to expand their utility to encompass biomedicine. Combining computational and experimental systems approaches and the chal­lenges of validating them are discussed. The suggested 3S approach promises to leverage 21st century technology and systematic thinking to achieve a paradigm change in studying systemic effects. published

International audience

The Japanese Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods (JaCVAM) sponsored an international prevalidation and validation study of the in vivo rat alkaline pH comet assay. The main objective of the study was to assess the sensitivity and specificity of the assay for correctly identifying genotoxic carcinogens, as compared with the traditional rat liver unscheduled DNA synthesis assay. Based on existing carcinogenicity and genotoxicity data and chemical class information, 90 chemicals were identified as primary candidates for use in the validation study. From these 90 chemicals, 46 secondary candidates and then 40 final chemicals were selected based on a sufficiency of carcinogenic and genotoxic data, differences in chemical class or genotoxic or carcinogenic mode of action (MOA), availability, price, and ease of handling. These 40 chemicals included 19 genotoxic carcinogens, 6 genotoxic non-carcinogens, 7 non-genotoxic carcinogens and 8 non-genotoxic non-carcinogens. "Genotoxicity" was defined as positive in the Ames mutagenicity test or in one of the standard in vivo genotoxicity tests (primarily the erythrocyte micronucleus assay). These chemicals covered various chemicals classes, MOAs, and genotoxicity profiles and were considered to be suitable for the purpose of the validation study. General principles of chemical selection for validation studies are discussed.

A Workshop sponsored by EURL ECVAM was held in Ispra, Italy in 2013 to consider whether the in vitro mammalian cell genotoxicity test results could complement and mitigate the implications of a positive Ames test response for the prediction of in vivo genotoxicity and carcinogenicity, and if patterns of results could be identified. Databases of Ames-positive chemicals that were tested for in vivo genotoxicity and/or carcinogenicity were collected from different sources and analysed individually (Kirkland et al., in this issue). Because there were overlaps and inconsistent test results among chemicals in the different databases, a combined database which eliminated the overlaps and evaluated the inconsistencies was considered preferable for addressing the above question. A database of >700 Ames-positive chemicals also tested in vivo was compiled, and the results in in vitro mammalian cell tests were analysed. Because the database was limited to Ames-positive chemicals, the majority (>85%) of carcinogens (103/119) and in vivo genotoxins (83/88) were positive when tested in both in vitro gene mutation and aneugenicity/clastogenicity tests. However, about half (>45%) of chemicals that were not carcinogenic (19/28) or genotoxic in vivo (33/73) also gave the same patterns of positive mammalian cell results. Although the different frequencies were statistically significant, positive results in 2 in vitro mammalian cell tests did not, per se, add to the predictivity of the positive Ames test. By contrast, negative results for both in vitro mammalian cell endpoints were rare for Ames-positive carcinogens (3/119) and in vivo genotoxins (2/88) but, were significantly more frequent for Ames-positive chemicals that are not carcinogenic (4/28) or genotoxic in vivo (14/73). Thus, in the case of an Ames-positive chemical, negative results in 2 in vitro mammalian cell tests covering both mutation and clastogenicity/aneugenicity endpoints should be considered as indicative of absence of in vivo genotoxic or carcinogenic potential.

Event report. The issue of epigenetic changes and their impact on human health and life span was prominently discussed at EFSA’s second scientific conference ‘Shaping the future of food safety, together’ in Milan. Epigenetic changes are molecular changes mainly in chromatin, such as DNA methylation, histone modifications, that modulate gene expression directly or indirectly through the expression of noncoding RNAs. There is increasing evidence to suggest that individual lifestyles, nutrition and environmental stressors can affect epigenetic processes and as a result, alter phenotypes, longevity, health and disease both within generations (from embryogenesis to adulthood) and in a transgenerational manner. In response to the interest in this issue, EFSA has selected epigenetics as the subject of its 22nd scientific colloquium, which was held on 14 and 15 June 2016 in Valencia, Spain. About 100 scientists, risk managers and policymakers discussed where we stand regarding our knowledge of epigenetic mechanisms. The overall objective of the discussions was to identify the potential role of epigenetics in food safety risk assessment. The colloquium was organised around four discussion groups looking at the following themes: incorporating epigenetics data in mode of action analysis; epigenetics and chemical risk assessment in humans; epigenetics in risk assessment of farmed animals for food production; epigenetics and environmental risk assessment. The main takehome message from the colloquium was to ask and seek answers to those questions that will increase our understanding of epigenetics. What do epigenetic modifications mean for safety assessment? How do we study them? What is the size of such modifications that we need worry about? Cooperation and collaboration between the various scientific disciplines and with the clinical side of epidemiology was identified as a necessary strategic element to improve scientific risk assessment.

The field of transcriptomics has expanded rapidly during the last decades. This methodology provides an exceptional framework to study not only molecular changes underlying the adverse effects of a given compound, but also to understand its Mode of Action (MoA). However, the implementation of transcriptomics-based tests within the regulatory arena is not a straightforward process. One of the major obstacles in their regulatory implementation is still the interpretation of this new class of data and the judgment of the level of confidence of these tests. A key element in the regulatory acceptance of transcriptomics-based tests is validation, which still represents a major challenge. Although important advances have been made in the development and standardisation of such tests, to date there is limited experience with their validation. Taking into account the experience acquired so far, this chapter describes those aspects that were identified as important in the validation process of transcriptomics-based tests, including the assessment of standardisation, reliability and relevance. It also critically discusses the challenges posed to validation in relation to the specific characteristics of these approaches and their application in the wider context of testing strategies.

The field of transcriptomics has expanded rapidly during the last decades. This methodology provides an exceptional framework to study not only molecular changes underlying the adverse effects of a given compound, but also to understand its Mode of Action (MoA). However, the implementation of transcriptomics-based tests within the regulatory arena is not a straightforward process. One of the major obstacles in their regulatory implementation is still the interpretation of this new class of data and the judgment of the level of confidence of these tests. A key element in the regulatory acceptance of transcriptomics-based tests is validation, which still represents a major challenge. Although important advances have been made in the development and standardisation of such tests, to date there is limited experience with their validation. Taking into account the experience acquired so far, this chapter describes those aspects that were identified as important in the validation process of transcriptomics-based tests, including the assessment of standardisation, reliability and relevance. It also critically discusses the challenges posed to validation in relation to the specific characteristics of these approaches and their application in the wider context of testing strategies.

This is the report from the “ECVAM–EFPIA workshop on 3T3 NRU Phototoxicity Test: Practical Experience and Implications for Phototoxicity Testing”, jointly organized by ECVAM and EFPIA and held on the 25–27 October 2010 in Somma Lombardo, Italy. The European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) was established in 1991 within the European Commission Joint Research, based on a Communication from the European Commission (1991). The main objective of ECVAM is to promote the scientific and regulatory acceptance of alternative methods which are of importance to the biosciences and which reduce, refine and replace the use of laboratory animals. The European Federation of Pharmaceuticals Industries and Association (EFPIA) represent the pharmaceutical industry operating in Europe. Through its direct membership of 31 national associations and 40 leading pharmaceutical companies, EFPIA is the voice on the EU scene of 2200 companies committed to researching, developing and bringing to patients new medicines that improve health and the quality of life around the world. The workshop, co-chaired by Joachim Kreysa (ECVAM) and Phil Wilcox (GSK, EFPIA) involved thirty-five experts from academia, regulatory authorities and industry, invited to contribute with their experiences in the field of phototoxicology. The main objectives of the workshop were: – to present ‘in use’ experience of the pharmaceutical industry with the 3T3 Neutral Red Uptake Phototoxicity Test (3T3 NRU-PT), – to discuss why it differs from the results in the original validation exercise, – to discuss technical issues and consider ways to improve the usability of the 3T3 NRU-PT for (non-topical) pharmaceuticals, e.g., by modifying the threshold of chemical light absorption to trigger photo-toxicological testing, and by modifying technical aspects of the assay, or adjusting the criteria used to classify a positive response. During the workshop, the assay methodology was reviewed by comparing the OECD Test Guideline (TG 432) with the protocols used in testing laboratories, data from EFPIA and JPMA ‘surveys’ were presented and possible reasons for the outcomes were discussed. Experts from cosmetics and pharmaceutical industries reported on their experience with the 3T3 NRU-PT and evidence was presented for phototoxic clinical symptoms that could be linked to certain relevant molecules. Brainstorming sessions discussed if the 3T3 NRU-PT needed to be improved and whether alternatives to the 3T3 NRU-PT exist. Finally, the viewpoint from EU and US regulators was presented. In the final session, the conclusions of the meeting were summarized, with action points. It was concluded that the 3T3 NRU-PT identifies phototoxicological hazards with a 100% sensitivity, and thus is accepted as the tier one test that correctly identifies the absence of phototoxic potential. Consequently, positive results in the 3T3 NRU-PT often do not translate into a clinical phototoxicity risk. Possible ways to improve the practical use of this assay include: (i) adaptation of changed UV/vis-absorption criteria as a means to reduce the number of materials tested, (ii) reduction of the highest concentration to be tested, and (iii) consideration of modifying the threshold criteria for the prediction of a positive call in the test.

The use of Integrated Testing Strategies (ITS) permits the combination of diverse types of chemical and toxicological data for the purposes of hazard identification and characterisation. In November 2008, the European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA), together with the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM), held a workshop on Overcoming Barriers to Validation of Non-animal Partial Replacement Methods/Integrated Testing Strategies, in Ispra, Italy, to discuss the extent to which current ECVAM approaches to validation can be used to evaluate partial replacement in vitro test methods (i.e. as potential ITS components) and ITS themselves. The main conclusions of these discussions were that formal validation was only considered necessary for regulatory purposes (e.g. the replacement of a test guideline), and that current ECVAM approaches to validation should be adapted to accommodate such test methods (1). With these conclusions in mind, a follow-up EPAA–ECVAM workshop was held in October 2009, to discuss the extent to which existing validation principles are applicable to the validation of ITS test methods, and to develop a draft approach for the validation of such test methods and/or overall ITS for regulatory purposes. This report summarises the workshop discussions that started with a review of the current validation methodologies and the presentation of two case studies (skin sensitisation and acute toxicity), before covering the definition of ITS and their components, including their validation and regulatory acceptance. The following main conclusions/recommendations were made: that the validation of a partial replacement test method (for application as part of a testing strategy) should be differentiated from the validation of an in vitro test method for application as a stand-alone replacement, especially with regard to its predictive capacity; that, in the former case, the predictive capacity of the whole testing strategy (rather than of the individual test methods) would be more important, especially if the individual test methods had a high biological relevance; that ITS allowing for flexible and ad hoc approaches cannot be validated, whereas the validation of clearly defined ITS would be feasible, although practically quite difficult; and that test method developers should be encouraged to develop and submit to ECVAM not only full replacement test methods, but also partial replacement methods to be placed as parts of testing strategies. The added value from the formal validation of testing strategies, and the requirements needed in view of regulatory acceptance of the data, require further informed discussion within the EPAA forum on the basis of case studies provided by industry.

Two year rodent bioassays play a key role in the assessment of carcinogenic potential of chemicals to humans. The seventh amendment to the European Cosmetics Directive will ban in 2013 the marketing of cosmetic and personal care products that contain ingredients that have been tested in animal models. Thus 2-year rodent bioassays will not be available for cosmetics/personal care products. Furthermore, for large testing programs like REACH, in vivo carcinogenicity testing is impractical. Alternative ways to carcinogenicity assessment are urgently required. In terms of standardization and validation, the most advanced alternative tests for carcinogenicity are the cell transformation assays (CTAs). Although CTAs do not mimic the whole carcinogenesis process in vivo, they represent a valuable support in identifying transforming potential of chemicals. CTAs have been shown to detect genotoxic as well as non-genotoxic carcinogens and are helpful in the determination of thresholds for genotoxic and non-genotoxic carcinogens. The extensive review on CTAs by the OECD (OECD 2007) and the proven within- and between- laboratories reproducibility of the SHE CTAs justifies broader use of these methods to assess carcinogenic potential of chemicals., JRC.I.2-Public Health Policy Support

Improving current in vitro genotoxicity tests is an ongoing task for genetic toxicologists. Further, the question on how to deal with positive in vitro results that are demonstrated to not predict genotoxicity or carcinogenicity potential in rodents or humans is a challenge. These two aspects were addressed at the 5th International Workshop on Genotoxicity Testing (IWGT) held in Basel, Switzerland, on August 17-19, 2009. The objectives of the working group (WG) were to make recommendations on the use of cell types or lines, if possible, and to provide evaluations of promising new approaches. Results obtained in rodent cell lines with impaired p53 function (L5178Y, V79, CHL and CHO cells) and human p53-competent cells (peripheral blood lymphocytes, TK6 and HepG2 cells) suggest that a reduction in the percentage of non-relevant positive results for carcinogenicity prediction can be achieved by careful selection of cells used without decreasing the sensitivity of the assays. Therefore, the WG suggested using p53- competent - preferably human - cells in in vitro micronucleus or chromosomal aberration tests. The use of the hepatoma cell line HepaRG for genotoxicity testing was considered promising since these cells possess better phase I and II metabolizing potential compared to cell lines commonly used in this area and may overcome the need for the addition of S9. For dermally applied compounds, the WG agreed that in vitro reconstructed skin models, once validated, will be useful to follow up on positive results from standard in vitro assays as they resemble the properties of human skin (barrier function, metabolism). While the reconstructed skin micronucleus assay has been shown to be further advanced, there was also consensus that the Comet assay should be further evaluated due to its independence from cell proliferation and coverage of a wider spectrum of DNA damage.

The 7th amendment to the EU Cosmetics Directive prohibits to put animal-tested cosmetics on the market in Europe after 2013. In that context, the European Commission invited stakeholder bodies (industry, non-governmental organisations, EU Member States, and the Commissions Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety) to identify scientific experts in five toxicological areas, i.e. toxicokinetics, repeated dose toxicity, carcinogenicity, skin sensitisation, and reproductive toxicity for which the Directive foresees that the 2013 deadline could be further extended in case alternative and validated methods would not be available in time. The selected experts were asked to analyse the status and prospects of alternative methods and to provide a scientifically sound estimate of the time necessary to achieve full replacement of animal testing. In summary, the experts confirmed that it will take at least another 79 years for the replacement of the current in vivo animal tests used for the safety assessment of cosmetic ingredients for skin sensitisation. However, the experts were also of the opinion that alternative methods may be able to give hazard information, i.e. to differentiate between sensitisers and non-sensitisers, ahead of 2017. This would, however, not provide the complete picture of what is a safe exposure because the relative potency of a sensitiser would not be known. For toxicokinetics, the timeframe was 57 years to develop the models still lacking to predict lung absorption and renal/biliary excretion, and even longer to integrate the methods to fully replace the animal toxicokinetic models. For the systemic toxicological endpoints of repeated dose toxicity, carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity, the time horizon for full replacement could not be estimated.

Background The current safety paradigm for assessing carcinogenic properties of drugs, cosmetics, industrial chemicals, and environmental exposures relies mainly on in vitro genotoxicity testing followed by 2-year rodent bioassays. This testing battery is extremely sensitive but has low specificity. Furthermore, rodent bioassays are associated with high costs, high animal burden, and limited predictive value for human risks. Objectives We provide a response to a growing appeal for a paradigm change in human cancer risk assessment. Methods To facilitate development of a road map for this needed paradigm change in carcinogenicity testing, a workshop titled “Genomics in Cancer Risk Assessment” brought together toxicologists from academia and industry and government regulators and risk assessors from the United States and the European Union. Participants discussed the state-of-the-art in developing alternative testing strategies for carcinogenicity, with emphasis on potential contributions from omics technologies. Results and Conclusions The goal of human risk assessment is to decide whether a given exposure to an agent is acceptable to human health and to provide risk management measures based on evaluating and predicting the effects of exposures on human health. Although exciting progress is being made using genomics approaches, a new paradigm that uses these methods and human material when possible would provide mechanistic insights that may inform new predictive approaches (e.g., in vitro assays) and facilitate the development of genomics-derived biomarkers. Regulators appear to be willing to accept such approaches where use is clearly defined, evidence is strong, and approaches are qualified for regulatory use.

The ability of the in vitro mammalian cell tests currently used to identify genotoxins has been shown to be limited by a high rate of false-positive results, triggering further unnecessary testing in vivo. During an European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods workshop on how to improve the specificity of these assays, testing at high concentrations was identified as one possible source of false positives. Thus far, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development genotoxicity test guidelines have required testing of chemicals using mammalian cells in vitro should be undertaken to concentrations as high as 10 mM (5000 mg/ml). Recently, a draft revision of the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use genotoxicity test guidelines has recommended that testing concentrations should be reduced to 1 mM (500 mg/ml). To assess the impact that this lowering would have on the outcome of in vitro genotoxicity testing, we established a database of 384 chemicals classified as rodent carcinogens and reported Ames test results and the test concentrations that produced positive results in the mouse lymphoma assay (MLA), in vitro chromosome aberration (CA) assay and in vitro micronucleus test. Genotoxicity testing results were illustrated for 229 and 338 compounds in the MLA and in vitro CA assay, respectively. Of these test compounds, 62.5% produced positive results in the MLA, of which 20.3% required testing between 1 and 10 mM. A total of 58.0% produced positive results in in vitro CA assays, of which 25.0%required testing between 1 and 10 mM. If the testing concentration limit for mammalian cell assays was reduced to 1 mM, 24 (6.25%) potential carcinogens would not be detected in any part of the standard in vitro genotoxicity test battery (Ames test, MLA and in vitro CA assay). Further re-evaluation and/or retest of these compounds by Kirkland and Fowler [Kirkland, D. and Fowler, P. (2010) Further analysis of Ames-negative rodent carcinogens that are only genotoxic in mammalian cells in vitro at concentrations exceeding 1 mM, including retesting of compounds of concern. Mutagenesis 25, 539¿553] suggest that the current 10 mM top concentration can be reduced without any loss of sensitivity in detecting rodent carcinogens., JRC.I.2-Validation of Alternative Methods

In vivo genetic toxicology tests measure direct DNA damage or the formation of gene or chromosomal mutations, and are used to predict the mutagenic and carcinogenic potential of compounds for regulatory purposes and/or to follow-up positive results from in vitro testing. These tests are widely used and consume large numbers of animals, with a foreseeable marked increase as a result of the EU chemicals legislation (REACH), which may require follow-up of any positive outcome in the in vitro standard battery with appropriate in vivo tests, regardless of the tonnage level of the chemical. A 2-day workshop with genotoxicity experts from academia, regulatory agencies and industry was hosted by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) in Ranco, Italy from 24 to 25 June 2008. The objectives of the workshop were to discuss how to reduce the number of animals in standard genotoxicity tests, whether the application of smarter test strategies can lead to lower animal numbers, and how the possibilities for reduction can be promoted and implemented. The workshop agreed that there are many reduction options available that are scientifically credible and therefore ready for use. Most of these are compliant with regulatory guidelines, i.e. the use of one sex only, one administration and two sampling times versus two or three administrations and one sampling time for micronucleus (MN), chromosomal aberration (CA) and Comet assays; and the integration of the MN endpoint into repeat-dose toxicity studies. The omission of a concurrent positive control in routine CA and MN tests has been proven to be scientifically acceptable, although the OECD guidelines still require this; also the combination of acute MN and Comet assay studies are compliant with guidelines, except for sampling times. Based on the data presented at the workshop, the participants concluded that these options have not been sufficiently utilized to date. Key factors for this seem to be the uncertainty regarding regulatory compliance/acceptance, lack of awareness, and an in many cases unjustified uncertainty regarding the scientific acceptance of reduction options. The workshop therefore encourages the use and promotion of these options as well as the dissemination of data related to reduction opportunities by the scientific community in order to boost the acceptance level of these approaches. Furthermore, experimental proof is needed and under way to demonstrate the credibility of additional options for reduction of the number of animals, such as the integration of the Comet assay into repeat-dose toxicity studies. © 2009 Elsevier B.V.

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.

In 2008 we published recommendations on chemicals that would be appropriate to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of new/modified mammalian cell genotoxicity tests, in particular to avoid misleading positive results. In light of new data it is appropriate to update these lists of chemicals. An expert panel was convened and has revised the recommended chemicals to fit the following different sets of characteristics: • Group 1: chemicals that should be detected as positive in in vitro mammalian cell genotoxicity tests. Chemicals in this group are all in vivo genotoxins at one or more endpoints, either due to DNA-reactive or non DNA-reactive mechanisms. Many are known carcinogens with a mutagenic mode of action, but a sub-class of probable aneugens has been introduced. • Group 2: chemicals that should give negative results in in vitro mammalian cell genotoxicity tests. Chemicals in this group are usually negative in vivo and non-DNA-reactive. They are either non-carcinogenic or rodent carcinogens with a non-mutagenic mode of action. • Group 3: chemicals that should give negative results in in vitro mammalian cell genotoxicity tests, but have been reported to induce gene mutations in mouse lymphoma cells, chromosomal aberrations or micronuclei, often at high concentrations or at high levels of cytotoxicity. Chemicals in this group are generally negative in vivo and negative in the Ames test. They are either non-carcinogenic or rodent carcinogens with an accepted non-mutagenic mode of action. This group contains comments as to any conditions that can be identified under which misleading positive results are likely to occur. This paper, therefore, updates these three recommended lists of chemicals and describes how these should be used for any test evaluation program.

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.

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 exercise was to establish an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) test guideline. The study protocol was optimized in the pre-validation studies, and then the definitive (4th phase) validation study was conducted in two steps. In the 1st step, assay reproducibility was confirmed among laboratories using four coded reference chemicals and the positive control ethyl methanesulfonate. In the 2nd step, the predictive capability was investigated using 40 coded chemicals with known genotoxic and carcinogenic activity (i.e., genotoxic carcinogens, genotoxic non-carcinogens, non-genotoxic carcinogens, and non-genotoxic non-carcinogens). Based on the results obtained, the in vivo comet assay is concluded to be highly capable of identifying genotoxic chemicals and therefore can serve as a reliable predictor of rodent carcinogenicity.

This is the report of the first workshop "Validation of Toxicogenomics-Based Test Systems" held 11-12 December 2003 in Ispra, Italy. The workshop was hosted by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) and organized jointly by ECVAM, the U.S. Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM), and the National Toxicology Program (NTP) Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM). The primary aim of the workshop was for participants to discuss and define principles applicable to the validation of toxicogenomics platforms as well as validation of specific toxicologic test methods that incorporate toxicogenomics technologies. The workshop was viewed as an opportunity for initiating a dialogue between technologic experts, regulators, and the principal validation bodies and for identifying those factors to which the validation process would be applicable. It was felt that to do so now, as the technology is evolving and associated challenges are identified, would be a basis for the future validation of the technology when it reaches the appropriate stage. Because of the complexity of the issue, different aspects of the validation of toxicogenomics-based test methods were covered. The three focus areas include a) biologic validation of toxicogenomics-based test methods for regulatory decision making, b) technical and bioinformatics aspects related to validation, and c) validation issues as they relate to regulatory acceptance and use of toxicogenomics-based test methods. In this report we summarize the discussions and describe in detail the recommendations for future direction and priorities.