ICH-Harmonised guidances on genotoxicity testing of pharmaceuticals: evolution,reasoning and impact

The International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) has convened an expert working group which consisted of the authors of this paper and their respective committees, consulting groups and task forces. Two ICH guidances regarding genotoxicity testing have been issued: S2A, `Guidance on Specific Aspects of Regulatory Genotoxicity Tests' and S2B, `Genotoxicity: A Standard Battery for Genotoxicity Testing of Pharmaceuticals.' Together, these guidance documents now form the regulatory backbone for genotoxicity testing and assessment of pharmaceuticals in the European Union, Japan, and the USA. These guidances do not constitute a revolutionary new approach to genotoxicity testing and assessment, instead they are an evolution from preexisting regional guidelines, guidances and technical approaches. Both guidances describe a number of specific criteria as well as a general test philosophy in genotoxicity testing. Although these guidances were previously released within the participating regions in their respective regulatory communiqués, to ensure their wider distribution and better understanding, the texts of the guidances are reproduced here in their entirety (see Appendix A) and the background for the recommendations are described. The establishment of a standard battery for genotoxicity testing of pharmaceuticals was one of the most important issues of the harmonisation effort. This battery currently consists of: (i) a test for gene mutation in bacteria, (ii) an in vitro test with cytogenetic evaluation of chromosomal damage with mammalian cells or an in vitro mouse lymphoma tk assay, (iii) an in vivo test for chromosomal damage using rodent hematopoietic cells. A major change in testing philosophy is the acceptance of the interchangeability of testing for chromosomal aberrations in mammalian cells and the mouse lymphoma tk assay. This agreement was reached on the basis of the extensive review of databases and newly generated experimental data which are in part described in this publication. The authors are fully aware of the fact that some of the recommendations given in these ICH guidances are transient in nature and that the dynamic qualities and ongoing evolution of genetic toxicology makes necessary a continuous maintenance process that would serve to update the guidance as necessary.     

Human biological relevance and the use of threshold-arguments in regulatory genotoxicity assessment: experience with pharmaceuticals

Issues of biological relevance and thresholds for genotoxicity are discussed here based upon the background of experience with the submissions for the approval of new pharmaceuticals to the German regulatory authority over the period between 1990 and 1997. This experience shows that out of the genotoxicity test systems which are required according to existing guidelines in the European Union (EU), the in vitro tests for chromosomal aberrations (CA) and the mouse lymphoma tk assays (MLA) yield a rate of positives that is about four-fold higher than that of other genotoxicity tests. A detailed analysis of chemical and pharmacological classes of compounds and their effects in these systems reveals that in addition to direct DNA reactivity several mechanisms of indirect genotoxicity such as nucleoside analogue incorporation into DNA, interaction with microtubule assembly, topoisomerase inhibition and high levels of cytotoxicity are relevant. New pharmaceuticals, for which the latter mechanisms apply, often display threshold-like characteristics in their genotoxic effects in vitro or even in vivo in experimental animals. This casts doubt upon the relevance of positive in vitro test results for such compounds. However, the discussion of examples shows that it may not be easy to demonstrate the exact thresholded mechanism of genotoxicity in a given case. In particular, the demonstration of a coincidence of genotoxicity and high levels of cytotoxicity, which seems to be a major factor for biologically non-relevant in vitro positive new pharmaceuticals, usually requires quite extensive testing. Hence, for new pharmaceuticals it is practice to provide in addition to in vitro results that may be thresholded a wealth of information from in vivo studies on genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, metabolism, pharmacokinetics, etc. the results of which help in assessing the biological relevance of in vitro positives. The regulatory acknowledgement of biologically non-relevant, thresholded mechanisms of (in vitro) genotoxicity in addition to those that are considered relevant for human risk ensures a better understanding of test results and is needed for the credibility of genotoxicity testing practice in general.     

Testing strategies in mutagenicity and genetic toxicology: an appraisal of the guidelines of the European Scientific Committee for Cosmetics and Non-Food Products for the evaluation of hair dyes

The European Scientific Committee on Cosmetics and Non-Food Products (SCCNFP) guideline for testing of hair dyes for genotoxic/mutagenic/carcinogenic potential has been reviewed. The battery of six in vitro tests recommended therein differs substantially from the batteries of two or three in vitro tests recommended in other guidelines. Our evaluation of the chemical types used in hair dyes and comparison with other guidelines for testing a wide range of chemical substances, lead to the conclusion that potential genotoxic activity may effectively be determined by the application of a limited number of well-validated test systems that are capable of detecting induced gene mutations and structural and numerical chromosomal changes. We conclude that highly effective screening for genotoxicity of hair dyes can be achieved by the use of three assays, namely the bacterial gene mutation assay, the mammalian cell gene mutation assay (mouse lymphoma tk assay preferred) and the in vitro micronucleus assay. These need to be combined with metabolic activation systems optimised for the individual chemical types. Recent published evidence [D. Kirkland, M. Aardema, L. Henderson, L. Müller, Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens. I. Sensitivity, specificity and relative predictivity, Mutat. Res. 584 (2005) 1-256] suggests that our recommended three tests will detect all known genotoxic carcinogens, and that increasing the number of in vitro assays further would merely reduce specificity (increase false positives). Of course there may be occasions when standard tests need to be modified to take account of special situations such as a specific pathway of biotransformation, but this should be considered as part of routine testing. It is clear that individual dyes and any other novel ingredients should be tested in this three-test battery. However, new products are formed on the scalp by reaction between the chemicals present in hair-dye formulations. Ideally, these should also be tested for genotoxicity, but at present such experiences are very limited. There is also the possibility that one component could mask the genotoxicity of another (e.g. by being more toxic), and so it is not practical at this time to recommend routine testing of complete hair-dye formulations as well. The most sensible approach would be to establish whether any reaction products within the hair-dye formulation penetrate the skin under normal conditions of use and test only those that penetrate at toxicologically relevant levels in the three-test in vitro battery. Recently published data [D. Kirkland, M. Aardema, L. Henderson, L. Müller, Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens. I. Sensitivity, specificity and relative predictivity, Mutat. Res. 584 (2005) 1-256] suggest the three-test battery will produce a significant number of false as well as real positives. Whilst we are aware of the desire to reduce animal experiments, determining the relevance of positive results in any of the three recommended in vitro assays will most likely have to be determined by use of in vivo assays. The bone marrow micronucleus test using routes of administration such as oral or intraperitoneal may be used where the objective is extended hazard identification. If negative results are obtained in this test, then a second in vivo test should be conducted. This could be an in vivo UDS in rat liver or a Comet assay in a relevant tissue. However, for hazard characterisation, tests using topical application with measurement of genotoxicity in the skin would be more appropriate. Such specific site-of-contact in vivo tests would minimise animal toxicity burden and invasiveness, and, especially for hair dyes, be more relevant to human routes of exposure, but there are not sufficient scientific data available to allow recommendations to be made. The generation of such data is encouraged.     

Testing strategies in mutagenicity and genetic toxicology: An appraisal of the guidelines of the European Scientific Committee for Cosmetics and Non-Food Products for the evaluation of hair dyes

The European Scientific Committee on Cosmetics and Non-Food Products (SCCNFP) guideline for testing of hair dyes for genotoxic/mutagenic/carcinogenic potential has been reviewed. The battery of six in vitro tests recommended therein differs substantially from the batteries of two or three in vitro tests recommended in other guidelines. Our evaluation of the chemical types used in hair dyes and comparison with other guidelines for testing a wide range of chemical substances, lead to the conclusion that potential genotoxic activity may effectively be determined by the application of a limited number of well-validated test systems that are capable of detecting induced gene mutations and structural and numerical chromosomal changes.We conclude that highly effective screening for genotoxicity of hair dyes can be achieved by the use of three assays, namely the bacterial gene mutation assay, the mammalian cell gene mutation assay (mouse lymphoma tk assay preferred) and the in vitro micronucleus assay. These need to be combined with metabolic activation systems optimised for the individual chemical types.Recent published evidence [D. Kirkland, M. Aardema, L. Henderson, L. Müller, Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens. I. Sensitivity, specificity and relative predictivity, Mutat. Res. 584 (2005) 1–256] suggests that our recommended three tests will detect all known genotoxic carcinogens, and that increasing the number of in vitro assays further would merely reduce specificity (increase false positives). Of course there may be occasions when standard tests need to be modified to take account of special situations such as a specific pathway of biotransformation, but this should be considered as part of routine testing.It is clear that individual dyes and any other novel ingredients should be tested in this three-test battery. However, new products are formed on the scalp by reaction between the chemicals present in hair-dye formulations. Ideally, these should also be tested for genotoxicity, but at present such experiences are very limited. There is also the possibility that one component could mask the genotoxicity of another (e.g. by being more toxic), and so it is not practical at this time to recommend routine testing of complete hair-dye formulations as well. The most sensible approach would be to establish whether any reaction products within the hair-dye formulation penetrate the skin under normal conditions of use and test only those that penetrate at toxicologically relevant levels in the three-test in vitro battery.Recently published data [D. Kirkland, M. Aardema, L. Henderson, L. Müller, Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens. I. Sensitivity, specificity and relative predictivity, Mutat. Res. 584 (2005) 1–256] suggest the three-test battery will produce a significant number of false as well as real positives. Whilst we are aware of the desire to reduce animal experiments, determining the relevance of positive results in any of the three recommended in vitro assays will most likely have to be determined by use of in vivo assays. The bone marrow micronucleus test using routes of administration such as oral or intraperitoneal may be used where the objective is extended hazard identification. If negative results are obtained in this test, then a second in vivo test should be conducted. This could be an in vivo UDS in rat liver or a Comet assay in a relevant tissue. However, for hazard characterisation, tests using topical application with measurement of genotoxicity in the skin would be more appropriate. Such specific site-of-contact in vivo tests would minimise animal toxicity burden and invasiveness, and, especially for hair dyes, be more relevant to human routes of exposure, but there are not sufficient scientific data available to allow recommendations to be made. The generation of such data is encouraged.     

Follow-up testing of rodent carcinogens not positive in the standard genotoxicity testing battery: IWGT workgroup report

At the Plymouth Third International Workshop on Genotoxicity Testing in June 2002, a new expert group started a working process to provide guidance on a common strategy for genotoxicity testing beyond the current standard battery. The group identified amongst others "Follow-up testing of tumorigenic agents not positive in the standard genotoxicity test battery" as one subject for further consideration [L. Müller, D. Blakey, K.L. Dearfield, S. Galloway, P. Guzzie, M. Hayashi, P. Kasper, D. Kirkland, J.T. MacGregor, J.M. Parry, L. Schechtman, A. Smith, N. Tanaka, D. Tweats, H. Yamasaki, Strategy for genotoxicity testing and stratification of genotoxicity test results-report on initial activities of the IWGT Expert Group, Mutat. Res. 540 (2003) 177-181]. A workgroup devoted to this topic was formed and met on September 9-10, 2005, in San Francisco. This workgroup was devoted to the discussion of when it would be appropriate to conduct additional genetic toxicology studies, as well as what type of studies, if the initial standard battery of tests was negative, but tumor formation was observed in the rodent carcinogenicity assessment. The important role of the standard genetic toxicology testing to determine the mode of action (MOA) for carcinogenesis (genotoxic versus non-genotoxic) was discussed, but the limitations of the standard testing were also reviewed. The workgroup also acknowledged that the entire toxicological profile (e.g. structure-activity relationships, the nature of the tumor finding and metabolic profiles) of a compound needed to be taken into consideration before the conduct of any additional testing. As part of the meeting, case studies were discussed to understand the practical application of additional testing as well as to form a decision tree. Finally, suitable additional genetic toxicology assays to help determine the carcinogenic MOA or establish a weight of evidence (WOE) argument were discussed and formulated into a decision tree.     

Report of the IWGT working group on strategy/interpretation for regulatory in vivo tests II. Identification of in vivo-only positive compounds in the bone marrow micronucleus test

A survey conducted as part of an International Workshop on Genotoxicity Testing (IWGT) has identified a number of compounds that appear to be more readily detected in vivo than in vitro. The reasons for this property varies from compound to compound and includes metabolic differences; the influence of gut flora; higher exposures in vivo compared to in vitro; effects on pharmacology, in particular folate depletion or receptor kinase inhibition. It is possible that at least some of these compounds are detectable in vitro if a specific in vitro test is chosen as part of the test battery, but the 'correct' choice of test may not always be obvious when testing a compound of unknown genotoxicity. It is noted that many of the compounds identified in this study interfere with cell cycle kinetics and this can result in either aneugenicity or chromosome breakage. A decision tree is outlined as a guide for the evaluation of compounds that appear to be genotoxic agents in vivo but not in vitro. The regulatory implications of these findings are discussed.     

A core in vitro genotoxicity battery comprising the Ames test plus the in vitro micronucleus test is sufficient to detect rodent carcinogens and in vivo genotoxins

In vitro genotoxicity testing needs to include tests in both bacterial and mammalian cells, and be able to detect gene mutations, chromosomal damage and aneuploidy. This may be achieved by a combination of the Ames test (detects gene mutations) and the in vitro micronucleus test (MNvit), since the latter detects both chromosomal aberrations and aneuploidy. In this paper we therefore present an analysis of an existing database of rodent carcinogens and a new database of in vivo genotoxins in terms of the in vitro genotoxicity tests needed to detect their in vivo activity. Published in vitro data from at least one test system (most were from the Ames test) were available for 557 carcinogens and 405 in vivo genotoxins. Because there are fewer publications on the MNvit than for other mammalian cell tests, and because the concordance between the MNvit and the in vitro chromosomal aberration (CAvit) test is so high for clastogenic activity, positive results in the CAvit test were taken as indicative of a positive result in the MNvit where there were no, or only inadequate data for the latter. Also, because Hprt and Tk loci both detect gene-mutation activity, a positive Hprt test was taken as indicative of a mouse-lymphoma Tk assay (MLA)-positive, where there were no data for the latter. Almost all of the 962 rodent carcinogens and in vivo genotoxins were detected by an in vitro battery comprising Ames+MNvit. An additional 11 carcinogens and six in vivo genotoxins would apparently be detected by the MLA, but many of these had not been tested in the MNvit or CAvit tests. Only four chemicals emerge as potentially being more readily detected in MLA than in Ames+MNvit--benzyl acetate, toluene, morphine and thiabendazole--and none of these are convincing cases to argue for the inclusion of the MLA in addition to Ames+MNvit. Thus, there is no convincing evidence that any genotoxic rodent carcinogens or in vivo genotoxins would remain undetected in an in vitro test battery consisting of Ames+MNvit.     

Considerations on photochemical genotoxicity. II: report of the 2009 International Workshop on Genotoxicity Testing Working Group

A workshop to reappraise the previous IWGT recommendations for photogenotoxicity testing [E. Gocke, L. Muller, P.J. Guzzie, S. Brendler-Schwaab, S. Bulera, C.F. Chignell, L.M. Henderson, A. Jacobs, H. Murli, R.D. Snyder, N. Tanaka, Considerations on photochemical genotoxicity: report of the International Workshop on Genotoxicity Test Procedures working group, Environ. Mol. Mutagen., 35 (2000) 173-184] was recently held as part of the 5th International Workshop on Genotoxicity Testing (IWGT) meeting in Basel, Switzerland (August 17-19, 2009). An Expert Panel was convened from regulatory, academic and industrial scientists (with several members serving on the original panel) and chaired by Dr Peter Kasper (BfArM, Germany). The aim of the workshop was to review progress made in photo(geno)toxicity testing over the past decade; a period which saw the introduction of several regulatory photosafety guidances in particular in Europe and the USA. Based on current regulatory guidelines a substantial proportion of compounds trigger the requirements for photosafety testing. Moreover, there has been growing concern within industry about the performance of the in vitro photosafety tests in the "real world" of compound development. Therefore, the expert group reviewed the status of the current regulatory guidance's and the impact these have had on compound development in the context of the various triggers for photosafety testing. In addition, the performance of photogenotoxicity assays (old and new) was discussed, particularly in view of reports of pseudophotoclastogencity. The Expert Panel finished with an assessment of the positioning of photogenotoxicity testing within a photosafety testing strategy. The most significant conclusion made by the Expert Panel was that photogenotoxicity testing should no longer be recommended as part of the standard photosafety testing strategy. In addition, progress was made on the refinement of triggers for photosafety testing. For example, there was support for harmonisation of methods to determine the Molar Extinction Coefficient (MEC) and a consensus agreement that there should be no requirement for testing of compounds with a MEC<1000Lmol(-1)cm(-1).     

Genotoxicity risk assessment: a proposed classification strategy

Recent advances in genetic toxicity (mutagenicity) testing methods and in approaches to performing risk assessment are prompting a renewed effort to harmonize genotoxicity risk assessment across the world. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) first published Guidelines for Mutagenicity Risk Assessment in 1986 that focused mainly on transmissible germ cell genetic risk. Somatic cell genetic risk has also been a risk consideration, usually in support of carcinogenicity assessments. EPA and other international regulatory bodies have published mutagenicity testing requirements for agents (pesticides, pharmaceuticals, etc.) to generate data for use in genotoxicity risk assessments. The scheme that follows provides a proposed harmonization approach in which genotoxicity assessments are fully developed within the risk assessment paradigm used by EPA, and sets out a process that integrates newer thinking in testing battery design with the risk assessment process. A classification strategy for agents based on inherent genotoxicity, dose-responses observed in the data, and an exposure analysis is proposed. The classification leads to an initial level of concern for genotoxic risk to humans. A total risk characterization is performed using all relevant toxicity data and a comprehensive exposure evaluation in association with the genotoxicity data. The result of this characterization is ultimately used to generate a final level of concern for genotoxic risk to humans. The final level of concern and characterized genotoxicity risk assessment are communicated to decision makers for possible regulatory action(s) and to the public.     

Genotoxicity risk assessment: a proposed classification strategy

Recent advances in genetic toxicity (mutagenicity) testing methods and in approaches to performing risk assessment are prompting a renewed effort to harmonize genotoxicity risk assessment across the world. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) first published Guidelines for Mutagenicity Risk Assessment in 1986 that focused mainly on transmissible germ cell genetic risk. Somatic cell genetic risk has also been a risk consideration, usually in support of carcinogenicity assessments. EPA and other international regulatory bodies have published mutagenicity testing requirements for agents (pesticides, pharmaceuticals, etc.) to generate data for use in genotoxicity risk assessments. The scheme that follows provides a proposed harmonization approach in which genotoxicity assessments are fully developed within the risk assessment paradigm used by EPA, and sets out a process that integrates newer thinking in testing battery design with the risk assessment process. A classification strategy for agents based on inherent genotoxicity, dose-responses observed in the data, and an exposure analysis is proposed. The classification leads to an initial level of concern for genotoxic risk to humans. A total risk characterization is performed using all relevant toxicity data and a comprehensive exposure evaluation in association with the genotoxicity data. The result of this characterization is ultimately used to generate a final level of concern for genotoxic risk to humans. The final level of concern and characterized genotoxicity risk assessment are communicated to decision makers for possible regulatory action(s) and to the public.     

Strategy for genotoxicity testing--metabolic considerations

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.     

Effect of reducing the top concentration used in the in vitro chromosomal aberration test in CHL cells on the evaluation of industrial chemical genotoxicity

A current concern with in vitro mammalian cell genotoxicity testing is the high frequency of false or misleading positive results caused in part by the past use of excessively high test concentrations. A dataset of 249 industrial chemicals used in Japan and tested for genotoxicity was analyzed. Of these, 116 (46.6%) were positive in the in vitro chromosomal aberration (CA) test, including 6 that were positive only at test concentrations >10mM. There were 59 CA-positive chemicals at test concentrations ≤ 1mM. At >1mM, 51 chemicals were CA-positive, including 13 Ames-positive chemicals, which were therefore not "missed" by the test battery. Thus, 38 potentially positive chemicals would not have been detected in the test battery if the top test concentration was limited to 1mM in CA test. Analysis of the relevance of CA results on the 38 missed chemicals was conducted based on a weight of evidence approach, including evaluations of effects of extreme culture conditions (low pH, high toxicity, or precipitation), in silico structural alert analysis, in vivo genotoxicity and carcinogenicity test data (where available), mode of action, or information from closely related chemicals. After an exhaustive review, there were four chemicals with some concern for human health risk assessment, nine with minimal concern, and the remaining 25 with negligible concern. We apply different top concentrations to the 38 missed chemicals to identify the most accurate approach for predicting the genotoxicity of industrial chemicals. Of these 2mM or 1mg/mL, whichever is higher, was the most effective in detecting these chemicals, i.e., relatively higher (8/13) or lower (17/25) detection among 13 chemicals with some or minimal concern, or 25 with negligible concern, respectively. Lower top concentration limits, 1mM or 0.5mg/mL, whichever is higher, are not as effective (2/13) for detecting these chemicals with concern. Therefore, we conclude 2mM or 1mg/mL, whichever is higher, would be an appropriate top concentration limit for testing industrial chemicals for chromosome damage.     

In vitro genotoxicity testing strategy for nanomaterials and the adaptation of current OECD guidelines

There is a pressing requirement to define a hazard identification and risk management strategy for nanomaterials due to the rapid growth in the nanotechnology industry and their promise of life-style revolutions through the development of wide-ranging nano-containing consumer products. Consequently, a battery of well defined and appropriate in vitro assays to assess a number of genotoxicity endpoints is required to minimise extensive and costly in vivo testing. However, the validity of the established protocols in current OECD recognised genotoxicity assays for nanomaterials is currently being questioned. In this report, we therefore consider the in vitro OECD genotoxicity test battery including the Ames, micronucleus and HPRT forward mutation assays, and their potential role in the safety assessment of nanomaterial induced DNA damage in vitro.     

Considerations in assessing the developmental and reproductive toxicity potential of biopharmaceuticals

This report discusses the principles of developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART) testing for biopharmaceuticals. Biopharmaceuticals are large-molecular-weight proteins or peptides produced by modern biotechnology techniques incorporating genetic engineering and hybridoma technologies. The principles of DART testing for biopharmaceuticals are similar to those for small-molecule pharmaceuticals and in general follow the regulatory guidance outlined in International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) document S5(R2). However, because many biopharmaceuticals are species-specific, alternate approaches may be needed to evaluate DART potential as outlined in ICH S6. For molecules that show species-specific cross-reactivity restricted to non-human primates (NHP), some aspects of DART may require NHP testing. For biopharmaceuticals that are uniquely specific and only active on intended human targets or human and chimpanzee targets, surrogate molecules that cross-react with the more traditional rodent species may need to be developed and used for DART testing. Alternatively, genetically modified transgenic animals may also need to be considered. Surrogate molecules and transgenic animals may also be considered for DART testing even if the biopharmaceutical is active in NHPs in order to reduce the use of NHPs. Because of the unique properties of biopharmaceuticals, a case-by-case approach is needed for DART and general toxicity evaluation, which requires consideration of specific product attributes including biochemical and biophysical characteristics, pharmacological activity, and intended clinical indication. Birth Defects Res (Part B), 33:176–203, 2009. © 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

In vitro genotoxicity test approaches with better predictivity: summary of an IWGT workshop

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 genotoxicity of 3-nitrobenzanthrone and the nitropyrene lactones in human lymphoblasts

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and nitrated polycyclic aromatic compounds (nitro-PAC) have been found to be mutagenic in bacterial and human cells as well as carcinogenic in rodents. In this investigation, the genotoxic effects of 3-nitrobenzanthrone (3NB) and a mixture of nitropyrene lactones (NPLs) were determined using forward mutation assays performed in two human B-lymphoblastoid cell lines, MCL-5 and h1A1v2, which are responsive to the nitro-PAC class of compounds. Mutagenicity of the compounds was determined at the heterozygous tk locus and the hemizygous hprt locus, thus, identifying both large-scale loss of heterozygosity (LOH) events as well as intragenic mutagenic events. Genotoxicity was also determined using the CREST modified micronucleus assay, which detects chromosomal loss and breakage events. Results indicate 3NB is an effective human cell mutagen, significantly inducing mutations at the tk and hprt loci in both cell lines, and inducing micronuclei in the h1A1v2 cell line. The NPL isomers are also mutagenic, inducing mutations at the two loci as well as micronuclei in both cell lines. Because of their mutagenic potencies and their presence in ambient air, further assessments should be made of human exposures to these nitro-PAC and the potential health risks involved.     

Genotoxicity investigations on nanomaterials: Methods,preparation and characterization of test material,potential artifacts and limitations—Many questions,some answers

Nanomaterials display novel properties to which most toxicologists have not consciously been exposed before the advent of their practical use. The same properties, small size and particular shape, large surface area and surface activity, which make nanomaterials attractive in many applications, may contribute to their toxicological profile. This review describes what is known about genotoxicity investigations on nanomaterials published in the openly available scientific literature to-date. The most frequently used test was the Comet assay: 19 studies, 14 with positive outcome. The second most frequently used test was the micronucleus test: 14 studies, 12 of them with positive outcome. The Ames test, popular with other materials, was less frequently used (6 studies) and was almost always negative, the bacterial cell wall possibly being a barrier for many nanomaterials. Recommendations for improvements emerging from analyzing the reports summarized in this review are: Know what nanomaterial has been tested (and in what form); Consider uptake and distribution of the nanomaterial; Use standardized methods; Recognize that nanomaterials are not all the same; Use in vivo studies to correlate in vitro results; Take nanomaterials specific properties into account; Learn about the mechanism of nanomaterials genotoxic effects. It is concluded that experiences with other, non-nano, substances (molecules and larger particles) taught us that mechanisms of genotoxic effects can be diverse and their elucidation can be demanding, while there often is an immediate need to assess the genotoxic hazard. Thus a practical, pragmatic approach is the use of a battery of standard genotoxicity testing methods covering a wide range of mechanisms. Application of these standard methods to nanomaterials demands adaptations and the interpretation of results from the genotoxicity tests may need additional considerations. This review should help to improve standard genotoxicity testing as well as investigations on the underlying mechanism and the interpretation of genotoxicity data on nanomaterials.     

Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens I. Sensitivity, specificity and relative predictivity

The performance of a battery of three of the most commonly used in vitro genotoxicity tests--Ames+mouse lymphoma assay (MLA)+in vitro micronucleus (MN) or chromosomal aberrations (CA) test--has been evaluated for its ability to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens, from a large database of over 700 chemicals compiled from the CPDB ("Gold"), NTP, IARC and other publications. We re-evaluated many (113 MLA and 30 CA) previously published genotoxicity results in order to categorise the performance of these assays using the response categories we established. The sensitivity of the three-test battery was high. Of the 553 carcinogens for which there were valid genotoxicity data, 93% of the rodent carcinogens evaluated in at least one assay gave positive results in at least one of the three tests. Combinations of two and three test systems had greater sensitivity than individual tests resulting in sensitivities of around 90% or more, depending on test combination. Only 19 carcinogens (out of 206 tested in all three tests, considering CA and MN as alternatives) gave consistently negative results in a full three-test battery. Most were either carcinogenic via a non-genotoxic mechanism (liver enzyme inducers, peroxisome proliferators, hormonal carcinogens) considered not necessarily relevant for humans, or were extremely weak (presumed) genotoxic carcinogens (e.g. N-nitrosodiphenylamine). Two carcinogens (5-chloro-o-toluidine, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane) may have a genotoxic element to their carcinogenicity and may have been expected to produce positive results somewhere in the battery. We identified 183 chemicals that were non-carcinogenic after testing in both male and female rats and mice. There were genotoxicity data on 177 of these. The specificity of the Ames test was reasonable (73.9%), but all mammalian cell tests had very low specificity (i.e. below 45%), and this declined to extremely low levels in combinations of two and three test systems. When all three tests were performed, 75-95% of non-carcinogens gave positive (i.e. false positive) results in at least one test in the battery. The extremely low specificity highlights the importance of understanding the mechanism by which genotoxicity may be induced (whether it is relevant for the whole animal or human) and using weight of evidence approaches to assess the carcinogenic risk from a positive genotoxicity signal. It also highlights deficiencies in the current prediction from and understanding of such in vitro results for the in vivo situation. It may even signal the need for either a reassessment of the conditions and criteria for positive results (cytotoxicity, solubility, etc.) or the development and use of a completely new set of in vitro tests (e.g. mutation in transgenic cell lines, systems with inherent metabolic activity avoiding the use of S9, measurement of genetic changes in more cancer-relevant genes or hotspots of genes, etc.). It was very difficult to assess the performance of the in vitro MN test, particularly in combination with other assays, because the published database for this assay is relatively small at this time. The specificity values for the in vitro MN assay may improve if data from a larger proportion of the known non-carcinogens becomes available, and a larger published database of results with the MN assay is urgently needed if this test is to be appreciated for regulatory use. However, specificity levels of <50% will still be unacceptable. Despite these issues, by adopting a relative predictivity (RP) measure (ratio of real:false results), it was possible to establish that positive results in all three tests indicate the chemical is greater than three times more likely to be a rodent carcinogen than a non-carcinogen. Likewise, negative results in all three tests indicate the chemical is greater than two times more likely to be a rodent non-carcinogen than a carcinogen. This RP measure is considered a useful tool for industry to assess the likelihood of a chemical possessing carcinogenic potential from batteries of positive or negative results.     

Update on genotoxicity and carcinogenicity testing of 472 marketed pharmaceuticals

This survey is a compendium of genotoxicity and carcinogenicity information of 838 marketed drugs, whose expected clinical use is continuous for at least 6 months or intermittent over an extended period of time. Of these 838 drugs, 366 (43.7%) do not have retrievable genotoxicity or carcinogenicity data. The remaining 472 (56.3%) have at least one genotoxicity or carcinogenicity test result. Of the 449 drugs with at least one genotoxicity test result, 183 (40.8%) have at least one positive finding. Of the 338 drugs with at least one carcinogenicity test result, 160 (47.3%) have at least one positive result. Concerning the predictivity of genetic toxicology findings for long-term carcinogenesis assays, of the 315 drugs which have both genotoxicity and carcinogenicity data 116 (36.8%) are neither genotoxic nor carcinogenic, 50 (15.9%) are non-carcinogens which test positive in at least one genotoxicity assay, 75 (23.8%) are carcinogenic in at least one sex of mice or rats but test negative in genotoxicity assays, and 74 (23.5%) are both genotoxic and carcinogenic. Only 208 (24.8%) of the 838 drugs considered have all data required by current guidelines for testing of pharmaceuticals. However, it should be noted that a large fraction of the drugs considered were developed and marketed prior to the present regulatory climate. Although the laws do not require re-testing based on revised standards, in the absence of epidemiological studies excluding a carcinogenic risk to humans, a re-evalutation would be appropriate.     

Genotoxicity and carcinogenicity studies of antihypertensive agents

This survey is a compendium of genotoxicity and carcinogenicity information of antihypertensive drugs. Data from 164 marketed drugs were collected. Of the 164 drugs, 65 (39.6%) had no retrievable genotoxicity or carcinogenicity data; this group was comprised largely of drugs marketed in a limited number of countries. The remaining 99 (60.4%) had at least one genotoxicity or carcinogenicity test result. Of these 99, 48 (48.5%) had at least one positive finding: 32 tested positive in at least one genotoxicity assay, 26 in at least one carcinogenicity assay, and 10 gave a positive result in both at least one genotoxicity assay and at least one carcinogenicity assay. In terms of correlation between results of the various genotoxicity assays and absence of carcinogenic activity in both mice and rats 2 of 44 non-carcinogenic drugs tested positive in the in vitro bacterial mutagenesis assay, 2 of 9 tested positive in the mouse lymphoma assay, none of 14 tested positive for gene mutation at the hprt locus, 5 of 25 tested positive in in vitro cytogenetic assays, none of 31 in in vivo cytogenetic assays, and none of 14 in inducing DNA damage and/or repair in in vitro and/or in vivo assays. Concerning the predictivity of genetic toxicology findings for long-term carcinogenesis assays, 75 drugs had both genotoxicity and carcinogenicity data; of these 37 (49.3%) were neither genotoxic nor carcinogenic, 14 (18.7%) were non-carcinogens which tested positive in at least one genotoxicity assay, 14 (18.7%) were carcinogenic in at least one sex of mice or rats but tested negative in genotoxicity assays, and 10 (13.3%) were both genotoxic and carcinogenic. Only 42 of the 164 marketed antihypertensives (25.6%) had all data required by the guidelines for testing of pharmaceuticals.