Short-term testing--are we looking at wrong endpoints?

Short-term testing has been performed and interpreted on the basis of correlation between these tests and animal carcinogenicity. This empirical approach has been the only feasible one, due to a lack of knowledge of the actual genetic endpoints of relevance in carcinogenicity. However, the rapidly growing information on genetic alterations actually involved in carcinogenicity and in particular activation of oncogenes, provides facts of basic importance for the strategy of short-term testing. The presently used sets of short-term tests focus on standard genetic endpoints, mainly point mutations and chromosomal aberrations. Little attention has been paid in that connection to other endpoints, which have been shown or suspected to play an important role in carcinogenicity. These endpoints include gene amplification, transpositions, hypomethylation, polygene mutations and recombinogenic effects. Furthermore, indirect effects, for instance via radical generation and an imbalance of the nucleotide pool, may be of great significance for the carcinogenic and cocarcinogenic effects of many chemicals. Modern genetic and molecular technology has opened entirely new prospects for identifying genetic alterations in tumours and in its turn these prospects should be taken advantage of in order to build up more sophisticated batteries of assays, adapted to the genetic endpoints actually demonstrated to be involved in cancer induction. Development of new assay systems in accordance with the elucidation of genetic alterations in carcinogenicity will probably constitute one of the most important areas in genetic toxicology in the future. From a regulatory point of view the prerequisite for a development in this direction will be a flexibility of the handling of questions concerning short-term testing also at a bureaucratic level.     

Strategy for genotoxicity testing: hazard identification and risk assessment in relation to in vitro testing

This report summarizes the proceedings of the September 9-10, 2005 meeting of the Expert Working Group on Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment in Relation to In Vitro Testing, part of an initiative on genetic toxicology. The objective of the Working Group was to develop recommendations for interpretation of results from tests commonly included in regulatory genetic toxicology test batteries, and to propose an appropriate strategy for follow-up testing when positive in vitro results were obtained in these assays. The Group noted the high frequency of positive in vitro findings in the genotoxicity test batteries with agents found not to be carcinogenic and thought not to pose a carcinogenic health hazard to humans. The Group agreed that a set of consensus principles for appropriate interpretation and follow-up testing when initial in vitro tests are positive was needed. Current differences in emphasis and policy among different regulatory agencies were recognized as a basis of this need. Using a consensus process among a balanced group of recognized international authorities from industry, government, and academia, it was agreed that a strategy based on these principles should include guidance on: (1) interpretation of initial results in the "core" test battery; (2) criteria for determining when follow-up testing is needed; (3) criteria for selecting appropriate follow-up tests; (4) definition of when the evidence is sufficient to define the mode of action and the relevance to human exposure; and (5) definition of approaches to evaluate the degree of health risk under conditions of exposure of the species of concern (generally the human). A framework for addressing these issues was discussed, and a general "decision tree" was developed that included criteria for assessing the need for further testing, selecting appropriate follow-up tests, and determining a sufficient weight of evidence to attribute a level of risk and stop testing. The discussion included case studies based on actual test results that illustrated common situations encountered, and consensus opinions were developed based on group analysis of these cases. The Working Group defined circumstances in which the pattern and magnitude of positive results was such that there was very low or no concern (e.g., non-reproducible or marginal responses), and no further testing would be needed. This included a discussion of the importance of the use of historical control data. The criteria for determining when follow-up testing is needed included factors, such as evidence of reproducibility, level of cytotoxicity at which an increased DNA damage or mutation frequency is observed, relationship of results to the historical control range of values, and total weight of evidence across assays. When the initial battery is negative, further testing might be required based on information from the published literature, structure activity considerations, or the potential for significant human metabolites not generated in the test systems. Additional testing might also be needed retrospectively when increase in tumors or evidence of pre-neoplastic change is seen. When follow-up testing is needed, it should be based on knowledge about the mode of action, based on reports in the literature or learned from the nature of the responses observed in the initial tests. The initial findings, and available information about the biochemical and pharmacological nature of the agent, are generally sufficient to conclude that the responses observed are consistent with certain molecular mechanisms and inconsistent with others. Follow-up tests should be sensitive to the types of genetic damage known to be capable of inducing the response observed initially. It was recognized that genotoxic events might arise from processes other than direct reactivity with DNA, that these mechanisms may have a non-linear, or threshold, dose-response relationship, and that in such cases it may be possible to determine an exposure level below which there is negligible concern about an effect due to human exposures. When a test result is clearly positive, consideration of relevance to human health includes whether other assays for the same endpoint support the results observed, whether the mode or mechanism of action is relevant to the human, and - most importantly - whether the effect observed is likely to occur in vivo at concentrations expected as a result of human exposure. Although general principles were agreed upon, time did not permit the development of recommendations for the selection of specific tests beyond those commonly employed in initial test batteries.     

Sequential Testing of Chemicals When Costs Matter: A Value of Information Approach

This article provides a set of general conditions to identify efficient sequential testing strategies when test information is uncertain. We first survey the Bayesian Value-of-Information (VOI) approach to test selection. Second, we extend the approach to study sequential testing systems as applied in toxicology, but also relevant in other domains. We show how the order of tests in the sequence and the stopping rule depend on prior beliefs, the diagnostic performance of tests, and testing costs. We illustrate our findings with an example from short-term genotoxicity testing and discuss implications for developing optimized sequential testing strategies for risk management of chemicals.     

The sense and nonsense of direct-to-consumer genetic testing for cardiovascular disease

Expectations are high that increasing knowledge of the genetic basis of cardiovascular disease will eventually lead to personalised medicine—to preventive and therapeutic interventions that are targeted to at-risk individuals on the basis of their genetic profiles. Most cardiovascular diseases are caused by a complex interplay of many genetic variants interacting with many non-genetic risk factors such as diet, exercise, smoking and alcohol consumption. Since several years, genetic susceptibility testing for cardiovascular diseases is being offered via the internet directly to consumers. We discuss five reasons why these tests are not useful, namely: (1) the predictive ability is still limited; (2) the risk models used by the companies are based on assumptions that have not been verified; (3) the predicted risks keep changing when new variants are discovered and added to the test; (4) the tests do not consider non-genetic factors in the prediction of cardiovascular disease risk; and (5) the test results will not change recommendations of preventive interventions. Predictive genetic testing for multifactorial forms of cardiovascular disease clearly lacks benefits for the public. Prevention of disease should therefore remain focused on family history and on non-genetic risk factors as diet and physical activity that can have the strongest impact on disease risk, regardless of genetic susceptibility.     

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.     

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.     

Practical aspects of mutagenicity testing strategy: an industrial perspective

Genetic toxicology studies play a central role in the development and marketing of new chemicals for pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, and consumer use. During the discovery phase of product development, rapid screening tests that require minimal amounts of test materials are used to assist in the design and prioritization of new molecules. At this stage, a modified Salmonella reverse mutation assay and an in vitro micronucleus test with mammalian cell culture are frequently used for screening. Regulatory genetic toxicology studies are conducted with a short list of compounds using protocols that conform to various international guidelines. A set of four assays usually constitutes the minimum test battery that satisfies global requirements. This set includes a bacterial reverse mutation assay, an in vitro cytogenetic test with mammalian cell culture, an in vitro gene mutation assay in mammalian cell cultures, and an in vivo rodent bone marrow micronucleus test. Supplementary studies are conducted in certain instances either as a follow-up to the findings from this initial testing battery and/or to satisfy a regulatory requirement. Currently available genetic toxicology assays have helped the scientific and industrial community over the past several decades in evaluating the mutagenic potential of chemical agents. The emerging field of toxicogenomics has the potential to redefine our ability to study the response of cells to genetic damage and hence our ability to study threshold phenomenon.     

Genetic activity profiles and pattern recognition in test battery selection

Computer-generated genetic activity profiles and pairwise matching procedures may aid in the selection of the most appropriate short-term bioassays to be used in test batteries for the evaluation of the genotoxicity of a given chemical or group of chemicals. Selection of test batteries would be based on a quantitative comparative assessment of the past performance of similar tests applied to other chemicals of the same structural group. The information potentially available for test-battery selection through the use of this pattern-recognition technique is considerably greater than the qualitative results obtained from individual short-term tests. Application of the method should further our understanding of the relationships between chemical properties and genotoxic responses obtained in short-term bioassays and also may contribute to our knowledge of the mechanisms of complex processes such as carcinogenesis. This approach to battery selection should be augmented by careful consideration of established principles of genetic toxicity testing; that is, a chemical should be evaluated in a battery of tests representing the full range of relevant genetic endpoints.     

Determination of the genotoxic status of a chemical

Before a non-genotoxic mechanism of action is proposed for a rodent carcinogen, or predicted for an untested chemical, adequate knowledge of the genotoxic status of the chemical must exist. The current absence of absolute agreement on the set of assays to use when evaluating genotoxicity suggests that a practical approach should be adopted, as outlined, for example, by Arni et al. (1988). In that approach, the chemical is evaluated for gene mutagenicity to Salmonella, for its ability to induce chromosomal aberrations in cultured mammalian cells, and if appropriate, gene mutations in cultured mammalian cells. Consideration of the chemical structure and the expected metabolism of the test chemical also contribute to the classification of an agent as a putative non-genotoxin. Judgement is required when interpreting isolated positive test responses generated in peripheral short-term tests. When attempting to study the mode of action of an established rodent carcinogen that is thought to operate by a non-genotoxic mechanism of action, genotoxicity data generated in vivo, if possible in the target tissue, are of great value. Compounds defined as non-genotoxic by these methods then become candidates for the study of those non-genotoxic toxicities that may predict or explain non-genotoxic rodent carcinogenesis.     

The evolution of trade‐offs: where are we?

Trade-offs are a core component of many evolutionary models, particularly those dealing with the evolution of life histories. In the present paper, we identify four topics of key importance for studies of the evolutionary biology of trade-offs. First, we consider the underlying concept of 'constraint'. We conclude that this term is typically used too vaguely and suggest that 'constraint' in the sense of a bias should be clearly distinguished from 'constraint' in the sense of proscribed combinations of traits or evolutionary trajectories. Secondly, we address the utility of the acquisition-allocation model (the 'Y-model'). We find that, whereas this model and its derivatives have provided new insights, a misunderstanding of the pivotal equation has led to incorrect predictions and faulty tests. Thirdly, we ask how trade-offs are expected to evolve under directional selection. A quantitative genetic model predicts that, under weak or short-term selection, the intercept will change but the slope will remain constant. Two empirical tests support this prediction but these are based on comparisons of geographic populations: more direct tests will come from artificial selection experiments. Finally, we discuss what maintains variation in trade-offs noting that at present little attention has been given to this question. We distinguish between phenotypic and genetic variation and suggest that the latter is most in need of explanation. We suggest that four factors deserving investigation are mutation-selection balance, antagonistic pleiotropy, correlational selection and spatio-temporal variation, but as in the other areas of research on trade-offs, empirical generalizations are impeded by lack of data. Although this lack is discouraging, we suggest that it provides a rich ground for further study and the integration of many disciplines, including the emerging field of genomics.     

Accurate prediction of human drug toxicity: a major challenge in drug development

Over the past decades, a number of drugs have been withdrawn or have required special labeling due to adverse effects observed post-marketing. Species differences in drug toxicity in preclinical safety tests and the lack of sensitive biomarkers and nonrepresentative patient population in clinical trials are probable reasons for the failures in predicting human drug toxicity. It is proposed that toxicology should evolve from an empirical practice to an investigative discipline. Accurate prediction of human drug toxicity requires resources and time to be spent in clearly defining key toxic pathways and corresponding risk factors, which hopefully, will be compensated by the benefits of a lower percentage of clinical failure due to toxicity and a decreased frequency of market withdrawal due to unacceptable adverse drug effects.     

Genetic parameters for traits evaluated at field tests of 3- and 4-year-old Swedish Warmblood horses

There are two types of 1-day field tests available for young Swedish Warmblood sport horses; one test for 3-year olds and one more advanced test for 4-year olds. Conformation, gaits and jumping ability are evaluated at both tests. Studies on various genetic parameters were based on about 20 000 tested horses. The data for 4-year olds consisted of 30 years of testing. The aims of the study were to estimate genetic parameters for results from different time periods, and to estimate heritabilities for, and genetic correlations between, traits scored in the two tests. The judgement of traits was shown to have been changed during the 30 years of testing, resulting in changes in higher heritabilities in, and stronger genetic correlations between, later time periods. In the first time period, records showed higher residual and lower genetic variances than in the subsequent time periods. Genetic correlations between traits recorded in the first and last time period deviated considerably from unity. Further studies are needed to investigate how to treat data from the early period in genetic evaluations. Heritabilities were moderate to high for conformation traits (0.24 to 0.58) at both types of tests, except for correctness of legs (0.08). The heritabilities for gait traits were also moderate to high (0.37 to 0.53). For jumping traits, the heritabilities ranged between 0.17 and 0.33. The highly positive genetic correlations (0.82 to 0.99) between corresponding traits tested at the simpler test for 3-year olds and at the ridden test of 4-year olds implied that it would be desirable to include the test results of 3-year olds into the genetic evaluation as breeding values for Swedish Warmbloods for many years has only been based on results from 4-year olds.     

Genetic toxicology: can we design predictive in vivo assays?

The present analysis examines the assumptions in, the perceptions and predictivity of and the need for short-term tests (STTs) for genotoxicity in light of recent findings that most noncarcinogens from the National Toxicology Program are genotoxic (i.e., positive in one or more in vitro STTs). Reasonable assumptions about the prevalence for carcinogens (1-10% of all chemicals), the sensitivity of these STTs (ca. 90% of all carcinogens are genotoxic) and their estimated "false positive" incidence (60-75%) imply that the majority of chemicals elicit genotoxic responses and, consequently, that most in vitro genotoxins are likely to be noncarcinogenic. Thus, either the usual treatment conditions used in these in vitro STTS are producing a large proportion of artifactual and meaningless positive results or else in vitro mutagenicity is too common a property of chemicals to serve as a useful predictor of carcinogenicity or other human risk. In contrast, the limited data base on in vivo STTs suggests that the current versions of these assays may have low sensitivity which appears unlikely to improve without dropping either their 'short-term' aspect or the rodent carcinogenicity benchmark. It is suggested that in vivo genotoxicity protocols be modified to take into consideration both the fundamentals of toxicology as well as the lessons learned from in vitro genetic toxicology. In the meantime, while in vivo assays are undergoing rigorous validation, genetic toxicology, as currently practiced, should not be a formal aspect of chemical or drug development on the grounds that it is incapable of providing realistic and reliable information on human risk. It is urged that data generated in new, unvalidated in vivo genotoxicity assays be exempted from the normal regulatory reporting requirements in order to encourage industry to participate in the laborious and expensive development of this next phase of genetic toxicology.     

The carcinogenicity prediction and battery selection (CPBS) method: a Bayesian approach

Recently, a large number of relatively inexpensive in vitro short-term tests have been developed to help predict the carcinogenicity of chemicals. The carcinogenicity prediction and battery selection (CPBS) method utilizes the results of such short-term tests to screen for chemicals that are most likely to cause cancer. The method is an integrated approach for analyzing large, often sparsely filled, data bases containing short-term test results, which often have only marginal representation of known non-carcinogens. The CPBS method is developed for the purpose of (i) determining the reliability and predictive capability of individual and batteries of short-term tests, and (ii) developing a strategy for formulating and selecting optimally preferred batteries of short-term tests for screening chemicals for further testing. The term 'optimally preferred' connotes the best acceptable combination of tests in terms of trade-offs among the multiple attributes of each test and resulting battery (e.g., cost, sensitivity, specificity, etc). The CPBS method consists of 5 major tasks: (1) data consolidation, (2) parameter estimation, (3) predictivity calculation, (4) battery selection and (5) risk assessment. Although there is a great need for more research and improvement, the CPBS method at its present stage should add an important method to the maze of the thousands of new chemicals that are introduced into drugs, foods, consumer goods and to the environment every year. This method should also provide an enhanced identification procedure for classifying chemicals more accurately as suspected carcinogens or non-carcinogens.     

The genetic toxicology of putative nongenotoxic carcinogens

This report examines a group of putative nongenotoxic carcinogens that have been cited in the published literature. Using short-term test data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/International Agency for Research on Cancer genetic activity profile (EPA/IARC GAP) database we have classified these agents on the basis of their mutagenicity emphasizing three genetic endpoints: gene mutation, chromosomal aberration and aneuploidy. On the basis of results of short-term tests for these effects, we have defined criteria for evidence of mutagenicity (and nonmutagenicity) and have applied these criteria in classifying the group of putative nongenotoxic carcinogens. The results from this evaluation based on the EPA/IARC GAP database are presented along with a summary of the short-term test data for each chemical and the relevant carcinogenicity results from the NTP, Gene-Tox and IARC databases. The data clearly demonstrate that many of the putative nongenotoxic carcinogens that have been adequately tested in short-term bioassays induce gene or chromosomal mutations or aneuploidy.     

Multi‐allelic exact tests for Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium that account for gender

Statistical tests for Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium are important elementary tools in genetic data analysis. X‐chromosomal variants have long been tested by applying autosomal test procedures to females only, and gender is usually not considered when testing autosomal variants for equilibrium. Recently, we proposed specific X‐chromosomal exact test procedures for bi‐allelic variants that include the hemizygous males, as well as autosomal tests that consider gender. In this study, we present the extension of the previous work for variants with multiple alleles. A full enumeration algorithm is used for the exact calculations of tri‐allelic variants. For variants with many alternate alleles, we use a permutation test. Some empirical examples with data from the 1,000 genomes project are discussed.     

Use of in vivo genetic toxicity data for risk assessment

Mutagenicity studies have been used to identify specific agents as potential carconogens or other human health hazards; however, they have been used minimally for risk assessment or in determining permissible levels of human exposure. The poor predictive value of in vitro mutagenesis tests for carcinogenic activity and a lack of mechanistic understanding of the roles of mutagens in the induction of specific cancers have made these tests unattractive for the purpose of risk assessment. However, the limited resources available for carcinogen testing and large number of chemicals which need to be evaluated necessitate the incorporation of more efficient methods into the evaluation process. In vivo genetic toxicity testing can be recommended for this purpose because in vivo assays incorporate the metabolic activation pathways that are relevant to humans. We propose the use of a multiple end-point in vivo comprehensive testing protocol (CTP) using rodents. Studies using sub-acute exposure to low levels of test agents by routes consistent with human exposure can be a useful adjunct to methods currently used to provide data for risk assessment. Evaluations can include metabolic and pharmacokinetic endpoints, in addition to genetic toxicity studies, in order to provide a comprehensive examination of the mechanism of toxicity of the agent. A parallelogram approach can be used to estimate effects in non-accessible human tissues by using data from accessible human tissues and analogous tissues in animals. A categorical risk assessment procedure can be used which would consider, in order of priority, genetic damage in man, genetic damage in animals that is highly relevant to disease outcome (mutation, chromosome damage), and data from animals that is of less certain relevance to disease. Action levels of environmental exposure would be determined based on the lowest observed effect levels or the highest observed no effect levels, using sub-acute low level exposure studies in rodents. As an example, the known genotoxic effects of benzene exposure at low levels in man and animals are discussed. The lowest observed genotoxic effects were observed at about 1–10 parts per million for man and 0.04–0.1 parts per million in subacute animal studies. If genetic toxicity is to achieve a prominent role in evaluating carcinogens and characterizing germ-cell mutagens, minimal testing requirements must be established to ascertain the risk associated with environmental mutagen exposure. The use of the in vivo approach described here should provide the information needed to meet this goal. In addition, it should allow truly epigenetic or non-genotoxic carcinogens to be distinguished from the genotoxic carcinogens that are not detected by in vitro methods.     

Optimal experimental design and sample size for the statistical evaluation of data from somatic mutation and recombination tests (SMART) in Drosophila

In genetic toxicology it is important to know whether chemicals should be regarded as clearly hazardous or whether they can be considered sufficiently safe, which latter would be the case from the genotoxicologist's view if their genotoxic effects are nil or at least significantly below a predefined minimal effect level. A previously presented statistical decision procedure which allows one to make precisely this distinction is now extended to the question of how optimal experimental sample size can be determined in advance for genotoxicity experiments using the somatic mutation and recombination tests (SMART) of Drosophila. Optimally, the statistical tests should have high power to minimise the chance for statistically inconclusive results. Based on the normal test, the statistical principles are explained, and in an application to the wing spot assay, it is shown how the practitioner can proceed to optimise sample size to achieve numerically satisfactory conditions for statistical testing. The somatic genotoxicity assays of Drosophila are in principle based on somatic spots (mutant clones) that are recovered in variable numbers on individual flies. The underlying frequency distributions are expected to be of the Poisson type. However, some care seems indicated with respect to this latter assumption, because pooling of data over individuals, sexes, and experiments, for example, can (but need not) lead to data which are overdispersed, i.e, the data may show more variability than theoretically expected. It is an undesired effect of overdispersion that in comparisons of pooled totals it can lead to statistical testing which is too liberal, because overall it yields too many seemingly significant results. If individual variability considered alone is not contradiction with Poisson expectation, however, experimental planning can help to minimise the undesired effects of overdispersion on statistical testing of pooled totals. The rule for the practice is to avoid disproportionate sampling. It is recalled that for optimal power in statistical testing, it is preferable to use equal total numbers of flies in the control and treated series. Statistical tests which are based on Poisson expectations are too liberal if there is overdispersion in the data due to excess individual variability. In this case we propose to use the U test as a non-parametric two-sample test and to adjust the estimated optimal sample size according to (i) the overdispersion observed in a large historical control and (ii) the relative efficiency of the U test in comparison to the t test and related parametric tests.     

The genetic toxicity of human carcinogens and its implications

23 chemicals and chemical combinations have been designated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as causally associated with cancer in humans. The literature was searched for reports of their activity in the Salmonella mutagenicity assay and for evidence of their ability to induce chromosome aberrations or micronuclei in the bone marrow of mice or rats. In addition, the chemical structures of these carcinogens were assessed for the presence of electrophilic substituents that might be associated with their mutagenicity and carcinogenicity. The purpose of this study was to determine which human carcinogens exhibit genetic toxicity in vitro and in vivo and to what extent they can be detected using these two widely employed short-term tests for genetic toxicity. The results of this study revealed 20 of the 23 carcinogens to be active in one or both short-term tests. Treosulphan, for which short-term test results are not available, is predicted to be active based on its structure. The remaining two agents, asbestos and conjugated estrogens, are not mutagenic to Salmonella; asbestos is not likely to induce cytogenetic effects in the bone marrow and the potential activity of conjugated estrogens in the bone marrow is difficult to anticipate. These findings show that genetic toxicity is characteristic of the majority of IARC Group 1 human carcinogens. If these chemicals are considered representative of human carcinogens, then two short-term tests may serve as an effective primary screen for chemicals that present a carcinogenic hazard to humans.     

Cluster analysis of short-term tests: a new methodological approach

A totally data-based approach to the evaluation of short-term tests is proposed. The performances of 22 tests over a range of 42 chemicals (data from literature) were studied by cluster analysis. The comparison between them was performed only on the basis of their responses to the chemicals. Two different clustering methods produced a coincident classification, pointing to a clear resolution of all tests into 3 groups with common characteristics. With respect to carcinogen discrimination, cluster 1 showed the highest sensitivity and the lowest specificity. Cluster 3 had opposite characteristics. The tests of cluster 2 showed intermediate features. As far as the membership to clusters is concerned, the literature data about the responses to chemicals indicated a strong test system specificity. This apparently overcame both phylogeny and end-point community. A major characteristic of the present approach is the ability to elicit underlying patterns, the knowledge of which can contribute both to hypothesis formulation and be useful for practical purposes.