Detailed review of transgenic rodent mutation assays

Induced chromosomal and gene mutations play a role in carcinogenesis and may be involved in the production of birth defects and other disease conditions. While it is widely accepted that in vivo mutation assays are more relevant to the human condition than are in vitro assays, our ability to evaluate mutagenesis in vivo in a broad range of tissues has historically been quite limited. The development of transgenic rodent (TGR) mutation models has given us the ability to detect, quantify, and sequence mutations in a range of somatic and germ cells. This document provides a comprehensive review of the TGR mutation assay literature and assesses the potential use of these assays in a regulatory context. The information is arranged as follows. (1) TGR mutagenicity models and their use for the analysis of gene and chromosomal mutation are fully described. (2) The principles underlying current OECD tests for the assessment of genotoxicity in vitro and in vivo, and also nontransgenic assays available for assessment of gene mutation, are described. (3) All available information pertaining to the conduct of TGR assays and important parameters of assay performance have been tabulated and analyzed. (4) The performance of TGR assays, both in isolation and as part of a battery of in vitro and in vivo short-term genotoxicity tests, in predicting carcinogenicity is described. (5) Recommendations are made regarding the experimental parameters for TGR assays, and the use of TGR assays in a regulatory context.     

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.     

Genotoxicity of silver nanoparticles evaluated using the Ames test and in vitro micronucleus assay

Silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) have antimicrobial properties, which have contributed to their widespread use in consumer products. A current issue regarding nanomaterials is the extent to which existing genotoxicity assays are useful for evaluating the risks associated with their use. In this study, the genotoxicity of 5 nm AgNPs was assessed using two standard genotoxicity assays, the Salmonella reverse mutation assay (Ames test) and the in vitro micronucleus assay. Using the preincubation version of the Ames assay, Salmonella strains TA102, TA100, TA1537, TA98, and TA1535 were treated with 0.15-76.8 μg/plate of the AgNPs. Toxicity limited the doses that could be assayed to 2.4-38.4 μg/plate; no increases in mutant frequency over the vehicle control were found for the concentrations that could be assayed. Human lymphoblastoid TK6 cells were treated with 10-30 μg/ml AgNPs, and additional cells were treated with water and 0.73 gy X-rays as vehicle and positive controls. Micronucleus frequency was increased by the AgNP treatment in a dose-dependent manner. At a concentration of 30 μg/ml (with 45.4% relative population doubling), AgNPs induced a significant, 3.17-fold increase with a net increase of 1.60% in micronucleus frequency over the vehicle control, a weak positive response by our criteria. These results demonstrate that the 5 nm AgNP are genotoxic in TK6 cells. Also, the data suggest that the in vitro micronucleus assay may be more appropriate than the Ames test for evaluating the genotoxicity of the AgNPs.     

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.     

A review of the genotoxicity of marketed pharmaceuticals

Information in the 1999 Physician's Desk Reference as well as from the peer-reviewed published literature was used to evaluate the genotoxicity of marketed pharmaceuticals. This survey is a compendium of genotoxicity information and a means to gain perspective on the inherent genotoxicity of structurally diverse pharmaceuticals. Data from 467 marketed drugs were collected. Excluded from analysis were anti-cancer drugs and nucleosides, which are expected to be genotoxic, steroids, biologicals and peptide-based drugs. Of the 467 drugs, 115 had no published gene-tox data. This group was comprised largely of acutely administered drugs such as antibiotics, antifungals, antihistamines decongestants and anesthetics. The remaining 352 had at least one standard gene-tox assay result. Of these, 101 compounds (28.7%) had at least one positive assay result in the pre-ICH/OECD standard four-test battery (bacterial mutagenesis, in vitro cytogenetics, mouse lymphoma assay (MLA), in vivo cytogenetics). Per assay type, the percentage of positive compounds was: bacterial mutagenesis test, 27/323 (8.3%); in vitro cytogenetics 55/222 (24.8%); MLA 24/96 (25%); in vivo cytogenetics 29/252 (11.5%). Of the supplemental genetic toxicology test findings reported, the sister chromatid exchange (SCE) assay had the largest percentage of positives 17/39 (43.5%) and mammalian mutagenesis assays (excluding MLA) had the lowest percentage of positives 2/91 (2.2%). The predictive value of genetic toxicology findings for 2-year bioassay outcomes is difficult to assess since carcinogenicity can occur via non-genotoxic mechanisms. Nevertheless, the following survey findings were made: 201 drugs had both gene-tox data and rodent carcinogenicity data. Of these, 124 were negative and 77 were equivocal or positive for carcinogenicity in at least 1 gender/1 species. Of the 124 non-carcinogens, 100 had no positive gene-tox findings. Of the remaining 24, 19 were positive in in vitro cytogenetics assays. Among the 77 compounds that exhibited equivocal or positive effects in carcinogenesis studies, 26 were positive in gene-tox assays and 51 were negative. Of the 51 negatives, 47 had multiple negative gene-tox assay results suggesting that these are probably non-genotoxic carcinogens. Statistical analyses suggested that no combination of gene-tox assays provided a higher predictivity of rodent carcinogenesis than the bacterial mutagenicity test itself.     

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.     

In vitro genotoxicity of dimethyl terephthalate

Dimethyl terephthalate (DMTP), the para configuration of dimethyl phthalate, is one of the basic monomers used in the synthesis of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastics. Human exposure to DMTP may primarily occur during the manufacture of PET fibers and films. The mutagenic potential of dimethyl terephthalate was evaluated using a battery of in vitro short-term tests: the Ames test; DNA single-strand break assays in CO60 cells and in primary rat hepatocytes; UDS in HeLa cells; chromosome aberration and micronucleus assays in human peripheral blood lymphocytes; selective DNA amplification in CO60 and in Syrian hamster embryo cells. The results of this battery of in vitro assays clearly show that DMTP is nongenotoxic. By contrast, other authors have found DMTP to be an in vivo clastogenic compound and suggested that the mechanisms involved in these in vivo effects seem to have nothing in common with genotoxicity and are still unknown.     

In vitro potential genotoxic effects of surface drinking water treated with chlorine and alternative disinfectants

A battery of in vitro short-term tests revealing different genetic end-points was set up in order to study surface-water genotoxicity after disinfection with different biocides: sodium hypochlorite (NaClO), chlorine dioxide (ClO(2)) and peracetic acid (PAA). The surface water both before and after disinfection was concentrated by adsorption on C(18) silica cartridges and the concentrates containing non-volatile organics were divided into different portions for chemical analyses and biological assays. The following in vitro tests were conducted on the water concentrates dissolved in DMSO: the Salmonella mutagenicity assay with S. typhimurium strains TA98 and TA100; the SOS Chromotest with Escherichia coli, the Microtox and Mutatox assays with Vibrio fischeri; and gene conversion, point mutation and mitochondrial DNA mutability assays with D7 diploid Saccharomices cerevisiae strain. The results show that the SOS Chromotest and the yeast assays are highly sensitive in detecting genotoxicity. The surface-water extracts were very often toxic to most of the test organisms considered, partially masking their potential mutagenic activity. Therefore, the assays with E. coli and with S. cerevisiae are more likely to show a mutagenic effect because these organisms are generally less sensitive to most toxic compounds. Among the tested disinfectants, NaClO and ClO(2) increased water genotoxicity, whereas PAA was able to slightly reduce raw water activity. However, because the organic compounds in the lake water varied with the season of the year, the disinfection processes, at times, both increased and decreased the raw water activity.     

Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens II. Further analysis of mammalian cell results, relative predictivity and tumour profiles

One of the consequences of the low specificity of the in vitro mammalian cell genotoxicity assays reported in our previous paper [D. Kirkland, M. Aardema, L. Henderson, L. Muller, 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] is industry and regulatory agencies dealing with a large number of false-positive results during the safety assessment of new chemicals and drugs. Addressing positive results from in vitro genotoxicity assays to determine which are "false" requires extensive resources, including the conduct of additional animal studies. In order to reduce animal usage, and to conserve industry and regulatory agency resources, we thought it was important to raise the question as to whether the protocol requirements for a valid in vitro assay or the criteria for a positive result could be changed in order to increase specificity without a significant loss in sensitivity of these tests. We therefore analysed some results of the mouse lymphoma assay (MLA) and the chromosomal aberration (CA) test obtained for rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens in more detail. For a number of chemicals that are positive only in either of these mammalian cell tests (i.e. negative in the Ames test) there was no correlation between rodent carcinogenicity and level of toxicity (we could not analyse this for the CA test as insufficient data were available in publications), magnitude of response or lowest effective positive concentration. On the basis of very limited in vitro and in vivo data, we could also find no correlation between the above parameters and formation of DNA adducts. Therefore, a change to the current criteria for required level of toxicity in the MLA, to limit positive calls to certain magnitudes of response, or to certain concentration ranges would not improve the specificity of the tests without significantly reducing the sensitivity. We also investigated a possible correlation between tumour profile (trans-species, trans-sex and multi-site versus single-species, single-sex and single-site) and pattern of genotoxicity results. Carcinogens showing the combination of trans-species, trans-sex and multi-site tumour profile were much more prevalent (70% more) in the group of chemicals giving positive results in all three in vitro assays than amongst those giving all negative results. However, single-species, single-sex, single-site carcinogens were not very prevalent even amongst those chemicals giving three negative results in vitro. Surprisingly, when mixed positive and negative results were compared, multi-site carcinogens were highly prevalent amongst chemicals giving only a single positive result in the battery of three in vitro tests. Finally we extended our relative predictivity (RP) calculations to combinations of positive and negative results in the genotoxicity battery. For two out of three tests positive, the RP for carcinogenicity was no higher than 1.0 and for 2/3 tests negative the RP for non-carcinogenicity was either zero (for Ames+MLA+MN) or 1.7 (for Ames+MLA+CA). Thus, all values were less than a meaningful RP of two, and indicate that it is not possible to predict outcome of the rodent carcinogenicity study when only 2/3 genotoxicity results are in agreement.     

The equivalence of assays within individual guidelines for the testing of the potential mutagenicity of chemicals: problems associated with battery selection

Many individual Mutagenicity Guidelines contain suggested test systems with choices of such parameters as strains, cell types and even endpoint assayed. Comparisons have been made of data obtained from variants of yeast assays for the induction of mitotic recombination, in vitro assays for the induction of chromosome aberrations and assays for the induction of cell transformation. Individual test variants included in guidelines of the EEC and OECD show considerable qualitative and quantitative variability of response to potential mutagens and carcinogens. Such variability between assays within the same guideline raises considerable problems in the selection of test batteries chosen from published Mutagenicity Guidelines. Improved battery selection is dependent upon the reduction of choice within guidelines to those assays which produce consistent and reproducible results.     

A review of the genotoxicity of ethylbenzene

Ethylbenzene is an important industrial chemical that has recently been classified as a possible human carcinogen (IARC class 2B). It induces tumours in rats and mice, but neither the relevance of these tumours to humans nor their mechanism of induction is clear. Considering the carcinogenic potential of ethylbenzene, it is of interest to determine whether there is sufficient data to characterize its mode of action as either genotoxic or non-genotoxic. A review of the currently available genotoxicity data is assessed. Ethylbenzene is not a bacterial mutagen, does not induce gene conversion or mutations in yeast and does not induce sister chromatid exchanges in CHO cells. Ethylbenzene is not clastogenic in CHO or rat liver cell lines but was reported to induce micronuclei in SHE cells in vitro. No evidence for genotoxicity has been seen in humans exposed to relatively high levels of ethylbenzene. Mouse lymphoma gene mutation studies produced a mixed series of responses that have proved difficult to interpret. An increase in morphological transformation of SHE cells was also found. Results from a more relevant series of in vivo genotoxicity studies, including acute and sub-chronic micronucleus tests and the mouse liver UDS assay, indicate a lack of in vivo genotoxic activity. The composite set of results from both in vitro and in vivo tests known to assess direct damage to DNA have been predominantly negative in the absence of excessive toxicity. The available data from the standard battery of genotoxicity assays do not support a genotoxic mechanism for ethylbenzene-induced kidney, liver or lung tumors in rats and mice.     

Development of genotoxicity test procedures with Episkin, a reconstructed human skin model: towards new tools for in vitro risk assessment of dermally applied compounds?

Today reconstructed skin models that simulate human skin, such as Episkin, are widely used for safety or efficacy pre-screening. Moreover, they are of growing interest for regulatory purposes in the framework of alternatives to animal testing. In order to reduce and eventually replace results of in vivo genotoxicity testing with in vitro data, there is a need to develop new complementary biological models and methods with improved ability to predict genotoxic risk. This can be achieved if these new assays do take into account exposure conditions that are more relevant than in the current test systems. In an attempt to meet this challenge, two new applications using a human reconstructed skin model for in vitro genotoxicity assessment are proposed. The skin is the target organ for dermally exposed compounds or environmental stress. Although attempts have been made to develop genotoxicity test procedures in vivo on mouse skin, human reconstructed skin models have not been used for in vitro genotoxicity testing so far, although they present clear advantages over mouse skin for human risk prediction. This paper presents the results of the development of a specific protocol allowing to perform the comet assay, a genotoxicity test procedure, on reconstructed skin. The comet assay was conducted after treatment of Episkin with UV, Lomefloxacin and UV or 4-nitroquinoline-N-oxide (4NQO). Treatment with the sunscreen Mexoryl was able to reduce the extent of comet signal. A second approach to use reconstructed epidermis in genotoxicity assays is also proposed. Indeed, the skin is a biologically active barrier driving the response to exposure to chemical agents and their possible metabolites. A specific co-culture system (Figure 1) using Episkin to perform the regular micronucleus assay is presented. Micronucleus induction in L5178Y cells cultured underneath Episkin was assessed after treatment of the reconstructed epidermis with mitomycin C, cyclophosphamide or apigenin. This second way of using human reconstructed skin for genotoxicity testing aims at improving the relevance of exposure conditions in in vitro genotoxicity assays for dermally applied compounds.     

Identification of a gene expression profile that discriminates indirect-acting genotoxins from direct-acting genotoxins

During the safety evaluation process of new drugs and chemicals, a battery of genotoxicity tests is conducted starting with in vitro genotoxicity assays. Obtaining positive results in in vitro genotoxicity tests is not uncommon. Follow-up studies to determine the biological relevance of positive genotoxicity results are costly, time consuming, and utilize animals. More efficient methods, especially for identifying a putative mode of action like an indirect mechanism of genotoxicity (where DNA molecules are not the initial primary targets), would greatly improve the risk assessment for genotoxins. To this end, we are participating in an International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) project involving studies of gene expression changes caused by model genotoxins. The purpose of the work is to evaluate gene expression tools in general, and specifically for discriminating genotoxins that are direct-acting from indirect-acting. Our lab has evaluated gene expression changes as well as micronuclei (MN) in L5178Y TK(+/-) mouse lymphoma cells treated with six compounds. Direct-acting genotoxins (where DNA is the initial primary target) that were evaluated included the DNA crosslinking agents, mitomycin C (MMC) and cisplatin (CIS), and an alkylating agent, methyl methanesulfonate (MMS). Indirect-acting genotoxins included hydroxyurea (HU), a ribonucleotide reductase inhibitor, taxol (TXL), a microtubule inhibitor, and etoposide (ETOP), a DNA topoisomerase II inhibitor. Microarray gene expression analysis was conducted using Affymetrix mouse oligonucleotide arrays on RNA samples derived from cells which were harvested immediately after the 4 h chemical treatment, and 20 h after the 4 h chemical treatment. The evaluation of these experimental results yields evidence of differentially regulated genes at both 4 and 24 h time points that appear to have discriminating power for direct versus indirect genotoxins, and therefore may serve as a fingerprint for classifying chemicals when their mechanism of action is unknown.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Detection of mutagens in water-distribution systems after disinfection

This research examined the quality of water-before and after distribution-of four drinking-water production plants located in Northern Italy, two of which collected water from local aquifers and two from the River Po. A battery of genotoxicity assays for monitoring drinking-water was performed to assess the quality of the water produced by the treatment plants under study. Three different sampling stations were selected at each plant, one right at the outlet of the treatment plant and two along with the distribution pipelines. Raw river water was also sampled and analysed as a control. The water samples (500 l) were concentrated on silica C18 cartridges and the extracts were tested in in vitro mutagenicity assays (Salmonella/microsome assay with strains TA 98 and TA 100; SOS Chromotest with Escherichia coli strain PQ37); gene conversion, point mutation and mitochondrial DNA mutability assays with the diploid Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain D7 and a toxicity test using the bioluminescent bacterium Vibrio fischeri (Microtox). The Microtox test and the mitochondrial DNA mutability assay showed the greatest sensitivity towards toxic or mutagenic substances in the water extracts considered. The results show that this battery of short-term tests is applicable in the routine monitoring of drinking-water quality before and after distribution.     

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.     

Genotoxic effects of glycidyltrimethylammonium chloride

Evaluation of the genotoxicity of epoxides is best carried out on a case by case basis. Although glycidyltrimethylammonium chloride (GTAC) is widely used in several industrial applications, its genotoxicity is poorly documented. Therefore, we have evaluated GTAC in a battery of 4 in vitro short-term tests for genotoxicity. We report here that GTAC mediates the induction of base-pair substitutions in S. typhimurium, gene conversion in S. cerevisiae (D7), chromosomal aberrations in CHO cells and viral DNA amplification in Chinese hamster CO6O cells. In view of these results, it is advisable to consider GTAC a potential carcinogen.