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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Evaluation of the genotoxic potential of the natural neurotoxin Tetrodotoxin (TTX) in a battery of in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity assays

The genotoxic potential of the natural neurotoxin Tetrodotoxin (TTX) was evaluated in a battery of in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity assays. These comprised a bacterial reverse-mutation assay (Ames test), an in vitro human lymphocyte chromosome-aberration assay, an in vivo mouse bone-marrow micronucleus assay and an in vivo rat-liver UDS assay. Maximum test concentrations in in vitro assays were determined by the TTX limit of solubility in the formulation vehicle (0.02% acetic acid solution). In the Ames test, TTX was tested at concentrations of up to 200 microg/plate. In the chromosome-aberration assay human lymphocytes were exposed to TTX at concentrations of up to 50 microg/ml for 3 and 20 h in the absence of S9, and for 3h in the presence of S9. For the in vivo assays, maximum tested dose levels were determined by the acute lethal toxicity of TTX after subcutaneous administration. In the mouse micronucleus assay TTX dose levels of 2, 4 and 8 microg/kg were administered to male and female animals, and bone-marrow samples taken 24 and 48 h (high-dose animals only) after administration. In the UDS assay, male rats were given TTX on two occasions with a 14-h interval at dose levels of 2.4 and 8 microg/kg, the last dose being administered 2h before liver perfusion and hepatocyte culturing. Relevant vehicle and positive control cultures and animals were included in all assays. TTX was clearly shown to lack in vitro or in vivo genotoxic activity in the assays conducted in this study. The results suggest that administration of TTX as a therapeutic analgesic agent would not pose a genotoxic risk to patients.     

Evaluation of diallate and triallate herbicides for genotoxic effects in a battery of in vitro and short-term in vivo tests

Commercial-grade preparations of two thiocarbamate herbicides, diallate and triallate, were evaluated for their mutagenic potential in a battery of short-term bioassays. All in vitro bioassays were performed with and without mammalian metabolic activation, and all such tests were repeated after an interval of at least 1 week. Diallate and triallate were tested in the Salmonella/microsome assay over dose ranges of 0.59 to 118.0 micrograms/plate and 6.37 to 1273 micrograms/plate, respectively. Both diallate and triallate gave positive results in S. typhimurium strains TA1535, TA98, and TA100 only in the presence of a rat-liver metabolic activation system. In Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain D7, diallate was tested at concentrations from 1.18 to 29.50 micrograms/ml, and triallate was tested at 0.955 to 9.548 micrograms/ml. Both diallate and triallate gave negative results for mitotic gene conversion, mitotic crossing-over, and reverse mutation. In the mouse lymphoma L5178Y TK+/- assay, diallate was tested at concentrations ranging from 1 to 72 micrograms/ml, and triallate was tested at 0.5 to 60 micrograms/ml. Both herbicides produced mutagenic responses in the mouse lymphoma assay in the presence of metabolic activation. In the Drosophila sex-linked recessive lethal test, flies were exposed to 0.0004% diallate and 0.001% triallate. In this assay, diallate was considered mutagenic, whereas triallate did not produce a detectable mutagenic response.     

The in vivo and in vitro genotoxicity of aromatic amines in relationship to the genotoxicity of benzidine.

Benzidine and 12 related aromatic amines have been studied for the effects of substituent groups and pi orbital conjugation on their genotoxicity as measured by their mutagenicity in vitro with Salmonella and by chromosomal aberrations (CA) in vivo in the bone-marrow cells of mice. The in vitro studies indicated increases in mutagenicity with increases in the electron withdrawing ability of para' substituents. Mutagenicity also increases with increased conjugation as shown by the degree of planarity of the biphenyl compounds and by comparing the mutagenicities of biphenyl amines to stilbenes as well as to ethylene bridged diphenyl compounds. The relative in vitro mutagenicity results were not predictive of relative in vivo CA results. The 3 most genotoxic compounds in vivo were the conjugated amines without substituents in the para' position. The CA values for 4-aminostilbene were exceptionally high. These in vivo results indicate increased genotoxicity for benzidine analogs without substitution in the para' position.     

How to reduce false positive results when undertaking in vitro genotoxicity testing and thus avoid unnecessary follow-up animal tests: Report of an ECVAM Workshop

Workshop participants agreed that genotoxicity tests in mammalian cells in vitro produce a remarkably high and unacceptable occurrence of irrelevant positive results (e.g. when compared with rodent carcinogenicity). As reported in several recent reviews, the rate of irrelevant positives (i.e. low specificity) for some studies using in vitro methods (when compared to this "gold standard") means that an increased number of test articles are subjected to additional in vivo genotoxicity testing, in many cases before, e.g. the efficacy (in the case of pharmaceuticals) of the compound has been evaluated. If in vitro tests were more predictive for in vivo genotoxicity and carcinogenicity (i.e. fewer false positives) then there would be a significant reduction in the number of animals used. Beyond animal (or human) carcinogenicity as the "gold standard", it is acknowledged that genotoxicity tests provide much information about cellular behaviour, cell division processes and cellular fate to a (geno)toxic insult. Since the disease impact of these effects is seldom known, and a verification of relevant toxicity is normally also the subject of (sub)chronic animal studies, the prediction of in vivo relevant results from in vitro genotoxicity tests is also important for aspects that may not have a direct impact on carcinogenesis as the ultimate endpoint of concern. In order to address the high rate of in vitro false positive results, a 2-day workshop was held at the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM), Ispra, Italy in April 2006. More than 20 genotoxicity experts from academia, government and industry were invited to review data from the currently available cell systems, to discuss whether there exist cells and test systems that have a reduced tendency to false positive results, to review potential modifications to existing protocols and cell systems that might result in improved specificity, and to review the performance of some new test systems that show promise of improved specificity without sacrificing sensitivity. It was concluded that better guidance on the likely mechanisms resulting in positive results that are not biologically relevant for human health, and how to obtain evidence for those mechanisms, is needed both for practitioners and regulatory reviewers. Participants discussed the fact that cell lines commonly used for genotoxicity testing have a number of deficiencies that may contribute to the high false positive rate. These include, amongst others, lack of normal metabolism leading to reliance on exogenous metabolic activation systems (e.g. Aroclor-induced rat S9), impaired p53 function and altered DNA repair capability. The high concentrations of test chemicals (i.e. 10 mM or 5000 microg/ml, unless precluded by solubility or excessive toxicity) and the high levels of cytotoxicity currently required in mammalian cell genotoxicity tests were discussed as further potential sources of false positive results. Even if the goal is to detect carcinogens with short in vitro tests under more or less acute conditions, it does not seem logical to exceed the capabilities of cellular metabolic turnover, activation and defence processes. The concept of "promiscuous activation" was discussed. For numerous mutagens, the decisive in vivo enzymes are missing in vitro. However, if the substrate concentration is increased sufficiently, some other enzymes (that are unimportant in vivo) may take over the activation-leading to the same or a different active metabolite. Since we often do not use the right enzyme systems for positive controls in vitro, we have to rely on their promiscuous activation, i.e. to use excessive concentrations to get an empirical correlation between genotoxicity and carcinogenicity. A thorough review of published and industry data is urgently needed to determine whether the currently required limit concentration of 10mM or 5000 microg/ml, and high levels of cytotoxicity, are necessary for the detection of in vivo genotoxins and DNA-reactive, mutagenic carcinogens. In addition, various measures of cytotoxicity are currently allowable under OECD test guidelines, but there are few comparative data on whether different measures would result in different maximum concentrations for testing. A detailed comparison of cytotoxicity assessment strategies is needed. An assessment of whether test endpoints can be selected that are not intrinsically associated with cytotoxicity, and therefore are less susceptible to artefacts produced by cytotoxicity, should also be undertaken. There was agreement amongst the workshop participants that cell systems which are p53 and DNA-repair proficient, and have defined Phase 1 and Phase 2 metabolism, covering a broad set of enzyme forms, and used within the context of appropriately set limits of concentration and cytotoxicity, offer the best hope for reduced false positives. Whilst there is some evidence that human lymphocytes are less susceptible to false positives than the current rodent cell lines, other cell systems based on HepG2, TK6 and MCL-5 cells, as well as 3D skin models based on primary human keratinocytes also show some promise. Other human cell lines such as HepaRG, and human stem cells (the target for carcinogenicity) have not been used for genotoxicity investigations and should be considered for evaluation. Genetic engineering is also a valuable tool to incorporate missing enzyme systems into target cells. A collaborative research programme is needed to identify, further develop and evaluate new cell systems with appropriate sensitivity but improved specificity. In order to review current data for selection of appropriate top concentrations, measures and levels of cytotoxicity, metabolism, and to be able to improve existing or validate new assay systems, the participants called for the establishment of an expert group to identify the in vivo genotoxins and DNA-reactive, mutagenic carcinogens that we expect our in vitro genotoxicity assays to detect as well as the non-genotoxins and non-carcinogens we expect them not to detect.     

The lack of genotoxicity of sodium fluoride in a battery of cellular tests

In a comprehensive assessment of genotoxicity, sodium fluoride was evaluated in a battery of cellular tests providing different genetic end points and biotransformation capabilities. The tests included the following: rat hepatocyte primary culture/DNA repair assay, Salmonella typhimurium histidine locus reversion assay, adult rat liver epithelial cell/hypoxanthine guanine phosphoribosyl transferase mutation assay, and sister chromatid exchange in two target cell types, human peripheral blood lymphocytes and Chinese hamster ovary cells. Negative findings were made in all assays, indicating that sodium fluoride is not genotoxic in these assays.Abbreviations ARL adult rat liver epithelial cell - CHO Chinese hamster ovary cell - HGPRT hypoxanthineguanine phosphoribosyl transferase - HPBL human peripheral blood lymphocyte - HPC hepatocyte primary culture - SCE sister chromatid exchange     

Genetic toxicity of six carcinogens and six non-carcinogens in the Drosophila wing spot test

Six rodent carcinogens, 5 of which are also human carcinogens, and 6 compounds recognized as non-carcinogens were tested for their genotoxic activity in the Drosophila melanogaster wing spot test. 72-h-old larvae trans-heterozygous for the recessive wing cell markers 'multiple wing hairs' (mwh) and 'flare' (flr3) were fed various concentrations of the test compounds for a period of 48 h. With amitrole and 4-aminobiphenyl, larvae of the same age were also given an acute treatment of 6 h with higher concentrations, and, in addition, 48-h-old larvae were fed for a longer period of 72 h. Repeats of all experiments document the good reproducibility of the results in the wing spot test. Amitrole and 4-aminobiphenyl were genotoxic after both 48-h and 72-h treatments, but their activity could not be detected following acute exposure of only 6 h. Chlorambucil and melphalan were clearly genotoxic. The carcinogens sodium arsenite and sodium arsenate, however, which are highly toxic to Drosophila, could only be tested at low exposure levels and were negative under these treatment conditions. The 6 non-carcinogens (ascorbic acid, 2-aminobiphenyl, mannitol, piperonyl butoxide, stannous chloride and titanium dioxide) were all definitely non-genotoxic in the Drosophila wing spot test. The data for the non-carcinogens demonstrate that non-genotoxic compounds can be identified in the wing spot test with a reasonable experimental effort.     

Comparison of the in vivo and in vitro genotoxicity of glyphosate isopropylamine salt in three different organisms

There is considerable controversy with regard to the genotoxicity of glyphosate, with some reports stating that this compound is non-toxic for fish, birds and mammals. In this work, we used the comet assay to examine the genotoxicity of glyphosate isopropylamine (0.7, 7, 70 and 700 μM) in human lymphocytes, erythrocytes of Oreochromis niloticus and staminal nuclei of Tradescantia (4430) in vitro and in vivo. Cells, nuclei and fish that had and had not been exposed to 5 mM N-nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA) were used as positive and negative controls, respectively. Significant (p < 0.01) genetic damage was observed in vivo and in vitro in all cell types and organisms tested. Human lymphocytes and Tradescantia hairs showed lower genetic damage in vivo compared to in vitro, possibly because of efficient metabolization of the herbicide. In O. niloticus erythrocytes, significant (p < 0.001) genotoxicity was observed at ≥ 7 μM, whereas in vitro, glyphosphate was genotoxic in human lymphocytes and Tradescantia hairs at ≥ 0.7 μM. These results indicate that glyphosate is genotoxic in the cells and organisms studied at concentrations of 0.7–7 μM.     

Review of the in vivo genotoxicity tests performed with styrene

Results from new genotoxicity tests in laboratory animals have necessitated a comprehensive re-evaluation of the mutagenic potential of styrene in vivo. Available data suggest that styrene, after being metabolized to styrene oxide, is weakly positive in indicator tests detecting DNA adducts, DNA strand breaks and sister chromatid exchanges (SCEs). There is no convincing evidence of styrene clastogenicity in experimental animals when the quality of the studies and the plausibility of the test results are considered. Equivocal results were obtained after exposure to high doses causing lethality. A recently published in vivo micronucleus test (MNT) in bone marrow cells of mice conforming to the current OECD guideline was clearly negative. Consequently, our evaluation of the published genotoxicity data comes to the conclusion that styrene at high doses can induce genotoxic effects in indicator tests. These DNA effects depend upon the exposure levels of the target cells, the metabolic activation to styrene oxide and the efficiency of detoxification. Mutagenic effects of styrene can only be expected under extreme exposure conditions if styrene oxide is not efficiently detoxified and primary DNA lesions are not completely repaired. However, there is no clear evidence that styrene induces mutagenic/clastogenic effects in vivo when tested under appropriate test conditions.     

Improvement of in vivo genotoxicity assessment: combination of acute tests and integration into standard toxicity testing

A working group convened at the 2009 5th IWGT to discuss possibilities for improving in vivo genotoxicity assessment by investigating possible links to standard toxicity testing. The working group considered: (1) combination of acute micronucleus (MN) and Comet assays into a single study, (2) integration of MN assays into repeated-dose toxicity (RDT) studies, (3) integration of Comet assays into RDT studies, and (4) requirements for the top dose when integrating genotoxicity measurements into RDT studies. The working group reviewed current requirements for in vivo genotoxicity testing of different chemical product classes and identified opportunities for combination and integration of genotoxicity endpoints for each class. The combination of the acute in vivo MN and Comet assays was considered by the working group to represent a technically feasible and scientifically acceptable alternative to conducting independent assays. Two combination protocols, consisting of either a 3- or a 4-treament protocol, were considered equally acceptable. As the integration of MN assays into RDT studies had already been discussed in detail in previous IWGT meetings, the working group focussed on factors that could affect the results of the integrated MN assay, such as the possible effects of repeated bleeding and the need for early harvests. The working group reached the consensus that repeated bleeding at reasonable volumes is not a critical confounding factor for the MN assay in rats older than 9 weeks of age and that rats bled for toxicokinetic investigations or for other routine toxicological purposes can be used for MN analysis. The working group considered the available data as insufficient to conclude that there is a need for an early sampling point for MN analysis in RDT studies, in addition to the routine determination at terminal sacrifice. Specific scenarios were identified where an additional early sampling can have advantages, e.g., for compounds that exert toxic effects on hematopoiesis, including some aneugens. For the integration of Comet assays into RDT studies, the working group reached the consensus that, based upon the limited amount of data available, integration is scientifically acceptable and that the liver Comet assay can complement the MN assay in blood or bone marrow in detecting in vivo genotoxins. Practical issues need to be considered when conducting an integrated Comet assay study. Freezing of tissue samples for later Comet assay analysis could alleviate logistical problems. However, the working group concluded that freezing of tissue samples can presently not be recommended for routine use, although it was noted that results from some laboratories look promising. Another discussion topic centred around the question as to whether tissue toxicity, which is more likely observed in RDT than in acute toxicity studies, would affect the results of the Comet assay. Based on the available data from in vivo studies, the working group concluded that there are no clear examples where cytotoxicity, by itself, generates increases or decreases in DNA migration. The working group identified the need for a refined guidance on the use and interpretation of cytotoxicity methods used in the Comet assay, as the different methods used generally lead to inconsistent conclusions. Since top doses in RDT studies often are limited by toxicity that occurs only after several doses, the working group discussed whether the sensitivity of integrated genotoxicity studies is reduced under these circumstances. For compounds for which in vitro genotoxicity studies yielded negative results, the working group reached the consensus that integration of in vivo genotoxicity endpoints (typically the MN assay) into RDT studies is generally acceptable. If in vitro genotoxicity results are unavailable or positive, consensus was reached that the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) is acceptable as the top dose in RDT studies in many cases, such as when the RDT study MTD or exposure is close (50% or greater) to an acute study MTD or exposure. Finally, the group agreed that exceptions to this general rule might be acceptable, for example when human exposure is lower than the preclinical exposure by a large margin.     

Species differences in the genotoxicity of cyclophosphamide and styrene in three in vivo assays.

Species differences in dispositional factors such as distribution, metabolism and excretion may often account for species differences in the toxic responses to foreign chemicals. In this study we compared the genotoxic responses of cyclophosphamide (CP) and styrene (ST) between Porton rats and LACA Swiss mice in three in vivo assays (bone marrow micronucleus (MN), sperm morphology (SM) and sister-chromatid exchange (SCE) assays). The sensitivities of the three assays were compared by the doses of the compounds required to elicit a significant genotoxic response. The baseline levels for the MN, SCE and SM assays were 1.1-1.4 and 1.2-1.3 MNPCEs/1000 PCEs, 0.23-0.24 and 0.20-0.21 SCEs/chromosome, 3.5-5.7% and 1.6-1.9% abnormal sperm in mice and rats, respectively. CP was a potent genotoxin in the MN and SCE assays but weakly genotoxic in the SM assay. At comparable doses, the rat was approximately 3-, 2.5- and 1.8-fold more sensitive to CP than mice in the MN, SM and SCE assays, respectively. ST produced weak genotoxic responses in all assays in mice and only in the SM and SCE assays in rats. The mice were more sensitive to ST in the MN and SM assays, while it was difficult to compare the species in the SCE assay. For both compounds the sensitivity of the three assays, in decreasing order, were SCE greater than MN much greater than SM. For CP the relative responses in the Porton rats and LACA Swiss mice were qualitatively similar to previous reports. Although the use of different strains may explain differences between the studies in the magnitude of the responses observed. The results for ST in the rat shows that the choice of genotoxic endpoint can determine whether a response is detectable. Moreover, the discrepancies between the results for ST in this study and others, suggest that as well as using a battery of in vivo tests, it may be prudent to select more that one strain or species to fully assess a compound's ability to produce DNA damage.     

Paradoxical effect of sudan III on the in vivo and in vitro genotoxicity elicited by 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene

Effect of the induction of drug metabolizing enzymes by Sudan III on the in vivo and in vitro genotoxicity elicited by 7,12-dimethyl-benz(a)anthracene (DMBA) was investigated. A significant suppression of DMBA-induced micronucleated reticulocytes was observed in C57BL/6 mice treated with Sudan III intraperitoneally for 3 or 5 days before injection of the DMBA. However, the preincubation of DMBA with hepatic microsomes from Sudan III-treated rats caused a marked increase in the in vitro mutagenicity in the Ames assay, paradoxically. Sudan III was found to induce CYP 1A1, 7-ethoxycoumarin O-deethylase activity as well as both UDP-glucuronyl transferase and glutathione S-transferase activities. The increase of mutagenicity of DMBA observed in the Ames assay using hepatic microsomes from Sudan III-treated rats was inhibited by the addition of uridine 5′-diphosphoglucuronic add or reduced glutathione with cytosol. Mutagenic metabolites of DMBA formed by CYP1A1 appeared to be effectively detoxified by these phase II enzymes. The results of this study suggest that Sudan III-induced prevention of in vivo mutagenesis is due to the induction of both CYP 1A1 and detoxifying phase II enzymes. The induced CYP1A1 may accelerate formation of active metabolic intermediates, but phase II enzymes are also induced and detoxify these intermediates to inactive metabolites. This would reduce residence time of the carcinogen in the body and the time of exposure to active metabolites for target organs.     

In vitro and in vivo genotoxicity of radiofrequency fields

There has been growing concern about the possibility of adverse health effects resulting from exposure to radiofrequency radiations (RFR), such as those emitted by wireless communication devices. Since the introduction of mobile phones many studies have been conducted regarding alleged health effects but there is still some uncertainty and no definitive conclusions have been reached so far. Although thermal effects are well understood they are not of great concern as they are unlikely to result from the typical low-level RFR exposures. Concern rests essentially with the possibility that RFR-exposure may induce non-thermal and/or long-term health effects such as an increased cancer risk. Consequently, possible genetic effects have often been studied but with mixed results. In this paper we review the data on alleged RFR-induced genetic effects from in vitro and in vivo investigations as well as from human cytogenetic biomonitoring surveys. Attention is also paid to combined exposures of RFR with chemical or physical agents. Again, however, no entirely consistent picture emerges. Many of the positive studies may well be due to thermal exposures, but a few studies suggest that biological effects can be seen at low levels of exposure. Overall, however, the evidence for low-level genotoxic effects is very weak.     

Evaluation of the potential in vivo genotoxicity of quercetin

Quercetin, a naturally occurring flavonol commonly detected in apples, cranberries, blueberries, and onions, has been reported to possess antioxidant, anti-carcinogenic, anti-inflammatory, and cardioprotective properties. While positive results have been consistently reported in numerous in vitro mutagenicity and genotoxicity assays of quercetin, tested in vivo, quercetin has generally produced negative results in such studies. Furthermore, no evidence of carcinogenicity related to the oral administration of quercetin was observed in chronic rodent assays. In order to further define the in vivo genotoxic potential of quercetin, a bone marrow micronucleus assay and an unscheduled DNA synthesis (UDS) assay were conducted in Wistar rats. Administered orally to male rats at dose levels of up to 2000 mg/kg body weight, quercetin did not increase the number of micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes (MN-PCE) 24 or 48 h following dosing in the micronucleus assay. Likewise, orally administered quercetin (up to 2000 mg/kg body weight) did not induce UDS in hepatocytes of male or female rats. While measurable levels of metabolized quercetin were observed in rat plasma samples for up to 48 h after dosing, peaking at 1 h following treatment administration, the unmetabolized aglycone was not identified in either plasma or bone marrow. With the exception of only a few rats, the aglycone was also not detected in liver tissue. These results demonstrate that quercetin is not genotoxic under the conditions of these assays and further support the negative results of previously conducted in vivo assays.     

Evaluation of the potential in vivo genotoxicity of quercetin

Quercetin, a naturally occurring flavonol commonly detected in apples, cranberries, blueberries, and onions, has been reported to possess antioxidant, anti-carcinogenic, anti-inflammatory, and cardioprotective properties. While positive results have been consistently reported in numerous in vitro mutagenicity and genotoxicity assays of quercetin, tested in vivo, quercetin has generally produced negative results in such studies. Furthermore, no evidence of carcinogenicity related to the oral administration of quercetin was observed in chronic rodent assays. In order to further define the in vivo genotoxic potential of quercetin, a bone marrow micronucleus assay and an unscheduled DNA synthesis (UDS) assay were conducted in Wistar rats. Administered orally to male rats at dose levels of up to 2000 mg/kg body weight, quercetin did not increase the number of micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes (MN-PCE) 24 or 48 h following dosing in the micronucleus assay. Likewise, orally administered quercetin (up to 2000 mg/kg body weight) did not induce UDS in hepatocytes of male or female rats. While measurable levels of metabolized quercetin were observed in rat plasma samples for up to 48 h after dosing, peaking at 1h following treatment administration, the unmetabolized aglycone was not identified in either plasma or bone marrow. With the exception of only a few rats, the aglycone was also not detected in liver tissue. These results demonstrate that quercetin is not genotoxic under the conditions of these assays and further support the negative results of previously conducted in vivo assays.