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.     

Genotoxicity of benzene and its metabolites

The potential role of genotoxicity in human leukemias associated with benzene (BZ) exposures was investigated by a systematic review of over 1400 genotoxicity test results for BZ and its metabolites. Studies of rodents exposed to radiolabeled BZ found a low level of radiolabel in isolated DNA with no preferential binding in target tissues of neoplasia. Adducts were not identified by 32P-postlabeling (equivalent to a covalent binding index <0.002) under the dosage conditions producing neoplasia in the rodent bioassays, and this method would have detected adducts at 1/10,000th the levels reported in the DNA-binding studies. Adducts were detected by 32P-postlabeling in vitro and following high acute BZ doses in vivo, but levels were about 100-fold less than those found by DNA binding. These findings suggest that DNA-adduct formation may not be a significant mechanism for BZ-induced neoplasia in rodents. The evaluation of other genotoxicity test results revealed that BZ and its metabolites did not produce reverse mutations in Salmonella typhimurium but were clastogenic and aneugenic, producing micronuclei, chromosomal aberrations, sister chromatid exchanges and DNA strand breaks. Rodent and human data were compared, and BZ genotoxicity results in both were similar for the available tests. Also, the biotransformation of BZ was qualitatively similar in rodents, humans and non-human primates, further indicating that rodent and human genotoxicity data were compatible. The genotoxicity test results for BZ and its metabolites were the most similar to those of topoisomerase II inhibitors and provided less support for proposed mechanisms involving DNA reactivity, mitotic spindle poisoning or oxidative DNA damage as genotoxic mechanisms; all of which have been demonstrated experimentally for BZ or its metabolites. Studies of the chromosomal translocations found in BZ-exposed persons and secondary human leukemias produced by topoisomerase II inhibitors provide some additional support for this mechanism being potentially operative in BZ-induced leukemia.     

Thresholds in genotoxicity responses

It has been commonly accepted that risk assessments of genotoxic chemicals are based on linear extrapolation methods. However, there is substantial evidence that some chemicals may be genotoxic only at high doses by mechanisms that do not occur at low doses, or only under specific conditions in genotoxicity assays, but are inactive at concentrations within the range of human exposure levels. There are a variety of possible mechanisms of thresholded genotoxicity, including disruption of cell division and chromosome segregation, inhibition of DNA synthesis, overloading of oxidative defence mechanisms, metabolism or plasma binding capacity, disturbances of metal homeostasis, cytotoxicity and physiological perturbations in in vivo assays. The degrees of evidence supporting the proposed mechanisms are variable and not all are sufficiently robust to be universally accepted as yet by the scientific community. However, a survey of industrial companies indicated that data have been accepted by some regulatory authorities indicating thresholds contributing to genotoxicity responses.     

Assessment of the potential germ cell mutagenicity of industrial and plant protection chemicals as part of an integrated study of genotoxicity in vitro and in vivo

An approach is described that enables the germ cell mutagenicity of chemicals to be assessed as part of an integrated assessment of genotoxic potential. It is recommended, first, that the genotoxicity of a chemical be defined by appropriate studies in vitro. This should involve use of the Salmonella mutation assay and an assay for the induction of chromosomal aberrations, but supplementary assays may be indicated in specific instances. If negative results are obtained from these 2 tests there is no need for the conduct of additional tests. Agents considered to be genotoxic in vitro should then be assessed for genotoxicity to rodents. This will usually involve the conduct of a bone marrow cytogenetic assay, and in the case of negative results, a genotoxicity test in an independent tissue. Agents found to be non-genotoxic in vivo are regarded as having no potential for germ cell mutagenicity. Agents found to be genotoxic in vivo may either be assumed to have potential as germ cell mutagens, or their status in this respect may be defined by appropriate germ cell mutagenicity studies. The basis of the approach, which is supported by the available experimental data, is that germ cell mutagens will be evident as somatic cell genotoxins in vivo, and that these will be detected as genotoxins in vitro given appropriate experimentation. The conduct of appropriate and adequate studies is suggested to be of more value than the conduct of a rigid set of prescribed tests.     

Report of the IWGT working group on strategies and interpretation of regulatory in vivo tests I. Increases in micronucleated bone marrow cells in rodents that do not indicate genotoxic hazards

In vivo genotoxicity tests play a pivotal role in genotoxicity testing batteries. They are used both to determine if potential genotoxicity observed in vitro is realised in vivo and to detect any genotoxic carcinogens that are poorly detected in vitro. It is recognised that individual in vivo genotoxicity tests have limited sensitivity but good specificity. Thus, a positive result from the established in vivo assays is taken as strong evidence for genotoxic carcinogenicity of the compound tested. However, there is a growing body of evidence that compound-related disturbances in the physiology of the rodents used in these assays can result in increases in micronucleated cells in the bone marrow that are not related to the intrinsic genotoxicity of the compound under test. For rodent bone marrow or peripheral blood micronucleus tests, these disturbances include changes in core body temperature (hypothermia and hyperthermia) and increases in erythropoiesis following prior toxicity to erythroblasts or by direct stimulation of cell division in these cells. This paper reviews relevant data from the literature and also previously unpublished data obtained from a questionnaire devised by the IWGT working group. Regulatory implications of these findings are discussed and flow diagrams have been provided to aid in interpretation and decision-making when such changes in physiology are suspected.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Cobalt and antimony: genotoxicity and carcinogenicity

The purpose of this review is to summarise the data concerning genotoxicity and carcinogenicity of Co and Sb. Both metals have multiple industrial and/or therapeutical applications, depending on the considered species. Cobalt is used for the production of alloys and hard metal (cemented carbide), diamond polishing, drying agents, pigments and catalysts. Occupational exposure to cobalt may result in adverse health effects in different organs or tissues. Antimony trioxide is primarily used as a flame retardant in rubber, plastics, pigments, adhesives, textiles, and paper. Antimony potassium tartrate has been used worldwide as an anti-shistosomal drug. Pentavalent antimony compounds have been used for the treatment of leishmaniasis. Co(II) ions are genotoxic in vitro and in vivo, and carcinogenic in rodents. Co metal is genotoxic in vitro. Hard metal dust, of which occupational exposure is linked to an increased lung cancer risk, is proven to be genotoxic in vitro and in vivo. Possibly, production of active oxygen species and/or DNA repair inhibition are mechanisms involved. Given the recently provided proof for in vitro and in vivo genotoxic potential of hard metal dust, the mechanistic evidence of elevated production of active oxygen species and the epidemiological data on increased cancer risk, it may be advisable to consider the possibility of a new evaluation by IARC. Both trivalent and pentavalent antimony compounds are generally negative in non-mammalian genotoxicity tests, while mammalian test systems usually give positive results for Sb(III) and negative results for Sb(V) compounds. Assessment of the in vivo potential of Sb2O3 to induce chromosome aberrations (CA) gave conflicting results. Animal carcinogenicity data were concluded sufficient for Sb2O3 by IARC. Human carcinogenicity data is difficult to evaluate given the frequent co-exposure to arsenic. Possible mechanisms of action, including potential to produce active oxygen species and to interfere with DNA repair systems, still need further investigation.     

Silica nanoparticles administered at the maximum tolerated dose induce genotoxic effects through an inflammatory reaction while gold nanoparticles do not

While the collection of genotoxicity data and insights into potential mechanisms of action for nano-sized particulate materials (NPs) are steadily increasing, there is great uncertainty whether current standard assays are suitable to appropriately characterize potential risks. We investigated the effects of NPs in an in vivo Comet/micronucleus (MN) combination assay and in an in vitro MN assay performed with human blood. We also incorporated additional endpoints into the in vivo study in an effort to delineate primary from secondary mechanisms. Amorphous silica NPs (15 and 55 nm) were chosen for their known reactivity, while gold nano/microparticles (2, 20, and 200 nm) were selected for their wide size range and lower reactivity. DNA damage in liver, lung and blood cells and micronuclei in circulating reticulocytes were measured after 3 consecutive intravenous injections to male Wistar rats at 48, 24 and 4h before sacrifice. Gold nano/microparticles were negative for MN induction in vitro and in vivo, and for the induction of DNA damage in all tissues. Silica particles, however, caused a small but reproducible increase in DNA damage and micronucleated reticulocytes when tested at their maximum tolerated dose (MTD). No genotoxic effects were observed at lower doses, and the in vitro MN assay was also negative. We hypothesize that silica NPs initiate secondary genotoxic effects through release of inflammatory cell-derived oxidants, similar to that described for crystalline silica (quartz). Such a mechanism is supported by the occurrence of increased neutrophilic infiltration, necrosis, and apoptotic cells in the liver, and induction of inflammatory markers TNF-α and IL-6 in plasma at the MTDs. These results were fairly consistent between silica NPs and the quartz control, thereby strengthening the argument that silica NPs may act in a similar, thresholded manner. The observed profile is supportive of a secondary genotoxicity mechanism that is driven by inflammation.     

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.     

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.     

Review of the genotoxicity of nitrogen oxides

Nitrogen oxides (NO_x) are formed in combustion processes and are major pollutants in urban air. Relatively few studies on the genotoxicity of NO₂ and NO have been performed. These studies indicate that NO₂ is genotoxic in vitro, but the effect of NO seems to be very slight.One in vivo study showed chromosome aberrations and mutations in lung cells after inhalation of NO₂ (and NO), but tests for chromosome aberrations in lymphocytes and spermatocytes or micronuclei in bone marrow were negative after inhalation of NO₂. Based on present studies, there is no clear evidence of a carcinogenic potential of NO₂, although lung adenomas were induced in the susceptible strain A/J mouse.The primary metabolites of NO_x are nitrite and nitrate. Nitrate seems to be devoid of genotoxic properties, but nitrite is genotoxic in vitro, and there are also positive in vivo results. Cancer studies have been mainly negative. However, carcinogenic nitrosamines have been shown to be formed in vivo after inhalation of NO₂.Nitrogen oxides are key components in atomospheric smog formation, which may lead to secondary effects. Strongly mutagenic nitro-PAH compounds are easily formed, and mutagenic reaction products may be formed photochemically from alkenes.     

Prevalence of genotoxic chemicals among animal and human carcinogens evaluated in the IARC Monograph series.

To determine whether genotoxic and non-genotoxic carcinogens contribute similarly to the cancer burden in humans, an analysis was performed on agents that were evaluated in Supplements 6 and 7 to the IARC Monographs for their carcinogenic effects in humans and animals and for the activity in short-term genotoxicity tests. The prevalence of genotoxic carcinogens on four groups of agents, consisting of established human carcinogens (group 1, n = 30), probable human carcinogens (group 2A, n = 37), possible human carcinogens (group 2B, n = 113) and on agents with limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animals (a subset of group 3, n = 149) was determined. A high prevalence in the order of 80 to 90% of genotoxic carcinogens was found in each of the groups 1, 2A and 2B, which were also shown to be multi-species/multi-tissues carcinogens. The distribution of carcinogenic potency in rodents did not reveal any specific characteristic of the human carcinogens in group 1 that would differentiate them from agents in groups 2A, 2B and 3. The results of this analysis indicate that (a) an agent with unknown carcinogenic potential showing sufficient evidence of activity in in vitro/in vivo genotoxicity assays (involving as endpoints DNA damage and chromosomal/mutational damage) may represent a hazard to humans; and b) an agent showing lack of activity in this spectrum of genotoxicity assays should undergo evaluation for carcinogenicity by rodent bioassay, in view of the present lack of validated short-term tests for non-genotoxic carcinogens. Overall, this analysis implies that genotoxic carcinogens add more to the cancer burden in man than non-genotoxic carcinogens. Thus, identification of such genotoxic carcinogens and subsequent lowering of exposure will remain the main goal for primary cancer prevention in man.     

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.     

Concomitant observations of UDS in the liver and micronuclei in the bone marrow of rats exposed to cyclophosphamide or 2-acetylaminofluorene

Oral dosing of between 5–30 mg/kg of cyclophosphamide (CP) to Alderley Park rats induced micronuclei in the bone marrow between 12 and 36 h after dosing, but failed to induce unscheduled DNA synthesis (UDS) in the liver at similar dose levels and treatment periods. Dose levels of > 30 mg/kg were toxic to the liver. In contrast, 2-acetylaminofluorene (2AAF) induced UDS in the rat liver between 4–36 h after dosing, but gave only a weak response in the bone marrow assay at dose levels between 0.5 and 2 g/kg. Selected observations were made for each chemical using both tissues of the same test animal.

It is concluded that an assessment of the genotoxicity in vivo of chemicals defined as genotoxic in vitro will contribute to an assessment of their possible mammalian carcinogenicity, and that these should involve assays conducted using both the bone marrow and the liver of rodents. Due to its relative ease of commission, the bone marrow micronucleus assay will usually be conducted first; in the case of negative results it is recommended that a liver genotoxicity assay should also be conducted. The case for employing in vivo short-term genotoxicity tests to predict the possible organotropic carcinogenicity or germ cell mutagenicity of a new in vitro genotoxin is discussed.     

Study of oxidative DNA damage in TK6 human lymphoblastoid cells by use of the thymidine kinase gene-mutation assay and the in vitro modified comet assay: determination of No-Observed-Genotoxic-Effect-Levels

Nowadays, there is clear progress in using the threshold concept in genetic toxicology, but its demonstration and acceptance in risk assessment is still under debate. Although it has been accepted for some non-DNA-reactive agents for which mechanisms of action were demonstrated, there is a growing weight of evidence to also support the existence of thresholded dose-responses for DNA-reactive agents. In this context, we have recently shown in human TK6 lymphoblastoid cells, that DNA-oxidizing agents [potassium bromate, bleomycin and hydrogen peroxide (via glucose oxidase)] produced non-linear dose-responses in the in vitro micronucleus test, thus allowing the determination of No-Observed-Genotoxic-Effect-Levels (NOGELs). Therefore, the aim of the present study was to focus on the analysis of thresholded dose-response curves in order to further investigate the existence of NOGELs for these same directly DNA-damaging agents, by use of other genotoxicity endpoints. Mutation frequency was determined after a 1-h treatment in the thymidine kinase (TK) gene-mutation assay. Primary DNA damage, especially oxidative DNA damage, was also assessed after 1h of treatment, followed - or not - by a 23-h recovery period, with the modified version of the comet assay (i.e. with the glycosylases Fpg and hOgg1). Overall, our analysis demonstrates that there is convincing evidence to support the existence of thresholded dose-responses for DNA-oxidizing agents. The determination of NOGELs depends on the genotoxic endpoint studied and consequently requires different genotoxicity assays performed concurrently. NOGELs could only be defined for the induction of chromosomal aberrations and gene mutations, i.e. for an effect-endpoint but not for primary DNA damage, i.e. for an exposure-endpoint. Further statistical analyses of these data are now required in order to draw conclusions on the exact level of the thresholds.     

Review of the genotoxicity of styrene in humans

Styrene (CAS No. 100-42-5) is an important industrial chemical for which positive results have been reported in in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity assays. Styrene-exposed workers have been studied extensively over two decades for the induction of various types of genotoxic effects. The outcomes of these studies have been conflicting, and where positive responses have been reported, it has proved difficult to demonstrate clear relationships between levels of damage reported and exposure levels. In this review, we have assessed studies addressing mutagenicity (chromosome aberrations, micronuclei and gene mutations) and other endpoints (sister chromatid exchanges, DNA breaks and DNA adducts) using criteria derived from the IPCS guidelines for the conduct of human biomonitoring studies. Based on the re-evaluated outcomes, the data are not convincing that styrene induces gene mutations. The evidence for induction of clastogenicity in occupationally exposed workers is less clear, with a predominant lack of induction of micronuclei in different studies, but conflicting responses in chromosome aberration assays. The results of numerous studies on sister chromatid exchanges do not provide evidence of a clear positive response, despite these being induced in animals exposed to styrene at high concentrations. However, there is evidence that both DNA adducts and DNA single strand breaks are induced in styrene workers. These types of damage are considered indicative of exposure of the target cells and interaction with cellular DNA but do not necessarily result in heritable changes. There is evidence that the metabolism of styrene in humans is affected by genetic polymorphisms of metabolizing genes and that these polymorphisms affect the outcome of in vitro mutagenicity studies on styrene. Therefore, studies that have addressed the potential of this factor to affect in vivo responses were considered. To date, there are no consistent relationships between genetic polymorphisms and induction of genotoxicity by styrene in humans, but further work is warranted on larger samples. The analyses of individual studies, together with a consideration of dose-response relationships and the lack of a common profile of positive responses for the various endpoints in different studies, provide no clear evidence that styrene exposure in workers results in detectable levels of mutagenic damage. However, evidence of exposure to genotoxic metabolites is demonstrated by the formation of DNA adducts and strand breaks.     

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

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