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.     

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.     

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

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

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

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

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

Improving current in vitro genotoxicity tests is an ongoing task for genetic toxicologists. Further, the question on how to deal with positive in vitro results that are demonstrated to not predict genotoxicity or carcinogenicity potential in rodents or humans is a challenge. These two aspects were addressed at the 5th International Workshop on Genotoxicity Testing (IWGT) held in Basel, Switzerland, on August 17-19, 2009. The objectives of the working group (WG) were to make recommendations on the use of cell types or lines, if possible, and to provide evaluations of promising new approaches. Results obtained in rodent cell lines with impaired p53 function (L5178Y, V79, CHL and CHO cells) and human p53-competent cells (peripheral blood lymphocytes, TK6 and HepG2 cells) suggest that a reduction in the percentage of non-relevant positive results for carcinogenicity prediction can be achieved by careful selection of cells used without decreasing the sensitivity of the assays. Therefore, the WG suggested using p53- competent - preferably human - cells in in vitro micronucleus or chromosomal aberration tests. The use of the hepatoma cell line HepaRG for genotoxicity testing was considered promising since these cells possess better phase I and II metabolizing potential compared to cell lines commonly used in this area and may overcome the need for the addition of S9. For dermally applied compounds, the WG agreed that in vitro reconstructed skin models, once validated, will be useful to follow up on positive results from standard in vitro assays as they resemble the properties of human skin (barrier function, metabolism). While the reconstructed skin micronucleus assay has been shown to be further advanced, there was also consensus that the Comet assay should be further evaluated due to its independence from cell proliferation and coverage of a wider spectrum of DNA damage.     

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.     

International Commission for Protection against Environmental Mutagens and Carcinogens. ICPEMC working paper No. 5. Genotoxicity tests as predictors of carcinogens: an analysis

Differences between the results of numerical validation studies comparing in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity tests with the rodent cancer bioassay are leading to the perception that short-term tests predict carcinogenicity only with uncertainty. Consideration of factors such as the pharmacokinetic distribution of chemicals, the systems available for metabolic activation and detoxification, the ability of the active metabolite to move from the site of production to the target DNA, and the potential for expression of the induced lesions, strongly suggests that the disparate sensitivity of the different test systems is a major reason why numerical validation is not more successful. Furthermore, genotoxicity tests should be expected to detect only a subset of carcinogens, namely genotoxic carcinogens, rather than those carcinogens that appear to act by non-genetic mechanisms. Instead of relying primarily on short-term in vitro genotoxicity tests to predict carcinogenic activity, these tests should be used in a manner that emphasizes the accurate determination of mutagenicity or clastogenicity. It must then be determined whether the mutagenic activity is further expressed as carcinogenicity in the appropriate studies using test animals. The prospects for quantitative extrapolation of in vitro or in vivo genotoxicity test results to carcinogenicity requires a much more precise understanding of the critical molecular events in both processes.     

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.     

In vivo erythrocyte micronucleus assay III. Validation and regulatory acceptance of automated scoring and the use of rat peripheral blood reticulocytes, with discussion of non-hematopoietic target cells and a single dose-level limit test

The in vivo micronucleus assay working group of the International Workshop on Genotoxicity Testing (IWGT) discussed new aspects in the in vivo micronucleus (MN) test, including the regulatory acceptance of data derived from automated scoring, especially with regard to the use of flow cytometry, the suitability of rat peripheral blood reticulocytes to serve as the principal cell population for analysis, the establishment of in vivo MN assays in tissues other than bone marrow and blood (for example liver, skin, colon, germ cells), and the biological relevance of the single-dose-level test. Our group members agreed that flow cytometric systems to detect induction of micronucleated immature erythrocytes have advantages based on the presented data, e.g., they give good reproducibility compared to manual scoring, are rapid, and require only small quantities of peripheral blood. Flow cytometric analysis of peripheral blood reticulocytes has the potential to allow monitoring of chromosome damage in rodents and also other species as part of routine toxicology studies. It appears that it will be applicable to humans as well, although in this case the possible confounding effects of splenic activity will need to be considered closely. Also, the consensus of the group was that any system that meets the validation criteria recommended by the IWGT (2000) should be acceptable. A number of different flow cytometric-based micronucleus assays have been developed, but at the present time the validation data are most extensive for the flow cytometric method using anti-CD71 fluorescent staining especially in terms of inter-laboratory collaborative data. Whichever method is chosen, it is desirable that each laboratory should determine the minimum sample size required to ensure that scoring error is maintained below the level of animal-to-animal variation. In the second IWGT, the potential to use rat peripheral blood reticulocytes as target cells for the micronucleus assay was discussed, but a consensus regarding acceptability for regulatory purposes could not be reached at that time. Subsequent validation efforts, combined with accumulated published data, demonstrate that blood-derived reticulocytes from rats as well as mice are acceptable when young reticulocytes are analyzed under proper assay protocol and sample size. The working group reviewed the results of micronucleus assays using target cells/tissues other than hematopoietic cells. We also discussed the relevance of the liver micronucleus assay using young rats, and the importance of understanding the maturation of enzyme systems involved in the processes of metabolic activation in the liver of young rats. Although the consensus of the group was that the more information with regard to the metabolic capabilities of young rats would be useful, the published literature shows that young rats have sufficient metabolic capacity for the purposes of this assay. The use of young rats as a model for detecting MN induction in the liver offers a good alternative methodology to the use of partial hepatectomy or mitogenic stimulation. Additional data obtained from colon and skin MN models have been integrated into the data bases, enhancing confidence in the utility of these models. A fourth topic discussed by the working group was the regulatory acceptance of the single-dose-level assay. There was no consensus regarding the acceptability of a single dose level protocol when dose-limiting toxicity occurs. The use of a single dose level can lead to problems in data interpretation or to the loss of animals due to unexpected toxicity, making it necessary to repeat the study with additional doses. A limit test at a single dose level is currently accepted when toxicity is not dose-limiting.     

Genotoxicity of acrylamide and glycidamide in human lymphoblastoid TK6 cells

The recent finding that acrylamide (AA), a potent carcinogen, is formed in foods during cooking raises human health concerns. In the present study, we investigated the genotoxicity of AA and its metabolite glycidamide (GA) in human lymphoblastoid TK6 cells examining three endpoints: DNA damage (comet assay), clastogenesis (micronucleus test) and gene mutation (thymidine kinase (TK) assay). In a 4 h treatment without metabolic activation, AA was mildly genotoxic in the micronucleus and TK assays at high concentrations (> 10 mM), whereas GA was significantly and concentration-dependently genotoxic at all endpoints at > or = 0.5 mM. Molecular analysis of the TK mutants revealed that AA predominantly induced loss of heterozygosity (LOH) mutation like spontaneous one while GA-induced primarily point mutations. These results indicate that the genotoxic characteristics of AA and GA were distinctly different: AA was clastogenic and GA was mutagenic. The cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of AA were not enhanced by metabolic activation (rat liver S9), implying that the rat liver S9 did not activate AA. We discuss the in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity of AA and GA.     

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

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

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.     

Workshop summary: Top concentration for in vitro mammalian cell genotoxicity assays; and report from working group on toxicity measures and top concentration for in vitro cytogenetics assays (chromosome aberrations and micronucleus)

The selection of maximum concentrations for in vitro mammalian cell genotoxicity assays was reviewed at the 5th International Workshop on Genotoxicity Testing (IWGT), 2009. Currently, the top concentration recommended when toxicity is not limiting is 10mM or 5mg/ml, whichever is lower. The discussion was whether to reduce the limit, and if so whether the 1mM limit proposed for human pharmaceuticals was appropriate for testing other chemicals. The consensus was that there was reason to consider reducing the 10mM limit, and many, but not all, attendees favored a reduction to 1mM. Several proposals are described here for the concentration limit. The in vitro cytogenetics expert working group also discussed appropriate measures and level of cytotoxicity. Data were reviewed from a multi-laboratory trial of the in vitro micronucleus (MN) assay with multiple cell types and several types of toxicity measurements. The group agreed on a preference for toxicity measures that take cell proliferation after the beginning of treatment into account (relative increase in cell counts, relative population doubling, cytokinesis block proliferation index or replicative index), and that this applies both to in vitro MN assays and to in vitro chromosome aberration assays. Since relative cell counts (RCC) underestimate toxicity, many group members favored making a recommendation against the use of RCC as a toxicity measure for concentration selection. All 14 chemicals assayed for MN induction in the multi-laboratory trial were detected without exceeding 50% toxicity by any measure, but some were positive only at concentrations with toxicity quite close to 50%. The expert working group agreed to accept the cytotoxicity range recommended by OECD guideline 487 (55±5% toxicity at the top concentration scored). This also reinforces the original intent of the guidance for the in vitro chromosome aberration assay, where ">50%" was intended to target the range close to 50% toxicity.     

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.     

Genotoxicity of o-aminoazotoluene (AAT) determined by the Ames test, the in vitro chromosomal aberration test, and the transgenic mouse gene mutation assay

o-Aminoazotoluene (AAT) has been evaluated as a possible human carcinogen (Class 2B) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The Ames test found it to be mutagenic in the presence of a metabolic activation system, whereas it has little clastogenicity either in vitro or in vivo in the chromosomal aberration assay. AAT is also carcinogenic in the lung or liver of mice and rats given long-term administrations. Therefore, metabolites generated in the liver etc. may have gene mutation activity, and carcinogenesis would occur. We examined the mutagenicity of AAT in a gene mutation assay, using lacZ transgenic mice (MutaMice) and a positive selection method. AAT showed positive results for organs with metabolic functions, such as liver and colon and other organs. Positive results were also seen in an Ames test in the presence of metabolic activation and negative results seen in a chromosomal aberration test. Therefore, AAT had the potential to cause gene mutation in the presence of metabolic activation systems in vitro and the same reaction was confirmed in vivo with organs with metabolic function, such as liver and colon, but little clastogenicity in vitro or in vivo. Thus, metabolites with gene mutation activity may be responsible for the carcinogenicity of AAT. The transgenic mouse mutation assay proved to be useful for concurrent assessment of in vivo mutagenicity in multiple organs and to supplement the standard in vivo genotoxicity tests, such as the micronucleus assay which is limited to bone marrow as the only target organ.     

Genotoxicity testing of extracts of a Swedish moist oral snuff

The present study was designed to investigate the potential genotoxicity of aqueous and methylene chloride extracts of Swedish moist oral snuff. The test systems were selected to provide optimal data for the prediction of carcinogenicity in rodents and included assays for the induction of mutation in bacteria, sister-chromatid exchanges (SCE) in human lymphocytes, of chromosome aberrations and gene mutations in V79 Chinese hamster cells and of micronuclei in mouse bone marrow cells. In addition, the methylene chloride extract was tested for the induction of sex-linked recessive lethal mutations in Drosophila melanogaster. The aqueous extract of 'Snus' induced SCE in human lymphocytes and chromosome aberrations in V79 cells, the latter effect being observed both with and without metabolic activation. No induction of point mutations was detected with the Ames test or in V79 cells and the micronucleus test in mice was negative. It was demonstrated that the induction of chromosome aberrations without metabolic activation may be due to a high salt concentration, indicating that the clastogenic agent(s) in this extract required metabolic activation. The methylene chloride extract showed genotoxicity in the Ames test, the SCE test and the chromosome aberration test, whereas no induction of gene mutations in V79 cells was observed. Once again, the results suggested that metabolism is required for genotoxicity. The methylene chloride extract did not cause induction of micronuclei in mice or of sex-linked recessive lethal mutations in Drosophila melanogaster. These combined data on genotoxicity were analyzed using various models for the prediction of carcinogenicity. In a sequential testing model, the probabilities that the aqueous and methylene chloride extracts of 'Snus' are carcinogenic due to a genotoxic mechanism were both predicted to be low. Using carcinogenicity prediction by battery selection (CPBS), the probabilities of the methylene chloride and aqueous extracts being correctly identified as non-carcinogens are 71 and 77%, respectively. Up to date, the CPBS approach has been validated primarily for individual compounds, so some caution should at present be exercised in interpreting the results using this method. Based on these results, the carcinogenic potential of Swedish 'Snus' should be considered to be low, a conclusion in agreement with the low incidence of oral cancer in Sweden compared to other countries.     

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.     

Cytostatic drug activity in plasma, a bioassay for detecting mutagenicity of directly and indirectly acting chemicals, an evaluation of 20 chemicals

We have utilized in vivo drug metabolism for detecting the mutagenicity of known indirectly-acting chemical mutagens. Exponentially growing Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells were incubated with plasma derived from treated rats containing active metabolites of the test chemicals. The genotoxicity was assessed by the 18 of tested chemical mutagens. Plasma from rats treated with known non-mutagens did not increase the frequencies of SCEs. The results indicate that this method could be useful for the demonstration of genotoxicity of chemicals which need metabolic activation to be effective, and especially those which are not effective, when in vitro activation conditions (S9 mixture) are used.     

ECVAM and pharmaceuticals

In the pharmaceutical industry, toxicology testing is normally done by preclinical scientists during the Development phase. In the last decade, the implementation of high-throughput screens during the Discovery phase has resulted in an ever-increasing number of lead candidates to be selected for drug development. The low throughput of the conventional safety tests is a bottleneck in the drug-development process. The pharmaceutical industry needs new techniques, down-scaled tests and in vitro alternative test models to determine the absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME) and toxicology profiles of compounds in the late-Discovery phase and/or early in the Development phase. Medium-throughput ADME and toxicity tests will enhance the selection of safer new chemical entities for animals and/or humans. Consequently, this testing strategy will not only reduce the use of resources and the overall development time, but will also result in a substantial decrease in animal use.     

Integrated decision-tree testing strategies for acute systemic toxicity and toxicokinetics with respect to the requirements of the EU REACH legislation

Liverpool John Moores University and FRAME conducted a joint research project, sponsored by Defra, on the status of alternatives to animal testing with regard to the European Union REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) system for the safety testing and risk assessment of chemicals. The project covered all the main toxicity endpoints associated with REACH. This paper focuses on the use of alternative (non-animal) methods (both in vitro and in silico) for acute systemic toxicity and toxicokinetic testing. The paper reviews in vitro tests based on basal cytotoxicity and target organ toxicity, along with QSAR models and expert systems available for this endpoint. The use of PBPK modelling for the prediction of ADME properties is also discussed. These tests are then incorporated into a decision-tree style, integrated testing strategy, which also includes the use of refined in vivo acute toxicity tests, as a last resort. The implementation of the strategy is intended to minimise the use of animals in the testing of acute systemic toxicity and toxicokinetics, whilst satisfying the scientific and logistical demands of the EU REACH legislation.