Appropriate levels of cytotoxicity for genotoxicity tests using mammalian cells in vitro

Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis

Volumn 35, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 202-205

  Müller, Lutz ^a   Sofuni, Toshio ^b,c  

^a Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices   (Germany)

^b NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH SCIENCES   (Japan)

^c OLYMPUS CORPORATION   (Japan)

Author keywords

Chromosome aberrations; Cytotoxicity in vitro; Mammalian cells; Threshold

Indexed keywords

NEW DRUG;

ANIMAL CELL; ANIMAL MODEL; CHROMOSOME ABERRATION; CONFERENCE PAPER; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DRUG CYTOTOXICITY; DRUG DETERMINATION; GENOTOXICITY; LYMPHOMA; MOUSE; NONHUMAN; RELIABILITY; STANDARD; TOXICITY TESTING;

ANIMALIA; BACTERIA (MICROORGANISMS); MAMMALIA;

EID: 0342748364     PISSN: 08936692     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1098-2280(2000)35:3<202::aid-em7>3.3.co;2-h     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. Armstrong MJ, Bean CL, Galloway SM. 1992. A quantitative assessment of cytotoxicity associated with chromosome aberration detection in Chinese hamster ovary cells. Mutat Res 265:45-60.
2. Bergman K, Müller L, Weberg Teigen S. 1996. The genotoxicity and carcinogenicity of paracetamol: a regulatory (re)view. Mutat Res 349:263-288.
3. Galloway SM, Miller JE, Armstrong MJ, Bean CL, Skopek TR, Nichols WW. 1998. DNA synthesis inhibition as an indirect mechanism of chromosome aberrations: comparison of DNA-reactive and non-DNA-reactive clastogens. Mutat Res 400:169-186.
4. Galloway SM. 2000. Cytotoxicity and chromosome aberrations in vitro: Experience in industry and the case for an upper limit on toxicity in the aberration assay. Environ Mol Mutagen 35:191-201.
5. Garriott ML, Casciano DA, Schechtman LM, Probst GS. 1995. International workshop on mouse lymphoma assay testing practices and data interpretations: Portland, Oregon, May 7, 1994. Environ Mol Mutagen 25:162-164.
6. Hilliard CA, Armstrong MJ, Bradt CI, Hill RB, Greenwood SK, Galloway SM. 1998. Chromosome aberrations in vitro related to cytotoxicity of non-mutagenic chemicals and metabolic poisons. Environ Mol Mutagen 31:316-326.
7. ICH S2A Guidance on Specific Aspects of Regulatory Genotoxicity Tests for Pharmaceuticals. http://www.ifpma.org/ich1.html.
8. ICH S2B A Standard Battery for Genotoxicity Testing of Pharmaceuticals. http://www.ifpma.org/ich1.html.
9. Kirkland DJ. 1992. Chromosomal aberration tests in vitro: problems with protocol design and interpretation of results. Mutagenesis 7:95-106.
10. Kirkland DJ, Müller L. 2000. Interpretation of the biological relevance of genotoxicity test results: the importance of thresholds. Mutat Res 464:137-147.
11. Müller L, Kasper P, Madle S. 1991. The quality of genotoxicity testing of drugs. Experiences of a regulatory agency with new and old compounds. Mutugenesis 6:143-149.
12. Müller L, Kasper P. 2000. Human biological relevance and the use of threshold-arguments in regulatory genotoxicity assessment: experience with pharmaceuticals. Mutat Res 464:19-34.
13. Müller L, Probst G, Schechtman L, Shimada H, Sofuni T, Tweats D. 1999. ICH-harmonised guidances on genotoxicity testing of pharmaceuticals: evolution, reasoning and impact. Mutat Res 436:195-225.
14. OECD. 1998. Ninth Addendum to the OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals. Paris: OECD.
15. Scott D, Galloway SM, Marshall RR, Ishidate M Jr, M, Brusick D, Ashby J, Myhr BC. 1991. Genotoxicity under extreme culture conditions. Mutat Res 257:147-204.
16. Sofuni T, Hayashi M, Nohmi T, Matsuoka A, Yamada M, Kamata E. 2000. Semi-quantitative evaluation of genotoxic activity of chemical substances and evidence for a biological threshold of genotoxic activity. Mutat Res 464:97-104.
17. Tazima Y, Kondo S, Kuroda Y. 1984. Problems of threshold in chemical mutagenesis. The Environmental Mutagen Society of Japan. Tokyo: Kokusai-bunken Printing Co. Ltd. 190 p.