Improvements in the reliability of in vitro genotoxicity testing

Expert Opinion on Drug Metabolism and Toxicology

Volumn 7, Issue 12, 2011, Pages 1513-1520

  Kirkland, David ^a  

^a Kirkland Consulting   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cytotoxicity; Genotoxicity; Mammalian cell lines; Misleading positive results; Top concentration

Indexed keywords

2,4 DICHLOROPHENOL; 4 NITROPHENOL; ACRYLIC ACID ETHYL ESTER; ANTHRANILIC ACID; CURCUMIN; DNA; EPIGALLOCATECHIN GALLATE; EUGENOL; GALLIC ACID PROPYL ESTER; HYDROGEN PEROXIDE; HYDROQUINONE DERIVATIVE; PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE; PROTEIN P53; RESORCINOL; SULFAFURAZOLE;

ARTIFACT; CELL COUNT; CELL LINE; CELL PROLIFERATION; CELL STRAIN HEPG2; CELL TYPE; CHO CELL; CONCENTRATION (PARAMETERS); CULTURE MEDIUM; CYTOTOXICITY; DNA DAMAGE; GENOTOXICITY; HUMAN; IN VITRO STUDY; MICRONUCLEUS TEST; NONHUMAN; RELIABILITY; REVIEW; TOXICITY TESTING;

ANIMALS; CARCINOGENS; CELL CULTURE TECHNIQUES; CELL LINE; CELL PROLIFERATION; DNA DAMAGE; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; HUMANS; MUTAGENICITY TESTS; REACTIVE OXYGEN SPECIES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

MAMMALIA; RODENTIA;

EID: 81855194809     PISSN: 17425255     EISSN: 17447607     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1517/17425255.2011.627855     Document Type: Review

References (26)

1. ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline. Topic S2B. Genotoxicity: a standard battery for genotoxicity testing of pharmaceuticals. International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. Step 4 guideline 16 July 1997
2. Kirkland D, Aardema M, Henderson L, et al. Evaluation of the ability of a battery of 3 in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and noncarcinogens. I. Sensitivity, specificity and relative predictivity. Mutat Res 2005;584:1-256
3. Matthews EJ, Kruhlak NL, Cimino MC, et al. An analysis of genetic toxicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, and carcinogenicity data: I. Identification of carcinogens using surrogate endpoints. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 005;44:83-96
4. Kirkland D, Pfuhler S, Tweats D, et al. 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. Mutat Res 2007;628:31-55
5. Thybaud V, Aardema M, Clements J, et al. Strategy for genotoxicity testing: Hazard identification and risk assessment in relation to in vitro testing. Mutat Res 2007;627:41-58
6. Fowler P, Smith K, Young J, et al. Reduction of misleading ("false") positive results in mammalian cell genotoxicity assays. I. Choice of cell type. Mutat Res 2011; accepted for publication
7. Kirkland D, Kasper P, Muller L, et al. Recommended lists of genotoxic and non-genotoxic chemicals for assessment of the performance of new or improved genotoxicity tests: a follow-up to an ECVAM workshop. Mutat Res 2008;653:99-108
8. Tweats DJ, Gatehouse DG. Established or primary cells lines for cytogenetic tests? Environ Mol Mutagen 1989;14(Suppl 15):204
9. Greenwood SK, Hill RB, Sun JT, et al. Population doubling: A simple and more accurate estimation of cell growth suppression in the in vitro assay for chromosomal aberrations that reduces irrelevant positive results. Environ Mol Mutagen 2004;43:36-44
10. Lorge E, Hayashi M, Albertini S, Kirkland D. Comparison of different methods for an accurate assessment of cytotoxicity in the in vitro micronucleus test. I. Theoretical aspects. Mutat Res 2008;655:1-3
11. Fellows MD, O'Donovan MR, Lorge E, Kirkland D. Comparison of different methods for an accurate assessment of cytotoxicity in the in vitro micronucleus test. II. Practical aspects with toxic agents. Mutat Res 2008;655:4-21
12. Galloway S, Lorge E, Aardema MJ, et al. 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). Mutat Res 2011;723:77-83
13. Fowler P, Williams K, Jeffrey L, et al. Reduction of misleading ("false") positive results in mammalian cell genotoxicity assays. II. Importance of accurate toxicity measurement. Environ Mol Mutagen 2010;50:573
14. Kirkland D. Evaluation of different cytotoxic and cytostatic measures for the in vitro micronucleus test (MNVit): summary of results in the collaborative trial. Mutat Res 2010;702:139-47
15. Galloway SM. 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 2000;35:191-201
16. Galloway SM, Aardema MJ, Ishidate M Jr, et al. Report from working group on in vitro tests for chromosomal aberrations. Mutat Res 1994;312:241-61
17. ICH. Guidance on genotoxicity testing and data interpretation for pharmaceuticals intended for human use. S2(R1). Draft consensus guideline. International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. March 2008
18. Parry JM, Parry E, Phrakonkham P, Corvi R. Analysis of published data for top concentration considerations in mammalian cell genotoxicity testing. Mutagenesis 2010;25:531-8
19. Kirkland D, Fowler P. Further analysis of Ames-negative rodent carcinogens that are only genotoxic in mammalian cells at concentrations exceeding 1 mM, including retesting of compounds of concern. Mutagenesis 2010;25:539-53
20. Brusick D. Implications of treatment-condition-induced genotoxicity for chemical screening and data interpretation. Mutat Res 1987;189(12):6
21. Scott D, Galloway SM, Marshall RR, et al. Genotoxicity under extreme culture conditions. A report from ICPEMC Task Group 9. Mutat Res 1991;257:147-204
22. Long LH, Kirkland D, Halliwell B. Different cytotoxicities of epigallocatechin gallate or ascorbate in various cell culture media due to variable rates of oxidation in the culture medium. Mutat Res 2007;634:177-83
23. Kirkland DJ, Aardema M, Banduhn N, et al. In vitro approaches to develop weight of evidence (WoE) and mode of action (MoA) discussions with positive in vitro genotoxicity results. Mutagenesis 2007;22:161-75
24. Dearfield KL, Thybaud V, Cimino MC, et al. Follow-up actions from positive results of in vitro genetic toxicity testing. Environ Mol Mutagen 2011;52:177-204
25. Elespuru RK, Agarwal R, Atrakchi AH, et al. Current and future application of genetic toxicity assays: the role and value of in vitro mammalian assays. Toxicol Sci 2009;109:172-9
26. Lynch AM, Sasaki JC, Elespuru R, et al. New and emerging technologies for genetic toxicity testing. Environ Mol Mutagen 2011;52:205-23