Derivation of point of departure (PoD) estimates in genetic toxicology studies and their potential applications in risk assessment

Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis

Volumn 55, Issue 8, 2014, Pages 609-623

  Johnson, G E ^a   Soeteman Hernandez L G ^b   Gollapudi, B B ^c   Bodger, O G ^a   Dearfield, K L ^d   Heflich, R H ^e   Hixon, J G ^f   Lovell, D P ^g   Macgregor, J T ^h   Pottenger, L H ⁱ   Thompson, C M ^j   Abraham, L ^j   Thybaud, V ^k   Tanir, J Y ^l   Zeiger, E ^m   van Benthem, J ^b   White, P A ⁿ  

^a SWANSEA UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT   (Netherlands)

^c EXPONENT INC   (United States)

^d U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE   (United States)

^e NATIONAL CENTER FOR TOXICOLOGICAL RESEARCH   (United States)

^f ToxStrategies   (United States)

^g ST GEORGE'S UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^h Toxicology Consulting Services   (United States)

ⁱ DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY   (United States)

^j ToxStrategies   (United States)

^k SANOFI   (France)

^l ILSI HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES INSTITUTE   (United States)

^m Errol Zeiger Consulting   (United States)

ⁿ Environmental Health Center   (Canada)

more..

Author keywords

Alkylating agents; Benchmark dose; ENU; Margin of exposure; MNU

Indexed keywords

ETHYLNITROSOUREA; MESYLIC ACID ETHYL ESTER; MESYLIC ACID METHYL ESTER; METHYLNITROSOUREA; MUTAGENIC AGENT;

ARTICLE; CHROMOSOME DAMAGE; EXPOSURE; GENE MUTATION; GENETIC TOXICOLOGY; GENOTOXICITY; HUMAN; IN VITRO STUDY; IN VIVO STUDY; NONHUMAN; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; ANIMAL; DOSE RESPONSE; DRUG SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM; ECOTOXICOLOGY; FACTUAL DATABASE; PROCEDURES; QUALITY CONTROL;

ANIMALS; BENCHMARKING; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; ECOTOXICOLOGY; ETHYL METHANESULFONATE; ETHYLNITROSOUREA; HUMANS; METHYL METHANESULFONATE; METHYLNITROSOUREA; MUTAGENS; NO-OBSERVED-ADVERSE-EFFECT LEVEL; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 84907490974     PISSN: 08936692     EISSN: 10982280     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/em.21870     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Becker K, Thomas AD, Kaina B. 2013. Does increase in DNA repair allow "Tolerance-to-Insult" in chemical carcinogenesis? Skin tumor experiments with MGMT-overexpressing mice. Environ Mol Mutagen 55:145-150.
2. Beranek DT. 1990. Distribution of methyl and ethyl adducts following alkylation with monofunctional alkylating agents. Mutat Res 231:11-30.
3. Bryce SM, Avlasevich SL, Bemis JC, Phonethepswath S, Dertinger SD. 2010. Miniaturized flow cytometric in vitro micronucleus assay represents an efficient tool for comprehensively characterizing genotoxicity dose-response relationships. Mutat Res 703:191-199.
4. Crump KS. 1995. Calculation of benchmark doses from continuous data. Risk Anal 15:79-89.
5. Crump KS. 2011. Use of threshold and mode of action in risk assessment. Crit Rev Toxicol 41:637-650.
6. Doak SH, Jenkins GJ, Johnson GE, Quick E, Parry EM, Parry JM. 2007. Mechanistic influences for mutation induction curves after exposure to DNA-reactive carcinogens. Cancer Res 67:3904-3911.
7. EFSA. 2009. Use of benchmark dose approach in risk assessment: Guidance of the Scientific Committee. 2009 1150(Question No EFSA-Q-2005-232):1-72.
8. Elhajouji A, Lukamowicz M, Cammerer Z, Kirsch-Volders M. 2011. Potential thresholds for genotoxic effects by micronucleus scoring. Mutagenesis 26:199-204.
9. Field A. 2009. Discovering statistics using SPSS. 3rd edition. London: Sage publications.
10. Gocke E, Wall M. 2009. In vivo genotoxicity of EMS: Statistical assessment of the dose response curves. Toxicol Lett 190:298-302.
11. Gollapudi BB, Johnson GE, Hernandez LG, Pottenger LH, Dearfield KL, Jeffrey AM, Julien E, Kim JH, Lovell DP, Macgregor JT, Moore MM, van Benthem J, White PA, Zeiger E, Thybaud V. 2013. Quantitative approaches for assessing dose-response relationships in genetic toxicology studies. Environ Mol Mutagen 54:8-18.
12. Gollapudi BB, Thybaud V, Kim JH, Holsapple M. 2011. Strategies for the follow-up of positive results in the in vitro genotoxicity assays-an international collaborative initiative. Environ Mol Mutagen 52:174-176.
13. Hernández LG, Slob W, van Steeg H, van Benthem J. 2010. Comparison of carcinogenic potency estimates to in vivo genotoxic potencies from the micronucleus, transgenic rodent mutation and comet assay using the benchmark dose approach. Environ Mol Mutag 51:707.
14. Hernández LG, Slob W, van Steeg H, van Benthem J. 2011a. Can carcinogenic potency be predicted from in vivo genotoxicity data? A meta-analysis of historical data. Environ Mol Mutag 52:518-528.
15. Hernández LG, Van Benthem J, Johnson GE. 2013. A mode-of-action approach for the identification of genotoxic carcinogens. PLoS One. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0064532:e64532.
16. Hernández LG, Van Benthem J, Slob W. 2012. Estimating the carcinogenic potency of chemicals from the in vivo micronucleus test: RIVM Report 340700007/2012. In: Environment NIfPHat, editor. Bilthoven: RIVM.
17. Hernández LG, van Steeg H, Luijten M, van Benthem J. 2011b. Mechanisms of non-genotoxic carcinogens and importance of a weight of evidence approach. Mutat Res 682:94-109.
18. Hixon G, Bichteler A. 2013. drsmooth: dose-response modeling with smoothing splines. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=drsmooth.
19. IWGT. 2013. International Workshop of Genetic Toxicology. Working Group on Quantitative Approaches to Genetic Toxicology Risk Assessment. Foz do Iguassu, Brazil, Oct 2013, http://www.iaemgs.org/IWGT2013_Quantitative_WorkGroup_Summary.pdf. Accessed March 2014.
20. Jenkins GJ, Doak SH, Johnson GE, Quick E, Waters EM, Parry JM. 2005. Do dose response thresholds exist for genotoxic alkylating agents? Mutagenesis 20:389-398.
21. Jenkins GJ, Zair Z, Johnson GE, Doak SH. 2010. Genotoxic thresholds, DNA repair, and susceptibility in human populations. Toxicology 278:305-310.
22. Johnson GE, Doak SH, Griffiths SM, Quick EL, Skibinski DOF, Zaïr ZM, Jenkins GJ. 2009. Non-linear dose-response of DNA-reactive genotoxins: Recommendations for data analysis. Mutat Res 678:95-100.
23. Johnson GE, Parry EM. 2008. Mechanistic investigations of low dose exposures to the genotoxic compounds bisphenol-A and rotenone. Mutat Res 651:56-63.
24. Johnson GE, Zair Z, Bodger OG, Lewis PD, Rees BJ, Verma JR, Thomas AD, Doak SH, Jenkins GJS. 2012. Investigating mechanisms for non-linear genotoxic responses, and analysing their effects in binary combination. Genes Environ 34:179-185.
25. Laws SC, Carey SA, Ferrell JM, Bodman GJ, Cooper RL. 2000. Estrogenic activity of octylphenol, nonylphenol, bisphenol a and methoxychlor in rats. Toxicol Sci 54:154-167.
26. Lebaron MJ, Kan HL, Geter DR, Pottenger LH, Zhang F, Schisler MR, Bartels MJ, Gollapudi BB. 2008. Non-linear low dose response in methyl methanesulfonate (MMS)-treated rats as measured by multiple endpoints. 47th Annual Meeting of the Society of Toxicology Abstract no. 1429. Toxicologist 62:293.
27. LeBaron MJ. 2009. Evidence of Low Dose Non-Linearity and Biological Thresholds for Multiple Endpoints in Rats Administered Alkylating Agents; Summer Toxicology Forum Aspen.
28. Monroe JJ, Kort KL, Miller JE, Marino DR, Skopek TR. 1998. A comparative study of in vivo mutation assays: Analysis of hprt, lacI, and cII/cI as mutational targets for N-nitroso-N-methylurea and benzo[a]pyrene in Big Blue(TM) mice. Mutat Res 421:121-136.
29. Muggeo V. 2008. Segmented: An R Package to Fit Regression Models with Broken-Line Relationships. R-News: http://cran.r-project.org/doc/Rnews/. p 20-25.
30. Piersma AH, Hernandez LG, van Benthem J, Muller JJ, van Leeuwen FX, Vermeire TG, van Raaij MT. 2011. Reproductive toxicants have a threshold of adversity. Crit Rev Toxicol 41:545-554.
31. Pottenger LH, Gollapudi BB. 2009. A case for a new paradigm in genetic toxicology testing. Mutat Res 678:148-151.
32. Pottenger LH, Schisler MR, Zhang F, Bartels MJ, Fontaine DD, McFadden LG, Bhaskar B. 2009. dose-response and operational thresholds/NOAELs for in vitro mutagenic effects from DNA-reactive mutagens, MMS and MNU. Mutat Res 678:138-147.
33. Sharma V, Collins LB, Clement JM, Zhang Z, Nakamura J, Swenberg JA (2014) Molecular dosimetry of endogenous and exogenous O6-methyl-dG and N7-methyl-G adducts following low dose [D3]-Methylnitrosourea exposures in cultured human cells. Chem Res Toxicol. doi:10.1021/tx5000602
34. Slob W. 2002. PROAST: Software for dose-response modeling and benchmark dose analysis. http://www.rivm.nl/en/Library/Scientific/Models/PROAST: RIVM.
35. Slob W, Setzer RW. 2013. Shape and steepness of toxicological dose-response relationships of continuous endpoints. Crit Rev Toxicol. doi:10.3109/10408444.2013.853726.
36. Thomas AD, Jenkins GJ, Kaina B, Bodger OG, Tomaszowski KH, Lewis PD, Doak SH, Johnson GE. 2013. Influence of DNA repair on nonlinear dose-responses for mutation. Toxicol Sci 132:87-95.
37. USEPA. 2012. Benchmark Dose Technical Guidance EPA/100/R-12/001.
38. USEPA. 2013. BMDS v2.2.
39. USFDA. 2005. Guidance for industry estimating the maximum safe starting dose in initial clinical trials for therapeutics in adult healthy volunteers. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Rockville.
40. van Delft JH, Bergmans A, van Dam FJ, Tates AD, Howard L, Winton DJ, Baan RA. 1998. Gene-mutation assays in lambda lacZ transgenic mice: comparison of lacZ with endogenous genes in splenocytes and small intestinal epithelium. Mutat Res 415:85-96.
41. Wood SN. 2006. Generalized additive models: An introduction with R. 1st edition. Boca Raton, Florida: Chapman and Hall/CRC.
42. Wood SN. 2011. Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood estimation of semiparametric generalized linear models. J Roy Stat Soc 73:3-36.
43. Zair ZM, Jenkins GJ, Doak SH, Singh R, Brown K, Johnson GE. 2011. N-methylpurine DNA glycosylase plays a pivotal role in the threshold response of ethyl methanesulfonate-induced chromosome damage. Toxicol Sci 119:346-358.