A feasibility study: Can information collected to classify for mutagenicity be informative in predicting carcinogenicity?

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

Volumn 72, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 17-25

  Petkov, Petko I ^a   Patlewicz, Grace ^b   Schultz, Terry W ^c   Honma, Masamitsu ^d   Todorov, Milen ^a   Kotov, Stefan ^a   Dimitrov, Sabcho D ^a   Donner, E Maria ^b   Mekenyan, Ovanes G ^a  

^a ASSEN ZLATAROV UNIVERSITY   (Bulgaria)

^b DUPONT COMPANY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

^d NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH SCIENCES   (Japan)

Author keywords

(Q)SAR; Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP); Carcinogenicity classification; Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment (IATA)

Indexed keywords

THYMIDINE KINASE; CARCINOGEN; DNA; MUTAGENIC AGENT; PROTEIN;

AMES TEST; ARTICLE; BIOINFORMATICS; BONE MARROW TOXICITY; CANCER RESEARCH; CARCINOGENICITY; CHEMICAL ANALYSIS; CHROMOSOME ABERRATION; CLASSIFICATION ALGORITHM; COMET ASSAY; COMPUTER MODEL; COMPUTER PREDICTION; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; DNA DAMAGE; DNA DETERMINATION; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FEASIBILITY STUDY; GENETIC DATABASE; GENOTOXICITY; GENOTOXICITY ASSAY; HUMAN; IN VITRO STUDY; IN VIVO STUDY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LIVER TOXICITY; LYMPHOMA; MICRONUCLEUS TEST; MUTAGENICITY; NONHUMAN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; TOXICITY TESTING; WEB BROWSER; ANIMAL; CARCINOGEN TESTING; DRUG EFFECTS; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MUTAGEN TESTING; PROCEDURES; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ANIMALIA; RODENTIA;

ANIMALS; CARCINOGENICITY TESTS; CARCINOGENS; DNA; DNA DAMAGE; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; MUTAGENICITY TESTS; MUTAGENS; PROTEINS; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 84925263815     PISSN: 02732300     EISSN: 10960295     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.03.003     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Ames B.N., Durston W.E., Yamasaki E., Lee F.D. Carcinogens are mutagens: a simple test system combining liver homogenates for activation and bacteria for detection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1973, 70:2281-2285.
2. Ankley G.T., Bennett R.S., Erickson R.J., Hoff D.J., Hornung M.W., Johnson R.D., Mount D.R., Nichols J.W., Russom C.L., Schmieder P.K., Serrrano J.A., Tietge J.E., Villeneuve D.L. Adverse outcome pathways: a conceptual framework to support ecotoxicology research and risk assessment. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2010, 29:730-741.
3. Bateman A.J. The dominant lethal assay in the male mouse. Handbook of Mutagenicity Test Procedures 1984, 471-484. Elsevier Scientific, Amsterdam. second ed. B.J. Kilbey, M. Legator, W. Nichols, C. Ramel (Eds.).
4. Benigni R., Bossa C., Worth A. Structural analysis and predictive value of the rodent in vivo micronucleus assay results. Mutagenesis 2010, 25:335-341.
5. Benigni R., Bossa C., Battistelli C.L., Tcheremenskaia O. IARC classes 1 and 2 carcinogens are successfully identified by an alternative strategy that detects DNA-reactivity and cell transformation ability of chemicals. Mutat. Res. 2013, 758:56-61.
6. Cimino M.C. Comparative overview of current international strategies and guidelines for genetic toxicology testing for regulatory purposes. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 2006, 47:362-390.
7. Clements J. The mouse lymphoma assay. Mutat. Res. 2000, 455:97-110.
8. Clive D., Johnson K.O., Spector J.F., Batson A.G., Brown M.M. Validation and characterization of the L5178Y/TK+/- mouse lymphoma mutagen assay system. Mutat. Res. 1979, 59:61-108.
9. Collins A.R. The comet assay for DNA damage and repair: principles, applications, and limitations. Mol. Biotechnol. 2004, 26:249-261.
10. Combes R., Grindon C., Cronin M.T., Roberts D.W., Garrod J. Proposed integrated decision-tree testing strategies for mutagenicity and carcinogenicity in relation to the EU REACH legislation. Altern. Lab. Anim. 2007, 35:267-287.
11. Dean B.J., Danford N. Assays for the detection of chemically-induced chromosome damage in cultured mammalian cells. Mutagenicity Testing - A Practical Approach 1984, 187-232. IRL Press, Oxford. S. Venitt, J.M. Parry (Eds.).
12. Dearfield K.L., Cimino M.C., Mc Carroll N.E., Mauer I., Valcovic L.R. Genotoxicity risk assessment: a proposed classification strategy. Mutat. Res. 2002, 521:121-135.
13. European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), 2014. Guidance on information requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment Chapter R.7a: Endpoint specific guidance, Version 3.0. ISBN: 978-92-9244-749-6.
14. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Scientific opinion on genotoxicity testing strategies applicable to food and feed safety assessment. EFSA J. 2011, 9:2379-2448.
15. Green S., Auletta A., Fabricant J., Kapp R., Manandhar M., Sheu C.J., Springer J., Whitfield B. Current status of bioassays in genetic toxicology-the dominant lethal assay. A report of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Gene-Tox Program. Mutat. Res. 1985, 154:49-67.
16. Grindon C., Combes R., Cronin M.T., Roberts D.W., Garrod J.F. Integrated testing strategies for use in the EU REACH system. Altern. Lab. Anim. 2006, 34:407-427.
17. Lambert I.B., Singer T.M., Boucher S.E., Douglas G.R. Detailed review of transgenic rodent mutation assays. Mutat. Res. 2005, 590:1-280.
18. Kirkland D., Aardema M., Henderson L., Müller L. Evaluation of the ability of a battery of 3 in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens. I. Sensitivity, specificity and relative predictivity. Mutat. Res. 2005, 584:1-256.
19. Kirkland D., Aardema M., Müller L., Hayashi M. Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens II. Further analysis of mammalian cell results, relative predictivity and tumour profiles. Mutat. Res. 2006, 608:29-42.
20. Kirkland D., Pfuhler S., Tweats D., Aardema M., Corvi R., Darroudi F., Elhajouji A., Glatt H., Hastwell P., Hayashi M., Kasper P., Kirchner S., Lynch A., Marzin D., Maurici D., Meunier J.R., Müller L., Nohynek G., Parry J., Parry E., Thybaud V., Tice R., van Benthem J., Vanparys P., White P. 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.
21. Kirkland D.J., Aardema M., Banduhn N., Carmichael P., Fautz R., Meunier J.R., Pfuhler S. In vitro approaches to develop weight of evidence (WoE) and mode of action (MoA) discussions with positive in vitro genotoxicity results. Mutagenesis 2007, 22:161-175.
22. Kirkland D., Reeve L., Gatehouse D., Vanparys P. A core in vitro genotoxicity battery comprising the Ames test plus the in vitro micronucleus test is sufficient to detect rodent carcinogens and in vivo genotoxins. Mutat. Res. 2011, 721:27-73.
23. Kirkland D., Zeiger E., Madia F., Gooderham N., Kasper P., Lynch A., Morita T., Ouedraogo G., Morte J.M.P., Pfuhler S., Rogiers V., Schulz M., Thybaud V., van Benthem J., Vanparys P., Worth A., Corvi R. Can in vitro mammalian cell genotoxicity test results be used to complement positive results in the Ames test and help predict carcinogenic or in vivo genotoxic activity? I. Reports of individual databases presented at an EURL ECVAM workshop. Mutat. Res. 2014, 775-776:55-68.
24. Matthews E.J., Kruhlak N.L., Cimino M.C., Benz R.D., Contrera J.F. An analysis of genetic toxicity, reproductive and development toxicity, and carcinogenicity data: I. Identification of carcinogens using surrogate endpoints. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2006, 44:83-96.
25. Mekenyan O.G., Petkov P.I., Kotov S.V., Stoeva S., Kamenska V.B., Dimitrov S.D., Honma M., Hayashi M., Benigni R., Donner E.M., Patlewicz G. Investigating the relationship between in vitro-in vivo genotoxicity: derivation of mechanistic QSAR models for in vivo liver genotoxicity and in vivo bone marrow micronucleus formation which encompass metabolism. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2012, 25:277-296.
26. Mortelmans K., Zeiger E. The Ames Salmonella/microsome mutagenicity assay. Mutat. Res. 2000, 455:29-60.
27. Nohmi T., Suzuki T., Masumura K. Recent advances in the protocols of transgenic mouse mutation assays. Mutat. Res. 2000, 455:191-215.
28. Olive P.L., Banath J.P. The comet assay: a method to measure DNA damage in individual cells. Nat. Protoc. 2006, 1:23-29.
29. Tollefsen K.E., Scholz S., Cronin M.T., Edwards S.W., de Knecht J., Crofton K., Garcia-Reyero N., Hartung T., Worth A., Patlewicz G. Applying Adverse Outcome Pathways (AOPs) to support Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment (IATA). Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2014, 70:629-640.
30. United Nations (UN), 2013. Globally harmonized system of classification and labelling of chemicals (GHS) fifth revised edition. (Available at:). http://www.unece.org/%20trans/danger/publi/ghs/ghs_rev05/05files_e.html.
31. Zeiger E. Identification of rodent carcinogens and noncarcinogens using genetic toxicity tests: permises. Promises Perform. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 1998, 28:85-95.