Next generation testing strategy for assessment of genomic damage: A conceptual framework and considerations

Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis

Volumn 58, Issue 5, 2017, Pages 264-283

  Dearfield, Kerry L ^a   Gollapudi, B Bhaskar ^b   Bemis, Jeffrey C ^c   Benz, R Daniel ^d   Douglas, George R ^e   Elespuru, Rosalie K ^f   Johnson, George E ^g   Kirkland, David J ^h   LeBaron, Matthew J ⁱ   Li, Albert P ^j   Marchetti, Francesco ^e   Pottenger, Lynn H ⁱ   Rorije, Emiel ^k   Tanir, Jennifer Y ^l   Thybaud, Veronique ^m   van Benthem, Jan ^k   Yauk, Carole L ^e   Zeiger, Errol ⁿ   Luijten, Mirjam ^k  

^a U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE   (United States)

^b EXPONENT INC   (United States)

^c LITRON LABORATORIES   (United States)

^d OmnyCorp   (United States)

^e HEALTH CANADA   (Canada)

^f CENTER FOR DEVICES AND RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH   (United States)

^g SWANSEA UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^h Kirkland Consulting   (United Kingdom)

ⁱ DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY   (United States)

^j In Vitro ADMET Laboratories LLC   (United States)

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

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

^m SANOFI   (France)

ⁿ Errol Zeiger Consulting   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

exposure assessment; genetic toxicology; integrated testing strategy; mutagenicity; risk assessment

Indexed keywords

TOXIC SUBSTANCE; MUTAGENIC AGENT;

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; DATA ANALYSIS; DOSE RESPONSE; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; EPIGENETICS; GENETIC DAMAGE; GENETIC TOXICOLOGY; GENOME ANALYSIS; GENOTOXICITY; GERM CELL; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; KNOWLEDGE BASE; NONHUMAN; ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY; PLANNING; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; TOXICITY TESTING; TOXICOKINETICS; ANIMAL; ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH; GENOMICS; MUTAGEN TESTING; PROCEDURES; STANDARDS; THEORETICAL MODEL; TRENDS;

ANIMALS; ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH; GENOMICS; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; MUTAGENICITY TESTS; MUTAGENS; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 84997765977     PISSN: 08936692     EISSN: 10982280     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/em.22045     Document Type: Review

References (77)

1. Adewoye AB, Lindsay SJ, Dubrova YE, Hurles ME. 2015. The genome-wide effects of ionizing radiation on mutation induction in the mammalian germline. Nat Commun 6:6684.
2. Ankley GT, Bennett RS, Erickson RJ, Hoff DJ, Hornung MW, Johnson RD, Mount DR, Nichols JW, Russom CL, Schmieder PK, et al. 2010. Adverse outcome pathways: A conceptual framework to support ecotoxicology research and risk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 29:730–741.
3. Arnot JA, Mackay D, Webster E, Southwood JM. 2006. Screening level risk assessment model for chemical fate and effects in the environment. Environ Sci Technol 40:2316–2323.
4. Boobis AR, Cohen SM, Dellarco V, McGregor D, Meek ME, Vickers C, Willcocks D, Farland W. 2006. IPCS framework for analyzing the relevance of a cancer mode of action for humans. Crit Rev Toxicol 36:781–792.
5. Boobis AR, Doe JE, Heinrich-Hirsch B, Meek ME, Munn S, Ruchirawat M, Schlatter J, Seed J, Vickers C. 2008. IPCS framework for analyzing the relevance of a noncancer mode of action for humans. Crit Rev Toxicol 38:87–96.
6. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics). 2014. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). URL: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm. Last accessed May 2016.
7. Chetty M, Rose RH, Abduljalil K, Patel N, Lu G, Cain T, Jamei M, Rostami-Hodjegan A. 2014. Applications of linking PBPK and PD models to predict the impact of genotypic variability, formulation differences, differences in target binding capacity and target site drug concentrations on drug responses and variability. Front Pharmacol 5:1–14. http://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2014.00258. Last accessed May 2016.
8. Chi P, Allis CD, Wang GG. 2010. Covalent histone modifications—Miswritten, misinterpreted and mis-erased in human cancers. Nat Rev Cancer 10:457–469.
9. Cimino MC. 2006. Comparative overview of current international strategies and guidelines for genetic toxicology testing for regulatory purposes. Environ Mol Mutagen 47:362–390.
10. Dycaico MJ, Stuart GR, Tobal GM, de Boer JG, Glickman BW, Provost GS. 1996. Species-specific differences in hepatic mutant frequency and mutational spectrum among lambda/lacI transgenic rats and mice following exposure to aflatoxin B1. Carcinogenesis 17:2347–2356.
11. Dearfield KL, Auletta AE, Cimino MC, Moore MM. 1991. Considerations in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's testing approach for mutagenicity. Mutat Res 258:259–283.
12. Dearfield KL, Thybaud V, Cimino MC, Custer L, Czich A, Harvey JS, Hester S, Kim JH, Kirkland D, Levy DD, et al. 2011. Follow-up actions from positive results of in vitro genetic toxicity testing. Environ Mol Mutagen 52:177–204.
13. Eastmond DA, Hartwig A, Anderson A, Anwar WA, Cimino MC, Dobrev I, Douglas GR, Nohmi T, Phillips DH, Vickers C. 2009. Mutagenicity testing for chemical risk assessment: Update of the WHO/IPCS Harmonized Scheme. Mutagenesis 24:341–349.
14. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). 2005. Opinion of the Scientific Committee on a request from EFSA related to a harmonized approach for risk assessment of substances which are both genotoxic and carcinogenic. EFSA J 282:1–31.
15. Elespuru RK. 2011. Assessment of heritable genetic effects using new genetic tools and sentinels in an era of personalized medicine. Environ Mol Mutagen 52:253–263.
16. Embry MR, Bachman AN, Bell DR, Boobis AR, Cohen SM, Dellarco M, Dewhurst IC, Doerrer NG, Hines RN, Moretto A, et al. 2014. Risk assessment in the 21st century: Roadmap and matrix. Crit Rev Toxicol 44:6–16.
17. Gollapudi BB, Johnson GE, Hernandez LG, Pottenger LH, Dearfield KL, Jeffrey AM, Julien E, Kim JH, Lovell DP, MacGregor JT, et al. 2013. Quantitative approaches for assessing dose-response relationships in genetic toxicology studies. Environ Mol Mutagen 54:8–18.
18. Goodman JI, Augustine KA, Cunnningham ML, Dixon D, Dragan YP, Falls JG, Rasoulpour RJ, Sills RC, Storer RD, Wolf DC, et al. 2010. What do we need to know prior to thinking about incorporating an epigenetic evaluation into safety assessments? Toxicol Sci 116:375–381.
19. HPB (Health Protection Branch, Department of National Health and Welfare, Canada). 1993. The assessment of mutagenicity: Health Protection Branch mutagenicity guidelines. Environ Mol Mutagen 21:15–37.
20. ICCA (International Council of Chemical Associations). 2011. Guidance on Chemical Risk Assessment, 2nd ed. URL: http://www.icca-chem.org/ICCADocs/ICCA_GPS%20July2011_LowResWEB.pdf. Last accessed May 2016.
21. ICH (International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use). 2005. Detection of Toxicity to Reproduction for Medicinal Products & Toxicity to Male Fertility. Addendum dated 9 November 2000 incorporated in November 2005. ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline S5(R2). Geneva, Switzerland. URL: http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Safety/S5/Step4/S5_R2__Guideline.pdf. Last accessed May 2016.
22. ICH (International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use). 2011. Guidance on Genotoxicity Testing and Data Interpretation for Pharmaceuticals Intended for Human Use, S2(R1). Geneva, Switzerland. URL: http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Safety/S2_R1/Step4/S2R1_Step4.pdf. Last accessed May 2016.
23. ICH (International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use). 2014. Assessment and Control of DNA Reactive (Mutagenic) Impurities in Human Pharmaceuticals to Limit Potential Carcinogenic Risk. ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline M7. Geneva, Switzerland. URL: http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Multidisciplinary/M7/M7_Step_4.pdf. Last accessed May 2016.
24. Johnson GE, Soeteman-Hernandez LG, Gollapudi BB, Bodger OG, Dearfield KL, Heflich RH, Hixon JG, Lovell DP, MacGregor JT, Pottenger LH, et al. 2014. Derivation of point of departure (PoD) estimates in genetic toxicology studies and their potential applications in risk assessment. Environ Mol Mutagen 55:609–623.
25. Johnson GE, Slob W, Doak SH, Fellows MD, Gollapudi BB, Heflich RH, Rees BJ, Soeteman-Hernández LG, Verma JR, Wills JW, et al. 2015. New approaches to advance the use of genetic toxicology analyses for human health risk assessment. Toxicol Res 4:667–676.
26. Julien E, Boobis AR, Olin SS; ILSI Research Foundation Threshold Working Group. 2009. The Key Events Dose-Response Framework: A cross-disciplinary mode-of-action based approach to examining dose-response and thresholds. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 49:682–689.
27. LeBaron MJ, Rasoulpour RJ, Klapacz J, Ellis-Hutchings RG, Hollnagel HM, Gollapudi BB. 2010. Epigenetics and chemical safety assessment. Mutat Res 705:83–95.
28. Lewis DF, Ioannides C, Parke DV. 1998. Cytochromes P450 and species differences in xenobiotic metabolism and activation of carcinogen. Environ Health Perspect 106:633–641.
29. Liu J, Mansouri K, Judson RS, Martin MT, Hong H, Chen M, Xu X, Thomas RS, Shah I. 2015. Predicting hepatotoxicity using ToxCast in vitro bioactivity and chemical structure. Chem Res Toxicol 28:738–751.
30. MacArthur DG, Balasubramanian S, Frankish A, Huang N, Morris J, Walter K, Jostins L, Habegger L, Pickrell JK, Montgomery SB, et al.; 1000 Genomes Project Consortium. 2012. A systematic survey of loss-of-function variants in human protein-coding genes. Science 335:823–828.
31. MacGregor JT, Frötschl R, White PA, Crump KS, Eastmond DA, Fukushima S, Guérard M, Hayashi M, Soeteman-Hernández LG, Kasamatsu T, et al. 2015a. IWGT report on quantitative approaches to genotoxicity risk assessment. I. Methods and metrics for defining exposure–response relationships and points of departure (PoDs). Mutat Res 783:55–65.
32. MacGregor JT, Frötschl R, White PA, Crump KS, Eastmond DA, Fukushima S, Guérard M, Hayashi M, Soeteman-Hernández LG, Johnson GE, et al. 2015b. IWGT report on quantitative approaches to genotoxicity risk assessment. II. Use of point-of-departure (PoD) metrics in defining acceptable exposure limits and assessing human risk. Mutat Res 783:66–78.
33. Meek ME, Boobis A, Cote I, Dellarco V, Fotakis G, Munn S, Seed J, Vickers C. 2014. New developments in the evolution and application of the WHO/IPCS framework on mode of action/species concordance analysis. J Appl Toxicol 34:1–18.
34. Milic M, Frustaci A, Del Bufalo A, Sánchez-Alarcón J, Valencia-Quintana R, Russo P, Bonassi S. 2015. DNA damage in non-communicable diseases: A clinical and epidemiological perspective. Mutat Res 776:118–127.
35. Moskalev AA, Shaposhnikov MV, Plyusnina EN, Zhavoronkov A, Budovsky A, Yanai H, Fraifeld VE. 2012. The role of DNA damage and repair in aging through the prism of Koch-like criteria. Ageing Res Rev 12:661–684.
36. Müller L, Kikuchi Y, Probst P, Schechtman L, Sofuni T, Tweats D. 1999. ICH-harmonised guidances on genotoxicity testing of pharmaceuticals: Evaluation, reasoning and impact. Mutat Res 436:195–225.
37. NRC (National Research Council). 1983. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
38. NRC (National Research Council). 2007. Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
39. NRC (National Research Council). 2009. Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
40. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development). 2005. Guidance Document on the Validation and International Acceptance of New or Updated Test Methods for Hazard Assessment. No. 34. ENV/JM/MONO(2005)14. Paris: OECD Publishing.
41. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development). 2013. Guidance Document on Developing and Assessing Adverse Outcome Pathways. Series on Testing and Assessment, No. 184. ENV/JM/MONO(2013)6. Paris: OECD Publishing.
42. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development). 2014a. Guidance Document for Describing Non-Guideline In Vitro Test Methods. Series on Testing and Assessment, No. 211. ENV/JM/MONO(2014)35. Paris: OECD Publishing.
43. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development). 2014b. Document Supporting the WNT Decision to Implement Revised Criteria for the Selection of the Top Concentration in the In Vitro Mammalian Cell Assays on Genotoxicity (Test Guidelines 473, 476 and 487), ENV/JM/TG/RD(2014)20. Paris: OECD Publishing.
44. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development). 2015. OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4: Health Effects. Paris: OECD Publishing. URL: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/oecd-guidelines-for-the-testing-of-chemicals-section-4-health-effects_20745788. Last accessed May 2016.
45. Patlewicz G, Simon TW, Rowlands JC, Budinsky RA, Becker RA. 2015. Proposing a scientific confidence framework to help support the application of adverse outcome pathways for regulatory purposes. Reg Toxicol Pharmacol 71:463–477.
46. Pottenger LH, Andrews LS, Bachman AN, Boogaard PJ, Cadet J, Embry MR, Farmer PB, Himmelstein MW, Jarabek AM, Martin EA, et al. 2014. An organizational approach for the assessment of DNA adduct data in risk assessment: Case studies for aflatoxin B1, tamoxifen, and vinyl chloride. Crit Rev Toxicol 44:248–291.
47. Priestley CC, Anderton M, Doherty AT, Duffy P, Mellor HR, Powell H, Roberts R. 2012. Epigenetics—Relevance to drug safety science. Toxicol Res 1:23–31.
48. Rasoulpour RJ, LeBaron MJ, Ellis-Hutchings RG, Klapacz J, Gollapudi BB. 2011. Epigenetic screening in product safety assessment: Are we there yet? Toxicol Mech Methods 21:298–311.
49. REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals). 2007. European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (Corrigendum 29 May 2007) and Directive 2006/121/EC (Corrigendum 29 May 2007). Official Journal of the European Union L 396 of 30 December 2006.
50. Rosenbaum RK, Bachmann TM, Gold LS, Huijbregts MAJ, Jolliet O, Juraske R, Koehler A, Larsen HF, MacLeod M, Margni M, et al. 2008. USEtox—The UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: Recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:532–546.
51. Rosenbaum RK, Huijbregts MAJ, Henderson AD, Margni M, McKone TE, van de Meent D, Hauschild MZ, Shaked S, Li DS, Gold LS, et al. 2011. USEtox human exposure and toxicity factors for comparative assessment of toxic emissions in life cycle analysis: Sensitivity to key chemical properties. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:710–727.
52. Simon TW, Simons SS Jr, Preston RJ, Boobis AR, Cohen SM, Doerrer NG, Fenner-Crisp PA, McMullin TS, McQueen CA, Rowlands JC. 2014. The use of mode of action information in risk assessment: Quantitative key events/dose–response framework for modeling the dose–response for key events. Crit Rev Toxicol 44:17–43.
53. Snyder RD, Holt PA, Maguire JM, Trent JO. 2013. Prediction of noncovalent drug/DNA interaction using computational docking models: Studies with over 1350 launched drugs. Environ Mol Mutagen 54:668–681.
54. Thomas RS, Philbert MA, Auerbach SS, Wetmore BA, Devito MJ, Cote I, Rowlands JC, Whelan MP, Hays SM, Andersen ME, et al. 2013. Incorporating new technologies into toxicity testing and risk assessment: Moving from 21st century vision to a data-driven framework. Toxicol Sci 136:4–18.
55. Thomson JP, Moggs JG, Wolf CR, Meehan RR. 2014. Epigenetic profiles as defined signatures of xenobiotic exposure. Mutat Res 764–765:3–9.
56. UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe). 2015. Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS, Rev.6). URL: http://www.unece.org/index.php?id=40514. Last accessed May 2016.
57. Uryga A, Gray K, Bennett M. 2016. DNA damage and repair in vascular disease. Annu Rev Physiol 78:45–66.
58. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1992. Guidelines for Exposure Assessment. Washington, DC. EPA/600/Z-92/001. URL: http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/pdfs/GUIDELINES_EXPOSURE_ASSESSMENT.PDF. Last accessed May 2016.
59. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. Risk Characterization Handbook. Washington, DC. EPA 100-B-00-002. URL: http://www.epa.gov/spc/pdfs/rchandbk.pdf. Last accessed May 2016.
60. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference Concentration Processes. Risk Assessment Forum. Washington, DC. EPA/630/P-02/002F. URL: http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/review-reference-dose.htm. Last accessed May 2016.
61. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2011a. Exposure Factors Handbook. Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-09/052F. URL: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/efh/pdfs/efh-complete.pdf. Last accessed May 2016.
62. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2011b. Recommended Use of Body Weight3/4 as the Default Method in Derivation of the Oral Reference Dose. Final. Washington, DC: Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/100/R11/0001. URL: http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/pdfs/recommended-use-of-bw34.pdf. Last accessed May 2016.
63. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2014a. Framework for human health risk assessment to inform decision making. Final. Washington, DC.: Risk Assessment Forum EPA/601/D-12/001. URL: http://www.epa.gov/raf/files/hhra-framework-final-2014.pdfwok. Last accessed May 2016.
64. USEPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2014b. Guidance for applying quantitative data to develop data-derived extrapolation factors for interspecies and intraspecies extrapolation. Washington, DC: Risk Assessment Forum, Office of the Science Advisor. EPA/100/R-14/002. URL: http://www.epa.gov/raf/DDEF/pdf/ddef-final.pdf. Last accessed May 2016.
65. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2015. Integrated Risk Information System. Washington, DC. URL: http://www.epa.gov/iris/help_ques.htm#whatiris. Last accessed May 2016.
66. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2016. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. Washington, DC. URL: https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/frank-r-lautenberg-chemical-safety-21st-century-act. Last accessed May 2016.
67. Villeneuve DL, Crump D, Garcia-Reyero N, Hecker M, Hutchinson TH, LaLone CA, Landesmann B, Lettieri T, Munn S, Nepelska M, et al. 2014. Adverse outcome pathway (AOP) development. I. strategies and principles. Toxicol Sci 142:312–320.
68. Wambaugh JF, Setzer RW, Reif DM, Gangwal S, Mitchell-Blackwood J, Arnot JA, Joliet O, Frame A, Rabinowitz J, Knudsen TB, et al. 2013. High-throughput models for exposure-based chemical prioritization in the ExpoCast project. Environ Sci Technol 47:8479–8488.
69. WHO/IPCS (World Health Organization/International Programme on Chemical Safety). 2005. Chemical-specific adjustment factors for interspecies differences and human variability: Guidance document for use of data in dose/concentration-response assessment. (Harmonization Project Document No. 2). Geneva, Switzerland. URL: http://www.inchem.org/documents/harmproj/harmproj/harmproj2.pdf. Last accessed May 2016.
70. Wolters S, Schumacher B. 2013. Genome maintenance and transcription integrity in aging and disease. Front Genet 4:19.
71. Yauk CL, Bishop J, Dearfield KL, Douglas GR, Hales BF, Luijten M, O'Brien JM, Robaire B, Sram R, van Benthem J, et al. 2013. The development of adverse outcome pathways for mutagenic effects for the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Environ Mol Mutagen 54:79–81.
72. Yauk CL, Aardema M, van Benthem J, Bishop J, Dearfield KL, DeMarini DM, Dubrova YE, Honma M, Lupski JR, Marchetti F, et al. 2015a. Approaches for identifying germ cell mutagens: Report of the 2013 IWGT workshop on germ cell assays. Mutat Res 783:36–54.
73. Yauk CL, Lambert IB, Meek ME, Douglas GR, Marchetti F. 2015b. Development of the adverse outcome pathway “Alkylation of DNA in male premeiotic germ cells leading to heritable mutations” using the OECD's users' handbook supplement. Environ Mol Mutagen 56:724–750.
74. Yauk CL, Buick JK, Williams A, Swartz CD, Recio L, Li HH, Fornace AJ Jr, Thomson EM, Aubrecht J. 2016. Application of the TGx-28.65 transcriptomic biomarker to classify genotoxic and non-genotoxic chemicals in human TK6 cells in the presence of rat liver S9. Environ Mol Mutagen 57:243–260.
75. You JS, Jones PA. 2012. Cancer genetics and epigenetics: Two sides of the same coin? Cancer Cell 22:9–20.
76. Zang C, Peng G. 2015. Non-coding RNAs: An emerging player in DNA damage response. Mutat Res 763:202–211.
77. Zeiger E, Gollapudi B, Aardema MJ, Auerbach S, Boverhof D, Custer L, Dedon P, Honma M, Ishida S, Kasinski AL, et al. 2015. Opportunities to integrate new approaches in genetic toxicology: An ILSI-HESI workshop report. Environ Mol Mutagen 56:277–285.