Alternative strategies for carcinogenicity assessment: an efficient and simplified approach based on in vitro mutagenicity and cell transformation assays.

The need for tools able to predict chemical carcinogens in less time and at a lower cost in terms of animal lives and money is still a research priority, even after several decades of effort in that direction. Now, new regulatory requirements (e.g. the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemical substances recently implemented in Europe) have even increased the pressure to develop new tools in this field. Drawbacks of the present testing strategies have come to light again recently especially in view of new requirements in worldwide regulations. Among these are (i) the lack of assays able to identify non-genotoxic carcinogens, (ii) the exaggerated rate of misleading (false) positive results of the in vitro mammalian cell-based short-term mutagenicity tests and (iii) the extremely low sensitivity of in vivo short-term mutagenicity tests. Within this perspective, we analyse the contribution of cell transformation assays (CTAs), and we show that they are a valid complement to tools able to detect DNA-reactive carcinogens. We also show that a tiered strategy, with inexpensive and fast tests in Tier 1 (e.g. the Ames test or structural alerts) and the Syrian hamster embryo CTA in Tier 2, is able to identify up to 90% of carcinogens.

[1]  Errol Zeiger,et al.  History and rationale of genetic toxicity testing: An impersonal, and sometimes personal, view , 2004, Environmental and molecular mutagenesis.

[2]  Jordi Alcaraz,et al.  Laminin and biomimetic extracellular elasticity enhance functional differentiation in mammary epithelia , 2008, The EMBO journal.

[3]  R Benigni,et al.  Predicting carcinogenicity with short-term tests: biological models and operational approaches. , 1988, Mutation research.

[4]  T. Skopek,et al.  Transgenic chinese hamster V79 cell lines which exhibit variable levels of gpt mutagenesis , 1990, Environmental and molecular mutagenesis.

[5]  J. Barrett,et al.  Evidence for the progressive nature of neoplastic transformation in vitro. , 1978, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[6]  E. Miller,et al.  Mechanisms of chemical carcinogenesis , 1981, Cancer.

[7]  Errol Zeiger,et al.  Historical perspective on the development of the genetic toxicity test battery in the United States , 2010, Environmental and molecular mutagenesis.

[8]  E Zeiger,et al.  Identification of rodent carcinogens and noncarcinogens using genetic toxicity tests: premises, promises, and performance. , 1998, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[9]  Romualdo Benigni,et al.  The Benigni / Bossa rulebase for mutagenicity and carcinogenicity - a module of Toxtree , 2008 .

[10]  E Sabbioni,et al.  Cell Transformation Assays as Predictors of Human Carcinogenicity , 1999, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[11]  B. Casto,et al.  Cell transformation by chemical agents--a review and analysis of the literature. A report of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Gene-Tox Program. , 1983, Mutation research.

[12]  E Zeiger,et al.  Carcinogenicity of mutagens: predictive capability of the Salmonella mutagenesis assay for rodent carcinogenicity. , 1987, Cancer research.

[13]  Andrew Worth,et al.  Structural analysis and predictive value of the rodent in vivo micronucleus assay results. , 2010, Mutagenesis.

[14]  Paule Vasseur,et al.  OECD Detailed Review Paper (DRP) number 31 on "Cell Transformation Assays for Detection of Chemical Carcinogens": main results and conclusions. , 2012, Mutation research.

[15]  Raffaella Corvi,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. , 2007, Mutation research.

[16]  M. Pavan,et al.  The role of the European Chemicals Bureau in promoting the regulatory use of (Q)SAR methods , 2007, SAR and QSAR in environmental research.

[17]  Narasimhulu Shakunthala,et al.  New cytochrome P450 mechanisms: implications for understanding molecular basis for drug toxicity at the level of the cytochrome , 2010, Expert opinion on drug metabolism & toxicology.

[18]  Ann M Richard,et al.  A novel approach: chemical relational databases, and the role of the ISSCAN database on assessing chemical carcinogenicity. , 2008, Annali dell'Istituto superiore di sanita.

[19]  E. Zeiger.  Mutagens that are not carcinogens: faulty theory or faulty tests? , 2001, Mutation research.

[20]  R Benigni.  Relationships between in vitro mutagenicity assays. , 1992, Mutagenesis.

[21]  L. Sachs,et al.  In vitro transformation of normal cells to tumor cells by carcinogenic hydrocarbons. , 1965, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[22]  R. Tennant,et al.  Transformation of BALB/c-3T3 cells: IV. Rank-ordered potency of 24 chemical responses detected in a sensitive new assay procedure. , 1993, Environmental health perspectives.

[23]  R. Tennant,et al.  Transformation of BALB/c-3T3 cells: V. Transformation responses of 168 chemicals compared with mutagenicity in Salmonella and carcinogenicity in rodent bioassays. , 1993, Environmental health perspectives.

[24]  L. Sachs,et al.  In Vitro Cell Transformation with Chemical Carcinogens , 1963, Nature.

[25]  Alessandro Giuliani,et al.  Alternatives to the carcinogenicity bioassay: in silico methods, and the in vitro and in vivo mutagenicity assays , 2010, Expert opinion on drug metabolism & toxicology.

[26]  A. Giuliani,et al.  Exploring In Vitro/In Vivo Correlation: Lessons Learned from Analyzing Phase I Results of the US EPA's ToxCast Project , 2010, Journal of environmental science and health. Part C, Environmental carcinogenesis & ecotoxicology reviews.

[27]  J. Abraham.  The international conference on harmonisation of technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use , 2009 .

[28]  David Kirkland,et al.  Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens III. Appropriate follow-up testing in vivo. , 2005, Mutation research.

[29]  T. Whiteside.  The tumor microenvironment and its role in promoting tumor growth , 2008, Oncogene.

[30]  Raghu Kalluri,et al.  Fibroblasts in cancer , 2006, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[31]  J. G. Hengstler,et al.  Alternative methods to safety studies in experimental animals: role in the risk assessment of chemicals under the new European Chemicals Legislation (REACH) , 2008, Archives of Toxicology.

[32]  R Benigni,et al.  Quantitative modeling and biology: the multivariate approach. , 1994, The American journal of physiology.

[33]  E. Dogliotti,et al.  Temporal dissociation in the exposure times required for maximal induction of cytotoxicity, mutation, and transformation by N-methyl-N'-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine in the BALB/3T3 ClA31-1-1 cell line. , 1984, Cancer research.

[34]  D. B. McGregor,et al.  The use of short-and medium-term tests for carcinogens and data on genetic effects in carcinogenic hazard evaluation. Consensus report. , 1999, IARC scientific publications.

[35]  B H Margolin,et al.  Prediction of chemical carcinogenicity in rodents from in vitro genetic toxicity assays. , 1987, Science.

[36]  Robert Combes,et al.  Proposed Integrated Decision-tree Testing Strategies for Mutagenicity and Carcinogenicity in Relation to the EU REACH Legislation , 2007, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[37]  Ludwig A. Hothorn,et al.  Statistical Methods in Toxicology , 1991, Lecture Notes in Medical Informatics.

[38]  Romualdo Benigni,et al.  Structure alerts for carcinogenicity, and the Salmonella assay system: a novel insight through the chemical relational databases technology. , 2008, Mutation research.

[39]  M. Aardema,et al.  Use of Syrian hamster embryo and BALB/c 3T3 cell transformation for assessing the carcinogenic potential of chemicals. , 1999, IARC scientific publications.

[40]  Raffaella Corvi,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. , 2008, Mutation research.

[41]  J. Huff,et al.  Long‐Term Chemical Carcinogenesis Bioassays Predict Human Cancer Hazards: Issues, Controversies, and Uncertainties , 1999, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[42]  Errol Zeiger,et al.  Measuring Intra-Assay Agreement for the Ames Salmonella Assay , 1991 .

[43]  Errol Zeiger,et al.  Evaluation of four in vitro genetic toxicity tests for predicting rodent carcinogenicity: Confirmation of earlier results with 41 additional chemicals , 1990, Environmental and molecular mutagenesis.

[44]  E C Miller,et al.  Searches for ultimate chemical carcinogens and their reactions with cellular macromolecules , 1981, Cancer.

[45]  J Preston,et al.  IPCS harmonization of methods for the prediction and quantification of human carcinogenic/mutagenic hazard, and for indicating the probable mechanism of action of carcinogens. , 1996, Mutation research.