Retrospective analysis of the mutagenicity/genotoxicity data of the cosmetic ingredients present on the Annexes of the Cosmetic EU legislation (2000-12).

To evaluate the mutagenicity/genotoxicity of cosmetic ingredients at the regulatory level, usually a battery of three in vitro tests is applied. This battery, designed to be very sensitive, produces a high number of positive results, imposing the need for in vivo follow-up testing to clear the substance under study. In Europe, the use of experimental animals has become impossible for cosmetic ingredients due to the implementation of animal testing and marketing bans. Consequently, the possibility to 'de-risk' substances with positive in vitro results disappear and potentially safe cosmetic substances will be lost for the EU market unless currently used in vitro assays can be adapted or new non-animal mutagenicity/genotoxicity studies become available. Described strategies to improve the specificity of existing in vitro assays include optimisation of the used cell type and cytotoxicity assay and lowering of the applied top concentration. A reduction of the number of tests in the battery from three to two also has been suggested. In this study, the performance of the 'standard' in vitro mutagenicity/genotoxicity testing battery is analysed for a number of cosmetic ingredients. We composed a database with toxicological information on 249 cosmetic ingredients, mainly present on the Annexes of the European cosmetic legislation. Results revealed that the in vitro mutagenicity/genotoxicity tests showed a low specificity for the cosmetic ingredients concerned, comparable to the specificity published for chemicals. Non-confirmed or 'misleading' positive results amounted up to 93% for the in vitro test batteries. The cell type and top concentrations did not have a major impact on the specificity. With respect to cytotoxicity determinations, different end points were used, potentially leading to different testing concentrations, suggesting the need for a consensus in this matter. Overall, the results of this retrospective analysis point to an urgent need of better regulatory strategies to assess the potential mutagenicity/genotoxicity of cosmetic ingredients.

[1]  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.

[2]  J. Kleinjans,et al.  Transcriptomic responses generated by hepatocarcinogens in a battery of liver-based in vitro models. , 2013, Carcinogenesis.

[3]  L. Marrot,et al.  Development of genotoxicity test procedures with Episkin, a reconstructed human skin model: towards new tools for in vitro risk assessment of dermally applied compounds? , 2006, Mutation research.

[4]  A. Guillouzo,et al.  Optimization of the HepaRG cell model for drug metabolism and toxicity studies. , 2012, Toxicology in vitro : an international journal published in association with BIBRA.

[5]  C. Bolognesi,et al.  Scientific opinion on genotoxicity testing strategies applicable to food and 3 feed safety assessment , 2011 .

[6]  Lutz Müller,et al.  Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens I. Sensitivity, specificity and relative predictivity. , 2005, Mutation research.

[7]  R L Binder,et al.  Xenobiotic metabolism gene expression in the EpiDermin vitro 3D human epidermis model compared to human skin. , 2010, Toxicology in vitro : an international journal published in association with BIBRA.

[8]  Flamand Nicole,et al.  再構築ヒト皮膚モデル,Episkinによる遺伝毒性試験手順の開発:経皮適用化合物のin vitroでの危険性評価のための新しいツールか? , 2006 .

[9]  David Kirkland,et al.  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. , 2011, Mutation research.

[10]  Seung Hee Maeng,et al.  Bacterial Reverse Mutation Test of 1, 2, 4-trimethylbenzene , 1986 .

[11]  Katie Smith,et al.  Reduction of misleading ("false") positive results in mammalian cell genotoxicity assays. I. Choice of cell type. , 2012, Mutation research.

[12]  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.

[13]  OECD GUIDELINE FOR THE TESTING OF CHEMICALS In Vitro Mammalian Cell Gene Mutation Test , 1999 .

[14]  N. Kruhlak,et al.  An analysis of genetic toxicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, and carcinogenicity data: I. Identification of carcinogens using surrogate endpoints. , 2006, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[15]  W. Schoonen,et al.  The development of RAD51C, Cystatin A, p53 and Nrf2 luciferase-reporter assays in metabolically competent HepG2 cells for the assessment of mechanism-based genotoxicity and of oxidative stress in the early research phase of drug development. , 2010, Mutation research.

[16]  Raffaella Corvi,et al.  Application of in vitro cell transformation assays in regulatory toxicology for pharmaceuticals, chemicals, food products and cosmetics. , 2012, Mutation research.

[17]  A. Elhajouji,et al.  In vitro genotoxicity test approaches with better predictivity: summary of an IWGT workshop. , 2011, Mutation research.