Improvements in the reliability of in vitro genotoxicity testing

Introduction: In vitro genotoxicity assays have a high sensitivity to detect rodent carcinogens, but mammalian cell tests have a propensity for misleading positive results (poor specificity). Recent data show a greater risk of misleading positive results in p53-deficient rodent cell lines than in p53-competent human cells. Measures of cytotoxicity, source and stability of cells used are also important. Areas covered: In this review, potential reduction in the top concentration for testing (10 mM) is discussed. Indirect effects on non-DNA targets, which may not be relevant for humans or may exhibit a threshold, have been identified. Expert opinion: The reliability of in vitro genotoxicity tests could be improved by selecting p53-proficient, human cells. The provenance and stability of the cells used should be demonstrated. Measures of cytotoxicity based on cell proliferation should be used. Lowering the top concentration for testing from 10 mM to 4 mM or 2000 μg/ml, whichever is the lower, as proposed by some experts, would seem to be justified. Artefacts that may be caused by reaction of test substance with culture medium should be avoided. Better understanding and investigation of the potential for threshold and irrelevant modes of action are encouraged.

[1]  S Albertini,et al.  Comparison of different methods for an accurate assessment of cytotoxicity in the in vitro micronucleus test. I. Theoretical aspects. , 2008, Mutation research.

[2]  D. Brusick.  Implications of treatment-condition-induced genotoxicity for chemical screening and data interpretation. , 1987, Mutation research.

[3]  Andreas Czich,et al.  Follow‐up actions from positive results of in vitro genetic toxicity testing , 2011, Environmental and molecular mutagenesis.

[4]  S. Galloway.  Cytotoxicity and chromosome aberrations in vitro: Experience in industry and the case for an upper limit on toxicity in the aberration assay , 2000, Environmental and molecular mutagenesis.

[5]  David Brusick,et al.  Genotoxicity under extreme culture conditions , 1991 .

[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]  E Zeiger,et al.  Strategy for genotoxicity testing: hazard identification and risk assessment in relation to in vitro testing. , 2007, Mutation research.

[8]  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.

[9]  P. Mosesso,et al.  Report from working group on in vitro tests for chromosomal aberrations. , 1994, Mutation research.

[10]  Raffaella Corvi,et al.  Analysis of published data for top concentration considerations in mammalian cell genotoxicity testing. , 2010, Mutagenesis.

[11]  B. Halliwell,et al.  Different cytotoxic and clastogenic effects of epigallocatechin gallate in various cell-culture media due to variable rates of its oxidation in the culture medium. , 2007, Mutation research.

[12]  David Kirkland,et al.  Further analysis of Ames-negative rodent carcinogens that are only genotoxic in mammalian cells in vitro at concentrations exceeding 1 mM, including retesting of compounds of concern. , 2010, Mutagenesis.

[13]  D Brusick,et al.  International Commission for Protection Against Environmental Mutagens and Carcinogens. Genotoxicity under extreme culture conditions. A report from ICPEMC Task Group 9. , 1991, Mutation research.

[14]  R Fautz,et al.  In vitro approaches to develop weight of evidence (WoE) and mode of action (MoA) discussions with positive in vitro genotoxicity results. , 2007, Mutagenesis.

[15]  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.

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

[17]  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.

[18]  David Kirkland,et al.  Workshop summary: Top concentration for in vitro mammalian cell genotoxicity assays; and report from working group on toxicity measures and top concentration for in vitro cytogenetics assays (chromosome aberrations and micronucleus). , 2011, Mutation research.

[19]  Katie Smith,et al.  Reduction of misleading ("false") positive results in mammalian cell genotoxicity assays. II. Importance of accurate toxicity measurement. , 2012, Mutation research.

[20]  Sheila M Galloway,et al.  Population doubling: A simple and more accurate estimation of cell growth suppression in the in vitro assay for chromosomal aberrations that reduces irrelevant positive results , 2004, Environmental and molecular mutagenesis.

[21]  Rajiv Agarwal,et al.  Current and future application of genetic toxicity assays: the role and value of in vitro mammalian assays. , 2009, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[22]  Jiri Aubrecht,et al.  New and emerging technologies for genetic toxicity testing , 2011, Environmental and molecular mutagenesis.

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

[24]  David Kirkland,et al.  Comparison of different methods for an accurate assessment of cytotoxicity in the in vitro micronucleus test. II: Practical aspects with toxic agents. , 2008, Mutation research.

[25]  David Kirkland,et al.  Evaluation of different cytotoxic and cytostatic measures for the in vitro micronucleus test (MNVit): summary of results in the collaborative trial. , 2010, Mutation research.