A novel genotoxin-specific qPCR array based on the metabolically competent human HepaRG™ cell line as a rapid and reliable tool for improved in vitro hazard assessment

Although the value of the regulatory accepted batteries for in vitro genotoxicity testing is recognized, they result in a high number of false positives. This has a major impact on society and industries developing novel compounds for pharmaceutical, chemical, and consumer products, as afflicted compounds have to be (prematurely) abandoned or further tested on animals. Using the metabolically competent human HepaRG™ cell line and toxicogenomics approaches, we have developed an upgraded, innovative, and proprietary gene classifier. This gene classifier is based on transcriptomic changes induced by 12 genotoxic and 12 non-genotoxic reference compounds tested at sub-cytotoxic concentrations, i.e., IC10 concentrations as determined by the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay. The resulting gene classifier was translated into an easy-to-handle qPCR array that, as shown by pathway analysis, covers several different cellular processes related to genotoxicity. To further assess the predictivity of the tool, a set of 5 known positive and 5 known negative test compounds for genotoxicity was evaluated. In addition, 2 compounds with debatable genotoxicity data were tested to explore how the qPCR array would classify these. With an accuracy of 100%, when equivocal results were considered positive, the results showed that combining HepaRG™ cells with a genotoxin-specific qPCR array can improve (geno)toxicological hazard assessment. In addition, the developed qPCR array was able to provide additional information on compounds for which so far debatable genotoxicity data are available. The results indicate that the new in vitro tool can improve human safety assessment of chemicals in general by basing predictions on mechanistic toxicogenomics information.

[1]  M. Kirsch‐Volders,et al.  Micronucleus frequency in Danish schoolchildren and their mothers from the DEMOCOPHES population. , 2015, Mutagenesis.

[2]  Paul White,et al.  Opportunities to integrate new approaches in genetic toxicology: An ILSI‐HESI workshop report , 2015, Environmental and molecular mutagenesis.

[3]  Vera Rogiers,et al.  Way forward in case of a false positive in vitro genotoxicity result for a cosmetic substance? , 2014, Toxicology in vitro : an international journal published in association with BIBRA.

[4]  Errol Zeiger,et al.  Comparison of the Ames II and traditional Ames test responses with respect to mutagenicity, strain specificities, need for metabolism and correlation with rodent carcinogenicity. , 2009, Mutagenesis.

[5]  S. O. Mueller,et al.  Genomic profiling uncovers a molecular pattern for toxicological characterization of mutagens and promutagens in vitro. , 2011, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[6]  K. Miller.  Clastogenic effects of bleomycin, cyclophosphamide, and ethyl methanesulfonate on resting and proliferating human B- and T-lymphocytes. , 1991, Mutation research.

[7]  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.

[8]  D. Zalko,et al.  Validation of high‐throughput genotoxicity assay screening using γH2AX in‐cell western assay on HepG2 cells , 2013, Environmental and molecular mutagenesis.

[9]  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.

[10]  A. Tinker,et al.  The challenges of gene expression microarrays for the study of human cancer. , 2006, Cancer cell.

[11]  Lynn H Pottenger,et al.  Genetic toxicity assessment: employing the best science for human safety evaluation part VI: when salt and sugar and vegetables are positive, how can genotoxicity data serve to inform risk assessment? , 2007, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[12]  Improvements in the reliability of in vitro genotoxicity testing , 2011 .

[13]  Takayoshi Suzuki,et al.  Differential gene expression profiling between genotoxic and non-genotoxic hepatocarcinogens in young rat liver determined by quantitative real-time PCR and principal component analysis. , 2013, Mutation research.

[14]  Emilio Benfenati,et al.  Comparison of In Silico Models for Prediction of Mutagenicity , 2013, Journal of environmental science and health. Part C, Environmental carcinogenesis & ecotoxicology reviews.

[15]  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.

[16]  Corvi Raffaella,et al.  EURL ECVAM strategy to avoid and reduce animal use in genotoxicity testing , 2013 .

[17]  Carbon Disulfide,et al.  Concise International Chemical Assessment Document 46 , 2002 .

[18]  Takayoshi Suzuki,et al.  Dose-dependent alterations in gene expression in mouse liver induced by diethylnitrosamine and ethylnitrosourea and determined by quantitative real-time PCR. , 2009, Mutation research.

[19]  Yu Ye,et al.  Comparison and evaluation of conventional RT-PCR, SYBR green I and TaqMan real-time RT-PCR assays for the detection of porcine epidemic diarrhea virus. , 2017, Molecular and cellular probes.

[20]  G. Smyth,et al.  ROBUST HYPERPARAMETER ESTIMATION PROTECTS AGAINST HYPERVARIABLE GENES AND IMPROVES POWER TO DETECT DIFFERENTIAL EXPRESSION. , 2016, The annals of applied statistics.

[21]  T. Vanhaecke,et al.  Critical selection of reliable reference genes for gene expression study in the HepaRG cell line. , 2011, Biochemical pharmacology.

[22]  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.

[23]  Raffaella Corvi,et al.  The carcinoGENOMICS project: critical selection of model compounds for the development of omics-based in vitro carcinogenicity screening assays. , 2008, Mutation research.

[24]  Richard M Walmsley,et al.  High-specificity and high-sensitivity genotoxicity assessment in a human cell line: validation of the GreenScreen HC GADD45a-GFP genotoxicity assay. , 2006, Mutation research.

[25]  Vera Rogiers,et al.  Retrospective analysis of the mutagenicity/genotoxicity data of the cosmetic ingredients present on the Annexes of the Cosmetic EU legislation (2000-12). , 2014, Mutagenesis.

[26]  Harry Vrieling,et al.  The Extended ToxTracker Assay Discriminates Between Induction of DNA Damage, Oxidative Stress, and Protein Misfolding. , 2016, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[27]  Constantinos Koumenis,et al.  Tumor microenvironment and cellular stress: signaling, metabolism, imaging, and therapeutic targets. Preface. , 2014, Advances in experimental medicine and biology.

[28]  Jiri Aubrecht,et al.  Gene expression profile analysis: an emerging approach to investigate mechanisms of genotoxicity. , 2005, Pharmacogenomics.

[29]  M. Friedman,et al.  In vitro mutagenicity and cell transformation screening of caprolactam. , 1979, Environmental mutagenesis.

[30]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  Diagnosis of multiple cancer types by shrunken centroids of gene expression , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[31]  S. Lee,et al.  Distinguishing between genotoxic and non-genotoxic hepatocarcinogens by gene expression profiling and bioinformatic pathway analysis , 2013, Scientific Reports.

[32]  Jiri Aubrecht,et al.  A predictive toxicogenomics signature to classify genotoxic versus non-genotoxic chemicals in human TK6 cells , 2015, Data in brief.

[33]  S. Mocellin,et al.  Complementary techniques: validation of gene expression data by quantitative real time PCR. , 2007, Advances in experimental medicine and biology.

[34]  Jiri Aubrecht,et al.  Development of a toxicogenomics signature for genotoxicity using a dose‐optimization and informatics strategy in human cells , 2015, Environmental and molecular mutagenesis.

[35]  R. Walmsley,et al.  The GreenScreen genotoxicity assay: a screening validation programme. , 2004, Mutagenesis.

[36]  T. Schirris,et al.  Development and validation of a high-content screening in vitro micronucleus assay in CHO-k1 and HepG2 cells. , 2011, Mutation research.

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

[38]  Jiri Aubrecht,et al.  Integration of metabolic activation with a predictive toxicogenomics signature to classify genotoxic versus nongenotoxic chemicals in human TK6 cells , 2015, Environmental and molecular mutagenesis.

[39]  J. Kleinjans,et al.  Testing chemical carcinogenicity by using a transcriptomics HepaRG-based model? , 2014, EXCLI journal.

[40]  C. García-Cantón,et al.  Assessment of the in vitro γH2AX assay by High Content Screening as a novel genotoxicity test. , 2013, Mutation research.

[41]  Richard M Walmsley,et al.  Development of a High-Throughput Gaussia Luciferase Reporter Assay for the Activation of the GADD45a Gene by Mutagens, Promutagens, Clastogens, and Aneugens , 2012, Journal of biomolecular screening.

[42]  J. Kleinjans,et al.  Exploiting microRNA and mRNA profiles generated in vitro from carcinogen-exposed primary mouse hepatocytes for predicting in vivo genotoxicity and carcinogenicity. , 2016, Mutagenesis.

[43]  F. Speleman,et al.  Accurate normalization of real-time quantitative RT-PCR data by geometric averaging of multiple internal control genes , 2002, Genome Biology.

[44]  Emilio Benfenati,et al.  In silico tools and transcriptomics analyses in the mutagenicity assessment of cosmetic ingredients: a proof-of-principle on how to add weight to the evidence. , 2016, Mutagenesis.

[45]  Toshihiro Yamada,et al.  Validation of a genotoxicity test based on p53R2 gene expression in human lymphoblastoid cells. , 2011, Mutation research.

[46]  Anushya Muruganujan,et al.  PANTHER version 11: expanded annotation data from Gene Ontology and Reactome pathways, and data analysis tool enhancements , 2016, Nucleic Acids Res..

[48]  Raffaella Corvi,et al.  Updated recommended lists of genotoxic and non-genotoxic chemicals for assessment of the performance of new or improved genotoxicity tests. , 2016, Mutation research. Genetic toxicology and environmental mutagenesis.

[49]  J. Kleinjans,et al.  Gene expression profiling in primary mouse hepatocytes discriminates true from false-positive genotoxic compounds. , 2010, Mutagenesis.

[50]  Maciej Stępnik,et al.  "The SCCS note of Guidance for the testing of cosmetic ingredients and their safety evaluation – 10th Revision"SCCS/1602/18 - Final version , 2018 .

[51]  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.

[52]  H Mozdarani,et al.  Induction of cytogenetic adaptive response of mouse bone marrow cells to radiation by therapeutic doses of bleomycin sulfate and actinomycin D as assayed by the micronucleus test. , 1994, Cancer letters.