Genotoxicity testing: Moving beyond qualitative “screen and bin” approach towards characterization of dose‐response and thresholds

For more than 40+ years, genotoxicity data have been interpreted in a qualitative, binary mode; a chemical is considered either positive or negative for a response in the test system. Although dose–response information is sometimes used in this decision, it is not routine to obtain the amount of information needed to inform risk assessment, for example to determine no‐observed‐genotoxic‐effect‐levels, primarily due to the historical view of genotoxic responses as “linear, no‐threshold.” Only recently have researchers begun to address this issue through robust experimental designs and application of statistical models. A growing body‐of‐evidence supports the existence of response thresholds for a number of mutagenic agents, in vitro and in vivo. Clearly, simple observation of a “hockey‐stick” dose–response curve is not sufficient to establish a threshold. Collection of robust empirical data must be supported with an analysis of biological plausibility for the observed threshold. In this context, a chemical‐specific mode‐of‐action (MOA) approach, which identifies key events responsible for the observed mutagenic effect, is extremely valuable. Biomarkers of key events, providing qualitative and quantitative information, can be integrated in a weight‐of‐evidence‐based assessment of genotoxicity data from multiple test systems and used to identify data gaps to resolve/reduce uncertainties during the risk assessment process. To this end, specific recommendations on study design and data analysis are proposed. As the Environmental Mutagen Society celebrates its 40th anniversary, the field of genetic toxicology is marking a milestone on the path to a new paradigm, using a MOA, data‐driven approach to answer questions about thresholds for genotoxic agents. Environ. Mol. Mutagen., 2010. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

[1]  U. Vogel,et al.  A sucrose-rich diet induces mutations in the rat colon. , 2002, Cancer research.

[2]  S. Seidel,et al.  Profiles of gene expression changes in L5178Y mouse lymphoma cells treated with methyl methanesulfonate and sodium chloride. , 2004, Mutagenesis.

[3]  M. Armstrong,et al.  Effects of high osmotic strength on chromosome aberrations, sister-chromatid exchanges and DNA strand breaks, and the relation to toxicity. , 1987, Mutation research.

[4]  Ollivier Hyrien,et al.  Pig-a mutation: kinetics in rat erythrocytes following exposure to five prototypical mutagens. , 2010, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[5]  P. Howard,et al.  Quantifying levels of p53 mutation in mouse skin tumors , 2005, Environmental and molecular mutagenesis.

[6]  Jennifer Seed,et al.  A Framework for Human Relevance Analysis of Information on Carcinogenic Modes of Action , 2003, Critical reviews in toxicology.

[7]  H. Stopper,et al.  Biological significance of DNA adducts: comparison of increments over background for various biomarkers of genotoxicity in L5178Y tk(+/-) mouse lymphoma cells treated with hydrogen peroxide and cumene hydroperoxide. , 2009, Mutation research.

[8]  A. Lynch,et al.  Evaluation of the Litron In Vitro MicroFlow Kit for the flow cytometric enumeration of micronuclei (MN) in mammalian cells. , 2008, Mutation research.

[9]  Melvin E Andersen,et al.  Dose-dependent transitions in mechanisms of toxicity. , 2004, Toxicology and applied pharmacology.

[10]  G. Jenkins,et al.  Mechanistic influences for mutation induction curves after exposure to DNA-reactive carcinogens. , 2007, Cancer research.

[11]  G. Jenkins,et al.  Do dose response thresholds exist for genotoxic alkylating agents? , 2005, Mutagenesis.

[12]  B. J. Winer,et al.  Statistical Principles in Experimental Design, 2nd Edition. , 1973 .

[13]  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.

[14]  Errol Zeiger,et al.  Creating context for the use of DNA adduct data in cancer risk assessment: I. Data organization , 2009, Critical reviews in toxicology.

[15]  Carolyn Vickers,et al.  IPCS framework for analysing the relevance of a cancer mode of action for humans , 2006 .

[16]  J I Goodman,et al.  Principles underlying dose selection for, and extrapolation from, the carcinogen bioassay: dose influences mechanism. , 1995, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[17]  B. Bhaskar Gollapudi,et al.  Genetic Toxicity Assessment: Employing the Best Science for Human Safety Evaluation , 2006 .

[18]  J. Bemis,et al.  In vivo mutation assay based on the endogenous Pig‐a locus , 2008, Environmental and molecular mutagenesis.

[19]  D. Skibinski,et al.  Non-linear dose-response of DNA-reactive genotoxins: recommendations for data analysis. , 2009, Mutation research.

[20]  Robert L. Mason,et al.  Statistical Principles in Experimental Design , 2003 .

[21]  Lutz Müller,et al.  In vivo studies in the mouse to define a threshold for the genotoxicity of EMS and ENU. , 2009, Mutation research.

[22]  R. Preston,et al.  Application of Key Events Analysis to Chemical Carcinogens and Noncarcinogens , 2009, Critical reviews in food science and nutrition.

[23]  J. Bemis,et al.  Erythrocyte-based Pig-a gene mutation assay: demonstration of cross-species potential. , 2008, Mutation research.

[24]  Lynn H Pottenger,et al.  A case for a new paradigm in genetic toxicology testing. , 2009, Mutation research.

[25]  A Elhajouji,et al.  Concepts of threshold in mutagenesis and carcinogenesis. , 2000, Mutation research.

[26]  Fagen Zhang,et al.  Dose-response and operational thresholds/NOAELs for in vitro mutagenic effects from DNA-reactive mutagens, MMS and MNU. , 2009, Mutation research.

[27]  W. Lutz,et al.  Dose-response relationships in chemical carcinogenesis: superposition of different mechanisms of action, resulting in linear-nonlinear curves, practical thresholds, J-shapes. , 1998, Mutation research.

[28]  Peter Kasper,et al.  Relevance and follow-up of positive results in in vitro genetic toxicity assays: an ILSI-HESI initiative. , 2007, Mutation research.

[29]  E. Gocke,et al.  In vivo genotoxicity of EMS: statistical assessment of the dose response curves. , 2009, Toxicology letters.

[30]  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.

[31]  D. Eastmond,et al.  Detection of micronuclei, cell proliferation and hyperdiploidy in bladder epithelial cells of rats treated with o-phenylphenol. , 2002, Mutagenesis.

[32]  Melvin E Andersen,et al.  Dose-dependent transitions in mechanisms of toxicity: case studies. , 2004, Toxicology and applied pharmacology.

[33]  Vernon E Walker,et al.  Biomarkers in toxicology and risk assessment: informing critical dose-response relationships. , 2008, Chemical research in toxicology.

[34]  R. W. Lutz,et al.  Statistical model to estimate a threshold dose and its confidence limits for the analysis of sublinear dose-response relationships, exemplified for mutagenicity data. , 2009, Mutation research.

[35]  A. Boobis,et al.  The Key Events Dose-Response Framework: A Cross-Disciplinary Mode-of-Action Based Approach to Examining Dose-Response and Thresholds , 2009, Critical reviews in food science and nutrition.

[36]  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.

[37]  T. Patterson,et al.  ACB-PCR quantification of K-RAS codon 12 GAT and GTT mutant fraction in colon tumor and non-tumor tissue. , 2010, Cancer investigation.

[38]  F. Beland,et al.  Levels of 4‐aminobiphenyl‐induced somatic H‐ras mutation in mouse liver DNA correlate with potential for liver tumor development , 2005, Molecular carcinogenesis.