A weight of evidence review of the genotoxicity of titanium dioxide (TiO2).

Titanium dioxide is a ubiquitous white material found in a diverse range of products from foods to sunscreens, as a pigment and thickener, amongst other uses. Titanium dioxide has been considered no longer safe for use in foods (nano and microparticles of E171) by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) due to concerns over genotoxicity. There are however, conflicting opinions regarding the safety of Titanium dioxide. In an attempt to clarify the situation, a comprehensive weight of evidence (WoE) assessment of the genotoxicity of titanium dioxide based on the available data was performed. A total of 192 datasets for endpoints and test systems considered the most relevant for identifying mutagenic and carcinogenic potential were reviewed and discussed for both reliability and relevance (by weight of evidence) and in the context of whether the physico-chemical properties of the particles had been characterised. The view of an independent panel of experts was that, of the 192 datasets identified, only 34 met the reliability and quality criteria for being most relevant in the evaluation of genotoxicity. Of these, 10 were positive (i.e. reported evidence that titanium dioxide was genotoxic), all of which were from studies of DNA strand breakage (comet assay) or chromosome damage (micronucleus or chromosome aberration assays). All the positive findings were associated with high cytotoxicity, oxidative stress, inflammation, apoptosis, necrosis, or combinations of these. Considering that DNA and chromosome breakage can be secondary to physiological stress, it is highly likely that the observed genotoxic effects of titanium dioxide, including those with nanoparticles, are secondary to physiological stress. Consistent with this finding, there were no positive results from the in vitro and in vivo gene mutation studies evaluated, although it should be noted that to definitively conclude a lack of mutagenicity, more robust in vitro and in vivo gene mutation studies would be useful. Existing evidence does not therefore support a direct DNA damaging mechanism for titanium dioxide (nano and other forms).

Use of the EpiDermTM 3D reconstructed skin micronucleus assay for fragrance materials.

In order to evaluate the utility of the 3D reconstructed skin micronucleus assay (3DRSMN) to assess clastogenic/aneugenic potential of the fragrance chemicals, a set of 22 fragrance materials were evaluated in 3DRSMN assay. These materials evaluated were also evaluated in an in vitro as well as in vivo micronucleus assay, conducted as per Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines. The results of the RSMN assay were in 100% agreement with the in vivo micronucleus assay results. From this dataset, 18 materials were positive in an in vitro micronucleus assay but were negative in an in vivo micronucleus assay. All these 18 materials were also concluded to be negative in 3DRSMN assay, stressing the importance of the assay to help minimize misleading positive outcomes from the in vitro assay. Since the highest exposure for fragrances is through the dermal route, the RSMN assay fits the applicability domain for testing. Thus, RSMN assay is an important alternative to animal testing for characterization of the genotoxicity potential of fragrance materials.

Validation of the 3D reconstructed human skin micronucleus (RSMN) assay: an animal-free alternative for following-up positive results from standard in vitro genotoxicity assays.

In vitro test batteries have become the standard approach to determine the genotoxic potential of substances of interest across industry sectors. While useful for hazard identification, standard in vitro genotoxicity assays in 2D cell cultures have limited capability to predict in vivo outcomes and may trigger unnecessary follow-up animal studies or the loss of promising substances where animal tests are prohibited or not desired. To address this problem, a team of regulatory, academia and industry scientists was established to develop and validate 3D in vitro human skin-based genotoxicity assays for use in testing substances with primarily topical exposure. Validation of the reconstructed human skin micronucleus (RSMN) assay in MatTek Epi-200™ skin models involved testing 43 coded chemicals selected by independent experts, in four US/European laboratories. The results were analysed by an independent statistician according to predefined criteria. The RSMN assay showed a reproducibly low background micronucleus frequency and exhibited sufficient capacity to metabolise pro-mutagens. The overall RSMN accuracy when compared to in vivo genotoxicity outcomes was 80%, with a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 84%, and the between- and within-laboratory reproducibility was 77 and 84%, respectively. A protocol involving a 72-h exposure showed increased sensitivity in detecting true positive chemicals compared to a 48-h exposure. An analysis of a test strategy using the RSMN assay as a follow-up test for substances positive in standard in vitro clastogenicity/aneugenicity assays and a reconstructed skin Comet assay for substances with positive results in standard gene mutation assays results in a sensitivity of 89%. Based on these results, the RSMN assay is considered sufficiently validated to establish it as a 'tier 2' assay for dermally exposed compounds and was recently accepted into the OECD's test guideline development program.

A review of mammalian in vivo genotoxicity of hexavalent chromium: implications for oral carcinogenicity risk assessment.

Assessment of genotoxicity is a critical component of mode of action (MOA) analysis and carcinogen risk assessment due to its influence on quantitative risk extrapolation approaches. To date, clear guidance and expert consensus on the determination of a mutagenic MOA remains elusive, resulting in different estimates of carcinogenic risk for the same chemical among different stakeholders. Oral toxicity criteria for hexavalent chromium [Cr(VI)], for example, differ by orders of magnitude due largely to the interpretation of in vivo genotoxicity data. Herein, we review in vivo genotoxicity studies for Cr(VI) to inform the MOA for Cr(VI)-induced tumors observed in a two-year cancer bioassay in mice and rats exposed via drinking water. Overall, genotoxicity results in carcinogenic target tissues (viz., oral cavity and duodenum) are negative. Results in the intestine are consistent with imaging data indicating little to no chromium present in the crypt compartment following oral exposure. Positive genotoxicity results in nontarget tissues have been reported at high doses mostly following nonphysiological routes of exposure. Given the negative genotoxicity results in carcinogenic target organs from oral exposure to Cr(VI), there is scientific justification to support the use of nonlinear low-dose extrapolation methods in the derivation of oral toxicity criteria for Cr(VI). These results highlight important differences between genotoxicity testing for hazard identification purposes and quantitative risk assessment.

A weight of evidence assessment of the genotoxic potential of 4-methylimidazole as a possible mode of action for the formation of lung tumors in exposed mice.

4-Methylimidazole (4-MeI) is a byproduct formed during the cooking of foods containing carbohydrates and amino acids, including the production of flavors and coloring substances, e.g., class III and IV caramel colors, used in many food products with extensive human exposure. Two-year rodent bioassays via oral exposure conducted by the National Toxicology Program reported evidence of carcinogenicity only in B6C3F1 mice (increased alveolar/bronchial neoplasms). In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified 4-MeI as Group 2B, "possibly carcinogenic to humans". An expert panel was commissioned to assess the genotoxic potential of 4-MeI and the plausibility of a genotoxic mode of action in the formation of lung tumors in mice when exposed to high doses of 4-MeI. The panel defined and used a weight-of-evidence (WOE) approach that included thorough evaluation of studies assessing the genotoxic potential of 4-MeI. The panelists categorized each study, consisting of study weight, degree of technical performance, study reliability, and contribution to the overall WOE. Based on the reviewed studies' weighted contribution, the panel unanimously concluded that the WOE supports no clear evidence of in vivo genotoxicity of 4-MeI and no association for a genotoxic mode of action in the formation of mouse lung tumors.

A comparison of transgenic rodent mutation and in vivo comet assay responses for 91 chemicals.

A database of 91 chemicals with published data from both transgenic rodent mutation (TGR) and rodent comet assays has been compiled. The objective was to compare the sensitivity of the two assays for detecting genotoxicity. Critical aspects of study design and results were tabulated for each dataset. There were fewer datasets from rats than mice, particularly for the TGR assay, and therefore, results from both species were combined for further analysis. TGR and comet responses were compared in liver and bone marrow (the most commonly studied tissues), and in stomach and colon evaluated either separately or in combination with other GI tract segments. Overall positive, negative, or equivocal test results were assessed for each chemical across the tissues examined in the TGR and comet assays using two approaches: 1) overall calls based on weight of evidence (WoE) and expert judgement, and 2) curation of the data based on a priori acceptability criteria prior to deriving final tissue specific calls. Since the database contains a high prevalence of positive results, overall agreement between the assays was determined using statistics adjusted for prevalence (using AC1 and PABAK). These coefficients showed fair or moderate to good agreement for liver and the GI tract (predominantly stomach and colon data) using WoE, reduced agreement for stomach and colon evaluated separately using data curation, and poor or no agreement for bone marrow using both the WoE and data curation approaches. Confidence in these results is higher for liver than for the other tissues, for which there were less data. Our analysis finds that comet and TGR generally identify the same compounds (mainly potent mutagens) as genotoxic in liver, stomach and colon, but not in bone marrow. However, the current database content precluded drawing assay concordance conclusions for weak mutagens and non-DNA reactive chemicals.

Simulation of mouse and rat spermatogenesis to inform genotoxicity testing using OECD test guideline 488.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Test Guideline (TG) 488 for the transgenic rodent (TGR) mutation assay recommends two sampling times for assessing germ cell mutagenicity following the required 28-day exposure period: 28 + > 49 days for mouse sperm and 28 + >70 days for rat sperm from the cauda epididymis, or three days (i.e., 28 + 3d) for germ cells from seminiferous tubules (hereafter, tubule germ cells) plus caudal sperm for mouse and rat. Although the latter protocol is commonly used for mutagenicity testing in somatic tissues, it has several shortcomings for germ cell testing because it provides limited exposure of the proliferating phase of spermatogenesis when mutations are fixed in the transgene. Indeed, analysis of sperm at 28 + 3d has generated negative results with established germ cell mutagens, while the analysis of tubule germ cells has generated both positive and either negative or equivocal results. The Germ Cell workgroup of the Genetic Toxicology Technical Committee of the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute modelled mouse and rat spermatogenesis to better define the exposure history of the cell population collected from seminiferous tubules. The modelling showed that mouse tubule germ cells at 28 + 3d receive, as a whole, 42% of the total exposure during the proliferating phase. This percentage increases to 99% at 28 + 28d and reaches 100% at 28 + 30d. In the rat, these percentages are 22% and 80% at 28 + 3d and 28 + 28d, reaching 100% at 28 + 44d. These results show that analysis of tubule germ cells at 28 + 28d may be an effective protocol for assessing germ cell mutagenicity in mice and rats using TG 488. Since TG 488 recommends the 28 + 28d protocol for slow dividing somatic tissues, this appears to be a better compromise than 28 + 3d when slow dividing somatic tissues or germ cells are the critical tissues of interest.

Identifying germ cell mutagens using OECD test guideline 488 (transgenic rodent somatic and germ cell gene mutation assays) and integration with somatic cell testing.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Test Guideline 488 (TG 488) provides recommendations for assessing germ cell and somatic cell mutagenicity using transgenic rodent (TGR) models. However, important data gaps exist for selecting an optimal approach for simultaneously evaluating mutagenicity in both cell types. It is uncertain whether analysis of germ cells from seminiferous tubules (hereafter, tubule germ cells) or caudal sperm within the recommended design for somatic tissues (i.e., 28 days of exposure plus three days of fixation time, 28 + 3d) has enough sensitivity to detect an effect as compared with the analysis of sperm within the recommended design for germ cells (i.e., 28 + 49d and 28 + 70d for mouse and rat, respectively). To address these data gaps, the Germ Cell workgroup of the Genetic Toxicology Technical Committee of the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute reviewed the available TGR mutagenicity data in male germ cells, and, characterized the exposure history of tubule germ cells for different sampling times to evaluate its impact on germ cell mutagenicity testing using TG 488. Our analyses suggest that evaluating mutant frequencies in: i) sperm from the cauda epididymis at 28 + 3d does not provide meaningful mutagenicity data; ii), tubule germ cells at 28 + 3d provides reliable mutagenicity data only if the results are positive; and iii) tubule germ cells at 28 + 28d produces reliable positive and negative results in both mice and rats. Thus, the 28 + 28d regimen may provide an approach for simultaneously assessing mutagenicity in somatic tissues and germ cells from the same animals. Further work is required to support the 28 + 28d protocol for tissues other than slowly proliferating tissues as per current TG 488. Finally, recommendations are provided to guide the experimental design for germ cell mutagenicity data for regulatory submission, as well as other possible approaches to increase the reliability of the TGR assay.

Genotoxicity Assessment of Nanomaterials: Recommendations on Best Practices, Assays, and Methods.

Nanomaterials (NMs) present unique challenges in safety evaluation. An international working group, the Genetic Toxicology Technical Committee of the International Life Sciences Institute's Health and Environmental Sciences Institute, has addressed issues related to the genotoxicity assessment of NMs. A critical review of published data has been followed by recommendations on methods alterations and best practices for the standard genotoxicity assays: bacterial reverse mutation (Ames); in vitro mammalian assays for mutations, chromosomal aberrations, micronucleus induction, or DNA strand breaks (comet); and in vivo assays for genetic damage (micronucleus, comet and transgenic mutation assays). The analysis found a great diversity of tests and systems used for in vitro assays; many did not meet criteria for a valid test, and/or did not use validated cells and methods in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Test Guidelines, and so these results could not be interpreted. In vivo assays were less common but better performed. It was not possible to develop conclusions on test system agreement, NM activity, or mechanism of action. However, the limited responses observed for most NMs were consistent with indirect genotoxic effects, rather than direct interaction of NMs with DNA. We propose a revised genotoxicity test battery for NMs that includes in vitro mammalian cell mutagenicity and clastogenicity assessments; in vivo assessments would be added only if warranted by information on specific organ exposure or sequestration of NMs. The bacterial assays are generally uninformative for NMs due to limited particle uptake and possible lack of mechanistic relevance, and are thus omitted in our recommended test battery for NM assessment. Recommendations include NM characterization in the test medium, verification of uptake into target cells, and limited assay-specific methods alterations to avoid interference with uptake or endpoint analysis. These recommendations are summarized in a Roadmap guideline for testing.

A review of the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate by four independent expert panels and comparison to the IARC assessment.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published a monograph in 2015 concluding that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2A) based on limited evidence in humans and sufficient evidence in experimental animals. It was also concluded that there was strong evidence of genotoxicity and oxidative stress. Four Expert Panels have been convened for the purpose of conducting a detailed critique of the evidence in light of IARC's assessment and to review all relevant information pertaining to glyphosate exposure, animal carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, and epidemiologic studies. Two of the Panels (animal bioassay and genetic toxicology) also provided a critique of the IARC position with respect to conclusions made in these areas. The incidences of neoplasms in the animal bioassays were found not to be associated with glyphosate exposure on the basis that they lacked statistical strength, were inconsistent across studies, lacked dose-response relationships, were not associated with preneoplasia, and/or were not plausible from a mechanistic perspective. The overall weight of evidence from the genetic toxicology data supports a conclusion that glyphosate (including GBFs and AMPA) does not pose a genotoxic hazard and therefore, should not be considered support for the classification of glyphosate as a genotoxic carcinogen. The assessment of the epidemiological data found that the data do not support a causal relationship between glyphosate exposure and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma while the data were judged to be too sparse to assess a potential relationship between glyphosate exposure and multiple myeloma. As a result, following the review of the totality of the evidence, the Panels concluded that the data do not support IARC's conclusion that glyphosate is a "probable human carcinogen" and, consistent with previous regulatory assessments, further concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans.

Genotoxicity Expert Panel review: weight of evidence evaluation of the genotoxicity of glyphosate, glyphosate-based formulations, and aminomethylphosphonic acid.

In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published a monograph concluding there was strong evidence for genotoxicity of glyphosate and glyphosate formulations and moderate evidence for genotoxicity of the metabolite aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA). These conclusions contradicted earlier extensive reviews supporting the lack of genotoxicity of glyphosate and glyphosate formulations. The IARC Monograph concluded there was strong evidence of induction of oxidative stress by glyphosate, glyphosate formulations, and AMPA. The Expert Panel reviewed the genotoxicity and oxidative stress data considered in the IARC Monograph, together with other available data not considered by IARC. The Expert Panel defined and used a weight of evidence (WoE) approach that included ranking of studies and endpoints by the strength of their linkage to events associated with carcinogenic mechanisms. Importantly, the Expert Panel concluded that there was sufficient information available from a very large number of regulatory genotoxicity studies that should have been considered by IARC. The WoE approach, the inclusion of all relevant regulatory studies, and some differences in interpretation of individual studies led to significantly different conclusions by the Expert Panel compared with the IARC Monograph. The Expert Panel concluded that glyphosate, glyphosate formulations, and AMPA do not pose a genotoxic hazard and the data do not support the IARC Monograph genotoxicity evaluation. With respect to carcinogenicity classification and mechanism, the Expert Panel concluded that evidence relating to an oxidative stress mechanism of carcinogenicity was largely unconvincing and that the data profiles were not consistent with the characteristics of genotoxic carcinogens.

The EpiDerm™ 3D human reconstructed skin micronucleus (RSMN) assay: Historical control data and proof of principle studies for mechanistic assay adaptations.

The in vitro human reconstructed skin micronucleus (RSMN) assay in EpiDerm™ is a promising novel animal alternative for evaluating genotoxicity of topically applied chemicals. It is particularly useful for assessing cosmetic ingredients that can no longer be tested using in vivo assays. To advance the use of this test especially for regulatory decision-making, we have established the RSMN assay in our laboratory according to Good Laboratory Practice and following the principles of the OECD test guideline 487 in vitro mammalian cell micronucleus test. Proficiency with the assay was established by correctly identifying direct-acting genotoxins and genotoxins requiring metabolism, as well as non-genotoxic/non-carcinogenic chemicals. We also report the analysis of our historical control data that demonstrate vehicle control and positive control values for %micronuclei in binucleated cells are in the ranges reported previously. Technical issues including evaluating various solvents with both 48h and 72h treatment regimens were investigated. For the first time, mechanistic studies using CREST analysis revealed that the RSMN assay is suitable for distinguishing aneugens and clastogens. Moreover, the assay is also suitable for measuring cytokines as markers for proliferative and toxic effects of chemicals.

Combination comet/micronucleus assay validation performed by BioReliance under the JaCVAM initiative.

In the international validation study of the in vivo rat alkaline comet assay (comet assay), the Japanese Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods (JaCVAM) provided three coded chemicals to BioReliance, 1,3-dichloropropene, ethionamide and busulfan, to be tested in a combined in vivo comet/micronucleus assay. Induction of DNA damage (comet) in liver, stomach and jejunum (1,3-dichloropropene only) cells, and induction of MNPCEs in bone marrow, were examined in male Sprague-Dawley (Hsd:SD) rats following oral administration of the test chemical for three consecutive days. A dose range finding (DRF) test was performed with each chemical to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Based on the results of the DRF test; 1,3-dichloropropene was tested at 50, 100 and 200 mg/kg/day; ethionamide was tested at 125, 250 and 500 mg/kg/day, and busulfan was tested at 10, 20 and 40 mg/kg/day. The results indicated that 1,3-dichloropropene induced DNA damage only in liver cells at all three test article doses, while no effects were observed in the stomach and jejunum cells. Additionally, it did not increase MNPCEs in the bone marrow. 1,3-Dichloropropene was concluded to be negative in the MN assay but positive in the comet assay. Ethionamide did not induce DNA damage in liver. However, in stomach, statistically significant decreases (although still within historical range) in % tail DNA at all test article doses compared to the vehicle control were observed. There was no increase in MNPCEs in the bone marrow. Thus, ethionamide was concluded to be negative in the comet/MN combined assay. Busulfan did not induce DNA damage in any of the organs tested (liver and stomach) but it did induce a significant increase in MNPCEs in the bone marrow. Busulfan was concluded to be negative in the comet assay but positive in the MN assay.

Integration of Pig-a, micronucleus, chromosome aberration and comet assay endpoints in a 28-day rodent toxicity study with urethane.

As part of the international Pig-a validation trials, we examined the induction of Pig-a mutant reticulocytes and red blood cells (RET(CD59-) and RBC(CD59-), respectively) in peripheral blood of male Sprague Dawley(®) rats treated with urethane (25, 100 and 250mg/kg/day) or saline by oral gavage for 29 days. Additional endpoints integrated into this study were: micronucleated reticulocytes (MN-RET) in peripheral blood; chromosome aberrations (CAb) and DNA damage (%tail intensity via the comet assay) in peripheral blood lymphocytes (PBL); micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes (MN-PCE) in bone marrow; and DNA damage (comet) in various organs at termination (the 29th dose was added for the comet endpoint at sacrifice). Ethyl methanesulfonate (EMS; 200mg/kg/day on Days 3, 4, 13, 14, 15, 27, 28 and 29) was evaluated as the concurrent positive control (PC). All animals survived to termination and none exhibited overt toxicity, but there were significant differences in body weight and body weight gain in the 250-mg/kg/day urethane group, as compared with the saline control animals. Statistically significant, dose-dependent increases were observed for urethane for: RET(CD59-) and RBC(CD59-) (on Days 15 and 29); MN-RET (on Days 4, 15 and 29); and MN-PCE (on Day 29). The comet assay yielded positive results in PBL (Day 15) and liver (Day 29), but negative results for PBL (Days 4 and 29) and brain, kidney and lung (Day 29). No significant increases in PBL CAb were observed at any sample time. Except for PBL CAb (likely due to excessive cytotoxicity), EMS-induced significant increases in all endpoints/tissues. These results compare favorably with earlier in vivo observations and demonstrate the utility and sensitivity of the Pig-a in vivo gene mutation assay, and its ability to be easily integrated, along with other standard genotoxicity endpoints, into 28-day rodent toxicity studies.

Approaches for identifying germ cell mutagens: Report of the 2013 IWGT workshop on germ cell assays(☆).

This workshop reviewed the current science to inform and recommend the best evidence-based approaches on the use of germ cell genotoxicity tests. The workshop questions and key outcomes were as follows. (1) Do genotoxicity and mutagenicity assays in somatic cells predict germ cell effects? Limited data suggest that somatic cell tests detect most germ cell mutagens, but there are strong concerns that dictate caution in drawing conclusions. (2) Should germ cell tests be done, and when? If there is evidence that a chemical or its metabolite(s) will not reach target germ cells or gonadal tissue, it is not necessary to conduct germ cell tests, notwithstanding somatic outcomes. However, it was recommended that negative somatic cell mutagens with clear evidence for gonadal exposure and evidence of toxicity in germ cells could be considered for germ cell mutagenicity testing. For somatic mutagens that are known to reach the gonadal compartments and expose germ cells, the chemical could be assumed to be a germ cell mutagen without further testing. Nevertheless, germ cell mutagenicity testing would be needed for quantitative risk assessment. (3) What new assays should be implemented and how? There is an immediate need for research on the application of whole genome sequencing in heritable mutation analysis in humans and animals, and integration of germ cell assays with somatic cell genotoxicity tests. Focus should be on environmental exposures that can cause de novo mutations, particularly newly recognized types of genomic changes. Mutational events, which may occur by exposure of germ cells during embryonic development, should also be investigated. Finally, where there are indications of germ cell toxicity in repeat dose or reproductive toxicology tests, consideration should be given to leveraging those studies to inform of possible germ cell genotoxicity.

Opportunities to integrate new approaches in genetic toxicology: an ILSI-HESI workshop report.

Genetic toxicity tests currently used to identify and characterize potential human mutagens and carcinogens rely on measurements of primary DNA damage, gene mutation, and chromosome damage in vitro and in rodents. The International Life Sciences Institute Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (ILSI-HESI) Committee on the Relevance and Follow-up of Positive Results in In Vitro Genetic Toxicity Testing held an April 2012 Workshop in Washington, DC, to consider the impact of new understanding of biology and new technologies on the identification and characterization of genotoxic substances, and to identify new approaches to inform more accurate human risk assessment for genetic and carcinogenic effects. Workshop organizers and speakers were from industry, academe, and government. The Workshop focused on biological effects and technologies that would potentially yield the most useful information for evaluating human risk of genetic damage. Also addressed was the impact that improved understanding of biology and availability of new techniques might have on genetic toxicology practices. Workshop topics included (1) alternative experimental models to improve genetic toxicity testing, (2) Biomarkers of epigenetic changes and their applicability to genetic toxicology, and (3) new technologies and approaches. The ability of these new tests and technologies to be developed into tests to identify and characterize genotoxic agents; to serve as a bridge between in vitro and in vivo rodent, or preferably human, data; or to be used to provide dose response information for quantitative risk assessment was also addressed. A summary of the workshop and links to the scientific presentations are provided.

An evaluation of 25 selected ToxCast chemicals in medium-throughput assays to detect genotoxicity.

ToxCast is a multiyear effort to develop a cost-effective approach for the US EPA to prioritize chemicals for toxicity testing. Initial evaluation of more than 500 high-throughput (HT) microwell-based assays without metabolic activation showed that most lacked high specificity and sensitivity for detecting genotoxicants. Thus, EPA initiated a pilot project to investigate the use of standard genotoxicity endpoints using medium-throughput genotoxicity (MTG) assays in the context of a large testing program. Twenty-five chemicals were selected from the ToxCast program based in part on their known genotoxicity. The two MTG assays used were the Ames II(™) assay and 96-well In Vitro MicroFlow(®) Micronucleus (MN) assay. The Ames II assay showed a reasonable correlation with published Ames test data and industry submissions, though specificity was much better than sensitivity due to restraints on top concentrations as prescribed by ToxCast. Overall concordance was 73% both with and without metabolic activation. The flow MN assay had concordances of 71% and 58% with and without metabolic activation, respectively, when compared to published data and submissions. Importantly, a comparison of results without S9 from the MTG assays to an HT ToxCast p53 activation assay showed a fairly good degree of concordance (67%). The results reported here indicate that assays for genotoxicity endpoints can be conducted in a MT format and have the potential to add to the interpretation of results from large-scale testing programs such as EPA's ToxCast program. Inherent limitations such as the top concentrations used in large scale testing programs are discussed. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 56:468-476, 2015. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Emerging approaches in predictive toxicology.

Predictive toxicology plays an important role in the assessment of toxicity of chemicals and the drug development process. While there are several well-established in vitro and in vivo assays that are suitable for predictive toxicology, recent advances in high-throughput analytical technologies and model systems are expected to have a major impact on the field of predictive toxicology. This commentary provides an overview of the state of the current science and a brief discussion on future perspectives for the field of predictive toxicology for human toxicity. Computational models for predictive toxicology, needs for further refinement and obstacles to expand computational models to include additional classes of chemical compounds are highlighted. Functional and comparative genomics approaches in predictive toxicology are discussed with an emphasis on successful utilization of recently developed model systems for high-throughput analysis. The advantages of three-dimensional model systems and stem cells and their use in predictive toxicology testing are also described.