Severity of effect considerations regarding the use of mutation as a toxicological endpoint for risk assessment: A report from the 8th International Workshop on Genotoxicity Testing (IWGT).

Exposure levels without appreciable human health risk may be determined by dividing a point of departure on a dose-response curve (e.g., benchmark dose) by a composite adjustment factor (AF). An "effect severity" AF (ESAF) is employed in some regulatory contexts. An ESAF of 10 may be incorporated in the derivation of a health-based guidance value (HBGV) when a "severe" toxicological endpoint, such as teratogenicity, irreversible reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, or cancer was observed in the reference study. Although mutation data have been used historically for hazard identification, this endpoint is suitable for quantitative dose-response modeling and risk assessment. As part of the 8th International Workshops on Genotoxicity Testing, a sub-group of the Quantitative Analysis Work Group (WG) explored how the concept of effect severity could be applied to mutation. To approach this question, the WG reviewed the prevailing regulatory guidance on how an ESAF is incorporated into risk assessments, evaluated current knowledge of associations between germline or somatic mutation and severe disease risk, and mined available data on the fraction of human germline mutations expected to cause severe disease. Based on this review and given that mutations are irreversible and some cause severe human disease, in regulatory settings where an ESAF is used, a majority of the WG recommends applying an ESAF value between 2 and 10 when deriving a HBGV from mutation data. This recommendation may need to be revisited in the future if direct measurement of disease-causing mutations by error-corrected next generation sequencing clarifies selection of ESAF values.

Error-corrected next generation sequencing - Promises and challenges for genotoxicity and cancer risk assessment.

Error-corrected Next Generation Sequencing (ecNGS) is rapidly emerging as a valuable, highly sensitive and accurate method for detecting and characterizing mutations in any cell type, tissue or organism from which DNA can be isolated. Recent mutagenicity and carcinogenicity studies have used ecNGS to quantify drug-/chemical-induced mutations and mutational spectra associated with cancer risk. ecNGS has potential applications in genotoxicity assessment as a new readout for traditional models, for mutagenesis studies in 3D organotypic cultures, and for detecting off-target effects of gene editing tools. Additionally, early data suggest that ecNGS can measure clonal expansion of mutations as a mechanism-agnostic early marker of carcinogenic potential and can evaluate mutational load directly in human biomonitoring studies. In this review, we discuss promising applications, challenges, limitations, and key data initiatives needed to enable regulatory testing and adoption of ecNGS - including for advancing safety assessment, augmenting weight-of-evidence for mutagenicity and carcinogenicity mechanisms, identifying early biomarkers of cancer risk, and managing human health risk from chemical exposures.

Assessing the quality and making appropriate use of historical negative control data: A report of the International Workshop on Genotoxicity Testing (IWGT).

Historical negative control data (HCD) have played an increasingly important role in interpreting the results of genotoxicity tests. In particular, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) genetic toxicology test guidelines recommend comparing responses produced by exposure to test substances with the distribution of HCD as one of three criteria for evaluating and interpreting study results (referred to herein as "Criterion C"). Because of the potential for inconsistency in how HCD are acquired, maintained, described, and used to interpret genotoxicity testing results, a workgroup of the International Workshops for Genotoxicity Testing was convened to provide recommendations on this crucial topic. The workgroup used example data sets from four in vivo tests, the Pig-a gene mutation assay, the erythrocyte-based micronucleus test, the transgenic rodent gene mutation assay, and the in vivo alkaline comet assay to illustrate how the quality of HCD can be evaluated. In addition, recommendations are offered on appropriate methods for evaluating HCD distributions. Recommendations of the workgroup are: When concurrent negative control data fulfill study acceptability criteria, they represent the most important comparator for judging whether a particular test substance induced a genotoxic effect. HCD can provide useful context for interpreting study results, but this requires supporting evidence that (i) HCD were generated appropriately, and (ii) their quality has been assessed and deemed sufficiently high for this purpose. HCD should be visualized before any study comparisons take place; graph(s) that show the degree to which HCD are stable over time are particularly useful. Qualitative and semi-quantitative assessments of HCD should also be supplemented with quantitative evaluations. Key factors in the assessment of HCD include: (i) the stability of HCD over time, and (ii) the degree to which inter-study variation explains the total variability observed. When animal-to-animal variation is the predominant source of variability, the relationship between responses in the study and an HCD-derived interval or upper bounds value (i.e., OECD Criterion C) can be used with a strong degree of confidence in contextualizing a particular study's results. When inter-study variation is the major source of variability, comparisons between study data and the HCD bounds are less useful, and consequentially, less emphasis should be placed on using HCD to contextualize a particular study's results. The workgroup findings add additional support for the use of HCD for data interpretation; but relative to most current OECD test guidelines, we recommend a more flexible application that takes into consideration HCD quality. The workgroup considered only commonly used in vivo tests, but it anticipates that the same principles will apply to other genotoxicity tests, including many in vitro tests.

Impact of sampling time on the detection of mutations in rapidly proliferating tissues using transgenic rodent gene mutation models: A review.

The OECD Test Guideline 488 (TG 488) for the Transgenic Rodent Gene Mutation Assay has undergone several revisions to update the recommended design for studying mutations in somatic tissues and male germ cells. The recently revised TG recommends a single sampling time of 28 days following 28 days of exposure (i.e., 28 + 28 days) for all tissues, irrespective of proliferation rates. An alternative design (i.e., 28 + 3 days) is appropriate when germ cell data is not required, nor considered. While the 28 + 28 days design is clearly preferable for slowly proliferating somatic tissues and germ cells, there is still uncertainty about the impact of extending the sampling time to 28 days for rapidly somatic tissues. Here, we searched the available literature for evidence supporting the applicability and utility of the 28 + 28 days design for rapidly proliferating tissues. A total of 79 tests were identified. When directly comparing results from both designs in the same study, there was no evidence that the 28 + 28 days regimen resulted in a qualitatively different outcome from the 28 + 3 days design. Studies with a diverse range of agents that employed only a 28 + 28 days protocol provide further evidence that this design is appropriate for rapidly proliferating tissues. Benchmark dose analyses demonstrate high quantitative concordance between the 28 + 3 and 28 + 28 days designs for rapidly proliferating tissues. Accordingly, our review confirms that the 28 + 28 days design is appropriate to assess mutagenicity in both slowly and rapidly proliferating somatic tissues, and germ cells, and provides further support for the recommended design in the recently adopted TG 488.

The 28 + 28 day design is an effective sampling time for analyzing mutant frequencies in rapidly proliferating tissues of MutaMouse animals.

The Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development Test Guideline 488 (TG 488) uses transgenic rodent models to generate in vivo mutagenesis data for regulatory submission. The recommended design in TG 488, 28 consecutive daily exposures with tissue sampling three days later (28 + 3d), is optimized for rapidly proliferating tissues such as bone marrow (BM). A sampling time of 28 days (28 + 28d) is considered more appropriate for slowly proliferating tissues (e.g., liver) and male germ cells. We evaluated the impact of the sampling time on mutant frequencies (MF) in the BM of MutaMouse males exposed for 28 days to benzo[a]pyrene (BaP), procarbazine (PRC), isopropyl methanesulfonate (iPMS), or triethylenemelamine (TEM) in dose-response studies. BM samples were collected + 3d, + 28d, + 42d or + 70d post exposure and MF quantified using the lacZ assay. All chemicals significantly increased MF with maximum fold increases at 28 + 3d of 162.9, 6.6, 4.7 and 2.8 for BaP, PRC, iPMS and TEM, respectively. MF were relatively stable over the time period investigated, although they were significantly increased only at 28 + 3d and 28 + 28d for TEM. Benchmark dose (BMD) modelling generated overlapping BMD confidence intervals among the four sampling times for each chemical. These results demonstrate that the sampling time does not affect the detection of mutations for strong mutagens. However, for mutagens that produce small increases in MF, sampling times greater than 28 days may produce false-negative results. Thus, the 28 + 28d protocol represents a unifying protocol for simultaneously assessing mutations in rapidly and slowly proliferating somatic tissues and male germ cells.

Analysis of DNA Adducts and Mutagenic Potency and Specificity in Rats Exposed to Acrylonitrile.

Acrylonitrile (ACN), which is a widely used industrial chemical, induces cancers in multiple organs/tissues of rats by unresolved mechanisms. For this report, evidence for ACN-induced direct/indirect DNA damage and mutagenesis was investigated by assessing the ability of ACN, or its reactive metabolite, 2-cyanoethylene oxide (CEO), to bind to DNA in vitro, to form select DNA adducts [N7-(2'-oxoethyl)guanine, N2,3-ethenoguanine, 1,N6-ethenodeoxyadenosine, and 3,N4-ethenodeoxycytidine] in vitro and/or in vivo, and to perturb the frequency and spectra of mutations in the hypoxanthine-guanine phosphoribosyltransferase (Hprt) gene in rats exposed to ACN in drinking water. Adducts and frequencies and spectra of Hprt mutations were analyzed using published methods. Treatment of DNA from human TK6 lymphoblastoid cells with [2,3-14C]-CEO produced dose-dependent binding of 14C-CEO equivalents, and treatment of DNA from control rat brain/liver with CEO induced dose-related formation of N7-(2'-oxoethyl)guanine. No etheno-DNA adducts were detected in target tissues (brain and forestomach) or nontarget tissues (liver and spleen) in rats exposed to 0, 3, 10, 33, 100, or 300 ppm ACN for up to 105 days or to 0 or 500 ppm ACN for ∼15 months; whereas N7-(2'-oxoethyl)guanine was consistently measured at nonsignificant concentrations near the assay detection limit only in liver of animals exposed to 300 or 500 ppm ACN for ≥2 weeks. Significant dose-related increases in Hprt mutant frequencies occurred in T-lymphocytes from spleens of rats exposed to 33-500 ppm ACN for 4 weeks. Comparisons of "mutagenic potency estimates" for control rats versus rats exposed to 500 ppm ACN for 4 weeks to analogous data from rats/mice treated at a similar age with N-ethyl-N-nitrosourea or 1,3-butadiene suggest that ACN has relatively limited mutagenic effects in rats. Considerable overlap between the sites and types of mutations in ACN-exposed rats and butadiene-exposed rats/mice, but not controls, provides evidence that the carcinogenicity of these epoxide-forming chemicals involves corresponding mutagenic mechanisms.

Analysis of Biomarkers of DNA Damage and Mutagenicity in Mice Exposed to Acrylonitrile.

Acrylonitrile (ACN), which is a widely used industrial chemical, induces cancers in the mouse via unresolved mechanisms. For this report, complementary and previously described methods were used to assess in vivo genotoxicity and/or mutagenicity of ACN in several mouse models, including (i) female mice devoid of cytochrome P450 2E1 (CYP2E1), which yields the epoxide intermediate cyanoethylene oxide (CEO), (ii) male lacZ transgenic mice, and (iii) female (wild-type) B6C3F1 mice. Exposures of wild-type mice and CYP2E1-null mice to ACN at 0, 2.5 (wild-type mice only), 10, 20, or 60 (CYP2E1-null mice only) mg/kg body weight by gavage for 6 weeks (5 days/week) produced no elevations in the frequencies of micronucleated erythrocytes, but induced significant dose-dependent increases in DNA damage, detected by the alkaline (pH >13) Comet assay, in one target tissue (forestomach) and one nontarget tissue (liver) of wild-type mice only. ACN exposures by gavage also caused significant dose-related elevations in the frequencies of mutations in the hypoxanthine-guanine phosphoribosyltransferase (Hprt) reporter gene of T-lymphocytes from spleens of wild-type mice; however, Hprt mutant frequencies were significantly increased in CYP2E1-null mice only at a high dose of ACN (60 mg/kg) that is lethal to wild-type mice. Similarly, drinking water exposures of lacZ transgenic mice to 0, 100, 500, or 750 ppm ACN for 4 weeks caused significant dose-dependent elevations in Hprt mutant frequencies in splenic T-cells; however, these ACN exposures did not increase the frequency of lacZ transgene mutations above spontaneous background levels in several tissues from the same animals. Together, the Comet assay and Hprt mutant frequency data from these studies indicate that oxidative metabolism of ACN by CYP2E1 to CEO is central to the induction of the majority of DNA damage and mutations in ACN-exposed mice, but ACN itself also may contribute to the carcinogenic modes of action via mechanisms involving direct and/or indirect DNA reactivity.

A Return to the Origin of the EMGS: Rejuvenating the Quest for Human Germ Cell Mutagens and Determining the Risk to Future Generations.

Fifty years ago, the Environmental Mutagen Society (now Environmental Mutagenesis and Genomics Society) was founded with a laser-focus on germ cell mutagenesis and the protection of "our most vital assets"-the sperm and egg genomes. Yet, five decades on, despite the fact that many agents have been demonstrated to induce inherited changes in the offspring of exposed laboratory rodents, there is no consensus on whether human germ cell mutagens exist. We argue that it is time to reevaluate the available data and conclude that we already have evidence for the existence of environmental exposures that impact human germ cells. What is missing are definite data to demonstrate a significant increase in de novo mutations in the offspring of exposed parents. We believe that with over two decades of research advancing knowledge and technologies in genomics, we are at the cusp of generating data to conclusively show that environmental exposures cause heritable de novo changes in the human offspring. We call on the research community to harness our technologies, synergize our efforts, and return to our Founders' original focus. The next 50 years must involve collaborative work between clinicians, epidemiologists, genetic toxicologists, genomics experts and bioinformaticians to precisely define how environmental exposures impact germ cell genomes. It is time for the research and regulatory communities to prepare to interpret the coming outpouring of data and develop a framework for managing, communicating and mitigating the risk of exposure to human germ cell mutagens. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 61:42-54, 2020. © 2019 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada.

In utero Exposure to Genotoxicants Leading to Genetic Mosaicism: An Overlooked Window of Susceptibility in Genetic Toxicology Testing?

In utero development represents a sensitive window for the induction of mutations. These mutations may subsequently expand clonally to populate entire organs or anatomical structures. Although not all adverse mutations will affect tissue structure or function, there is growing evidence that clonally expanded genetic mosaics contribute to various monogenic and complex diseases, including cancer. We posit that genetic mosaicism is an underestimated potential health problem that is not fully addressed in the current regulatory genotoxicity testing paradigm. Genotoxicity testing focuses exclusively on adult exposures and thus may not capture the complexity of genetic mosaicisms that contribute to human disease. Numerous studies have shown that conversion of genetic damage into mutations during early developmental exposures can result in much higher mutation burdens than equivalent exposures in adults in certain tissues. Therefore, we assert that analysis of genetic effects caused by in utero exposures should be considered in the current regulatory testing paradigm, which is possible by harmonization with current reproductive/developmental toxicology testing strategies. This is particularly important given the recent proposed paradigm change from simple hazard identification to quantitative mutagenicity assessment. Recent developments in sequencing technologies offer practical tools to detect mutations in any tissue or species. In addition to mutation frequency and spectrum, these technologies offer the opportunity to characterize the extent of genetic mosaicism following exposure to mutagens. Such integration of new methods with existing toxicology guideline studies offers the genetic toxicology community a way to modernize their testing paradigm and to improve risk assessment for vulnerable populations. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 61:55-65, 2020. © 2019 The Authors. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Environmental Mutagen Society.

Mutation as a Toxicological Endpoint for Regulatory Decision-Making.

Mutations induced in somatic cells and germ cells are responsible for a variety of human diseases, and mutation per se has been considered an adverse health concern since the early part of the 20th Century. Although in vitro and in vivo somatic cell mutation data are most commonly used by regulatory agencies for hazard identification, that is, determining whether or not a substance is a potential mutagen and carcinogen, quantitative mutagenicity dose-response data are being used increasingly for risk assessments. Efforts are currently underway to both improve the measurement of mutations and to refine the computational methods used for evaluating mutation data. We recommend continuing the development of these approaches with the objective of establishing consensus regarding the value of including the quantitative analysis of mutation per se as a required endpoint for comprehensive assessments of toxicological risk. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 61:34-41, 2020. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

In vivo genotoxicity testing strategies: Report from the 7th International workshop on genotoxicity testing (IWGT).

The working group reached complete or majority agreement on many issues. Results from TGR and in vivo comet assays for 91 chemicals showed they have similar ability to detect in vivo genotoxicity per se with bacterial mutagens and Ames-positive carcinogens. TGR and comet assay results were not significantly different when compared with IARC Group 1, 2 A, and unclassified carcinogens. There were significantly more comet assay positive responses for Group 2B chemicals, and for IARC classified and unclassified carcinogens combined, which may be expected since mutation is a sub-set of genotoxicity. A liver comet assay combined with the bone marrow/blood micronucleus (MNviv) test would detect in vivo genotoxins that do not exhibit tissue-specific or site-of-contact effects, and is appropriate for routine in vivo genotoxicity testing. Generally for orally administered substances, a comet assay at only one site-of-contact GI tract tissue (stomach or duodenum/jejunum) is required. In MNviv tests, evidence of target tissue exposure can be obtained in a number of different ways, as recommended by ICH S2(R1) and EFSA (Hardy et al., 2017). Except for special cases the i.p. route is inappropriate for in vivo testing; for risk evaluations more weight should be given to data from a physiologically relevant administration route. The liver MN test is sufficiently validated for the development of an OECD guideline. However, the impact of dosing animals >6 weeks of age needs to be evaluated. The GI tract MN test shows promise but needs more validation for an OECD guideline. The Pig-a assay detects systemically available mutagens and is a valuable follow-up to in vitro positive results. A new freeze-thaw protocol provides more flexibility. Mutant reticulocyte and erythrocyte frequencies should both be determined. Preliminary data are available for the Pig-a assay in male rat germ cells which require validation including germ cell DNA mutation origin.

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.

Main issues addressed in the 2014-2015 revisions to the OECD Genetic Toxicology Test Guidelines.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) recently revised the test guidelines (TGs) for genetic toxicology. This article describes the main issues addressed during the revision process, and the new and consistent recommendations made in the revised TGs for: (1) demonstration of laboratory proficiency; (2) generation and use of robust historical control data; (3) improvement of the statistical power of the tests; (4) selection of top concentration for in vitro assays; (5) consistent data interpretation and determination of whether the result is clearly positive, clearly negative or needs closer consideration; and, (6) consideration of 3R's for in vivo assay design. The revision process resulted in improved consistency among OECD TGs (including the newly developed ones) and more comprehensive recommendations for the conduct and the interpretation of the assays. Altogether, the recommendations made during the revision process should improve the efficiency, by which the data are generated, and the quality and reliability of test results. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 58:284-295, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Quantitative relationships between lacZ mutant frequency and DNA adduct frequency in Muta™Mouse tissues and cultured cells exposed to 3-nitrobenzanthrone.

The frequency of stable DNA adducts in a target tissue can be used to assess biologically effective dose; however, the utility of the metric in a risk assessment context depends on the likelihood that the DNA damage will be manifested as mutation. Previously, we employed the Muta™Mouse system to examine the induction of lacZ mutants and DNA adducts following exposure to the well-studied mutagenic carcinogen 3-nitrobenzanthrone (3-NBA). In this follow-up work, we examined the empirical relationships between total adduct frequency and mutant frequency (MF) in tissues and cultured cells following acute 3-NBA exposure. The results show a significant induction of DNA damage and lacZ mutants in liver, colon and bone marrow, as well as FE1 pulmonary epithelial cells. In contrast, lung and small intestine samples had low, but significantly elevated adduct levels, with no significant increases in lacZ MF. Additional analyses showed a significant relationship between the mutagenic efficiency of total adducts, measured as the slope of the relationships between MF and total adduct frequency, and tissue-specific mitotic index (MI). The lack of mutation response in lung, in contrast to the high in vitro MF in FE-1 lung cells, is likely related to the 100-fold difference in MI. The lack of small intestine mutagenic response may be related to limited metabolic capacity, differences in DNA repair, and /or chemically induced apoptosis that has been observed for other potent mutagens. The results indicate that interpretation of adduct frequency values in a risk assessment context can be improved by considering the MI of the target tissue; however, more generalised interpretation is hampered by tissue-specific variations in metabolic capacity and damage processing. The work provides a proof of principle regarding the use of the Muta™Mouse system to critically examine the health risks associated with tissue-specific adduct loads.

Next generation testing strategy for assessment of genomic damage: A conceptual framework and considerations.

For several decades, regulatory testing schemes for genetic damage have been standardized where the tests being utilized examined mutations and structural and numerical chromosomal damage. This has served the genetic toxicity community well when most of the substances being tested were amenable to such assays. The outcome from this testing is usually a dichotomous (yes/no) evaluation of test results, and in many instances, the information is only used to determine whether a substance has carcinogenic potential or not. Over the same time period, mechanisms and modes of action (MOAs) that elucidate a wider range of genomic damage involved in many adverse health outcomes have been recognized. In addition, a paradigm shift in applied genetic toxicology is moving the field toward a more quantitative dose-response analysis and point-of-departure (PoD) determination with a focus on risks to exposed humans. This is directing emphasis on genomic damage that is likely to induce changes associated with a variety of adverse health outcomes. This paradigm shift is moving the testing emphasis for genetic damage from a hazard identification only evaluation to a more comprehensive risk assessment approach that provides more insightful information for decision makers regarding the potential risk of genetic damage to exposed humans. To enable this broader context for examining genetic damage, a next generation testing strategy needs to take into account a broader, more flexible approach to testing, and ultimately modeling, of genomic damage as it relates to human exposure. This is consistent with the larger risk assessment context being used in regulatory decision making. As presented here, this flexible approach for examining genomic damage focuses on testing for relevant genomic effects that can be, as best as possible, associated with an adverse health effect. The most desired linkage for risk to humans would be changes in loci associated with human diseases, whether in somatic or germ cells. The outline of a flexible approach and associated considerations are presented in a series of nine steps, some of which can occur in parallel, which was developed through a collaborative effort by leading genetic toxicologists from academia, government, and industry through the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI) Genetic Toxicology Technical Committee (GTTC). The ultimate goal is to provide quantitative data to model the potential risk levels of substances, which induce genomic damage contributing to human adverse health outcomes. Any good risk assessment begins with asking the appropriate risk management questions in a planning and scoping effort. This step sets up the problem to be addressed (e.g., broadly, does genomic damage need to be addressed, and if so, how to proceed). The next two steps assemble what is known about the problem by building a knowledge base about the substance of concern and developing a rational biological argument for why testing for genomic damage is needed or not. By focusing on the risk management problem and potential genomic damage of concern, the next step of assay(s) selection takes place. The work-up of the problem during the earlier steps provides the insight to which assays would most likely produce the most meaningful data. This discussion does not detail the wide range of genomic damage tests available, but points to types of testing systems that can be very useful. Once the assays are performed and analyzed, the relevant data sets are selected for modeling potential risk. From this point on, the data are evaluated and modeled as they are for any other toxicology endpoint. Any observed genomic damage/effects (or genetic event(s)) can be modeled via a dose-response analysis and determination of an estimated PoD. When a quantitative risk analysis is needed for decision making, a parallel exposure assessment effort is performed (exposure assessment is not detailed here as this is not the focus of this discussion; guidelines for this assessment exist elsewhere). Then the PoD for genomic damage is used with the exposure information to develop risk estimations (e.g., using reference dose (RfD), margin of exposure (MOE) approaches) in a risk characterization and presented to risk managers for informing decision making. This approach is applicable now for incorporating genomic damage results into the decision-making process for assessing potential adverse outcomes in chemically exposed humans and is consistent with the ILSI HESI Risk Assessment in the 21st Century (RISK21) roadmap. This applies to any substance to which humans are exposed, including pharmaceuticals, agricultural products, food additives, and other chemicals. It is time for regulatory bodies to incorporate the broader knowledge and insights provided by genomic damage results into the assessments of risk to more fully understand the potential of adverse outcomes in chemically exposed humans, thus improving the assessment of risk due to genomic damage. The historical use of genomic damage data as a yes/no gateway for possible cancer risk has been too narrowly focused in risk assessment. The recent advances in assaying for and understanding genomic damage, including eventually epigenetic alterations, obviously add a greater wealth of information for determining potential risk to humans. Regulatory bodies need to embrace this paradigm shift from hazard identification to quantitative analysis and to incorporate the wider range of genomic damage in their assessments of risk to humans. The quantitative analyses and methodologies discussed here can be readily applied to genomic damage testing results now. Indeed, with the passage of the recent update to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in the US, the new generation testing strategy for genomic damage described here provides a regulatory agency (here the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), but suitable for others) a golden opportunity to reexamine the way it addresses risk-based genomic damage testing (including hazard identification and exposure). Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 58:264-283, 2017. © 2016 The Authors. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.