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.

Common Considerations for Genotoxicity Assessment of Nanomaterials.

Genotoxicity testing is performed to determine potential hazard of a chemical or agent for direct or indirect DNA interaction. Testing may be a surrogate for assessment of heritable genetic risk or carcinogenic risk. Testing of nanomaterials (NM) for hazard identification is generally understood to require a departure from normal testing procedures found in international standards and guidelines. A critique of the genotoxicity literature in Elespuru et al., 2018, reinforced evidence of problems with genotoxicity assessment of nanomaterials (NM) noted by many previously. A follow-up to the critique of problems (what is wrong) is a series of methods papers in this journal designed to provide practical information on what is appropriate (right) in the performance of genotoxicity assays altered for NM assessment. In this "Common Considerations" paper, general considerations are addressed, including NM characterization, sample preparation, dosing choice, exposure assessment (uptake) and data analysis that are applicable to any NM genotoxicity assessment. Recommended methods for specific assays are presented in a series of additional papers in this special issue of the journal devoted to toxicology methods for assessment of nanomaterials: the In vitro Micronucleus Assay, TK Mutagenicity assays, and the In vivo Comet Assay. In this context, NM are considered generally as insoluble particles or test articles in the nanometer size range that present difficulties in assessment using techniques described in standards such as OECD guidelines.

Considerations towards the better integration of epidemiology into quantitative risk assessment.

Environmental epidemiology has proven critical to study various associations between environmental exposures and adverse human health effects. However, there is a perception that it often does not sufficiently inform quantitative risk assessment. To help address this concern, in 2017, the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute initiated a project engaging the epidemiology, exposure science, and risk assessment communities with tripartite representation from government agencies, industry, and academia, in a dialogue on the use of environmental epidemiology for quantitative risk assessment and public health decision making. As part of this project, four meetings attended by experts in epidemiology, exposure science, toxicology, statistics, and risk assessment, as well as one additional meeting engaging funding agencies, were organized to explore incentives and barriers to realizing the full potential of epidemiological data in quantitative risk assessment. A set of questions was shared with workshop participants prior to the meetings, and two case studies were used to support the discussion. Five key ideas emerged from these meetings as areas of desired improvement to ensure that human data can more consistently become an integral part of quantitative risk assessment: 1) reducing confirmation and publication bias, 2) increasing communication with funding agencies to raise awareness of research needs, 3) developing alternative funding channels targeted to support quantitative risk assessment, 4) making data available for reuse and analysis, and 5) developing cross-disciplinary and cross-sectoral interactions, collaborations, and training. We explored and integrated these themes into a roadmap illustrating the need for a multi-stakeholder effort to ensure that epidemiological data can fully contribute to the quantitative evaluation of human health risks, and to build confidence in a reliable decision-making process that leverages the totality of scientific evidence.

Environmental epidemiology and risk assessment: Exploring a path to increased confidence in public health decision-making.

Throughout history, environmental epidemiology has proven crucial to identify certain threats to human health and to provide a basis for the development of life-saving public health policies. However, epidemiologists are facing challenges when studying tenuous threats such as environmental exposure to chemicals, whose association with adverse health effects may be difficult to characterize. As a result, epidemiological data can seldom be fully leveraged for quantitative risk assessment and decision-making. Despite two decades of efforts to improve a more systematic integration of human data to evaluate human health risks, assessors still heavily rely on animal data to do so, while epidemiology plays more of a secondary role. Although the need for more and better collaboration between risk assessors and epidemiologists is widely recognized, both fields tend to remain siloed. In 2017, the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute initiated a project engaging the epidemiology, exposure science, and regulatory communities with tripartite representation from regulators, industry, and academia in a dialogue on the use of environmental epidemiology for regulatory decision-making. Several focus groups attended by epidemiology, exposure science, and risk assessment experts were organized to explore incentives and barriers to collaboration, to ultimately bridge the gap between the various disciplines, and to realize the full potential of epidemiological data in risk assessment. Various ideas that have emerged from these meetings could help ensure the better integration of epidemiological data in quantitative risk assessment and contribute to building confidence in a robust and science-based regulatory decision-making process.