Adapting the in vitro micronucleus assay (OECD Test Guideline No. 487) for testing of manufactured nanomaterials: recommendations for best practices.

The current Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development test guideline number 487 (OECD TG No. 487) provides instruction on how to conduct the in vitro micronucleus assay. This assay is one of the gold standard approaches for measuring the mutagenicity of test items; however, it is directed at testing low molecular weight molecules and may not be appropriate for particulate materials (e.g. engineered nanoparticles [ENPs]). This study aimed to adapt the in vitro micronucleus assay for ENP testing and underpins the development of an OECD guidance document. A harmonized, nano-specific protocol was generated and evaluated by two independent laboratories. Cell lines utilized were human lymphoblastoid (TK6) cells, human liver hepatocytes (HepG2) cells, Chinese hamster lung fibroblast (V79) cells, whole blood, and buffy coat cells from healthy human volunteers. These cells were exposed to reference ENPs from the Joint Research Council (JRC): SiO2 (RLS-0102), Au5nm and Au30nm (RLS-03, RLS-010), CeO2 (NM212), and BaSO4 (NM220). Tungsten carbide-cobalt (WC/Co) was used as a trial particulate positive control. The chemical controls were positive in all cell cultures, but WC/Co was only positive in TK6 and buffy coat cells. In TK6 cells, mutagenicity was observed for SiO2- and both Au types. In HepG2 cells, Au5nm and SiO2 showed sub-two-fold increases in micronuclei. In V79 cells, whole blood, and buffy coat cells, no genotoxicity was detected with the test materials. The data confirmed that ENPs could be tested with the harmonized protocol, additionally, concordant data were observed across the two laboratories with V79 cells. WC/Co may be a suitable particulate positive control in the in vitro micronucleus assay when using TK6 and buffy coat cells. Detailed recommendations are therefore provided to adapt OECD TG No. 487 for testing ENP.

Current status and future challenges of genotoxicity OECD Test Guidelines for nanomaterials: a workshop report.

Genotoxicity testing for nanomaterials remains challenging as standard testing approaches require some adaptation, and further development of nano-specific OECD Test Guidelines (TGs) and Guidance Documents (GDs) are needed. However, the field of genotoxicology continues to progress and new approach methodologies (NAMs) are being developed that could provide relevant information on the range of mechanisms of genotoxic action that may be imparted by nanomaterials. There is a recognition of the need for implementation of new and/or adapted OECD TGs, new OECD GDs, and utilization of NAMs within a genotoxicity testing framework for nanomaterials. As such, the requirements to apply new experimental approaches and data for genotoxicity assessment of nanomaterials in a regulatory context is neither clear, nor used in practice. Thus, an international workshop with representatives from regulatory agencies, industry, government, and academic scientists was convened to discuss these issues. The expert discussion highlighted the current deficiencies that exist in standard testing approaches within exposure regimes, insufficient physicochemical characterization, lack of demonstration of cell or tissue uptake and internalization, and limitations in the coverage of genotoxic modes of action. Regarding the latter aspect, a consensus was reached on the importance of using NAMs to support the genotoxicity assessment of nanomaterials. Also highlighted was the need for close engagement between scientists and regulators to (i) provide clarity on the regulatory needs, (ii) improve the acceptance and use of NAM-generated data, and (iii) define how NAMs may be used as part of weight of evidence approaches for use in regulatory risk assessments.

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.

In Vitro Three-Dimensional Liver Models for Nanomaterial DNA Damage Assessment.

Whilst the liver possesses the ability to repair and restore sections of damaged tissue following acute injury, prolonged exposure to engineered nanomaterials (ENM) may induce repetitive injury leading to chronic liver disease. Screening ENM cytotoxicity using 3D liver models has recently been performed, but a significant challenge has been the application of such in vitro models for evaluating ENM associated genotoxicity; a vital component of regulatory human health risk assessment. This review considers the benefits, limitations, and adaptations of specific in vitro approaches to assess DNA damage in the liver, whilst identifying critical advancements required to support a multitude of biochemical endpoints, focusing on nano(geno)toxicology (e.g., secondary genotoxicity, DNA damage, and repair following prolonged or repeated exposures).

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.

Genetic toxicity assessment of engineered nanoparticles using a 3D in vitro skin model (EpiDerm™).

BACKGROUND: The rapid production and incorporation of engineered nanomaterials into consumer products alongside research suggesting nanomaterials can cause cell death and DNA damage (genotoxicity) makes in vitro assays desirable for nanosafety screening. However, conflicting outcomes are often observed when in vitro and in vivo study results are compared, suggesting more physiologically representative in vitro models are required to minimise reliance on animal testing. METHOD: BASF Levasil® silica nanoparticles (16 and 85 nm) were used to adapt the 3D reconstructed skin micronucleus (RSMN) assay for nanomaterials administered topically or into the growth medium. 3D dose-responses were compared to a 2D micronucleus assay using monocultured human B cells (TK6) after standardising dose between 2D / 3D assays by total nanoparticle mass to cell number. Cryogenic vitrification, scanning electron microscopy and dynamic light scattering techniques were applied to characterise in-medium and air-liquid interface exposures. Advanced transmission electron microscopy imaging modes (high angle annular dark field) and X-ray spectrometry were used to define nanoparticle penetration / cellular uptake in the intact 3D models and 2D monocultured cells. RESULTS: For all 2D exposures, significant (p < 0.002) increases in genotoxicity were observed (≥100 µg/mL) alongside cell viability decreases (p < 0.015) at doses ≥200 µg/mL (16 nm-SiO2) and ≥100 µg/mL (85 nm-SiO2). In contrast, 2D-equivalent exposures to the 3D models (≤300 µg/mL) caused no significant DNA damage or impact on cell viability. Further increasing dose to the 3D models led to probable air-liquid interface suffocation. Nanoparticle penetration / cell uptake analysis revealed no exposure to the live cells of the 3D model occurred due to the protective nature of the skin model's 3D cellular microarchitecture (topical exposures) and confounding barrier effects of the collagen cell attachment layer (in-medium exposures). 2D monocultured cells meanwhile showed extensive internalisation of both silica particles causing (geno)toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: The results establish the importance of tissue microarchitecture in defining nanomaterial exposure, and suggest 3D in vitro models could play a role in bridging the gap between in vitro and in vivo outcomes in nanotoxicology. Robust exposure characterisation and uptake assessment methods (as demonstrated) are essential to interpret nano(geno)toxicity studies successfully.

The effect of nanoparticle degradation on amphiphilic polymer-coated quantum dot toxicity: the importance of particle functionality assessment in toxicology [corrected].

Colloidal semiconductor nanoparticles (quantum dots) have attracted a lot of interest in technological and biomedical research, given their potent fluorescent properties. However, the use of heavy-metal-containing nanoparticles remains an issue of debate. The possible toxic effects of quantum dots remain a hot research topic and several questions such as possible intracellular degradation of quantum dots and the effect thereof on both cell viability and particle functionality remain unresolved. In the present work, amphiphilic polymer [corrected] coated CdSe/ZnS quantum dots were synthesized and characterized, after which their effects on cultured cells were evaluated using a multiparametric setup. The data reveal that the quantum dots are taken up through endocytosis and when exposed to the low pH of the endosomal structures, they partially degrade and release cadmium ions, which lowers their fluorescence intensity and augments particle toxicity. Using the multiparametric method, the quantum dots were evaluated at non-toxic doses in terms of their ability to visualize labeled cells for longer time periods. The data revealed that comparing different particles in terms of their applied dose is challenging, likely due to difficulties in obtaining accurate nanoparticle concentrations, but evaluating particle toxicity in terms of their biological functionality enables an easy and straightforward comparison.

The in vitro micronucleus assay and kinetochore staining: methodology and criteria for the accurate assessment of genotoxicity and cytotoxicity.

The in vitro micronucleus assay is currently one of the most commonly used test systems for the study of genotoxic effects of chemicals. It is considered the preferred method for measuring chromosome damage as it allows the determination of both chromosomal loss and breakage. The type of chromosomal damage induced can be distinguished by using the kinetochore or pan-centromeric staining using molecular probes that label the centromeric regions of chromosomes allowing the determination of aneugenic (chromosome loss) or clastogenic (chromosome breakage) agents. In this chapter, we provide a description of the basic principles and methods of the in vitro micronucleus assay with detailed explanations of the scoring criteria for the genotoxicity and cytotoxicity end-points by manual or automated analysis.