GARDskin dose-response assay and its application in conducting Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) for fragrance materials using a Next Generation Risk Assessment (NGRA) framework.

Development of New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) capable of providing a No Expected Sensitization Induction Level (NESIL) value remains a high priority for the fragrance industry for conducting a Quantitative Risk Assesment (QRA) to evaluate dermal sensitization. The in vitro GARDskin assay was recently adopted by the OECD (TG 442E) for the hazard identification of skin sensitizers. Continuous potency predictions are derived using a modified protocol that incorporates dose-response measurements. Linear regression models have been developed to predict human NESIL values. The aim of the study was to evaluate the precision and reproducibility of the continuous potency predictions from the GARDskin Dose-Response (DR) assay and its application in conducting QRA for fragrance materials using a Next Generation Risk Assessment (NGRA) framework. Results indicated that the GARDskin Dose-Response model predicted human NESIL values with a good degree of concordance with published NESIL values, which were also reproducible in 3 separate experiments. Using Isocyclocitral as an example, a QRA was conducted to determine its safe use levels in different consumer product types using a NGRA framework. This study represents a major step towards the establishment of the assay to derive NESIL values for conducting QRA evaluations for fragrance materials using a NGRA framework.

Assessment of the potential allergenicity of genetically-engineered food crops.

An extensive safety assessment process exists for genetically-engineered (GE) crops. The assessment includes an evaluation of the introduced protein as well as the crop containing the protein with the goal of demonstrating the GE crop is "as-safe-as" non-GE crops in the food supply. One of the evaluations for GE crops is to assess the expressed protein for allergenic potential. Currently, no single factor is recognized as a predictor for protein allergenicity. Therefore, a weight-of-the-evidence approach, which accounts for a variety of factors and approaches for an overall assessment of allergenic potential, is conducted. This assessment includes an evaluation of the history of exposure and safety of the gene(s) source; protein structure (e.g. amino acid sequence identity to human allergens); stability of the protein to pepsin digestion in vitro; heat stability of the protein; glycosylation status; and when appropriate, specific IgE binding studies with sera from relevant clinically allergic subjects. Since GE crops were first commercialized over 20 years ago, there is no proof that the introduced novel protein(s) in any commercialized GE food crop has caused food allergy.

Assessment of potential adjuvanticity of Cry proteins.

Genetically modified (GM) crops have achieved success in the marketplace and their benefits extend beyond the overall increase in harvest yields to include lowered use of insecticides and decreased carbon dioxide emissions. The most widely grown GM crops contain gene/s for targeted insect protection, herbicide tolerance, or both. Plant expression of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) crystal (Cry) insecticidal proteins have been the primary way to impart insect resistance in GM crops. Although deemed safe by regulatory agencies globally, previous studies have been the basis for discussions around the potential immuno-adjuvant effects of Cry proteins. These studies had limitations in study design. The studies used animal models with extremely high doses of Cry proteins, which when given using the ig route were co-administered with an adjuvant. Although the presumption exists that Cry proteins may have immunostimulatory activity and therefore an adjuvanticity risk, the evidence shows that Cry proteins are expressed at very low levels in GM crops and are unlikely to function as adjuvants. This conclusion is based on critical review of the published literature on the effects of immunomodulation by Cry proteins, the history of safe use of Cry proteins in foods, safety of the Bt donor organisms, and pre-market weight-of-evidence-based safety assessments for GM crops.

[Agricultural biotechnology safety assessment].

Genetically modified (GM) crops were first introduced to farmers in 1995 with the intent to provide better crop yield and meet the increasing demand for food and feed. GM crops have evolved to include a thorough safety evaluation for their use in human food and animal feed. Safety considerations begin at the level of DNA whereby the inserted GM DNA is evaluated for its content, position and stability once placed into the crop genome. The safety of the proteins coded by the inserted DNA and potential effects on the crop are considered, and the purpose is to ensure that the transgenic novel proteins are safe from a toxicity, allergy, and environmental perspective. In addition, the grain that provides the processed food or animal feed is also tested to evaluate its nutritional content and identify unintended effects to the plant composition when warranted. To provide a platform for the safety assessment, the GM crop is compared to non-GM comparators in what is typically referred to as composition equivalence testing. New technologies, such as mass spectrometry and well-designed antibody-based methods, allow better analytical measurements of crop composition, including endogenous allergens. Many of the analytical methods and their intended uses are based on regulatory guidance documents, some of which are outlined in globally recognized documents such as Codex Alimentarius. In certain cases, animal models are recommended by some regulatory agencies in specific countries, but there is typically no hypothesis or justification of their use in testing the safety of GM crops. The quality and standardization of testing methods can be supported, in some cases, by employing good laboratory practices (GLP) and is recognized in China as important to ensure quality data. Although the number of recommended, in some cases, required methods for safety testing are increasing in some regulatory agencies, it should be noted that GM crops registered to date have been shown to be comparable to their nontransgenic counterparts and safe . The crops upon which GM development are based are generally considered safe.

Retrospective evaluation of the impact of functional immunotoxicity testing on pesticide hazard identification and risk assessment.

Conduct of a T-cell-dependent antibody response (TDAR) assay in rodents according to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Test Guideline OPPTS 870.7800 is now required for chemical pesticide active ingredients registered in the United States. To assess potential regulatory impact, a retrospective analysis was developed using TDAR tests conducted on 78 pesticide chemicals from 46 separate chemical classes. The objective of the retrospective analysis was to examine the frequency of positive responses and determine the potential for the TDAR to yield lower endpoints than those utilized to calculate reference doses (RfDs). A reduction in the TDAR response was observed at only the high-dose level in five studies, while it was unaltered in the remaining studies. Importantly, for all 78 pesticide chemicals, the TDAR no-observed-adverse-effect levels (TDAR NOAELs) were greater than the NOAELS currently in use as risk assessment endpoints. The TDAR NOAELs were higher than the current EPA-selected endpoints for the chronic RfD, short-term, intermediate and long-term exposure scenarios by 3-27,000, 3-1,688, 3-1,688 and 4.9-1,688 times, respectively. Based on this analysis, conduct of the TDAR assay had minimal impact on hazard identification and did not impact human health risk assessments for the pesticides included in this evaluation. These data strongly support employment of alternative approaches including initial weight-of-evidence analysis for immunotoxic potential prior to conducting functional immunotoxicity testing for pesticide active ingredients.

Comparative assessment of multiple criteria for the in silico prediction of cross-reactivity of proteins to known allergens.

Genetically modified crops are becoming important components of a sustainable food supply and must be brought to market efficiently while also safeguarding the public from cross-reactivity of novel proteins to known allergens. Bioinformatic assessments can help to identify proteins warranting further experimental checks for cross-reactivity. This study is a large-scale in silico evaluation of assessment criteria, including searches for: alignments between a query and an allergen having ≥ 35% identity over a length ≥ 80; any sequence (of some minimum length) found in both a query and an allergen; any alignment between a query and an allergen with an E-value below some threshold. The criteria and an allergen database (AllergenOnline) are used to assess 27,243 Viridiplantae proteins for potential allergenicity. (A protein is classed as a "real allergen" if it exceeds a test-specific level of identity to an AllergenOnline entry; assessment of real allergens in the query set is against a reduced database from which the identifying allergen has been removed.) Each criterion's ability to minimize false positives without increasing false negative levels of current methods is determined. At best, the data show a reduction in false positives to ∼6% (from ∼10% under current methods) without any increase in false negatives.

Assessment of possible allergenicity of hypothetical ORFs in common food crops using current bioinformatic guidelines and its implications for the safety assessment of GM crops.

Before a genetically modified (GM) crop can be commercialized it must pass through a rigorous regulatory process to verify that it is safe for human and animal consumption, and to the environment. One particular area of focus is the potential introduction of a known or cross-reactive allergen not previously present within the crop. The assessment of possible allergenicity uses the guidelines outlined by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization's (WHO) Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) to evaluate all newly expressed proteins. Some regulatory authorities have broadened the scope of the assessment to include all DNA reading frames between stop codons across the insert and spanning the insert/genomic DNA junctions. To investigate the utility of this bioinformatic assessment, all naturally occurring stop-to-stop frames in the non-transgenic genomes of maize, rice, and soybean, as well as the human genome, were compared against the AllergenOnline (www.allergenonline.org) database using the Codex criteria. We discovered thousands of frames that exceeded the Codex defined threshold for potential cross-reactivity suggesting that evaluating hypothetical ORFs (stop-to-stop frames) has questionable value for making decisions on the safety of GM crops.

Heat stability, its measurement, and its lack of utility in the assessment of the potential allergenicity of novel proteins.

Thermal stability has been reported as a shared characteristic among some of the major food allergens and appears to have originated from the observation that some cooked foods retain their ability to cause allergic reactions by Immunoglobulin E (IgE) binding and the subsequent cascade of events that mediate allergic reactions. Based on this observation, the thermal stability of novel food proteins, like those in transgenic crops, is considered correlative with allergenic risk and has prompted requests from some regulatory agencies for additional testing to address safety concerns. Because human testing and serum IgE screening are not feasible nor are they necessarily useful for evaluating the thermal stability of a novel food protein, a protein function assay is often used to assess the thermal stability in the context of an allergenicity risk assessment. Some regulatory authorities also require immunodetection using polyclonal IgG antibodies and gel based methods. Here we review why heat stability as measured by these functional and immunodetection assays does not correlate with allergenicity and provides no useful safety information in assessing the allergenic potential of novel food proteins.

Bioinformatics and the allergy assessment of agricultural biotechnology products: industry practices and recommendations.

Bioinformatic tools are being increasingly utilized to evaluate the degree of similarity between a novel protein and known allergens within the context of a larger allergy safety assessment process. Importantly, bioinformatics is not a predictive analysis that can determine if a novel protein will ''become" an allergen, but rather a tool to assess whether the protein is a known allergen or is potentially cross-reactive with an existing allergen. Bioinformatic tools are key components of the 2009 CodexAlimentarius Commission's weight-of-evidence approach, which encompasses a variety of experimental approaches for an overall assessment of the allergenic potential of a novel protein. Bioinformatic search comparisons between novel protein sequences, as well as potential novel fusion sequences derived from the genome and transgene, and known allergens are required by all regulatory agencies that assess the safety of genetically modified (GM) products. The objective of this paper is to identify opportunities for consensus in the methods of applying bioinformatics and to outline differences that impact a consistent and reliable allergy safety assessment. The bioinformatic comparison process has some critical features, which are outlined in this paper. One of them is a curated, publicly available and well-managed database with known allergenic sequences. In this paper, the best practices, scientific value, and food safety implications of bioinformatic analyses, as they are applied to GM food crops are discussed. Recommendations for conducting bioinformatic analysis on novel food proteins for potential cross-reactivity to known allergens are also put forth.

Safety assessment of biotechnology products for potential risk of food allergy: implications of new research.

Food allergy is a potential risk associated with use of transgenic proteins in crops. Currently, safety assessment involves consideration of the source of the introduced protein, in silico amino acid sequence homology comparisons to known allergens, physicochemical properties, protein abundance in the crop, and, when appropriate, specific immunoglobulin E binding studies. Recently conducted research presented at an International Life Sciences Institute/Health and Environmental Sciences Institute-hosted workshop adds to the scientific foundation for safety assessment of transgenic proteins in five areas: structure/activity, serum screening, animal models, quantitative proteomics, and basic mechanisms. A web-based tool is now available that integrates a database of allergenic proteins with a variety of computational tools which could be used to improve our ability to predict allergenicity based on structural analysis. A comprehensive strategy and model protocols have been developed for conducting meaningful serum screening, an extremely challenging process. Several animal models using oral sensitization with adjuvant and one dermal sensitization model have been developed and appear to distinguish allergenic from non-allergenic food extracts. Data presented using a mouse model suggest that pepsin resistance is indicative of allergenicity. Certain questions remain to be addressed before considering animal model validation. Gel-free mass spectrometry is a viable alternative to more labor-intensive approaches to quantitative proteomics. Proteomic data presented on four nontransgenic varieties of soy suggested that if known allergen expression in genetically modified crops falls within the range of natural variability among commercial varieties, there appears to be no need to test further. Finally, basic research continues to elucidate the etiology of food allergy.

Identifying food proteins with allergenic potential: evolution of approaches to safety assessment and research to provide additional tools.

A safety assessment process exists for genetically engineered crops that includes the evaluation of the expressed protein for allergenic potential. The objectives of this evaluation are twofold: (1) to protect allergic consumers from exposure to known allergenic or cross-reactive proteins, and (2) protect the general population from risks associated with the introduction of genes encoding proteins that are likely to become food allergens. The first systematic approach to address these concerns was formulated by Metcalfe et al. [Metcalfe, D.D., Astwood, J.D., Townsend, R., Sampson, H.A., Taylor, S.L., and Fuchs, R.L. 1996. Assessment of the allergenic potential of foods from genetically engineered crop plants. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 36(5), 165-186.] and subsequently Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/World Health Organization (FAO/WHO) [FAO/WHO, 2001. Evaluation of allergenicity of genetically modified foods. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Allergenicity of Foods Derived from Biotechnology. January 22-25, 2001. Rome, Italy]. More recently, Codex [Codex Alimentarius Commission, 2003. Alinorm 03/34: Joint FAO/WHO Food Standard Programme, Codex Alimentarius Commission, Twenty-Fifth Session, Rome, Italy, 30 June-5 July, 2003. Appendix III, Guideline for the conduct of food safety assessment of foods derived from recombinant-DNA plants, and Appendix IV, Annex on the assessment of possible allergenicity. pp. 47-60], noting that no single factor is recognized as an identifier for protein allergenicity, suggested a weight of evidence approach be conducted that takes into account a variety of factors and approaches for an overall assessment of allergenic potential. These various recommendations are based on what is known about allergens, including the history of exposure and safety of the gene(s) source; amino acid sequence identity to human allergens; stability to pepsin digestion in vitro; protein abundance in the crop and processing effects; and when appropriate, specific IgE binding studies or skin-prick testing. Similarities and differences between these various suggested recommendations, as well as data gaps, are discussed. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s Office of Research and Development (ORD) has initiated a targeted research effort to address data gaps and improve the various recommended methods/endpoints for assessing the allergenic risks associated with plant incorporated pesticides (PIPs) through both intramural and extramural (grant supported) research. The areas of primary focus for EPA include: (1) development and evaluation of animal models; (2) targeted or specific serological assays; and (3) structure-activity relationships. Details on the current as well as proposed EPA funded research are discussed. More recently US EPA has partnered with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), National Institutes of Health to support research in areas of mutual interest with respect to food allergy.

Immunotoxicogenomics: the potential of genomics technology in the immunotoxicity risk assessment process.

Evaluation of xenobiotic-induced changes in gene expression as a method to identify and classify potential toxicants is being pursued by industry and regulatory agencies worldwide. A workshop was held at the Research Triangle Park campus of the Environmental Protection Agency to discuss the current state-of-the-science of "immunotoxicogenomics" and to explore the potential role of genomics techniques for immunotoxicity testing. The genesis of the workshop was the current lack of widely accepted triggering criteria for Tier 1 immunotoxicity testing in the context of routine toxicity testing data, the realization that traditional screening methods would require an inordinate number of animals and are inadequate to handle the number of chemicals that may need to be screened (e.g., high production volume compounds) and the absence of an organized effort to address the state-of-the-science of toxicogenomics in the identification of immunotoxic compounds. The major focus of the meeting was on the theoretical and practical utility of genomics techniques to (1) replace or supplement current immunotoxicity screening procedures, (2) provide insight into potential modes or mechanisms of action, and (3) provide data suitable for immunotoxicity hazard identification or risk assessment. The latter goal is of considerable interest to a variety of stakeholders as a means to reduce animal use and to decrease the cost of conducting and interpreting standard toxicity tests. A number of data gaps were identified that included a lack of dose response and kinetic data for known immunotoxic compounds and a general lack of data correlating genomic alterations to functional changes observed in vivo. Participants concluded that a genomics approach to screen chemicals for immunotoxic potential or to generate data useful to risk assessors holds promise but that routine use of these methods is years in the future. However, recent progress in molecular immunology has made mode and mechanism of action studies much more practical. Furthermore, a variety of published immunotoxicity studies suggest that microarray analysis is already a practical means to explore pathway-level changes that lead to altered immune function. To help move the science of immunotoxicogenomics forward, a partnership of industry, academia, and government was suggested to address data gaps, validation, quality assurance, and protocol development.

Workshop overview: approaches to the assessment of the allergenic potential of food from genetically modified crops.

There is a need to assess the safety of foods deriving from genetically modified (GM) crops, including the allergenic potential of novel gene products. Presently, there is no single in vitro or in vivo model that has been validated for the identification or characterization of potential food allergens. Instead, the evaluation focuses on risk factors such as source of the gene (i.e., allergenic vs. nonallergenic sources), physicochemical and genetic comparisons to known allergens, and exposure assessments. The purpose of this workshop was to gather together researchers working on various strategies for assessing protein allergenicity: (1) to describe the current state of knowledge and progress that has been made in the development and evaluation of appropriate testing strategies and (2) to identify critical issues that must now be addressed. This overview begins with a consideration of the current issues involved in assessing the allergenicity of GM foods. The second section presents information on in vitro models of digestibility, bioinformatics, and risk assessment in the context of clinical prevention and management of food allergy. Data on rodent models are presented in the next two sections. Finally, nonrodent models for assessing protein allergenicity are discussed. Collectively, these studies indicate that significant progress has been made in developing testing strategies. However, further efforts are needed to evaluate and validate the sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility of many of these assays for determining the allergenicity potential of GM foods.