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.

Targets and mechanisms of chemically induced aneuploidy. Part 1 of the report of the 2017 IWGT workgroup on assessing the risk of aneugens for carcinogenesis and hereditary diseases.

An aneuploidy workgroup was established as part of the 7th International Workshops on Genotoxicity Testing. The workgroup conducted a review of the scientific literature on the biological mechanisms of aneuploidy in mammalian cells and methods used to detect chemical aneugens. In addition, the current regulatory framework was discussed, with the objective to arrive at consensus statements on the ramifications of exposure to chemical aneugens for human health risk assessment. As part of these efforts, the workgroup explored the use of adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) to document mechanisms of chemically induced aneuploidy in mammalian somatic cells. The group worked on two molecular initiating events (MIEs), tubulin binding and binding to the catalytic domain of aurora kinase B, which result in several adverse outcomes, including aneuploidy. The workgroup agreed that the AOP framework provides a useful approach to link evidence for MIEs with aneuploidy on a cellular level. The evidence linking chemically induced aneuploidy with carcinogenicity and hereditary disease was also reviewed and is presented in two companion papers. In addition, the group came to the consensus that the current regulatory test batteries, while not ideal, are sufficient for the identification of aneugens and human risk assessment. While it is obvious that there are many different MIEs that could lead to the induction of aneuploidy, the most commonly observed mechanisms involving chemical aneugens are related to tubulin binding and, to a lesser extent, inhibition of mitotic kinases. The comprehensive review presented here should help with the identification and risk management of aneugenic agents.

Genotoxicity assessment of peptide/protein-related biotherapeutics: points to consider before testing.

The ICH S6(R1) recommendations on safety evaluation of biotherapeutics have led to uncertainty in determining what would constitute a cause for concern that would require genotoxicity testing. A Health and Environmental Sciences Institute's Genetic Toxicology Technical Committee Workgroup was formed to review the current practice of genotoxicity assessment of peptide/protein-related biotherapeutics. There are a number of properties of peptide/protein-related biotherapeutics that distinguish such products from traditional 'small molecule' drugs and need to be taken into consideration when assessing whether genotoxicity testing may be warranted and if so, how to do it appropriately. Case examples were provided by participating companies and decision trees were elaborated to determine whether and when genotoxicity evaluation is needed for peptides containing natural amino acids, non-natural amino acids and other chemical entities and for unconjugated and conjugated proteins. From a scientific point of view, there is no reason for testing peptides containing exclusively natural amino acids irrespective of the manufacturing process. If non-natural amino acids, organic linkers and other non-linker chemical components have already been tested for genotoxicity, there is no need to re-evaluate them when used in different peptide/protein-related biotherapeutics. Unless the peptides have been modified to be able to enter the cells, it is generally more appropriate to evaluate the peptides containing the non-natural amino acids and other non-linker chemical moieties in vivo where the cleavage products can be formed. For linkers, it is important to determine if exposure to reactive forms are likely to occur and from which origin. When the linkers are anticipated to be potential mutagenic impurities they should be evaluated according to ICH M7. If linkers are expected to be catabolic products, it is recommended to test the entire conjugate in vivo, as this would ensure that the relevant 'free' linker forms stemming from in vivo catabolism are tested.

The 3T3 neutral red uptake phototoxicity test: practical experience and implications for phototoxicity testing--the report of an ECVAM-EFPIA workshop.

This is the report from the "ECVAM-EFPIA workshop on 3T3 NRU Phototoxicity Test: Practical Experience and Implications for Phototoxicity Testing", jointly organized by ECVAM and EFPIA and held on the 25-27 October 2010 in Somma Lombardo, Italy. The European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) was established in 1991 within the European Commission Joint Research, based on a Communication from the European Commission (1991). The main objective of ECVAM is to promote the scientific and regulatory acceptance of alternative methods which are of importance to the biosciences and which reduce, refine and replace the use of laboratory animals. The European Federation of Pharmaceuticals Industries and Association (EFPIA) represent the pharmaceutical industry operating in Europe. Through its direct membership of 31 national associations and 40 leading pharmaceutical companies, EFPIA is the voice on the EU scene of 2200 companies committed to researching, developing and bringing to patients new medicines that improve health and the quality of life around the world. The workshop, co-chaired by Joachim Kreysa (ECVAM) and Phil Wilcox (GSK, EFPIA) involved thirty-five experts from academia, regulatory authorities and industry, invited to contribute with their experiences in the field of phototoxicology. The main objectives of the workshop were: -to present 'in use' experience of the pharmaceutical industry with the 3T3 Neutral Red Uptake Phototoxicity Test (3T3 NRU-PT), -to discuss why it differs from the results in the original validation exercise, -to discuss technical issues and consider ways to improve the usability of the 3T3 NRU-PT for (non-topical) pharmaceuticals, e.g., by modifying the threshold of chemical light absorption to trigger photo-toxicological testing, and by modifying technical aspects of the assay, or adjusting the criteria used to classify a positive response. During the workshop, the assay methodology was reviewed by comparing the OECD Test Guideline (TG 432) with the protocols used in testing laboratories, data from EFPIA and JPMA 'surveys' were presented and possible reasons for the outcomes were discussed. Experts from cosmetics and pharmaceutical industries reported on their experience with the 3T3 NRU-PT and evidence was presented for phototoxic clinical symptoms that could be linked to certain relevant molecules. Brainstorming sessions discussed if the 3T3 NRU-PT needed to be improved and whether alternatives to the 3T3 NRU-PT exist. Finally, the viewpoint from EU and US regulators was presented. In the final session, the conclusions of the meeting were summarized, with action points. It was concluded that the 3T3 NRU-PT identifies phototoxicological hazards with a 100% sensitivity, and thus is accepted as the tier one test that correctly identifies the absence of phototoxic potential. Consequently, positive results in the 3T3 NRU-PT often do not translate into a clinical phototoxicity risk. Possible ways to improve the practical use of this assay include: (i) adaptation of changed UV/vis-absorption criteria as a means to reduce the number of materials tested, (ii) reduction of the highest concentration to be tested, and (iii) consideration of modifying the threshold criteria for the prediction of a positive call in the test.

Review of the performance of the 3T3 NRU in vitro phototoxicity assay in the pharmaceutical industry.

Based on current regulatory guidelines a substantial proportion of drug development portfolios within the pharmaceutical industry trigger the requirements for photosafety testing i.e. absorb light in the range 290-700 nm, and are either applied locally/topically, or 'reach' (EMEA)/'significantly partition to' (FDA) the skin or eyes. There has been growing concern within the pharmaceutical industry over recent years regarding the performance of the in vitro photosafety tests with respect to in vivo predictivity (in animals and in humans). Therefore, the Safety Ad hoc Group (SAHG) of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) commissioned a survey of member companies to better understand the triggers for photosafety testing and how in vitro hazard characterisation translated to in vivo risk (both in animal models and in humans). Data were collated for 361 compounds from 10 EFPIA member companies and the results of the phototoxicity survey are reported. Based on these results, it appears that the in vitro photosafety assays are substantially over predicting animal photosafety hazard in vivo and also human photosafety risk in the clinic. This raises concern regarding the use of in vitro photosafety assays for the assessment of chemical photosafety of pharmaceuticals for regulatory purposes. At the very least, a review of the current guidance documents for the photosafety evaluation of pharmaceuticals should be undertaken urgently.

Interlaboratory assessment of the GreenScreen HC GADD45a-GFP genotoxicity screening assay: an enabling study for independent validation as an alternative method.

Sixteen coded compounds were blind-tested at 4 laboratories using the recently described GADD45a-GFP genotoxicity assay. The compounds were chosen to include non-genotoxic compounds as well as weak and strong genotoxins. None of the compounds required metabolic activation in order to exhibit genotoxic effects. The participating laboratories included 2 global pharmaceutical companies, a global consumer goods company and the Gentronix laboratory in Manchester. Each compound was tested 4 times on different days following a protocol previously described. The tests were carried out after a 3-day training period from the parent lab (Manchester). Following the exclusion of data from tests with positive control failures and data series with 'spikes', 92% of assays gave the correct result: non-genotoxins giving negative results and genotoxins giving positive results. There were no randomly distributed problems suggesting that differences between the results from different sites reflected the use of different instruments, procedural differences and operator experience. In naïve operator laboratories the quality of data improved with operator practice. It was concluded that simple clarification of the protocol would provide the level of reliability required for widespread use of the assay in hazard assessment.