Within-laboratory reproducibility of Ames test results: Are repeat tests necessary?

The Ames test is required by regulatory agencies worldwide for assessing the mutagenic and carcinogenic potential of chemical compounds. This test uses several strains of bacteria to evaluate mutation induction: positive results in the assay are predictive of rodent carcinogenicity. As an initial step to understanding how well the assay may detect mutagens present as constituents of complex mixtures such as botanical extracts, a cross-sector working group examined the within-laboratory reproducibility of the Ames test using the extensive, publicly available National Toxicology Program (NTP) Ames test database comprising more than 3000 distinct test articles, most of which are individual chemicals. This study focused primarily on NTP tests conducted using the standard Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Test Guideline 471 preincubation test protocol with 10% rat liver S9 for metabolic activation, although 30% rat S9 and 10 and 30% hamster liver S9 were also evaluated. The reproducibility of initial negative responses in all strains with and without 10% S9, was quite high, ranging from 95% to 99% with few exceptions. The within-laboratory reproducibility of initial positive responses for strains TA98 and TA100 with and without 10% rat liver S9 was ≥90%. Similar results were seen with hamster S9. As expected, the reproducibility of initial equivocal responses was lower, <50%. These results will provide context for determining the optimal design of recommended test protocols for use in screening both individual chemicals and complex mixtures, including botanicals.

Determination of a positive response in the Ames Salmonella mutagenicity assay.

Genetic toxicology tests are used to categorize substances as genotoxic and potentially carcinogenic. In general, test results are designated as mutagenic, not mutagenic, or inconclusive and, depending on its potential use and applicable regulations, a mutagenic result can restrict or remove a substance from further development, or assign limits to its use. In these tests, mutation responses form a continuum without a clear delineation between an increase over the background, untreated, mutant frequency and a frequency that would define the test substance as a mutagen and a potential carcinogenic hazard. This situation is illustrated using the Salmonella mutagenicity (Ames) test which is the initial, and often only, test used to characterize substances as mutagenic or nonmutagenic. It has its widest use by industry and regulatory authorities to identify potential carcinogens among chemicals in development. The OECD Test Guideline No. 471 has been adopted by regulatory agencies internationally, and describes the minimum requirements for a negative response, but does not provide a specific approach for evaluating the test data. The most widely used criterion for making yes-or-no mutagenicity decisions is a 2- or 3-fold increase over the background (solvent) mutant frequency. Other approaches rely on formal statistics and/or expert judgment. These approaches and recently proposed modifications are evaluated here. Recommendations are made that are in conformity with the OECD guideline and are based on biological relevance and the biology of the mutagenic response rather than on arbitrary decision points (e.g., ≥2-fold increase or p ≤ .05).

Bruce Nathan Ames - Paradigm shifts inside the cancer research revolution.

Dr. Bruce Ames turned 92 on December 16, 2020. He considers his most recent work linking adequate consumption of 30 known vitamins and minerals with successful aging to be his most important contribution. With the passage of time, it is not uncommon for the accomplishments of a well-known scientist to undergo a parsimonious reductionism in the public mind - Pasteur's vaccine, Mendel's peas, Pavlov's dogs, Ames' test. Those of us in the research generation subsequent to Dr. Ames' are undoubtedly affected by our own unconscious tendencies toward accepting the outstanding achievements of the past as commonplace. In doing so, seminal advances made by earlier investigators are often inadvertently subsumed into common knowledge. But having followed Ames' work since the mid-1970s, we are cognizant that the eponymous Ames Test is but a single chapter in a long and rich narrative. That narrative begins with Ames' classic studies on the histidine operon of Salmonella, for which he was elected to the National Academy of Sciences. A summary of the historical progression of the understanding of chemical carcinogenesis to which Ames and his colleagues contributed is provided. Any summary of a topic as expansive and complex as the ongoing unraveling of the mechanisms underlying chemical carcinogenesis will only touch upon some of the major conceptual advances to which Ames and his colleagues contributed. We hope that scientists of all ages familiar with Ames only through the eponymous Ames Test will further investigate the historical progression of the conceptualization of cancer caused by chemical exposure. As the field of chemical carcinogenesis gradually moves away from primary reliance on animal testing to alternative protocols under the rubric of New Approach Methodologies (NAM) an understanding of where we have been might help to guide where we should go.

Revisiting the bacterial mutagenicity assays: Report by a workgroup of the International Workshops on Genotoxicity Testing (IWGT).

The International Workshop on Genotoxicity Testing (IWGT) meets every four years to obtain consensus on unresolved issues associated with genotoxicity testing. At the 2017 IWGT meeting in Tokyo, four sub-groups addressed issues associated with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Test Guideline TG471, which describes the use of bacterial reverse-mutation tests. The strains sub-group analyzed test data from >10,000 chemicals, tested additional chemicals, and concluded that some strains listed in TG471 are unnecessary because they detected fewer mutagens than other strains that the guideline describes as equivalent. Thus, they concluded that a smaller panel of strains would suffice to detect most mutagens. The laboratory proficiency sub-group recommended (a) establishing strain cell banks, (b) developing bacterial growth protocols that optimize assay sensitivity, and (c) testing "proficiency compounds" to gain assay experience and establish historical positive and control databases. The sub-group on criteria for assay evaluation recommended that laboratories (a) track positive and negative control data; (b) develop acceptability criteria for positive and negative controls; (c) optimize dose-spacing and the number of analyzable doses when there is evidence of toxicity; (d) use a combination of three criteria to evaluate results: a dose-related increase in revertants, a clear increase in revertants in at least one dose relative to the concurrent negative control, and at least one dose that produced an increase in revertants above control limits established by the laboratory from historical negative controls; and (e) establish experimental designs to resolve unclear results. The in silico sub-group summarized in silico utility as a tool in genotoxicity assessment but made no specific recommendations for TG471. Thus, the workgroup identified issues that could be addressed if TG471 is revised. The companion papers (a) provide evidence-based approaches, (b) recommend priorities, and (c) give examples of clearly defined terms to support revision of TG471.

Recommended criteria for the evaluation of bacterial mutagenicity data (Ames test).

A committee was constituted within the International Workshop on Genetic Toxicology Testing (IWGT) to evaluate the current criteria for a valid Ames test and to provide recommendations for interpretation of test results. Currently, determination of a positive vs. a negative result is made by applying various data evaluation procedures for comparing dosed plates with the concurrent solvent control plates. These evaluation procedures include a requirement for a specific fold increase (2- or 3-fold, specific to the bacterial strain), formal statistical procedures, or subjective (expert judgment) evaluation. After extensive discussion, the workgroup was not able to reach consensus recommendations in favor of any of these procedures. There was a consensus that combining additional evaluation criteria to the comparison between dosed plates and the concurrent solvent control plates improves test interpretation. The workgroup recommended using these additional criteria because the induction of mutations is a continuum of responses and there is no biological relevance to a strict dividing line between a positive (mutagenic) and not-positive (nonmutagenic) response. The most useful additional criteria identified were a concentration-response relationship and consideration of a possible increase above the concurrent control in the context of the laboratory's historical solvent control values for the particular tester strain. The workgroup also emphasized the need for additional testing to resolve weak or inconclusive responses, usually with altered experimental conditions chosen based on the initial results. Use of these multiple criteria allowed the workgroup to reach consensus on definitions of "clear positive" and "clear negative" responses which would not require a repeat test for clarification. The workgroup also reached consensus on recommendations to compare the responses of concurrent positive and negative controls to historical control distributions for assay acceptability, and the use of control charts to determine the validity of the individual test.

Are all bacterial strains required by OECD mutagenicity test guideline TG471 needed?

The International Workshop on Genotoxicity Testing (IWGT) meets every four years to seek consensus on difficult or conflicting approaches to genotoxicity testing based upon experience, available data, and analysis techniques. At the 2017 IWGT meeting in Tokyo, one working group addressed the sensitivity and selectivity of the bacterial strains specified in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Test Guideline TG471 to recommend possible modification of the test guideline. Three questions were posed: (1) Although TA100 is derived from TA1535, does TA1535 detect any mutagens that are not detected by TA100? (2) Among the options of Salmonella TA1537, TA97 or TA97a, are these strains truly equivalent? (3) Because there is a choice to use one of either E. coli WP2 uvrA, E. coli WP2 uvrA pKM101, or Salmonella TA102, are these strains truly equivalent? To answer these questions, we analyzed published bacterial mutation data in multiple strains from large (>10,000 compound) databases from Leadscope and Lhasa Limited and anonymized data for 53 compounds tested in TA1535 and TA100 provided by a pharmaceutical company. Our analysis involved (1) defining criteria for determining selective responses when using different strains; (2) identifying compounds producing selective responses based upon author calls; (3) confirming selective responses by visually examining dose-response data and considering experimental conditions; (4) using statistical methods to quantify the responses; (5) performing limited additional direct-comparison testing; and (6) determining the chemical classes producing selective responses. We found that few mutagens would fail to be detected if the test battery did not include Salmonella strains TA1535 (8/1167), TA1537 (2/247), TA102 (4/46), and E. coli WP2 uvrA (2/21). Of the mutagens detected by the full TG471 strain battery, 93% were detected using only strains TA98 and TA100; consideration of results from in vitro genotoxicity assays that detect clastogenicity increased this to 99%.

The test that changed the world: The Ames test and the regulation of chemicals.

The bacterial strains and mutagenicity test procedure developed by Bruce Ames, and published in 1973, greatly enhanced the ability of laboratories to test chemicals for mutagenicity. The test that became known as the "Ames Test" was simple to perform, took only two days, was relatively inexpensive, and was easily transferrable to other laboratories. Their demonstration that the test was effective at identifying potentially carcinogenic chemicals led its immediate adoption, and requirement, by regulatory authorities world-wide. Despite the development of other microbial and mammalian cell tests to measure mutation or other genetic damage, the Ames test still retains a primary role in the testing of chemicals for commercial use.

Toxicity and occupational exposure assessment for Fischer-Tropsch synthetic paraffinic kerosene.

Fischer-Tropsch (FT) Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene (SPK) jet fuel is a synthetic organic mixture intended to augment petroleum-derived JP-8 jet fuel use by the U.S. armed forces. The FT SPK testing program goal was to develop a comparative toxicity database with petroleum-derived jet fuels that may be used to calculate an occupational exposure limit (OEL). Toxicity investigations included the dermal irritation test (FT vs. JP-8 vs. 50:50 blend), 2 in vitro genotoxicity tests, acute inhalation study, short-term (2-week) inhalation range finder study with measurement of bone marrow micronuclei, 90-day inhalation toxicity, and sensory irritation assay. Dermal irritation was slight to moderate. All genotoxicity studies were negative. An acute inhalation study with F344 rats exposed at 2000 mg/m3 for 4 hr resulted in no abnormal clinical observations. Based on a 2-week range-finder, F344 rats were exposed for 6 hr per day, 5 days per week, for 90 days to an aerosol-vapor mixture of FT SPK jet fuel (0, 200, 700 or 2000 mg/m3). Effects on the nasal cavities were minimal (700 mg/m3) to mild (2000 mg/m3); only high exposure produced multifocal inflammatory cell infiltration in rat lungs (both genders). The RD50 (50% respiratory rate depression) value for the sensory irritation assay, calculated to be 10,939 mg/m3, indicated the FT SPK fuel is less irritating than JP-8. Based upon the proposed use as a 50:50 blend with JP-8, a FT SPK jet fuel OEL is recommended at 200 mg/m3 vapor and 5 mg/m3 aerosol, in concurrence with the current JP-8 OEL.

Reflections on a career and on the history of genetic toxicity testing in the National Toxicology Program.

One of the highly visible aspects of the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) has been its genetic toxicity testing program, which has been responsible for testing, and making publicly available, in vitro and in vivo test data on thousands of chemicals since 1979. What is less well known, however, is that this NTP program had its origin in two separate testing programs that were initiated independently at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) before the NTP was established. The NCI program was in response to the 1971 National Cancer Act which dramatically increased the NCI budget. In contrast, the NIEHS testing program can be traced back to a publication by Bruce Ames, not the one describing the mutagenicity assay he developed that became known as the Ames test, but because in 1975 he published an article showing that hair dyes were mutagenic. The protocols developed for these NCI contracts became the basis for the NTP Salmonella testing contracts that were awarded a few years later. These protocols, with their supporting NTP data, strongly influenced the initial in vitro OECD Test Guidelines. The background and evolution of the NTP genetic toxicity testing program is described, along with some of the more significant milestone discoveries and accomplishments from this program.

In Vitro Genotoxicity Testing: Significance and Use in Environmental Monitoring.

There is ongoing concern about the consequences of mutations in humans and biota arising from environmental exposures to industrial and other chemicals. Genetic toxicity tests have been used to analyze chemicals, foods, drugs, and environmental matrices such as air, water, soil, and wastewaters. This is because the mutagenicity of a substance is highly correlated with its carcinogenicity. However, no less important are the germ cell mutations, because the adverse outcome is related not only to an individual but also to population levels. For environmental analysis the most common choices are in vitro assays, and among them the most widely used is the Ames test (Salmonella/microsome assay). There are several protocols and methodological approaches to be applied when environmental samples are tested and these are discussed in this chapter, along with the meaning and relevance of the obtained responses. Two case studies illustrate the utility of in vitro mutagenicity tests such as the Ames test. It is clear that, although it is not possible to use the outcome of the test directly in risk assessment, the application of the assays provides a great opportunity to monitor the exposure of humans and biota to mutagenic substances for the purpose of reducing or quantifying that exposure.

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.

A critical examination of the mode of action of quinacrine in the reproductive tract in a 2-year rat cancer bioassay and its implications for human clinical use.

A rat carcinogenicity bioassay (CaBio) of quinacrine was reanalyzed to investigate its mode of tumor induction. Quinacrine's effects in the rat uterus when administered as a slurry in methylcellulose were contrasted with the human clinical experience which uses a solid form of the drug, to determine the relevance of the tumors produced in the rat to safe clinical use of quinacrine for permanent contraception (QS). A review was performed of the study report, dose feasibility studies, and clinical evaluations of women who had undergone the QS procedure. The top three doses of quinacrine in the CaBio exceeded the maximum tolerated dose, and produced chronic damage, including inflammation, resulting in reproductive tract tumors. Chronic inflammation was significantly correlated with the tumors; there was no evidence of treatment-related tumors in animals without chronic inflammation or other reproductive system toxicity. Because such permanent uterine damage and chronic toxicity have not been observed in humans under therapeutic conditions, we conclude that this mode of action for tumor production will not occur at clinically relevant doses in women who choose quinacrine for permanent contraception.

Proper interpretation of chronic toxicity studies and their statistics: A critique of "Which level of evidence does the US National Toxicology Program provide? Statistical considerations using the Technical Report 578 on Ginkgo biloba as an example".

A recent article by Gaus (2014) demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of the NTP's statistical analysis and interpretation of rodent carcinogenicity data as reported in Technical Report 578 (Ginkgo biloba) (NTP, 2013), as well as a failure to acknowledge the abundant literature on false positive rates in rodent carcinogenicity studies. The NTP reported Ginkgo biloba extract to be carcinogenic in mice and rats. Gaus claims that, in this study, 4800 statistical comparisons were possible, and that 209 of them were statistically significant (p<0.05) compared with 240 (4800×0.05) expected by chance alone; thus, the carcinogenicity of Ginkgo biloba extract cannot be definitively established. However, his assumptions and calculations are flawed since he incorrectly assumes that the NTP uses no correction for multiple comparisons, and that significance tests for discrete data operate at exactly the nominal level. He also misrepresents the NTP's decision making process, overstates the number of statistical comparisons made, and ignores the fact that the mouse liver tumor effects were so striking (e.g., p<0.0000000000001) that it is virtually impossible that they could be false positive outcomes. Gaus' conclusion that such obvious responses merely "generate a hypothesis" rather than demonstrate a real carcinogenic effect has no scientific credibility. Moreover, his claims regarding the high frequency of false positive outcomes in carcinogenicity studies are misleading because of his methodological misconceptions and errors.

Opportunities to integrate new approaches in genetic toxicology: an ILSI-HESI workshop report.

Genetic toxicity tests currently used to identify and characterize potential human mutagens and carcinogens rely on measurements of primary DNA damage, gene mutation, and chromosome damage in vitro and in rodents. The International Life Sciences Institute Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (ILSI-HESI) Committee on the Relevance and Follow-up of Positive Results in In Vitro Genetic Toxicity Testing held an April 2012 Workshop in Washington, DC, to consider the impact of new understanding of biology and new technologies on the identification and characterization of genotoxic substances, and to identify new approaches to inform more accurate human risk assessment for genetic and carcinogenic effects. Workshop organizers and speakers were from industry, academe, and government. The Workshop focused on biological effects and technologies that would potentially yield the most useful information for evaluating human risk of genetic damage. Also addressed was the impact that improved understanding of biology and availability of new techniques might have on genetic toxicology practices. Workshop topics included (1) alternative experimental models to improve genetic toxicity testing, (2) Biomarkers of epigenetic changes and their applicability to genetic toxicology, and (3) new technologies and approaches. The ability of these new tests and technologies to be developed into tests to identify and characterize genotoxic agents; to serve as a bridge between in vitro and in vivo rodent, or preferably human, data; or to be used to provide dose response information for quantitative risk assessment was also addressed. A summary of the workshop and links to the scientific presentations are provided.

Can in vitro mammalian cell genotoxicity test results be used to complement positive results in the Ames test and help predict carcinogenic or in vivo genotoxic activity? II. Construction and analysis of a consolidated database.

A Workshop sponsored by EURL ECVAM was held in Ispra, Italy in 2013 to consider whether the in vitro mammalian cell genotoxicity test results could complement and mitigate the implications of a positive Ames test response for the prediction of in vivo genotoxicity and carcinogenicity, and if patterns of results could be identified. Databases of Ames-positive chemicals that were tested for in vivo genotoxicity and/or carcinogenicity were collected from different sources and analysed individually (Kirkland et al., in this issue). Because there were overlaps and inconsistent test results among chemicals in the different databases, a combined database which eliminated the overlaps and evaluated the inconsistencies was considered preferable for addressing the above question. A database of >700 Ames-positive chemicals also tested in vivo was compiled, and the results in in vitro mammalian cell tests were analysed. Because the database was limited to Ames-positive chemicals, the majority (>85%) of carcinogens (103/119) and in vivo genotoxins (83/88) were positive when tested in both in vitro gene mutation and aneugenicity/clastogenicity tests. However, about half (>45%) of chemicals that were not carcinogenic (19/28) or genotoxic in vivo (33/73) also gave the same patterns of positive mammalian cell results. Although the different frequencies were statistically significant, positive results in 2 in vitro mammalian cell tests did not, per se, add to the predictivity of the positive Ames test. By contrast, negative results for both in vitro mammalian cell endpoints were rare for Ames-positive carcinogens (3/119) and in vivo genotoxins (2/88) but, were significantly more frequent for Ames-positive chemicals that are not carcinogenic (4/28) or genotoxic in vivo (14/73). Thus, in the case of an Ames-positive chemical, negative results in 2 in vitro mammalian cell tests covering both mutation and clastogenicity/aneugenicity endpoints should be considered as indicative of absence of in vivo genotoxic or carcinogenic potential.

Can in vitro mammalian cell genotoxicity test results be used to complement positive results in the Ames test and help predict carcinogenic or in vivo genotoxic activity? I. Reports of individual databases presented at an EURL ECVAM Workshop.

Positive results in the Ames test correlate well with carcinogenic potential in rodents. This correlation is not perfect because mutations are only one of many stages in tumour development. Also, situations can be envisaged where the mutagenic response may be specific to the bacteria or the test protocol, e.g., bacterial-specific metabolism, exceeding a detoxification threshold, or the induction of oxidative damage to which bacteria may be more sensitive than mammalian cells in vitro or tissues in vivo. Since most chemicals are also tested for genotoxicity in mammalian cells, the pattern of mammalian cell results may help identify whether Ames-positive results predict carcinogenic or in vivo mutagenic activity. A workshop was therefore organised and sponsored by the EU Reference Laboratory for Alternatives to Animal Testing (EURL ECVAM) to investigate this further. Participants presented results from other genotoxicity tests with Ames-positive compounds. Data came from published, regulatory agency, and industry sources. The question was posed whether negative results in mammalian cell tests were associated with absence of carcinogenic or in vivo genotoxic activity despite a positive Ames test. In the limited time available, the presented data were combined and an initial analysis suggested that the association of negative in vitro mammalian cell test results with lack of in vivo genotoxic or carcinogenic activity could have some significance. Possible reasons why a positive Ames test may not be associated with in vivo activity and what additional investigations/tests might contribute to a more robust evaluation were discussed. Because a considerable overlap was identified among the different databases presented, it was recommended that a consolidated database be built, with overlapping chemicals removed, so that a more robust analysis of the predictive capacity for potential carcinogenic and in vivo genotoxic activity could be derived from the patterns of mammalian cell test results obtained for Ames-positive compounds.

An organizational approach for the assessment of DNA adduct data in risk assessment: case studies for aflatoxin B1, tamoxifen and vinyl chloride.

The framework analysis previously presented for using DNA adduct information in the risk assessment of chemical carcinogens was applied in a series of case studies which place the adduct information into context with the key events in carcinogenesis to determine whether they could be used to support a mutagenic mode of action (MOA) for the examined chemicals. Three data-rich chemicals, aflatoxin B1 (AFB1), tamoxifen (Tam) and vinyl chloride (VCl) were selected for this exercise. These chemicals were selected because they are known human carcinogens and have different characteristics: AFB1 forms a unique adduct and human exposure is through contaminated foods; Tam is a pharmaceutical given to women so that the dose and duration of exposure are known, forms unique adducts in rodents, and has both estrogenic and genotoxic properties; and VCl, to which there is industrial exposure, forms a number of adducts that are identical to endogenous adducts found in unexposed people. All three chemicals produce liver tumors in rats. AFB1 and VCl also produce liver tumors in humans, but Tam induces human uterine tumors, only. To support a mutagenic MOA, the chemical-induced adducts must be characterized, shown to be pro-mutagenic, be present in the tumor target tissue, and produce mutations of the class found in the tumor. The adducts formed by AFB1 and VCl support a mutagenic MOA for their carcinogenicity. However, the data available for Tam shows a mutagenic MOA for liver tumors in rats, but its carcinogenicity in humans is most likely via a different MOA.

Bacterial mutation assays.

Bacterial mutagenicity tests, specifically the Salmonella and E. coli reverse mutation (Ames) test, are widely used and are usually required before a chemical, drug, pesticide, or food additive can be registered for use. The tests are also widely used for environmental monitoring to detect mutagens in air or water. Their use is based on the showing that a positive result in the test was highly predictive for carcinogenesis. This chapter describes the Salmonella and E. coli tests, presents protocols for their use, and addresses data interpretation and reporting.