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.

Interpretation of in vitro concentration-response data for risk assessment and regulatory decision-making: Report from the 2022 IWGT quantitative analysis expert working group meeting.

Quantitative risk assessments of chemicals are routinely performed using in vivo data from rodents; however, there is growing recognition that non-animal approaches can be human-relevant alternatives. There is an urgent need to build confidence in non-animal alternatives given the international support to reduce the use of animals in toxicity testing where possible. In order for scientists and risk assessors to prepare for this paradigm shift in toxicity assessment, standardization and consensus on in vitro testing strategies and data interpretation will need to be established. To address this issue, an Expert Working Group (EWG) of the 8th International Workshop on Genotoxicity Testing (IWGT) evaluated the utility of quantitative in vitro genotoxicity concentration-response data for risk assessment. The EWG first evaluated available in vitro methodologies and then examined the variability and maximal response of in vitro tests to estimate biologically relevant values for the critical effect sizes considered adverse or unacceptable. Next, the EWG reviewed the approaches and computational models employed to provide human-relevant dose context to in vitro data. Lastly, the EWG evaluated risk assessment applications for which in vitro data are ready for use and applications where further work is required. The EWG concluded that in vitro genotoxicity concentration-response data can be interpreted in a risk assessment context. However, prior to routine use in regulatory settings, further research will be required to address the remaining uncertainties and limitations.

Establishing a quantitative framework for regulatory interpretation of genetic toxicity dose-response data: Margin of exposure case study of 48 compounds with both in vivo mutagenicity and carcinogenicity dose-response data.

Quantitative relationships between carcinogenic potency and mutagenic potency have been previously examined using a benchmark dose (BMD)-based approach. We extended those analyses by using human exposure data for 48 compounds to calculate carcinogenicity-derived and genotoxicity-derived margin of exposure values (MOEs) that can be used to prioritize substances for risk management. MOEs for 16 of the 48 compounds were below 10,000, and consequently highlighted for regulatory concern. Of these, 15 were highlighted using genotoxicity-derived (micronucleus [MN] dose-response data) MOEs. A total of 13 compounds were highlighted using carcinogenicity-derived MOEs; 12 compounds were overlapping. MOEs were also calculated using transgenic rodent (TGR) mutagenicity data. For 10 of the 12 compounds examined using TGR data, the results similarly revealed that mutagenicity-derived MOEs yield regulatory decisions that correspond with those based on carcinogenicity-derived MOEs. The effect of benchmark response (BMR) on MOE determination was also examined. Reinterpretation of the analyses using a BMR of 50% indicated that four out of 15 compounds prioritized using MN-derived MOEs based on a default BMR of 5% would have been missed. The results indicate that regulatory decisions based on in vivo genotoxicity dose-response data would be consistent with those based on carcinogenicity dose-response data; in some cases, genotoxicity-based decisions would be more conservative. Going forward, and in the absence of carcinogenicity data, in vivo genotoxicity assays (MN and TGR) can be used to effectively prioritize substances for regulatory action. Routine use of the MOE approach necessitates the availability of reliable human exposure estimates, and consensus regarding appropriate BMRs for genotoxicity endpoints.

Utility of a next-generation framework for assessment of genomic damage: A case study using the pharmaceutical drug candidate etoposide.

We present a hypothetical case study to examine the use of a next-generation framework developed by the Genetic Toxicology Technical Committee of the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute for assessing the potential risk of genetic damage from a pharmaceutical perspective. We used etoposide, a genotoxic carcinogen, as a representative pharmaceutical for the purposes of this case study. Using the framework as guidance, we formulated a hypothetical scenario for the use of etoposide to illustrate the application of the framework to pharmaceuticals. We collected available data on etoposide considered relevant for assessment of genetic toxicity risk. From the data collected, we conducted a quantitative analysis to estimate margins of exposure (MOEs) to characterize the risk of genetic damage that could be used for decision-making regarding the predefined hypothetical use. We found the framework useful for guiding the selection of appropriate tests and selecting relevant endpoints that reflected the potential for genetic damage in patients. The risk characterization, presented as MOEs, allows decision makers to discern how much benefit is critical to balance any adverse effect(s) that may be induced by the pharmaceutical. Interestingly, pharmaceutical development already incorporates several aspects of the framework per regulations and health authority expectations. Moreover, we observed that quality dose response data can be obtained with carefully planned but routinely conducted genetic toxicity testing. This case study demonstrates the utility of the next-generation framework to quantitatively model human risk based on genetic damage, as applicable to pharmaceuticals.

Heritable hazards of smoking: Applying the "clean sheet" framework to further science and policy.

All the cells in our bodies are derived from the germ cells of our parents, just as our own germ cells become the bodies of our children. The integrity of the genetic information inherited from these germ cells is of paramount importance in establishing the health of each generation and perpetuating our species into the future. There is a large and growing body of evidence strongly suggesting the existence of substances that may threaten this integrity by acting as human germ cell mutagens. However, there generally are no absolute regulatory requirements to test agents for germ cell effects. In addition, the current regulatory testing paradigms do not evaluate the impacts of epigenetically mediated intergenerational effects, and there is no regulatory framework to apply new and emerging tests in regulatory decision making. At the 50th annual meeting of the Environmental Mutagenesis and Genomics Society held in Washington, DC, in September 2019, a workshop took place that examined the heritable effects of hazardous exposures to germ cells, using tobacco smoke as the example hazard. This synopsis provides a summary of areas of concern regarding heritable hazards from tobacco smoke exposures identified at the workshop and the value of the Clean Sheet framework in organizing information to address knowledge and testing gaps.

Application of the adverse outcome pathway framework to genotoxic modes of action.

In May 2017, the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute's Genetic Toxicology Technical Committee hosted a workshop to discuss whether mode of action (MOA) investigation is enhanced through the application of the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) framework. As AOPs are a relatively new approach in genetic toxicology, this report describes how AOPs could be harnessed to advance MOA analysis of genotoxicity pathways using five example case studies. Each of these genetic toxicology AOPs proposed for further development includes the relevant molecular initiating events, key events, and adverse outcomes (AOs), identification and/or further development of the appropriate assays to link an agent to these events, and discussion regarding the biological plausibility of the proposed AOP. A key difference between these proposed genetic toxicology AOPs versus traditional AOPs is that the AO is a genetic toxicology endpoint of potential significance in risk characterization, in contrast to an adverse state of an organism or a population. The first two detailed case studies describe provisional AOPs for aurora kinase inhibition and tubulin binding, leading to the common AO of aneuploidy. The remaining three case studies highlight provisional AOPs that lead to chromosome breakage or mutation via indirect DNA interaction (inhibition of topoisomerase II, production of cellular reactive oxygen species, and inhibition of DNA synthesis). These case studies serve as starting points for genotoxicity AOPs that could ultimately be published and utilized by the broader toxicology community and illustrate the practical considerations and evidence required to formalize such AOPs so that they may be applied to genetic toxicity evaluation schemes. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 61:114-134, 2020. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Utility of a next generation framework for assessment of genomic damage: A case study using the industrial chemical benzene.

We recently published a next generation framework for assessing the risk of genomic damage via exposure to chemical substances. The framework entails a systematic approach with the aim to quantify risk levels for substances that induce genomic damage contributing to human adverse health outcomes. Here, we evaluated the utility of the framework for assessing the risk for industrial chemicals, using the case of benzene. Benzene is a well-studied substance that is generally considered a genotoxic carcinogen and is known to cause leukemia. The case study limits its focus on occupational and general population health as it relates to benzene exposure. Using the framework as guidance, available data on benzene considered relevant for assessment of genetic damage were collected. Based on these data, we were able to conduct quantitative analyses for relevant data sets to estimate acceptable exposure levels and to characterize the risk of genetic damage. Key observations include the need for robust exposure assessments, the importance of information on toxicokinetic properties, and the benefits of cheminformatics. The framework points to the need for further improvement on understanding of the mechanism(s) of action involved, which would also provide support for the use of targeted tests rather than a prescribed set of assays. Overall, this case study demonstrates the utility of the next generation framework to quantitatively model human risk on the basis of genetic damage, thereby enabling a new, innovative risk assessment concept. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 61:94-113, 2020. © 2019 The Authors. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Environmental Mutagen Society.

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.

Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Plasma Half-Life Determination and Long-Term Tissue Distribution in Beef Cattle (Bos taurus).

Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) is used in consumer products as a surfactant and is found in industrial and consumer waste, which ends up in wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). PFOS does not breakdown during WWTP processes and accumulates in the biosolids. Common practices include application of biosolids to pastures and croplands used for feed, and as a result, animals such as beef cattle are exposed to PFOS. To determine plasma and tissue depletion kinetics in cattle, 2 steers and 4 heifers were dosed with PFOS at 0.098 mg/kg body weight and 9.1 mg/kg, respectively. Plasma depletion half-lives for steers and heifers were 120 ± 4.1 and 106 ± 23.1 days, respectively. Specific tissue depletion half-lives ranged from 36 to 385 days for intraperitoneal fat, back fat, muscle, liver, bone, and kidney. These data indicate that PFOS in beef cattle has a sufficiently long depletion half-life to permit accumulation in edible tissues.

Approaches for identifying germ cell mutagens: Report of the 2013 IWGT workshop on germ cell assays(☆).

This workshop reviewed the current science to inform and recommend the best evidence-based approaches on the use of germ cell genotoxicity tests. The workshop questions and key outcomes were as follows. (1) Do genotoxicity and mutagenicity assays in somatic cells predict germ cell effects? Limited data suggest that somatic cell tests detect most germ cell mutagens, but there are strong concerns that dictate caution in drawing conclusions. (2) Should germ cell tests be done, and when? If there is evidence that a chemical or its metabolite(s) will not reach target germ cells or gonadal tissue, it is not necessary to conduct germ cell tests, notwithstanding somatic outcomes. However, it was recommended that negative somatic cell mutagens with clear evidence for gonadal exposure and evidence of toxicity in germ cells could be considered for germ cell mutagenicity testing. For somatic mutagens that are known to reach the gonadal compartments and expose germ cells, the chemical could be assumed to be a germ cell mutagen without further testing. Nevertheless, germ cell mutagenicity testing would be needed for quantitative risk assessment. (3) What new assays should be implemented and how? There is an immediate need for research on the application of whole genome sequencing in heritable mutation analysis in humans and animals, and integration of germ cell assays with somatic cell genotoxicity tests. Focus should be on environmental exposures that can cause de novo mutations, particularly newly recognized types of genomic changes. Mutational events, which may occur by exposure of germ cells during embryonic development, should also be investigated. Finally, where there are indications of germ cell toxicity in repeat dose or reproductive toxicology tests, consideration should be given to leveraging those studies to inform of possible germ cell genotoxicity.

Review of various approaches for assessing public health risks in regulatory decision making: choosing the right approach for the problem.

Stakeholders in the public health risk analysis community can possess differing opinions about what is meant by "conduct a risk assessment." In reality, there is no one-size-fits-all risk assessment that can address all public health issues, problems, and regulatory needs. Although several international and national organizations (e.g., Codex Alimentarius Commission, Office International des Epizooties, Food and Agricultural Organization, World Health Organization, National Research Council, and European Food Safety Authority) have addressed this issue, confusion remains. The type and complexity of a risk assessment must reflect the risk management needs to appropriately inform a regulatory or nonregulatory decision, i.e., a risk assessment is ideally "fit for purpose" and directly applicable to risk management issues of concern. Frequently however, there is a lack of understanding by those not completely familiar with risk assessment regarding the specific utility of different approaches for assessing public health risks. This unfamiliarity can unduly hamper the acceptance of risk assessment results by risk managers and may reduce the usefulness of such results for guiding public health policies, practices, and operations. Differences in interpretation of risk assessment terminology further complicate effective communication among risk assessors, risk managers, and stakeholders. This article provides an overview of the types of risk assessments commonly conducted, with examples primarily from the food and agricultural sectors, and a discussion of the utility and limitations of these specific approaches for assessing public health risks. Clarification of the risk management issues and corresponding risk assessment design needs during the formative stages of the risk analysis process is a key step for ensuring that the most appropriate assessment of risk is developed and used to guide risk management decisions.

Distribution and excretion of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) in beef cattle (Bos taurus).

Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), a perfluoroalkyl surfactant used in many industrial products, is present in industrial wastes and in wastewater treatment plant biosolids. Biosolids are commonly applied to pastures and crops used for animal feed; consequently, PFOS may accumulate in the edible tissues of grazing animals or in animals exposed to contaminated feeds. There are no data on the absorption, distribution, and excretion of PFOS in beef cattle, so a 28-day study was conducted to determine these parameters for PFOS in three Lowline Angus steers given a single oral dose of PFOS at approximately 8 mg/kg body weight. PFOS concentrations were determined by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry in multiple tissue compartments. The major route of excretion was in the feces (11 ± 1.3% of the dose, mean ± standard deviation) with minimal PFOS elimination in urine (0.5 ± 0.07% of the dose). At day 28 the mean plasma concentration remained elevated at 52.6 ± 3.4 µg/mL, and it was estimated that 35.8 ± 4.3% of the dose was present in the plasma. Plasma half-lives could not be calculated due to multiple peaks caused by apparent redistributions from other tissues. These data indicate that after an acute exposure PFOS persists and accumulates in edible tissues. The largest PFOS body burdens were in the blood (∼36%), carcass remainder (5.7 ± 1.6%), and the muscle (4.3 ± 0.6%). It was concluded that PFOS would accumulate in edible tissues of beef, which could be a source of exposure for humans.

Dietary estimates of dioxins consumed in U.S. Department of Agriculture-regulated meat and poultry products.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) examined whether levels of dioxin-like compounds (DLCs) measured in FSIS-regulated meat and poultry products indicate possible concern for U.S. public health based on usual and recommended consumption patterns of meat and poultry for the U.S. population. The FSIS estimated daily dietary exposures and compared them with the reference dose (RfD) established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for potential noncancer risks from 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD), assuming that all measured DLCs were represented by the RfD (i.e., not just TCDD alone). The estimates indicate that a typical U.S. adult daily exposure of DLCs from FSIS-regulated products is below the EPA-established RfD. Only children consuming chronic average daily servings of meat or poultry products containing the highest measured levels of DLCs may exceed the RfD. If one follows the recommendations from the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, all expected exposures to DLCs from FSIS-regulated products are estimated to be well below the RfD.

Characterizing uncertainty when evaluating risk management metrics: risk assessment modeling of Listeria monocytogenes contamination in ready-to-eat deli meats.

This report illustrates how the uncertainty about food safety metrics may influence the selection of a performance objective (PO). To accomplish this goal, we developed a model concerning Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat (RTE) deli meats. This application used a second order Monte Carlo model that simulates L. monocytogenes concentrations through a series of steps: the food-processing establishment, transport, retail, the consumer's home and consumption. The model accounted for growth inhibitor use, retail cross contamination, and applied an FAO/WHO dose response model for evaluating the probability of illness. An appropriate level of protection (ALOP) risk metric was selected as the average risk of illness per serving across all consumed servings-per-annum and the model was used to solve for the corresponding performance objective (PO) risk metric as the maximum allowable L. monocytogenes concentration (cfu/g) at the processing establishment where regulatory monitoring would occur. Given uncertainty about model inputs, an uncertainty distribution of the PO was estimated. Additionally, we considered how RTE deli meats contaminated at levels above the PO would be handled by the industry using three alternative approaches. Points on the PO distribution represent the probability that - if the industry complies with a particular PO - the resulting risk-per-serving is less than or equal to the target ALOP. For example, assuming (1) a target ALOP of -6.41 log10 risk of illness per serving, (2) industry concentrations above the PO that are re-distributed throughout the remaining concentration distribution and (3) no dose response uncertainty, establishment PO's of -4.98 and -4.39 log10 cfu/g would be required for 90% and 75% confidence that the target ALOP is met, respectively. The PO concentrations from this example scenario are more stringent than the current typical monitoring level of an absence in 25 g (i.e., -1.40 log10 cfu/g) or a stricter criteria of absence in 125 g (i.e., -2.1 log10 cfu/g). This example, and others, demonstrates that a PO for L. monocytogenes would be far below any current monitoring capabilities. Furthermore, this work highlights the demands placed on risk managers and risk assessors when applying uncertain risk models to the current risk metric framework.

Absorption and excretion of 14C-perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in Angus cattle (Bos taurus).

Perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), such as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), are environmentally persistent industrial chemicals often found in biosolids. Application of these biosolids to pastures raises concern about the accumulation of PFOA in the edible tissues of food animals. Because data on the absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME) of PFOA in cattle were unavailable, a study was conducted to determine pharmacokinetic parameters following a single oral exposure (1 mg/kg body weight of (14)C-PFOA) in four Lowline Angus steers. Radiocarbon was quantified in blood, urine, and feces for 28 days and in tissues at the time of slaughter (28 days) by liquid scintillation counting (LSC) or by combustion analysis with LSC with confirmation by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). (14)C-PFOA was completely absorbed and excreted (100.7 ± 3.3% recovery) in the urine within 9 days of dosing. The plasma elimination half-life was 19.2 ± 3.3 h. No (14)C-PFOA-derived radioactivity was detected in edible tissues. Although PFOA was rapidly absorbed, it was also rapidly excreted by steers and did not persist in edible tissues, suggesting meat from cattle exposed to an acute dose of PFOA is unlikely to be a major source of exposure to humans.

In vitro genotoxicity test approaches with better predictivity: summary of an IWGT workshop.

Improving current in vitro genotoxicity tests is an ongoing task for genetic toxicologists. Further, the question on how to deal with positive in vitro results that are demonstrated to not predict genotoxicity or carcinogenicity potential in rodents or humans is a challenge. These two aspects were addressed at the 5th International Workshop on Genotoxicity Testing (IWGT) held in Basel, Switzerland, on August 17-19, 2009. The objectives of the working group (WG) were to make recommendations on the use of cell types or lines, if possible, and to provide evaluations of promising new approaches. Results obtained in rodent cell lines with impaired p53 function (L5178Y, V79, CHL and CHO cells) and human p53-competent cells (peripheral blood lymphocytes, TK6 and HepG2 cells) suggest that a reduction in the percentage of non-relevant positive results for carcinogenicity prediction can be achieved by careful selection of cells used without decreasing the sensitivity of the assays. Therefore, the WG suggested using p53- competent - preferably human - cells in in vitro micronucleus or chromosomal aberration tests. The use of the hepatoma cell line HepaRG for genotoxicity testing was considered promising since these cells possess better phase I and II metabolizing potential compared to cell lines commonly used in this area and may overcome the need for the addition of S9. For dermally applied compounds, the WG agreed that in vitro reconstructed skin models, once validated, will be useful to follow up on positive results from standard in vitro assays as they resemble the properties of human skin (barrier function, metabolism). While the reconstructed skin micronucleus assay has been shown to be further advanced, there was also consensus that the Comet assay should be further evaluated due to its independence from cell proliferation and coverage of a wider spectrum of DNA damage.

Strategies in case of positive in vivo results in genotoxicity testing.

At the 2009 International Workshop on Genotoxicity Testing in Basel, an expert group gathered to provide guidance on suitable follow-up tests to describe risk when basic in vivo genotoxicity tests have yielded positive results. The working group agreed that non-linear dose-response curves occur in vivo with at least some DNA-reactive agents. Quantitative risk assessment in such cases requires the use of (1) adequate data, i.e., the use of all available data for the selection of reliable in vivo models to be used for quantitative risk assessment, (2) appropriate mathematical models and statistical analysis for characterizing the dose-response relationships and allowing the use of quantitative and dose-response information in the interpretation of results, (3) mode of action (MOA) information for the evaluation and analysis of risk, and (4) reliable assessments of the internal dose across species for deriving acceptable margins of exposure and risk levels. Hence, the elucidation of MOA and understanding of the mechanism underlying the dose-response curve are important components of risk assessment. The group agreed on the need for (i) the development of in vivo assays, especially multi-endpoint, multi-species assays, with emphasis on those applicable to humans, and (ii) consensus about the most appropriate mathematical models and statistical analyses for defining non-linear dose-responses and exposure levels associated with acceptable risk.

Compilation and use of genetic toxicity historical control data.

The optimal use of historical control data for the interpretation of genotoxicity results was discussed at the 2009 International Workshop on Genotoxicity Testing (IWGT) in Basel, Switzerland. The historical control working group focused mainly on negative control data although positive control data were also considered to be important. Historical control data are typically used for comparison with the concurrent control data as part of the assay acceptance criteria. Historical control data are also important for providing evidence of the technical competence and familiarization of the assay at any given laboratory. Moreover, historical control data are increasingly being used to aid in the interpretation of genetic toxicity assay results. The objective of the working group was to provide generic advice for historical control data that could be applied to all assays rather than to give assay-specific recommendations. In brief, the recommendations include:

Follow-up actions from positive results of in vitro genetic toxicity testing.

Appropriate follow-up actions and decisions are needed when evaluating and interpreting clear positive results obtained in the in vitro assays used in the initial genotoxicity screening battery (i.e., the battery of tests generally required by regulatory authorities) to assist in overall risk-based decision making concerning the potential effects of human exposure to the agent under test. Over the past few years, the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI) Project Committee on the Relevance and Follow-up of Positive Results in In Vitro Genetic Toxicity (IVGT) Testing developed a decision process flow chart to be applied in case of clear positive results in vitro. It provides for a variety of different possibilities and allows flexibility in choosing follow-up action(s), depending on the results obtained in the initial battery of assays and available information. The intent of the Review Subgroup was not to provide a prescriptive testing strategy, but rather to reinforce the concept of weighing the totality of the evidence. The Review Subgroup of the IVGT committee highlighted the importance of properly analyzing the existing data, and considering potential confounding factors (e.g., possible interactions with the test systems, presence of impurities, irrelevant metabolism), and chemical modes of action when analyzing and interpreting positive results in the in vitro genotoxicity assays and determining appropriate follow-up testing. The Review Subgroup also examined the characteristics, strengths, and limitations of each of the existing in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity assays to determine their usefulness in any follow-up testing.