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.

A critical appraisal of the sensitivity of in vivo genotoxicity assays in detecting human carcinogens.

Genotoxicity testing is an important part of standard safety testing strategies. Animal studies have always been a key component, either as a mandatory part of the regulatory test battery, or to follow-up questionable in vitro findings. The strengths and weaknesses of in vivo assays is a continuous matter of debate, including their capacity to predict (human) carcinogenicity. We have therefore analysed the sensitivity of five routinely used in vivo tests to determine, in addition to other aspects, which tests or combination of tests best identify 73 chemicals classified as IARC Group 1 and 2A carcinogens. The in vivo tests included the micronucleus (MN), unscheduled DNA synthesis (UDS), comet, Pig-a and transgenic rodent assays (TGR). The individual assays detect 74.2% (49/66, MN), 64.3% (9/14, UDS), 92.1% (35/38, comet), 82.4% (14/17, Pig-a) and 90.3% (28/31, TGR) of the probable and confirmed human carcinogens that were tested in these assays. Combining assays that cover different genotoxicity endpoints and multiple tissues, e.g. the bone marrow MN and the liver comet assays, increases the sensitivity further (to 94%). Correlations in terms of organ-specificity for these assays with human cancer target organs revealed only a limited correlation for the hematopoietic system but not for other organs. The data supports the use of the comet and TGR assays for detection of 'site-of-first-contact' genotoxicants, but these chemicals were generally also detected in assays that measure genotoxicity in tissues not directly exposed, e.g. liver and the hematopoietic system. In conclusion, our evaluation confirmed a high sensitivity of the five in vivo genotoxicity assays for prediction of human carcinogens, which can be further increased by combining assays. Moreover, the addition of the comet to the in vivo MN test would identify all DNA reactive human carcinogens. Importantly, integration of some of the study readouts into one experiment is an animal-saving alternative to performing separate experiments.

Genomic profiling uncovers a molecular pattern for toxicological characterization of mutagens and promutagens in vitro.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the suitability of global gene expression profiling for the characterization and identification of mutagens and promutagens in vitro. To enable detection of both mutagenic and promutagenic compounds, we cotreated HepG2 cells with a rat liver S9 fraction as metabolic activation system (MAS), supplementing the limited drug metabolic capability of HepG2 cells. Illumina BeadChip arrays were used to quantify gene expression changes after treatment with three well-known mutagenic, three promutagenic, as well as two non-genotoxic reference compounds for a period of 24 or 48 h. Statistical data analysis revealed 91 genes being most representative for the (pro-)genotoxic response. Several processes such as cellular differentiation and the complex interactive regulation of the stress and DNA damage response via the transcriptional modulators STAT1, SP1, and P53 were differentially regulated. The gene set evaluated was further used to predict the genotoxic characteristics of N-nitrosodiethylamine (DEN) after its metabolic activation. Although no clear response could be established in P53 activation experiments, DEN was classified correctly as nongenotoxic without S9 and genotoxic in the presence of the MAS by means of its transcriptomic pattern. Our data support that mechanistic profiling in vitro is a useful tool compared with single endpoint detections to predict genotoxicity.

Activation of P53 in HepG2 cells as surrogate to detect mutagens and promutagens in vitro.

The current genotoxicity tests of the standard in vitro battery, especially those using mammalian cells, are limited by their low specificity and highlight the importance of new in vitro tools. This study aimed to evaluate the suitability of HepG2 cells for assaying mutagens and promutagens. We determined P53 activity as surrogate genotoxicity endpoint in HepG2 cells. Our results revealed a significant P53-induction by actinomycin D, methyl methanesulfonate and etoposide. Prior to the investigation of promutagens we characterized HepG2 cells by analyzing the expression of 45 genes involved in xenobiotic metabolism and measuring the activity of selected Cytochrome-P450 (CYP) enzymes. We determined a limited metabolic capacity prompting us to employ a co-treatment with rat liver S9 as metabolic activation system (MAS) for promutagens. While cyclophosphamide showed an elevation of activated P53 in the presence of S9, 7,12-dimethylbenz[a]anthracene and aflatoxin B(1) responded without the MAS. Inhibition of cellular CYP3A4 or CYP1A/1B suppressed the aflatoxin B(1)- and dimethylbenz[a]anthracene-mediated P53 response, respectively, indicating that HepG2 cells are capable of metabolizing these compounds in a CYP1A/B/3A4-dependent manner. In summary, our results indicate that P53 activation in HepG2 cells combined with a MAS can be used for the identification of new (pro)genotoxicants.