Analysis of historical negative control group data from the in vitro micronucleus assay using human lymphocytes.

A database of the micronuclei counts was built up for historical negative control data from human lymphocyte in vitro micronuclei tests (MnVit) carried out in 8 laboratories with experience of the method. The mean incidence of micronucleated cells (mnt)/1000 cells ranged from 2.2/1000 to 15.9/1000. There were no large differences in incidence between the presence or absence of S9 mix or between different treatment lengths. There was also little evidence that different solvents affected the numbers of micronuclei appreciably. A number of laboratories did show significant inter-experiment variability, indicating that there remained unidentified factors affecting frequencies. Donor variance may be one such factor. Inter-individual variability may explain some of these differences. The approximate 7.5-fold difference in mnt/1000 scores in a relatively small group of experienced laboratories illustrates the potential complications that can arise if a metric like a fold increase was considered the only biologically important finding. Although there is inherent variability between experiments, it was evident that within a laboratory the overall laboratory mean remains constant over time. It is believed that these findings will provide help to laboratories conducting studies using human lymphocytes in the MnVit and to those involved in the assessment of MnVit results.

Qualitative approach to comparative exposure in alternatives assessment.

Most alternatives assessments (AAs) published to date are largely hazard-based rankings, thereby ignoring potential differences in human and/or ecosystem exposures; as such, they may not represent a fully informed consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of possible alternatives. Building on the 2014 US National Academy of Sciences recommendations to improve AA decisions by including comparative exposure assessment into AAs, the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute's (HESI) Sustainable Chemical Alternatives Technical Committee, which comprises scientists from academia, industry, government, and nonprofit organizations, developed a qualitative comparative exposure approach. Conducting such a comparison can screen for alternatives that are expected to have a higher or different routes of human or environmental exposure potential, which together with consideration of the hazard assessment, could trigger a higher tiered, more quantitative exposure assessment on the alternatives being considered, minimizing the likelihood of regrettable substitution. This article outlines an approach for including chemical ingredient- and product-related exposure information in a qualitative comparison, including ingredient and product-related parameters. A classification approach was developed for ingredient and product parameters to support comparisons between alternatives as well as a methodology to address exposure parameter relevance and data quality. The ingredient parameters include a range of physicochemical properties that can impact routes and magnitude of exposure, whereas the product parameters include aspects such as product-specific exposure pathways, use information, accessibility, and disposal. Two case studies are used to demonstrate the application of the methodology. Key learnings and future research needs are summarized. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2018;00:000-000. © 2018 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

Genotoxicity Assessment of Nanomaterials: Recommendations on Best Practices, Assays, and Methods.

Nanomaterials (NMs) present unique challenges in safety evaluation. An international working group, the Genetic Toxicology Technical Committee of the International Life Sciences Institute's Health and Environmental Sciences Institute, has addressed issues related to the genotoxicity assessment of NMs. A critical review of published data has been followed by recommendations on methods alterations and best practices for the standard genotoxicity assays: bacterial reverse mutation (Ames); in vitro mammalian assays for mutations, chromosomal aberrations, micronucleus induction, or DNA strand breaks (comet); and in vivo assays for genetic damage (micronucleus, comet and transgenic mutation assays). The analysis found a great diversity of tests and systems used for in vitro assays; many did not meet criteria for a valid test, and/or did not use validated cells and methods in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Test Guidelines, and so these results could not be interpreted. In vivo assays were less common but better performed. It was not possible to develop conclusions on test system agreement, NM activity, or mechanism of action. However, the limited responses observed for most NMs were consistent with indirect genotoxic effects, rather than direct interaction of NMs with DNA. We propose a revised genotoxicity test battery for NMs that includes in vitro mammalian cell mutagenicity and clastogenicity assessments; in vivo assessments would be added only if warranted by information on specific organ exposure or sequestration of NMs. The bacterial assays are generally uninformative for NMs due to limited particle uptake and possible lack of mechanistic relevance, and are thus omitted in our recommended test battery for NM assessment. Recommendations include NM characterization in the test medium, verification of uptake into target cells, and limited assay-specific methods alterations to avoid interference with uptake or endpoint analysis. These recommendations are summarized in a Roadmap guideline for testing.

Analysis of negative historical control group data from the in vitro micronucleus assay using TK6 cells.

The recent revisions of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) genetic toxicology test guidelines emphasize the importance of historical negative controls both for data quality and interpretation. The goal of a HESI Genetic Toxicology Technical Committee (GTTC) workgroup was to collect data from participating laboratories and to conduct a statistical analysis to understand and publish the range of values that are normally seen in experienced laboratories using TK6 cells to conduct the in vitro micronucleus assay. Data from negative control samples from in vitro micronucleus assays using TK6 cells from 13 laboratories were collected using a standard collection form. Although in some cases statistically significant differences can be seen within laboratories for different test conditions, they were very small. The mean incidence of micronucleated cells/1000 cells ranged from 3.2/1000 to 13.8/1000. These almost four-fold differences in micronucleus levels cannot be explained by differences in scoring method, presence or absence of exogenous metabolic activation (S9), length of treatment, presence or absence of cytochalasin B or different solvents used as vehicles. The range of means from the four laboratories using flow cytometry methods (3.7-fold: 3.5-12.9 micronucleated cells/1000 cells) was similar to that from the nine laboratories using other scoring methods (4.3-fold: 3.2-13.8 micronucleated cells/1000 cells). No laboratory could be identified as an outlier or as showing unacceptably high variability. Quality Control (QC) methods applied to analyse the intra-laboratory variability showed that there was evidence of inter-experimental variability greater than would be expected by chance (i.e. over-dispersion). However, in general, this was low. This study demonstrates the value of QC methods in helping to analyse the reproducibility of results, building up a 'normal' range of values, and as an aid to identify variability within a laboratory in order to implement processes to maintain and improve uniformity.

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.

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.

Relationships between p53 status, apoptosis and induction of micronuclei in different human and mouse cell lines in vitro: Implications for improving existing assays.

Accumulated evidence has shown that in vitro mammalian cell genotoxicity assays produce high frequencies of "misleading" positive results, i.e. predicted hazard is not confirmed in in vivo and/or carcinogenicity studies [1], raising the question of relevance to human risk assessment. A recent study of micronucleus (MN) induction [2] showed that commonly used p53-deficient rodent cell lines (CHL, CHO and V79) gave a higher frequency of "misleading" positive results with 9 non-DNA reactive, Ames-negative and in vivo negative chemicals [3] than human p53-competent cells (blood lymphocytes, TK6 and HepG2 cell lines). This raised the question of whether these differences were due to p53 status or species origin. This present study compared human versus mouse and p53-competent versus p53-mutated function. The same 9 chemicals were tested for induction of MN in mouse lymphoma L5178Y (mutated p53), human TK6 (functional p53) and WIL2-NS (TK6 related, with mutated p53) cells. Six chemicals provided clear positive increases in MN frequency in at least one cell type. L5178Y cells yielded clear positive responses with more chemicals than either TK6 or WIL2-NS, indicating origin rather than p53 functionality was most relevant. Apoptosis induction (measured via caspase-3/7) was also investigated with clear differences in the timing and extent of apoptosis induction between mouse and human cells noted. With curcumin in TK6 cells, induction of caspase-3/7 activity coincided with MN induction, whereas for L5178Y cells, MN induction occurred in the absence of increased caspase activity. By contrast, with MMS in TK6 cells, MN induction preceded increased caspase-3/7 activity. These data suggest that MN induction by "misleading positive" genotoxins in p53-competent human cell lines may result from apoptosis, whereas in p53-defective rodent cells such as L5178Y, MN induction may be independent of apoptosis.

The in vivo Pig-a assay: A report of the International Workshop On Genotoxicity Testing (IWGT) Workgroup.

The in vivo Pig-a assay uses flow cytometry to measure phenotypic variants for antibody binding to cell surface glycosylphosphatidylinositol (GPI)-anchored proteins. There is good evidence suggesting that the absence of antibody binding is the result of a mutation in the endogenous X-linked Pig-a gene, which forms the rationale for the assay. Although the assay has been performed with several types of hematopoietic cells and in a variety of mammalian species, including humans, currently it is optimized only for measuring CD59-deficient (presumed Pig-a mutant) erythrocytes in the peripheral blood of rats. An expert workgroup formed by the International Workshop on Genotoxicity Testing considered the state of assay development and the potential of the assay for regulatory use. Consensus was reached on what is known about the Pig-a assay and how it should be conducted, and recommendations were made on additional data and refinements that would help to further enhance the assay for use in hazard identification and risk assessment.

Safety of vaccine adjuvants: focus on autoimmunity.

Questions have been recently raised regarding the safety of vaccine adjuvants, particularly in relation to autoimmunity or autoimmune disease(s)/disorder(s) (AID). The International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI) formed a scientific committee and convened a 2-day workshop, consisting of technical experts from around the world representing academia, government regulatory agencies, and industry, to investigate and openly discuss the issues around adjuvant safety in vaccines. The types of adjuvants considered included oil-in-water emulsions and toll-like receptor (TLR) agonists. The state of science around the use of animal models and biomarkers for the evaluation and prediction of AID were also discussed. Following extensive literature reviews by the HESI committee, and presentations by experts at the workshop, several key points were identified, including the value of animal models used to study autoimmunity and AID toward studying novel vaccine adjuvants; whether there is scientific evidence indicating an intrinsic risk of autoimmunity and AID with adjuvants, or a higher risk resulting from the mechanism of action; and if there is compelling clinical data linking adjuvants and AID. The tripartite group of experts concluded that there is no compelling evidence supporting the association of vaccine adjuvants with autoimmunity signals. Additionally, it is recommended that future research on the potential effects of vaccine adjuvants on AID should consider carefully the experimental design in animal models particularly if they are to be used in any risk assessment, as an improper design and model could result in misleading information. Finally, studies on the mechanistic aspects and potential biomarkers related to adjuvants and autoimmunity phenomena could be developed.

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.

A 21st century roadmap for human health risk assessment.

The Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI)-coordinated Risk Assessment in the 21st Century (RISK21) project was initiated to develop a scientific, transparent, and efficient approach to the evolving world of human health risk assessment, and involved over 120 participants from 12 countries, 15 government institutions, 20 universities, 2 non-governmental organizations, and 12 corporations. This paper provides a brief overview of the tiered RISK21 framework called the roadmap and risk visualization matrix, and articulates the core principles derived by RISK21 participants that guided its development. Subsequent papers describe the roadmap and matrix in greater detail. RISK21 principles include focusing on problem formulation, utilizing existing information, starting with exposure assessment (rather than toxicity), and using a tiered process for data development. Bringing estimates of exposure and toxicity together on a two-dimensional matrix provides a clear rendition of human safety and risk. The value of the roadmap is its capacity to chronicle the stepwise acquisition of scientific information and display it in a clear and concise fashion. Furthermore, the tiered approach and transparent display of information will contribute to greater efficiencies by calling for data only as needed (enough precision to make a decision), thus conserving animals and other resources.

Risk assessment in the 21st century: roadmap and matrix.

Abstract The RISK21 integrated evaluation strategy is a problem formulation-based exposure-driven risk assessment roadmap that takes advantage of existing information to graphically represent the intersection of exposure and toxicity data on a highly visual matrix. This paper describes in detail the process for using the roadmap and matrix. The purpose of this methodology is to optimize the use of prior information and testing resources (animals, time, facilities, and personnel) to efficiently and transparently reach a risk and/or safety determination. Based on the particular problem, exposure and toxicity data should have sufficient precision to make such a decision. Estimates of exposure and toxicity, bounded by variability and/or uncertainty, are plotted on the X- and Y-axes of the RISK21 matrix, respectively. The resulting intersection is a highly visual representation of estimated risk. Decisions can then be made to increase precision in the exposure or toxicity estimates or declare that the available information is sufficient. RISK21 represents a step forward in the goal to introduce new methodologies into 21st century risk assessment. Indeed, because of its transparent and visual process, RISK21 has the potential to widen the scope of risk communication beyond those with technical expertise.