Nitroxide TEMPO: a genotoxic and oxidative stress inducer in cultured cells.

2,2,6,6-Tetramethylpiperidine-1-oxyl (TEMPO) is a low molecular weight nitroxide and stable free radical. In this study, we investigated the cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of TEMPO in mammalian cells using the mouse lymphoma assay (MLA) and in vitro micronucleus assay. In the absence of metabolic activation (S9), 3mM TEMPO produced significant cytotoxicity and marginal mutagenicity in the MLA; in the presence of S9, treatment of mouse lymphoma cells with 1-2mM TEMPO resulted in dose-dependent decreases of the relative total growth and increases in mutant frequency. Treatment of TK6 human lymphoblastoid cells with 0.9-2.3mM TEMPO increased the frequency of both micronuclei (a marker for clastogenicity) and hypodiploid nuclei (a marker of aneugenicity) in a dose-dependent manner; greater responses were produced in the presence of S9. Within the dose range tested, TEMPO induced reactive oxygen species and decreased glutathione levels in mouse lymphoma cells. In addition, the majority of TEMPO-induced mutants had loss of heterozygosity at the Tk locus, with allele loss of ⩽34Mbp. These results indicate that TEMPO is mutagenic in the MLA and induces micronuclei and hypodiploid nuclei in TK6 cells. Oxidative stress may account for part of the genotoxicity induced by TEMPO in both cell lines.

Current regulatory perspectives on genotoxicity testing for botanical drug product development in the U.S.A.

Genotoxicity testing is an important part of preclinical safety assessment of new drugs and is required prior to Phase I/II clinical trials. It is designed to detect genetic damage such as gene mutations and chromosomal aberration, which may be reflected in tumorigenic or heritable mutation potential of the drug. Botanical new drugs in the U.S. are entitled to a waiver for preclinical pharmacology/toxicology studies, including genotoxicity testing, in support of an initial clinical trial under IND, contingent on previous human experience. Recently, ethical concerns have been raised over conducting Phase I/II clinical trials of new drugs with positive genotoxicity findings in healthy volunteers. Although the relevance of this issue to patients, as opposed to healthy volunteers, depends on the drug's indication, duration of treatment, and specific findings related to the assays, the regulatory view is to avoid exposing patients to genotoxic compounds unnecessarily in clinical trials. This philosophy may impact on herbal supplement marketing and botanical drug development, in that genotoxicity data are often lacking while consumers are exposed to the herbal supplement, or healthy volunteers are tested in an initial Phase I/II clinical trial on the botanical drug. This paper presents results of a survey conducted on genotoxicity data in botanical INDs submitted to the Agency and discusses the significance of this information. The information presented indicates that the sponsors of botanical INDs have increasingly recognized the importance of genotoxicity information and may have prioritized its acquisition in their strategic drug development programs.

Strategy for genotoxicity testing--metabolic considerations.

The report from the 2002 International Workshop on Genotoxicity Tests (IWGT) Strategy Expert Group emphasized metabolic considerations as an important area to address in developing a common strategy for genotoxicity testing. A working group convened at the 2005 4th IWGT to discuss this area further and propose practical strategy recommendations. To propose a strategy, the working group reviewed: (1) the current status and deficiencies, including examples of carcinogens "missed" in genotoxicity testing, established shortcomings of the standard in vitro induced S9 activation system and drug metabolite case examples; (2) the current status of possible remedies, including alternative S9 sources, other external metabolism systems or genetically engineered test systems; (3) any existing positions or guidance. The working group established consensus principles to guide strategy development. Thus, a human metabolite of interest should be represented in genotoxicity and carcinogenicity testing, including evaluation of alternative genotoxicity in vitro metabolic activation or test systems, and the selection of a carcinogenicity test species showing appropriate biotransformation. Appropriate action triggers need to be defined based on the extent of human exposure, considering any structural knowledge of the metabolite, and when genotoxicity is observed upon in vitro testing in the presence of metabolic activation. These triggers also need to be considered in defining the timing of human pharmaceutical ADME assessments. The working group proposed two strategies to consider; a more proactive approach, which emphasizes early metabolism predictions to drive appropriate hazard assessment; and a retroactive approach to manage safety risks of a unique or "major" metabolite once identified and quantitated from human clinical ADME studies. In both strategies, the assessment of the genotoxic potential of a metabolite could include the use of an alternative or optimized in vitro metabolic activation system, or direct testing of an isolated or synthesized metabolite. The working group also identified specific areas where more data or experiences need to be gained to reach consensus. These included defining a discrete exposure action trigger for safety assessment and when direct testing of a metabolite of interest is warranted versus the use of an alternative in vitro activation system, a universal recommendation for the timing of human ADME studies for drug candidates and the positioning of metabolite structural knowledge (through in silico systems, literature, expert analysis) in supporting metabolite safety qualification. Lastly, the working group outlined future considerations for refining the initially proposed strategies. These included the need for further evaluation of the current in vitro genotoxicity testing protocols that can potentially perturb or reduce the level of metabolic activity (potential alterations in metabolism associated with both the use of some solvents to solubilize test chemicals and testing to the guidance limit dose), and proposing broader evaluations of alternative metabolic activation sources or engineered test systems to further challenge the suitability of (or replace) the current induced liver S9 activation source.

Regulatory toxicology perspectives on the development of botanical drug products in the United States.

Toxicological studies constitute an essential part of the effort in developing a botanical supplement into a drug product. The US Food and Drug Administration recently published a draft guidance and established a special botanical review team to assist academic and industry sponsors to manage this and other regulatory considerations related to this unique group of drug products. In this article, the current state of regulatory viewpoints on issues related to requirements and recommendations of various types of nonclinical toxicity studies in support of advanced phases clinical trials and filing a New Drug Application of a botanical are discussed. Topics include nonclinical pharmacology/toxicology view of previous human experience and initial clinical trial, regulatory perspectives on acute toxicity studies, chronic toxicity studies, mutagenicity studies, reproductive toxicity studies, and carcinogenicity studies on botanicals. Certain regulatory review-related issues are also presented. It is anticipated that through a proactive 2-way communication between the Agency and the sponsor, toxicological development of botanical drug product can be significantly facilitated.