Alternative Carcinogenicity Screening Assay Using Colon Cancer Stem Cells: A Quantitative PCR (qPCR)-Based Prediction System for Colon Carcinogenesis.

The carcinogenicity of chemicals in the environment is a major concern. Recently, numerous studies have attempted to develop methods for predicting carcinogenicity, including rodent and cell-based approaches. However, rodent carcinogenicity tests for evaluating the carcinogenic potential of a chemical to humans are time-consuming and costly. This study focused on the development of an alternative method for predicting carcinogenicity using quantitative PCR (qPCR) and colon cancer stem cells. A toxicogenomic method, mRNA profiling, is useful for predicting carcinogenicity. Using microarray analysis, we optimized 16 predictive gene sets from five carcinogens (azoxymethane, 3,2'-dimethyl-4-aminobiphenyl, N-ethyl-n-nitrosourea, metronidazole, 4-(n-methyl-n-nitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone) used to treat colon cancer stem cell samples. The 16 genes were evaluated by qPCR using 23 positive and negative carcinogens in colon cancer stem cells. Among them, six genes could differentiate between positive and negative carcinogens with a p-value of < or =0.05. Our qPCR-based prediction system for colon carcinogenesis using colon cancer stem cells is cost- and time-efficient. Thus, this qPCR-based prediction system is an alternative to in vivo carcinogenicity screening assays.

Alternatives to the carcinogenicity bioassay for toxicity prediction: are we there yet?

INTRODUCTION: For decades, traditional toxicology has been the ultimate source of information on the carcinogenic potential of chemicals; however, with increasing demand on regulation of chemicals and decreasing resources for testing, opportunities to accept 'alternative' approaches have dramatically expanded. The need for tools able to identify carcinogens in shorter times and at a lower cost in terms of animal lives and money is still an open issue, and the present strategies and regulations for carcinogenicity prescreening do not adequately protect human health. AREAS COVERED: This paper briefly summarizes the theories on the early steps of carcinogenesis and presents alternative detection methods for carcinogens based on genetic toxicology, structure-activity relationships and cell transformation assays. EXPERT OPINION: There is evidence that the combination of Salmonella and structural alerts for the DNA-reactive carcinogens, and in vitro cell transformation assays for nongenotoxic carcinogens, permits the identification of a very large proportion of carcinogens. If implemented, this alternative strategy could improve considerably the protection of human health.

Toxicogenomics applied to in vitro carcinogenicity testing with Balb/c 3T3 cells revealed a gene signature predictive of chemical carcinogens.

Information on the carcinogenic potential of chemicals is primarily available for High Production Volume (HPV) products. Because of the limited knowledge gain from routine cancer bioassays and the fact that HPV chemicals are tested only, there is the need for more cost-effective and informative testing strategies. Here we report the application of advanced genomics to a cellular transformation assay to identify toxicity pathways and gene signatures predictive for carcinogenicity. Specifically, genome-wide gene expression analysis and quantitative real time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) were applied to untransformed and transformed mouse fibroblast Balb/c 3T3 cells that were exposed to either 2, 4-diaminotoluene, benzo(a)pyrene, 2-acetylaminoflourene, or 3-methycholanthrene at IC20 conditions for 24 and 120 h, respectively. Then, bioinformatics was applied to define toxicity pathways and a gene signature predictive of the carcinogenic risk of these chemicals. Although bioinformatics revealed distinct differences for individual chemicals at the gene-level pathway, analysis identified common perturbation that resulted in an identification of 14 genes whose regulation in cancer tissue had already been established. Strikingly, this gene signature was identified in short-term (24 and 120 h) untransformed and transformed cells (3 weeks), therefore demonstrating robustness for its predictive power. The developed testing strategy thus identified commonly regulated carcinogenic pathways and a gene signature that predicted the risk for carcinogenicity for three well-known carcinogens. Overall, the testing strategy warrants in-depth validation for the prediction of carcinogenic risk of industrial chemicals in in vitro carcinogenicity assay.

Technical modification of the Balb/c 3T3 cell transformation assay: the use of serum-reduced medium to optimise the practicability of the protocol.

The two-stage Balb/c 3T3 model of cell transformation can mimic the two-stage carcinogenicity bioassay, and has been recognised as a screening method for detecting potential tumour initiators and promoters. A technical modification to the original protocol (which involved the use of M10F medium, consisting of MEM plus 10% fetal bovine serum [FBS]) has been previously proposed, in order to increase its efficacy, namely: the introduction of enriched, serum-reduced medium (DF2F medium, comprising DMEM/F12 plus 2% FBS and other supplements). The aim of this study was to further modify the protocol, so as to attain higher practicability for the assay. The protocol was further optimised by: a) reducing the number of plates required, through the use of larger plates; b) reducing the cost of the assay by retaining the reduced serum concentration and by using 2microg/ml insulin, rather than the more-complex insulin-transferrin-ethanolamine-sodium selenite (ITES) supplement (i.e. DF2F2I medium); and c) extending the culture period from 24-25 days to 31-32 days, resulting in clearer foci (the number of medium changes did not increase, as less-frequent medium changes were performed during the extended culture period). Growth curve construction revealed that variations in the saturation densities of the parental Balb/c 3T3 cell line and its three transformed clones were highest when M10F medium was replaced with DF2F2I medium just before cells reached confluence. We applied this newly-optimised protocol to the assessment of: a) the tumour initiating activity of 3-methylcholanthrene (MCA), N-methyl-N'-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine, mitomycin C, methylmethane sulphonate, CdCl(2) and phenacetin, combining a post-treatment of 100ng/ml 12-O-tetradecanoylphorbol-13-acetate at the promotion stage; and b) the tumour promoting activity of insulin, lithocholic acid, CdCl(2) and phenobarbital, with pre-treatment of 0.2microg/ml MCA at the initiation stage. In the present study, only phenobarbital was negative when tested by using the modified protocol.

Animal carcinogenicity studies: 3. Alternatives to the bioassay.

Conventional animal carcinogenicity tests take around three years to design, conduct and interpret. Consequently, only a tiny fraction of the thousands of industrial chemicals currently in use have been tested for carcinogenicity. Despite the costs of hundreds of millions of dollars and millions of skilled personnel hours, as well as millions of animal lives, several investigations have revealed that animal carcinogenicity data lack human specificity (i.e. the ability to identify human non-carcinogens), which severely limits the human predictivity of the bioassay. This is due to the scientific inadequacies of many carcinogenicity bioassays, and numerous serious biological obstacles, which render profoundly difficult any attempts to accurately extrapolate animal data in order to predict carcinogenic hazards to humans. Proposed modifications to the conventional bioassays have included the elimination of mice as a second species, and the use of genetically-altered or neonatal mice, decreased study durations, initiation-promotion models, the greater incorporation of toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic assessments, structure-activity relationship (computerised) systems, in vitro assays, cDNA microarrays for detecting changes in gene expression, limited human clinical trials, and epidemiological research. The potential advantages of non-animal assays when compared to bioassays include the superior human specificity of the results, substantially reduced time-frames, and greatly reduced demands on financial, personnel and animal resources. Inexplicably, however, the regulatory agencies have been frustratingly slow to adopt alternative protocols. In order to decrease the enormous cost of cancer to society, a substantial redirection of resources away from excessively slow and resource-intensive rodent bioassays, into the further development and implementation of non-animal assays, is both strongly justified and urgently required.

Assessment of human cancer risk: challenges for alternative approaches.

The ILSI/HESI Workshop on Alternatives to Carcinogenicity Testing aims to develop and apply new methods for assessment of potential carcinogenic risk to humans from various chemicals. The Workshop represents a major cooperative scientific effort. The long-term goals should be to greatly enhance the efficiency and reliability of such testing and to supplant, not just supplement, lifetime rodent bioassays. There are now well-established frameworks for risk assessment and risk management, putting risks into public health context and engaging stakeholders. The Lave-Omenn value-of-information model provides a useful way to assess the social costs and benefits of different strategies for testing large numbers of chemicals.

Value-of-information analysis of testing strategies: estimating the effect of uncertainty about the proportion of chemicals that are true human carcinogens.

Choosing a cost-effective strategy for classifying chemicals as human carcinogens and non-carcinogens depends upon the costs of false positives (carcinogens erroneously treated as non-carcinogenic) and false negatives (non-carcinogens erroneously treated as carcinogenic); upon the accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of the classification strategy; and upon the underlying proportion of carcinogens in the population of chemicals to be classified. If these values are known, value-of-information analyses can indicate the most cost-effective among three strategies: classify as carcinogenic without testing, classify as non-carcinogenic without testing, or choose the most cost-effective test and classify on the basis of the test result. When some or all of the values are uncertain, the analysis becomes more complex, but still helps to guide decisions among the three classification strategies.