A weight of evidence assessment of the genotoxicity of 2,6-xylidine based on existing and new data, with relevance to safety of lidocaine exposure.

Lidocaine has not been associated with cancer in humans despite 8 decades of therapeutic use. Its metabolite, 2,6-xylidine, is a rat carcinogen, believed to induce genotoxicity via N-hydroxylation and DNA adduct formation, a non-threshold mechanism of action. To better understand this dichotomy, we review literature pertaining to metabolic activation and genotoxicity of 2,6-xylidine, identifying that it appears resistant to N-hydroxylation and instead metabolises almost exclusively to DMAP (an aminophenol). At high exposures (sufficient to saturate phase 2 metabolism), this may undergo metabolic threshold-dependent activation to a quinone-imine with potential to redox cycle producing ROS, inducing cytotoxicity and genotoxicity. A new rat study found no evidence of genotoxicity in vivo based on micronuclei in bone marrow, comets in nasal tissue or female liver, despite high level exposure to 2,6-xylidine (including metabolites). In male liver, weak dose-related comet increases, within the historical control range, were associated with metabolic overload and acute systemic toxicity. Benchmark dose analysis confirmed a non-linear dose response. The weight of evidence indicates 2,6-xylidine is a non-direct acting (metabolic threshold-dependent) genotoxin, and is not genotoxic in vivo in rats in the absence of acute systemic toxic effects, which occur at levels 35 × beyond lidocaine-related exposure in humans.

A review of the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate by four independent expert panels and comparison to the IARC assessment.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published a monograph in 2015 concluding that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2A) based on limited evidence in humans and sufficient evidence in experimental animals. It was also concluded that there was strong evidence of genotoxicity and oxidative stress. Four Expert Panels have been convened for the purpose of conducting a detailed critique of the evidence in light of IARC's assessment and to review all relevant information pertaining to glyphosate exposure, animal carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, and epidemiologic studies. Two of the Panels (animal bioassay and genetic toxicology) also provided a critique of the IARC position with respect to conclusions made in these areas. The incidences of neoplasms in the animal bioassays were found not to be associated with glyphosate exposure on the basis that they lacked statistical strength, were inconsistent across studies, lacked dose-response relationships, were not associated with preneoplasia, and/or were not plausible from a mechanistic perspective. The overall weight of evidence from the genetic toxicology data supports a conclusion that glyphosate (including GBFs and AMPA) does not pose a genotoxic hazard and therefore, should not be considered support for the classification of glyphosate as a genotoxic carcinogen. The assessment of the epidemiological data found that the data do not support a causal relationship between glyphosate exposure and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma while the data were judged to be too sparse to assess a potential relationship between glyphosate exposure and multiple myeloma. As a result, following the review of the totality of the evidence, the Panels concluded that the data do not support IARC's conclusion that glyphosate is a "probable human carcinogen" and, consistent with previous regulatory assessments, further concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans.

Review of genotoxicity studies of glyphosate and glyphosate-based formulations.

An earlier review of the toxicity of glyphosate and the original Roundup™-branded formulation concluded that neither glyphosate nor the formulation poses a risk for the production of heritable/somatic mutations in humans. The present review of subsequent genotoxicity publications and regulatory studies of glyphosate and glyphosate-based formulations (GBFs) incorporates all of the findings into a weight of evidence for genotoxicity. An overwhelming preponderance of negative results in well-conducted bacterial reversion and in vivo mammalian micronucleus and chromosomal aberration assays indicates that glyphosate and typical GBFs are not genotoxic in these core assays. Negative results for in vitro gene mutation and a majority of negative results for chromosomal effect assays in mammalian cells add to the weight of evidence that glyphosate is not typically genotoxic for these endpoints in mammalian systems. Mixed results were observed for micronucleus assays of GBFs in non-mammalian systems. Reports of positive results for DNA damage endpoints indicate that glyphosate and GBFs tend to elicit DNA damage effects at high or toxic dose levels, but the data suggest that this is due to cytotoxicity rather than DNA interaction with GBF activity perhaps associated with the surfactants present in many GBFs. Glyphosate and typical GBFs do not appear to present significant genotoxic risk under normal conditions of human or environmental exposures.

A proposed framework for assessing risk from less-than-lifetime exposures to carcinogens.

Quantitative methods for estimation of cancer risk have been developed for daily, lifetime human exposures. There are a variety of studies or methodologies available to address less-than-lifetime exposures. However, a common framework for evaluating risk from less-than-lifetime exposures (including short-term and/or intermittent exposures) does not exist, which could result in inconsistencies in risk assessment practice. To address this risk assessment need, a committee of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) Health and Environmental Sciences Institute conducted a multisector workshop in late 2009 to discuss available literature, different methodologies, and a proposed framework. The proposed framework provides a decision tree and guidance for cancer risk assessments for less-than-lifetime exposures based on current knowledge of mode of action and dose-response. Available data from rodent studies and epidemiological studies involving less-than-lifetime exposures are considered, in addition to statistical approaches described in the literature for evaluating the impact of changing the dose rate and exposure duration for exposure to carcinogens. The decision tree also provides for scenarios in which an assumption of potential carcinogenicity is appropriate (e.g., based on structural alerts or genotoxicity data), but bioassay or other data are lacking from which a chemical-specific cancer potency can be determined. This paper presents an overview of the rationale for the workshop, reviews historical background, describes the proposed framework for assessing less-than-lifetime exposures to potential human carcinogens, and suggests next steps.

Evaluation of a multi-endpoint assay in rats, combining the bone-marrow micronucleus test, the Comet assay and the flow-cytometric peripheral blood micronucleus test.

With the publication of revised draft ICH guidelines (Draft ICH S2), there is scope and potential to establish a combined multi-end point in vivo assay to alleviate the need for multiple in vivo assays, thereby reducing time, cost and use of animals. Presented here are the results of an evaluation trial in which the bone-marrow and peripheral blood (via MicroFlow(®) flow cytometry) micronucleus tests (looking at potential chromosome breakage and whole chromosome loss) in developing erythrocytes or young reticulocytes were combined with the Comet assay (measuring DNA strand-breakage), in stomach, liver and blood lymphocytes. This allowed a variety of potential target tissues (site of contact, site of metabolism and peripheral distribution) to be assessed for DNA damage. This combination approach was performed with minimal changes to the standard and regulatory recommended sampling times for the stand-alone assays. A series of eight in vivo genotoxins (2-acetylaminofluorene, benzo[a]pyrene, carbendazim, cyclophosphamide, dimethylnitrosamine, ethyl methanesulfonate, ethyl nitrosourea and mitomycin C), which are known to act via different modes of action (direct- and indirect-acting clastogens, alkylating agents, gene mutagens, cross-linking and aneugenic compounds) were tested. Male rats were dosed at 0, 24 and 45 h, and bone marrow and peripheral blood (micronucleus endpoint), liver, whole blood and stomach (Comet endpoint) were sampled at three hours after the last dose. Comet and micronucleus responses were as expected based on available data for conventional (acute) stand-alone assays. All compounds were detected as genotoxic in at least one of the endpoints. The importance of evaluating both endpoints was highlighted by the uniquely positive responses for certain chemicals (benzo[a]pyrene and 2-acetylaminofluorene) with the Comet endpoint and certain other chemicals (carbendazim and mitomycin C) with the micronucleus endpoint. The data generated from these investigations demonstrate the suitability of the multi-endpoint design.

A weight of evidence assessment of the genotoxic potential of 4-methylimidazole as a possible mode of action for the formation of lung tumors in exposed mice.

4-Methylimidazole (4-MeI) is a byproduct formed during the cooking of foods containing carbohydrates and amino acids, including the production of flavors and coloring substances, e.g., class III and IV caramel colors, used in many food products with extensive human exposure. Two-year rodent bioassays via oral exposure conducted by the National Toxicology Program reported evidence of carcinogenicity only in B6C3F1 mice (increased alveolar/bronchial neoplasms). In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified 4-MeI as Group 2B, "possibly carcinogenic to humans". An expert panel was commissioned to assess the genotoxic potential of 4-MeI and the plausibility of a genotoxic mode of action in the formation of lung tumors in mice when exposed to high doses of 4-MeI. The panel defined and used a weight-of-evidence (WOE) approach that included thorough evaluation of studies assessing the genotoxic potential of 4-MeI. The panelists categorized each study, consisting of study weight, degree of technical performance, study reliability, and contribution to the overall WOE. Based on the reviewed studies' weighted contribution, the panel unanimously concluded that the WOE supports no clear evidence of in vivo genotoxicity of 4-MeI and no association for a genotoxic mode of action in the formation of mouse lung tumors.

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.

The role of the UKEMS in the development of testing guidelines.

Twenty years ago UKEMS established a sub-committee to determine the minimal professional criteria that should be achieved to comply with mutagenicity testing requirements in the UK. Recommendations on the conduct of basic and supplementary tests were published in 1983 and 1984, respectively. Despite their local distribution, these recommendations had an impact around the world. Further guidelines for statistical evaluation of mutagenicity test data and revisions to the first two volumes followed. By the early 1990s the mood was for international harmonization rather than national or regional isolation. The processes by which UKEMS had achieved its testing recommendations in the 1980s and early 1990s were successfully employed in the International Workshops for Genotoxicity Testing, of which three have now been held, and made a significant impact on OECD guidelines and ICH guidance. Summary outcomes from the latest meeting (2002 Plymouth Workshop) are given.