The performance of a battery of three of the most commonly used in vitro genotoxicity tests--Ames+mouse lymphoma assay (MLA)+in vitro micronucleus (MN) or chromosomal aberrations (CA) test--has been evaluated for its ability to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens, from a large database of over 700 chemicals compiled from the CPDB ("Gold"), NTP, IARC and other publications. We re-evaluated many (113 MLA and 30 CA) previously published genotoxicity results in order to categorise the performance of these assays using the response categories we established. The sensitivity of the three-test battery was high. Of the 553 carcinogens for which there were valid genotoxicity data, 93% of the rodent carcinogens evaluated in at least one assay gave positive results in at least one of the three tests. Combinations of two and three test systems had greater sensitivity than individual tests resulting in sensitivities of around 90% or more, depending on test combination. Only 19 carcinogens (out of 206 tested in all three tests, considering CA and MN as alternatives) gave consistently negative results in a full three-test battery. Most were either carcinogenic via a non-genotoxic mechanism (liver enzyme inducers, peroxisome proliferators, hormonal carcinogens) considered not necessarily relevant for humans, or were extremely weak (presumed) genotoxic carcinogens (e.g. N-nitrosodiphenylamine). Two carcinogens (5-chloro-o-toluidine, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane) may have a genotoxic element to their carcinogenicity and may have been expected to produce positive results somewhere in the battery. We identified 183 chemicals that were non-carcinogenic after testing in both male and female rats and mice. There were genotoxicity data on 177 of these. The specificity of the Ames test was reasonable (73.9%), but all mammalian cell tests had very low specificity (i.e. below 45%), and this declined to extremely low levels in combinations of two and three test systems. When all three tests were performed, 75-95% of non-carcinogens gave positive (i.e. false positive) results in at least one test in the battery. The extremely low specificity highlights the importance of understanding the mechanism by which genotoxicity may be induced (whether it is relevant for the whole animal or human) and using weight of evidence approaches to assess the carcinogenic risk from a positive genotoxicity signal. It also highlights deficiencies in the current prediction from and understanding of such in vitro results for the in vivo situation. It may even signal the need for either a reassessment of the conditions and criteria for positive results (cytotoxicity, solubility, etc.) or the development and use of a completely new set of in vitro tests (e.g. mutation in transgenic cell lines, systems with inherent metabolic activity avoiding the use of S9, measurement of genetic changes in more cancer-relevant genes or hotspots of genes, etc.). It was very difficult to assess the performance of the in vitro MN test, particularly in combination with other assays, because the published database for this assay is relatively small at this time. The specificity values for the in vitro MN assay may improve if data from a larger proportion of the known non-carcinogens becomes available, and a larger published database of results with the MN assay is urgently needed if this test is to be appreciated for regulatory use. However, specificity levels of <50% will still be unacceptable. Despite these issues, by adopting a relative predictivity (RP) measure (ratio of real:false results), it was possible to establish that positive results in all three tests indicate the chemical is greater than three times more likely to be a rodent carcinogen than a non-carcinogen. Likewise, negative results in all three tests indicate the chemical is greater than two times more likely to be a rodent non-carcinogen than a carcinogen. This RP measure is considered a useful tool for industry to assess the likelihood of a chemical possessing carcinogenic potential from batteries of positive or negative results.

Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens: I. Sensitivity, specificity and relative predictivity

Toxicological profile for benzene

Benzene, a common industrial chemical and a component of gasoline, is radiomimetic and exposure may lead progressively to aplastic anaemia, leukaemia, and multiple myeloma. Although benzene has been shown to cause many types of genetic damage, it has consistently been classified as a non-mutagen in the Ames test, possibly because of the inadequacy of the S9 microsomal activation system. The metabolism of benzene is complex, yielding glucuronide and sulphate conjugates of phenol, quinol, and catechol, L-phenylmercapturic acid, and muconaldehyde and trans, trans-muconic acid by ring scission. Quinol is oxidised to p-benzoquinone, which binds to vital cellular components or undergoes redox cycling to generate oxygen radicals; muconaldehyde, like p-benzoquinone, is toxic through depletion of intracellular glutathione. Exposure to benzene may also induce the microsomal mixed function oxidase, cytochrome P450 IIE1, which is probably responsible for the oxygenation of benzene, but also has a propensity to generate oxygen radicals. The radiomimetic nature of benzene and its ability to induce different sites of neoplasia indicate that formation of oxygen radicals is a major cause of benzene toxicity, which involves multiple mechanisms including synergism between arylating and glutathione-depleting reactive metabolites and oxygen radicals. The occupational exposure limit in the United Kingdom (MEL) and the United States (PEL) was 10 ppm based on the association of benzene exposure with aplastic anaemia, but recently was lowered to 5 ppm and 1 ppm respectively, reflecting a concern for the risk of neoplasia. The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) has even more recently recommended that, as benzene is considered an A1 carcinogen, the threshold limit value (TLV) should be decreased to 0.1 ppm. Only one study in man, based on nine cases of benzene associated fatal neoplasia, has been considered suitable for risk assessment. Recent re-evaluation of these data indicated that past assessments may have overestimated the risk, and different authors have considered that lifetime exposure to benzene at 1 ppm would result in an excess of leukaemia deaths of 9.5 to 1.0 per 1000. Although in this study, deaths at low levels of benzene exposure were associated with multiple myeloma and a long latency period, instead of leukaemia, which might justify further lowering of the exposure limit, the risk assessment model has been found to be non-significant for response at low levels of exposure. The paucity of data for man, the complexity of the metabolic activation of benzene, the interactive and synergistic mechanisms of benzene toxicity and carcinogenicity, the different disease endpoints (aplastic anaemia, leukaemia, and multiple myeloma), and different individual susceptibilities, all indicate that in such a complex scenario, regulators should proceed with caution before making further changes to the exposure limit for this chemical.

https://oem.bmj.com/content/oemed/48/7/437.full.pdf

The toxicity of benzene and its metabolism and molecular pathology in human risk assessment.

d-Limonene, a major constituent of citrus oils, is a monoterpene widely used as a flavor/fragrance additive in cosmetics, foods, and industrial solvents as it possesses a pleasant lemon-like odor. d-Limonene has been designated as a chemical with low toxicity based upon lethal dose (LD50) and repeated-dose toxicity studies when administered orally to animals. However, skin irritation or sensitizing potential was reported following widespread use of this agent in various consumer products. In experimental animals and humans, oxidation products or metabolites of d-limonene were shown to act as skin irritants. Carcinogenic effects have also been observed in male rats, but the mode of action (MOA) is considered irrelevant for humans as the protein α(2u)-globulin responsible for this effect in rodents is absent in humans. Thus, the liver was identified as a critical target organ following oral administration of d-limonene. Other than the adverse dermal effects noted in humans, other notable toxic effects of d-limonene have not been reported. The reference dose (RfD), the no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL), and the systemic exposure dose (SED) were determined and found to be 2.5 mg/kg/d, 250 mg/kg//d, and 1.48 mg/kg/d, respectively. Consequently, the margin of exposure (MOE = NOAEL/SED) of 169 was derived based upon the data, and the hazard index (HI = SED/RfD) for d-limonene is 0.592. Taking into consideration conservative estimation, d-limonene appears to exert no serious risk for human exposure. Based on adverse effects and risk assessments, d-limonene may be regarded as a safe ingredient. However, the potential occurrence of skin irritation necessitates regulation of this chemical as an ingredient in cosmetics. In conclusion, the use of d-limonene in cosmetics is safe under the current regulatory guidelines for cosmetics.

Safety Evaluation And Risk Assessment Of d-Limonene

In order to license a pharmaceutical or chemical, a compound has to be tested for several genotoxicity endpoints, including the induction of chromosomal aberrations in vitro. A working group within the GUM has evaluated published data on the in vitro micronucleus test with the aim of judging its suitability as a replacement for the in vitro chromosomal aberration test. After strict rejection criteria were applied, a database including 96 publications and 34 compounds was obtained. For 30 of these compounds, data on both tests were available. For 24 of the 30, concordant results in both test systems were obtained (80% correlation). The discordant results in 6 compounds can be explained by a known or suspected aneugenic potential of these compounds. Considering that cell types and test protocols were extremely heterogeneous, this correlation is rather encouraging. Comparison of the different protocols, and experience established within the working group yielded several recommendations for the routine use of the in vitro micronucleus test. Although many cell lines are suitable, those most often used in genotoxicity testing (e.g. CHL, CHO, V79, human lymphocytes, L5178Y mouse lymphoma cells) are recommended. Cytochalasin B may be used in the case of human lymphocytes; however, the possibility of its interaction with aneugenic test compounds should be considered. For continuously dividing cell lines, cytochalasin B is not recommended by the working group. Although, there seems to be flexibility in the choice of treatment and sampling times, the average generation time of the chosen cell line of choice should be taken into account when determining sampling time, and treatment of cells for at least one cell cycle duration is recommended. The use of appropriate cytotoxicity tests is strongly recommended. Although studies on some parameters of the test protocol may be useful, the introduction of the in vitro micronucleus test into genotoxicity testing and guidelines should not be delayed. Even in its present state, the in vitro micronucleus is a reliable genotoxicity test. Compared with the chromosomal aberration test, it detects aneugens more reliably, it is faster and easier to perform, and it has more statistical power and the possibility of automation.

Evaluation of the in vitro micronucleus test as an alternative to the in vitro chromosomal aberration assay : position of the GUM working group on the in vitro micronucleus test

Previous studies in our laboratory identified trans,trans -muconaldehyde (MUC), a six-carbon diene dialdehyde, as a microsomal metabolite of benzene. This ring-opened metabolite of benzene was also shown to be hematotoxic in mice in a manner similar to benzene. To further explore the role of MUC in relation to benzene toxicity, a number of test systems were utilized to determine its genotoxic potential. In B6C3F1 mice, MUC induced a highly significant increase in sister-chromatid exchange (SCE), the lowest effective dose being 3 mg/kg, but failed to induce any micronuclei (MN). In Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells, MUC at concentrations up to 0.8 μg/ml was negative in the hypoxanthine-guanine phosphoribosyl transferase (HGPRT) assay. Dose-related increases in the percentage of cells with MN were observed in CHO cells treated with 0.4–0.8 μg/ml MUC. MUC did not-cause unscheduled DNA synthesis in rat primary hepatocytes. Treatment of Salmonella typhimurium TA97 with MUC induced a low level of mutations at concentrations ranging from 10 to 70 μg/ml with or without S9 activation. MUC was inactive in strains TA1535, TA100, TA1538 and TA98. In CHO cells and rat primary hepatocytes. MUC was cytotoxic at 0.4 and 4.0 μg/ml, respectively. Concentrations of 100 μg/plate MUC were toxic for bacterial cells. The present findings indicate that MUC is nonmutagenic or minimally mutagenic in bacterial and mammalian in vitro systems. In mammalian cells, MUC is highly cytotoxic and genotoxic.

Genetic toxicity of the benzene metabolite trans, trans-muconaldehyde in mammalian and bacterial cells.

Genotoxic properties of (E)-5-(2-bromovinyl)-2′-deoxyuridine (BVDU)

The purpose of this communication is to report our experience concerning the variation in cloning efficiency and transformation frequency utilizing C3H/10T 1/2 CL8 cells with 23 different lots of fetal bovine sera. These sera were purchased from five different commercial sources. The standard cell transformation assay using 1,000 cells per dish and 3-methylcholanthrene (7.5 micrograms/ml) as the transforming agent was performed. The chemical exposure period was 3 days. The cloning efficiency was determined in parallel toxicity tests using 200 cells per dish. Only three out of 23 serum lots supported a strong response in cell transformation. The results indicated that variation in the ability of sera to support cell transformation was not supplier dependent. In addition, our results showed that serum lots exhibiting the best cloning efficiencies did not necessarily support cell transformation. It is apparent that reliance on cloning efficiency alone would be inadequate as a means of selecting a serum lot. We therefore recommend that a complete cell transformation assay be performed when selecting fetal bovine serum for use in this assay.

Selection of fetal bovine serum for use in the C3H/10T 1/2 CL8 cell transformation assay system.

TNF-α release from human peripheral blood mononuclear cells to predict the proinflammatory activity of cytokines and growth factors

A diuretic antihypertensive agent, SC-33643 (8-[2-ethoxyethyl]-7-phenyl-[1,2,4]triazolo[4,3-c]pyrimidine-5- amine, also known as bemitradine), was tested in the Ames test, in the mouse lymphoma TK +/- mutation assay, in the Chinese hamster ovary cell hypoxanthine guanine phosphoribosyl transferase (CHO/HGPRT) mutation test and in the CHO chromosome aberration assay with and without metabolic activation. Additionally, the compound was tested in the rat primary hepatocyte unscheduled DNA synthesis (UDS) assay and in the mouse bone marrow micronucleus assay. The results were uniformly negative. Contrary to expectations based on the results of the battery of genetic toxicology tests, the compound produced liver, thyroid and mammary tumors in the rat (reported separately). Subsequently, SC-36741 (5-amino-7-phenyl-[1,2,4]triazolo-[1,5-c] pyrimidine-8-ethanol, also known as desethylbemitradine), a major metabolite of SC-33643, was tested in the Ames test, in the CHO/HGPRT mutation test and in the CHO chromosome aberration assay with and without metabolic activation, and was also tested in the rat primary hepatocyte/UDS assay and in the mouse bone marrow micronucleus assay. This metabolite also produced negative results in these tests. Therefore, SC-33643 is a non-genotoxic carcinogen producing tumors in rats without altering DNA or chromosomes.

Genetic toxicology studies with a tumor promoter.

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Y. Oshiro

Author Tools

Chat about Author