Literature DB >> 16649190

Comparative overview of current international strategies and guidelines for genetic toxicology testing for regulatory purposes.

Michael C Cimino1.   

Abstract

National and international regulatory agencies historically have used genotoxicity information as part of a weight-of-evidence approach to evaluate potential human carcinogenicity. Additionally, some agencies consider heritable mutation a regulatory endpoint. Furthermore, genotoxicity has the potential to contribute to other adverse health conditions. This article provides a comparative overview of the testing strategies used by regulatory agencies throughout the world. Despite minor variations in details, the genotoxicity test schemes for most regulatory entities generally comprise three tests: a bacterial gene mutation assay, an in vitro mammalian cell assay for gene mutation and/or chromosome aberrations, and often an in vivo assay for chromosomal effects. In some cases, fewer than these three tests are required. In other cases, when exposure data, structure-activity considerations, or other factors warrant, even chemicals negative in the three baseline tests may be subject to additional testing. If genotoxicity is identified by the baseline screening tests, assessment of the ability of the chemical to interact with DNA in the gonad may be required. This may apply regardless of whether or not a cancer bioassay has been triggered. Mutagens positive in second stage gonadal assay(s) may be tested in third stage in vivo rodent tests to provide data for a quantitative risk assessment. In all testing, theutilization of internationally-recognized protocols, where they exist, is advisable, although not in all instances required. When testing for regulatory purposes, it is advisable to verify the testing program with the specific regulatory body or bodies responsible forregulatory oversight before beginning testing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16649190     DOI: 10.1002/em.20216

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Mol Mutagen        ISSN: 0893-6692            Impact factor:   3.216


  18 in total

1.  Investigating the Generalizability of the MultiFlow ® DNA Damage Assay and Several Companion Machine Learning Models With a Set of 103 Diverse Test Chemicals.

Authors:  Steven M Bryce; Derek T Bernacki; Stephanie L Smith-Roe; Kristine L Witt; Jeffrey C Bemis; Stephen D Dertinger
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 4.849

2.  Sidestream tobacco smoke is a male germ cell mutagen.

Authors:  Francesco Marchetti; Andrea Rowan-Carroll; Andrew Williams; Aris Polyzos; M Lynn Berndt-Weis; Carole L Yauk
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-07-18       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Characterization of environmental chemicals with potential for DNA damage using isogenic DNA repair-deficient chicken DT40 cell lines.

Authors:  Kimiyo N Yamamoto; Kouji Hirota; Koichi Kono; Shunichi Takeda; Srilatha Sakamuru; Menghang Xia; Ruili Huang; Christopher P Austin; Kristine L Witt; Raymond R Tice
Journal:  Environ Mol Mutagen       Date:  2011-04-27       Impact factor: 3.216

4.  Interlaboratory evaluation of a multiplexed high information content in vitro genotoxicity assay.

Authors:  Steven M Bryce; Derek T Bernacki; Jeffrey C Bemis; Richard A Spellman; Maria E Engel; Maik Schuler; Elisabeth Lorge; Pekka T Heikkinen; Ulrike Hemmann; Véronique Thybaud; Sabrina Wilde; Nina Queisser; Andreas Sutter; Andreas Zeller; Melanie Guérard; David Kirkland; Stephen D Dertinger
Journal:  Environ Mol Mutagen       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 3.216

5.  Genotoxicity of the cancer chemopreventive drug candidates CP-31398, SHetA2, and phospho-ibuprofen.

Authors:  Rupa S Doppalapudi; Edward S Riccio; Zoe Davis; Sean Menda; Abraham Wang; Nicholas Du; Carol Green; Levy Kopelovich; Chinthalapally V Rao; Doris M Benbrook; Izet M Kapetanovic
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  2012-04-10       Impact factor: 2.433

6.  Next generation sequencing data for use in risk assessment.

Authors:  B Alex Merrick
Journal:  Curr Opin Toxicol       Date:  2019-03-08

7.  Chemical structure determines target organ carcinogenesis in rats.

Authors:  C A Carrasquer; N Malik; G States; S Qamar; S L Cunningham; A R Cunningham
Journal:  SAR QSAR Environ Res       Date:  2012-10-16       Impact factor: 3.000

8.  Dose-dependent efficacy and safety toxicology of hydroxypyridinonate actinide decorporation agents in rodents: towards a safe and effective human dosing regimen.

Authors:  Deborah I Bunin; Polly Y Chang; Rupa S Doppalapudi; Edward S Riccio; Dahlia An; Erin E Jarvis; Birgitta Kullgren; Rebecca J Abergel
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2013-01-04       Impact factor: 2.841

9.  Genotoxicity assessment of triclocarban by comet and micronucleus assays and Ames test.

Authors:  Donglei Sun; Tianhe Zhao; Ting Wang; Mei Wu; Zunzhen Zhang
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2019-12-28       Impact factor: 4.223

10.  Comparison of flow cytometry- and microscopy-based methods for measuring micronucleated reticulocyte frequencies in rodents treated with nongenotoxic and genotoxic chemicals.

Authors:  Kristine L Witt; Elizabeth Livanos; Grace E Kissling; Dorothea K Torous; William Caspary; Raymond R Tice; Leslie Recio
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  2007-08-11       Impact factor: 2.433

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.