Literature DB >> 17141553

Strategy for genotoxicity testing--metabolic considerations.

Warren W Ku1, Anita Bigger, Giovanni Brambilla, Hansruedi Glatt, Elmar Gocke, Peggy J Guzzie, Atsushi Hakura, Masamitsu Honma, Hans-Joerg Martus, R Scott Obach, Stanley Roberts.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17141553     DOI: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2006.10.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mutat Res        ISSN: 0027-5107            Impact factor:   2.433


  9 in total

1.  Genotoxicity of 12 Mycotoxins by the SOS/umu Test: Comparison of Liver and Kidney S9 Fraction.

Authors:  Maria Alonso-Jauregui; Elena González-Peñas; Adela López de Cerain; Ariane Vettorazzi
Journal:  Toxins (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-10       Impact factor: 5.075

2.  Comparative analyses of genotoxicity, oxidative stress and antioxidative defence system under exposure of methyl parathion and hexaconazole in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.).

Authors:  Pragyan Dubey; Amit Kumar Mishra; Ashok Kumar Singh
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2015-08-20       Impact factor: 4.223

3.  Development and Application of TK6-derived Cells Expressing Human Cytochrome P450s for Genotoxicity Testing.

Authors:  Xilin Li; Si Chen; Xiaoqing Guo; Qiangen Wu; Ji-Eun Seo; Lei Guo; Mugimane G Manjanatha; Tong Zhou; Kristine L Witt; Nan Mei
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 4.849

Review 4.  Deleterious effects of reactive metabolites.

Authors:  Sabry M Attia
Journal:  Oxid Med Cell Longev       Date:  2010 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 6.543

5.  Successful drug development despite adverse preclinical findings part 1: processes to address issues and most important findings.

Authors:  Robert A Ettlin; Junji Kuroda; Stephanie Plassmann; David E Prentice
Journal:  J Toxicol Pathol       Date:  2010-12-16       Impact factor: 1.628

6.  Metabolic Hydrolysis of Aromatic Amides in Selected Rat, Minipig, and Human In Vitro Systems.

Authors:  Peter R Bradshaw; Ian D Wilson; Rachel Upcott Gill; Philip J Butler; Clive Dilworth; Toby J Athersuch
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-02-05       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Following the adverse outcome pathway from micronucleus to cancer using H2B-eGFP transgenic healthy stem cells.

Authors:  Bastian Niklas Hölzel; Kurt Pfannkuche; Bernhard Allner; Hans Thomas Allner; Jürgen Hescheler; Daniel Derichsweiler; Henner Hollert; Andreas Schiwy; Julia Brendt; Michael Schaffeld; Alexander Froschauer; Petra Stahlschmidt-Allner
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2020-07-22       Impact factor: 5.153

8.  Comparative Analysis of Transcriptional Responses to Genotoxic and Non-Genotoxic Agents in the Blood Cell Model TK6 and the Liver Model HepaRG.

Authors:  Katrin Kreuzer; Heike Sprenger; Albert Braeuning
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2022-03-22       Impact factor: 5.923

9.  Flow cytometric micronucleus assay and TGx-DDI transcriptomic biomarker analysis of ten genotoxic and non-genotoxic chemicals in human HepaRG™ cells.

Authors:  Julie K Buick; Andrew Williams; Rémi Gagné; Carol D Swartz; Leslie Recio; Stephen S Ferguson; Carole L Yauk
Journal:  Genes Environ       Date:  2020-02-04
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.