Literature DB >> 1719404

Considerations in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's testing approach for mutagenicity.

K L Dearfield1, A E Auletta, M C Cimino, M M Moore.   

Abstract

OPP: This paper provides the rationale and support for the decisions the OPP will make in requiring and reviewing mutagenicity information. The regulatory requirement for mutagenicity testing to support a pesticide registration is found in the 40 CFR Part 158. The guidance as to the specific mutagenicity testing to be performed is found in the OPP's Pesticide Assessment Guidelines, Subdivision F, Hazard Evaluation: Human and Domestic Animals (referred to as the Subdivision F guideline). A revised Subdivision F guideline has been presented that becomes the current guidance for submitters of mutagenicity data to the OPP. The decision to revise the guideline was the result of close examination of the version published in 1982 and the desire to update the guidance based on developments since then and current state-of-the-science. After undergoing Agency and public scrutiny, the revised guideline is to be published in 1991. The revised guideline consists of an initial battery of tests (the Salmonella assay, an in vitro mammalian gene mutation assay and an in vivo cytogenetics assay which may be either a bone marrow assay for chromosomal aberrations or for micronuclei formation) that should provide an adequate initial assessment of the potential mutagenicity of a chemical. Follow-up testing to clarify results from the initial testing may be necessary. After this information as well as all other relevant information is obtained, a weight-of-evidence decision will be made about the possible mutagenicity concern a chemical may present. Testing to pursue qualitative and/or quantitative evidence for assessing heritable risk in relation to human beings will then be considered if a mutagenicity concern exists. This testing may range from tests for evidence of gonadal exposure to dominant lethal testing to quantitative tests such as the specific locus and heritable translocation assays. The mutagenicity assessment will be performed in accordance with the Agency's Mutagenicity Risk Assessment Guidelines. The mutagenicity data would also be used in the weight-of-evidence consideration for the potential carcinogenicity of a chemical in accordance with the Agency's Carcinogen Risk Assessment Guidelines. In instances where there are triggers for carcinogenicity testing, mutagenicity data may be used as one of the triggers after a consideration of available information. It is felt that the revised Subdivision F guideline will provide appropriate, and more specific, guidance concerning the OPP approach to mutagenicity testing for the registration of a pesticide. It also provides a clearer understanding of how the OPP will proceed with its evaluation and decision making concerning the potential heritable effects of a test chemical.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1719404     DOI: 10.1016/0165-1110(91)90012-k

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


  10 in total

1.  Resolution of anaphase bridges in cancer cells.

Authors:  Diane R Hoffelder; Li Luo; Nancy A Burke; Simon C Watkins; Susanne M Gollin; William S Saunders
Journal:  Chromosoma       Date:  2004-05-20       Impact factor: 4.316

2.  Smooth muscle cells isolated from thoracic aortic aneurysms exhibit increased genomic damage, but similar tendency for apoptosis.

Authors:  Ceyda Acilan; Muge Serhatli; Omer Kacar; Zelal Adiguzel; Altug Tuncer; Mutlu Hayran; Kemal Baysal
Journal:  DNA Cell Biol       Date:  2012-08-07       Impact factor: 3.311

3.  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

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.  Evaluation of Existing QSAR Models and Structural Alerts and Development of New Ensemble Models for Genotoxicity Using a Newly Compiled Experimental Dataset.

Authors:  Prachi Pradeep; Richard Judson; David M DeMarini; Nagalakshmi Keshava; Todd M Martin; Jeffry Dean; Catherine F Gibbons; Anita Simha; Sarah H Warren; Maureen R Gwinn; Grace Patlewicz
Journal:  Comput Toxicol       Date:  2021-05-01

Review 6.  Assessing susceptibility from early-life exposure to carcinogens.

Authors:  Hugh A Barton; V James Cogliano; Lynn Flowers; Larry Valcovic; R Woodrow Setzer; Tracey J Woodruff
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 9.031

7.  Hazard identification: efficiency of short-term tests in identifying germ cell mutagens and putative nongenotoxic carcinogens.

Authors:  M D Waters; H F Stack; M A Jackson; B A Bridges
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 9.031

8.  Microarray analysis distinguishes differential gene expression patterns from large and small colony Thymidine kinase mutants of L5178Y mouse lymphoma cells.

Authors:  Tao Han; Jianyong Wang; Weida Tong; Martha M Moore; James C Fuscoe; Tao Chen
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2006-09-06       Impact factor: 3.169

Review 9.  Mutagenicity of trichloroethylene and its metabolites: implications for the risk assessment of trichloroethylene.

Authors:  M M Moore; K Harrington-Brock
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 9.031

10.  Utility of a next generation framework for assessment of genomic damage: A case study using the industrial chemical benzene.

Authors:  Mirjam Luijten; Nicholas S Ball; Kerry L Dearfield; B Bhaskar Gollapudi; George E Johnson; Federica Madia; Lauren Peel; Stefan Pfuhler; Raja S Settivari; Wouter Ter Burg; Paul A White; Jan van Benthem
Journal:  Environ Mol Mutagen       Date:  2019-11-27       Impact factor: 3.216

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.