Literature DB >> 19467345

Non-linear dose-response of DNA-reactive genotoxins: recommendations for data analysis.

George E Johnson1, Shareen H Doak, Sioned M Griffiths, Emma L Quick, David O F Skibinski, Zoulikha M Zaïr, Gareth J Jenkins.   

Abstract

Until recently, there has only been a limited amount of data available on the kinetics of mutation induction in the low dose region of exposure. In our publication Doak et al. [S.H. Doak, G.J. Jenkins, G.E. Johnson, E. Quick, E.M. Parry, J.M. Parry, Mechanistic influences for mutation induction curves after exposure to DNA-reactive carcinogens, Cancer Res. 67 (2007) 3904-3911] we showed that the two alkylating agents methyl-methanesulfonate (MMS) and ethyl-methanesulfonate (EMS) possess non-linear dose-response curves with no observed effect levels (NOEL) for mutation or chromosomal damage in vitro. These experiments were carried out in the AHH-1 human lymphoblastoid cell line, using the hypoxanthine phosphoribosyl transferase (HPRT) assay and the cytokinesis-block micronucleus (CBMN) assay, respectively. We have now carried out more advanced statistical analyses to define threshold values, which is critical as it has a dramatic impact on hazard and risk assessment. To do this, we re-analysed the data to see if the linear model or a more complex model (hockey stick or quadratic) gave a significant better fit of the data. For both EMS and MMS cytokinesis-block micronucleus data sets, the hockey stick model gave the most significant fit. The same was true for EMS, MMS and surprisingly ethylnitrosourea (ENU) in the HPRT assay in human AHH-1 cells. However, methylnitrosourea (MNU) was linear in both assays. These further analyses have shown that EMS and MMS have clear thresholds for both gene mutation and chromosome damage, as does ENU for gene mutation in AHH-1 cells. MNU was linear for gene and chromosome mutation and so was ENU for chromosome mutations at the concentrations tested. These findings correlate closely with those in vivo findings of Gocke et al. [E. Gocke, L. Müller, In vivo studies in the mouse to define a threshold for the genotoxicity of EMS and ENU, Mutat. Res. (this issue)] and together these data show a true threshold for EMS both in vitro and in vivo. In this report, we will discuss the approaches that were taken to investigate potential threshold dose-response curves for DNA-reactive genotoxic compounds, with recommendations for further studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19467345     DOI: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2009.05.009

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


  11 in total

1.  Defining EMS and ENU dose-response relationships using the Pig-a mutation assay in rats.

Authors:  Krista L Dobo; Ronald D Fiedler; William C Gunther; Catherine J Thiffeault; Zoryana Cammerer; Stephanie L Coffing; Thomas Shutsky; Maik Schuler
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  2011-06-24       Impact factor: 2.433

2.  Miniaturized flow cytometric in vitro micronucleus assay represents an efficient tool for comprehensively characterizing genotoxicity dose-response relationships.

Authors:  Steven M Bryce; Svetlana L Avlasevich; Jeffrey C Bemis; Souk Phonethepswath; Stephen D Dertinger
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  2010-09-06       Impact factor: 2.433

Review 3.  Contributions of DNA repair and damage response pathways to the non-linear genotoxic responses of alkylating agents.

Authors:  Joanna Klapacz; Lynn H Pottenger; Bevin P Engelward; Christopher D Heinen; George E Johnson; Rebecca A Clewell; Paul L Carmichael; Yeyejide Adeleye; Melvin E Andersen
Journal:  Mutat Res Rev Mutat Res       Date:  2015-12-02       Impact factor: 5.657

4.  The vanishing zero revisited: thresholds in the age of genomics.

Authors:  Helmut Zarbl; Michael A Gallo; James Glick; Ka Yee Yeung; Paul Vouros
Journal:  Chem Biol Interact       Date:  2010-01-28       Impact factor: 5.192

5.  Evidence for a role of oxidative stress in the carcinogenicity of ochratoxin a.

Authors:  M Marin-Kuan; V Ehrlich; T Delatour; C Cavin; B Schilter
Journal:  J Toxicol       Date:  2011-06-22

6.  Toxicology: a discipline in need of academic anchoring--the point of view of the German Society of Toxicology.

Authors:  U Gundert-Remy; H Barth; A Bürkle; G H Degen; R Landsiedel
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2015-08-28       Impact factor: 5.153

7.  Influence of DNA repair on nonlinear dose-responses for mutation.

Authors:  Adam D Thomas; Gareth J S Jenkins; Bernd Kaina; Owen G Bodger; Karl-Heinz Tomaszowski; Paul D Lewis; Shareen H Doak; George E Johnson
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2013-01-03       Impact factor: 4.849

8.  A mode-of-action approach for the identification of genotoxic carcinogens.

Authors:  Lya G Hernández; Jan van Benthem; George E Johnson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-05-13       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Profiling dose-dependent activation of p53-mediated signaling pathways by chemicals with distinct mechanisms of DNA damage.

Authors:  Rebecca A Clewell; Bin Sun; Yeyejide Adeleye; Paul Carmichael; Alina Efremenko; Patrick D McMullen; Salil Pendse; O J Trask; Andy White; Melvin E Andersen
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2014-07-30       Impact factor: 4.849

10.  Correlation of In Vivo Versus In Vitro Benchmark Doses (BMDs) Derived From Micronucleus Test Data: A Proof of Concept Study.

Authors:  Lya G Soeteman-Hernández; Mick D Fellows; George E Johnson; Wout Slob
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2015-10-05       Impact factor: 4.849

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.