Literature DB >> 20925448

Rationale of genotoxicity testing of nanomaterials: regulatory requirements and appropriateness of available OECD test guidelines.

David B Warheit1, E Maria Donner.   

Abstract

The development of an environmental health and safety risk management system for nanoscale particle-types requires a base set of hazard data. Accurate determination of health and environmental risks of nanomaterials is a function of the integration of hazard and exposure datasets. Recently, a nanoparticle risk assessment strategy was promulgated and the components are described in a document entitled “Nanorisk framework” (www.nanoriskframework.com). A major component of the hazard evaluation includes a proposed minimum base set of toxicity studies. Included in the suggested studies were substantial particle characterization, a variety of acute hazard and environmental tests, concomitant with screening-type genotoxicity studies. The implementation of well-accepted genotoxicity assays for testing nanomaterials remains a controversial issue. This is because many of these genotoxicity tests were designed for screening general macroparticle chemicals and might not be suitable for the screening of nanomaterials (even of the same compositional material). Furthermore, no nanoparticle-type positive controls have been established or universally accepted for these tests. Although it is the comparative results of the test material vs. the negative or vehicle control that forms the basis for interpreting the results and potency of test materials in genetic toxicology assays, the lack of a nanoparticle-type positive control questions the suitability of the tests to identify nanomaterials with genotoxic properties. It is also not possible to establish historical positive control ranges that would confirm the sensitivity of the tests. Although several genetic toxicology tests have been validated for chemicals according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) test guidelines, the relevance of these assays for nanoparticulate materials remains to be determined. In an attempt to remedy this issue, the OECD has established current projects designed to evaluate the relevance and reproducibility of safety hazard tests for representative nanomaterials, including genotoxicity assays (i.e., Steering Group 3 – Safety Testing of Representative Nanomaterials). In this article, we discuss our past approaches and experience in conducting genotoxicity assays (1) for a newly developed ultrafine TiO₂ particle-type; and (2) in a recent inhalation study, evaluating micronucleus formation in rat erythrocytes following exposures to engineered amorphous nanosilica particles. It seems clear that the development of standardized approaches will be necessary in order to determine whether exposures to specific nanoparticle-types are associated with genotoxic events. The appropriateness of available genotoxicity test systems for nanomaterials requires confirmation and standardization. Accordingly, it seems reasonable to conclude that any specific regulatory testing requirements for nanoparticles would be premature at this time.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20925448     DOI: 10.3109/17435390.2010.485704

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nanotoxicology        ISSN: 1743-5390            Impact factor:   5.913


  16 in total

1.  Transcriptional responses of human aortic endothelial cells to nanoconstructs used in biomedical applications.

Authors:  Philip J Moos; Matthew Honeggar; Alexander Malugin; Heather Herd; Giridhar Thiagarajan; Hamidreza Ghandehari
Journal:  Mol Pharm       Date:  2013-07-10       Impact factor: 4.939

Review 2.  Phase-shift, stimuli-responsive drug carriers for targeted delivery.

Authors:  Brian E O'Neill; Natalya Rapoport
Journal:  Ther Deliv       Date:  2011-09

3.  Responses of human cells to ZnO nanoparticles: a gene transcription study.

Authors:  Philip J Moos; Kyle Olszewski; Matthew Honeggar; Pamela Cassidy; Sancy Leachman; David Woessner; N Shane Cutler; John M Veranth
Journal:  Metallomics       Date:  2011-07-19       Impact factor: 4.526

4.  Silver nanoparticles: correlating nanoparticle size and cellular uptake with genotoxicity.

Authors:  Kimberly S Butler; David J Peeler; Brendan J Casey; Benita J Dair; Rosalie K Elespuru
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  2015-05-11       Impact factor: 3.000

5.  Titanium dioxide nanoparticles: an in vitro study of DNA binding, chromosome aberration assay, and comet assay.

Authors:  Suhani Patel; Palak Patel; Sonal R Bakshi
Journal:  Cytotechnology       Date:  2017-01-03       Impact factor: 2.058

Review 6.  Emerging metrology for high-throughput nanomaterial genotoxicology.

Authors:  Bryant C Nelson; Christa W Wright; Yuko Ibuki; Maria Moreno-Villanueva; Hanna L Karlsson; Giel Hendriks; Christopher M Sims; Neenu Singh; Shareen H Doak
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  2016-08-26       Impact factor: 3.000

7.  Comet assay: a method to evaluate genotoxicity of nano-drug delivery system.

Authors:  Somayeh Vandghanooni; Morteza Eskandani
Journal:  Bioimpacts       Date:  2011-08-06

Review 8.  Bioengineering a non-genotoxic vector for genetic modification of mesenchymal stem cells.

Authors:  Xuguang Chen; Alireza Nomani; Niket Patel; Faranak S Nouri; Arash Hatefi
Journal:  Biomaterials       Date:  2017-10-20       Impact factor: 12.479

9.  Genotoxicity of different nanocarriers: possible modifications for the delivery of nucleic acids.

Authors:  Vatsal Shah; Oleh Taratula; Olga B Garbuzenko; Mahesh L Patil; Ronak Savla; Min Zhang; Tamara Minko
Journal:  Curr Drug Discov Technol       Date:  2013-03

10.  New perspectives for in vitro risk assessment of multiwalled carbon nanotubes: application of coculture and bioinformatics.

Authors:  Brandi N Snyder-Talkington; Yong Qian; Vincent Castranova; Nancy L Guo
Journal:  J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 6.393

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.