Literature DB >> 20963811

Follow-up actions from positive results of in vitro genetic toxicity testing.

Kerry L Dearfield1, Véronique Thybaud, Michael C Cimino, Laura Custer, Andreas Czich, James S Harvey, Susan Hester, James H Kim, David Kirkland, Dan D Levy, Elisabeth Lorge, Martha M Moore, Gladys Ouédraogo-Arras, Maik Schuler, Willi Suter, Kevin Sweder, Kirk Tarlo, Jan van Benthem, Freddy van Goethem, Kristine L Witt.   

Abstract

Appropriate follow-up actions and decisions are needed when evaluating and interpreting clear positive results obtained in the in vitro assays used in the initial genotoxicity screening battery (i.e., the battery of tests generally required by regulatory authorities) to assist in overall risk-based decision making concerning the potential effects of human exposure to the agent under test. Over the past few years, the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI) Project Committee on the Relevance and Follow-up of Positive Results in In Vitro Genetic Toxicity (IVGT) Testing developed a decision process flow chart to be applied in case of clear positive results in vitro. It provides for a variety of different possibilities and allows flexibility in choosing follow-up action(s), depending on the results obtained in the initial battery of assays and available information. The intent of the Review Subgroup was not to provide a prescriptive testing strategy, but rather to reinforce the concept of weighing the totality of the evidence. The Review Subgroup of the IVGT committee highlighted the importance of properly analyzing the existing data, and considering potential confounding factors (e.g., possible interactions with the test systems, presence of impurities, irrelevant metabolism), and chemical modes of action when analyzing and interpreting positive results in the in vitro genotoxicity assays and determining appropriate follow-up testing. The Review Subgroup also examined the characteristics, strengths, and limitations of each of the existing in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity assays to determine their usefulness in any follow-up testing.
Copyright © 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20963811     DOI: 10.1002/em.20617

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


  8 in total

1.  Genetic toxicology in silico protocol.

Authors:  Catrin Hasselgren; Ernst Ahlberg; Yumi Akahori; Alexander Amberg; Lennart T Anger; Franck Atienzar; Scott Auerbach; Lisa Beilke; Phillip Bellion; Romualdo Benigni; Joel Bercu; Ewan D Booth; Dave Bower; Alessandro Brigo; Zoryana Cammerer; Mark T D Cronin; Ian Crooks; Kevin P Cross; Laura Custer; Krista Dobo; Tatyana Doktorova; David Faulkner; Kevin A Ford; Marie C Fortin; Markus Frericks; Samantha E Gad-McDonald; Nichola Gellatly; Helga Gerets; Véronique Gervais; Susanne Glowienke; Jacky Van Gompel; James S Harvey; Jedd Hillegass; Masamitsu Honma; Jui-Hua Hsieh; Chia-Wen Hsu; Tara S Barton-Maclaren; Candice Johnson; Robert Jolly; David Jones; Ray Kemper; Michelle O Kenyon; Naomi L Kruhlak; Sunil A Kulkarni; Klaus Kümmerer; Penny Leavitt; Scott Masten; Scott Miller; Chandrika Moudgal; Wolfgang Muster; Alexandre Paulino; Elena Lo Piparo; Mark Powley; Donald P Quigley; M Vijayaray Reddy; Andrea-Nicole Richarz; Benoit Schilter; Ronald D Snyder; Lidiya Stavitskaya; Reinhard Stidl; David T Szabo; Andrew Teasdale; Raymond R Tice; Alejandra Trejo-Martin; Anna Vuorinen; Brian A Wall; Pete Watts; Angela T White; Joerg Wichard; Kristine L Witt; Adam Woolley; David Woolley; Craig Zwickl; Glenn J Myatt
Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol       Date:  2019-06-11       Impact factor: 3.271

2. 

Authors: 
Journal:  Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz       Date:  2022-09       Impact factor: 1.595

3.  Concept for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Substances in Population-Based Human Biomonitoring.

Authors:  Klaus-Michael Wollin; Petra Apel; Yvonni Chovolou; Ulrike Pabel; Thomas Schettgen; Marike Kolossa-Gehring; Claudia Röhl; On Behalf Of The Human Biomonitoring Commission Of The German Environment Agency
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-06-13       Impact factor: 4.614

Review 4.  Comparison of methods used for evaluation of mutagenicity/genotoxicity of model chemicals - parabens.

Authors:  J Chrz; B Hošíková; L Svobodová; D Očadlíková; H Kolářová; M Dvořáková; K Kejlová; L Malina; G Jírová; A Vlková; M Mannerström
Journal:  Physiol Res       Date:  2020-12-31       Impact factor: 1.881

Review 5.  Chromium in drinking water: sources, metabolism, and cancer risks.

Authors:  Anatoly Zhitkovich
Journal:  Chem Res Toxicol       Date:  2011-07-28       Impact factor: 3.739

6.  Development and validation of a high-throughput transcriptomic biomarker to address 21st century genetic toxicology needs.

Authors:  Heng-Hong Li; Renxiang Chen; Daniel R Hyduke; Andrew Williams; Roland Frötschl; Heidrun Ellinger-Ziegelbauer; Raegan O'Lone; Carole L Yauk; Jiri Aubrecht; Albert J Fornace
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-12-04       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Necessity for retrospective evaluation of past-positive chemicals in in vitro chromosomal aberration tests using recommended cytotoxicity indices.

Authors:  Hiroshi Honda; Yurika Fujita; Toshio Kasamatsu; Anne Fuchs; Rolf Fautz; Osamu Morita
Journal:  Genes Environ       Date:  2018-01-10

8.  Correlation between the results of in vitro and in vivo chromosomal damage tests in consideration of exposure levels of test chemicals.

Authors:  Eiji Yamamura; Chinami Aruga; Shigeharu Muto; Nobuyuki Baba; Yoshifumi Uno
Journal:  Genes Environ       Date:  2018-03-06
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.