Literature DB >> 22595317

Reduction of misleading ("false") positive results in mammalian cell genotoxicity assays. II. Importance of accurate toxicity measurement.

Paul Fowler1, Robert Smith2, Katie Smith2, Jamie Young2, Laura Jeffrey2, David Kirkland3, Stefan Pfuhler4, Paul Carmichael5.   

Abstract

In a previous publication, Fowler et al. [4] demonstrated that the seemingly high rate of false or misleading positive results obtained in in vitro cytogenesis assays for genotoxicity - when compared with in vivo genotoxicity or rodent carcinogenicity data - was greater when rodent cell lines were used that were also reported to have mutant or non-functional p53. As part of a larger project for improvement of in vitro mammalian cell assays, we have investigated the impact of different toxicity measures, commonly used in in vitro cytogenetic assays, on the occurrence of misleading positive results. From a list of 19 chemicals that produce "false" positive results in in vitro mammalian cell assays [10], six substances that had given positive responses in CHO, CHL and TK6 cells [4], were evaluated for micronucleus induction in vitro, with different measures of toxicity for selection of the top concentration. The data show that estimating toxicity by relative cell count (RCC) or replication index (RI) consistently underestimates the toxicity observed by other measures (Relative Population Doubling, RPD, or Relative Increase in Cell Count, RICC). RCC and RI are more likely to lead to selection of concentrations for micronucleus scoring that are highly cytotoxic and thus could potentially lead to artefacts of toxicity being scored (elevated levels of apoptosis and necrosis), generating misleading positive results. These results suggest that a further reduction in the frequency of misleading positive results in in vitro cytogenetic assays can be achieved with this set of chemicals, by avoiding the use of toxicity measures that underestimate the level of toxicity induced.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22595317     DOI: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2012.04.013

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


  11 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.  Look back in anger - what clinical studies tell us about preclinical work.

Authors:  Thomas Hartung
Journal:  ALTEX       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 6.043

Review 3.  State-of-the-art of 3D cultures (organs-on-a-chip) in safety testing and pathophysiology.

Authors:  Natalie Alépée; Anthony Bahinski; Mardas Daneshian; Bart De Wever; Ellen Fritsche; Alan Goldberg; Jan Hansmann; Thomas Hartung; John Haycock; Helena Hogberg; Lisa Hoelting; Jens M Kelm; Suzanne Kadereit; Emily McVey; Robert Landsiedel; Marcel Leist; Marc Lübberstedt; Fozia Noor; Christian Pellevoisin; Dirk Petersohn; Uwe Pfannenbecker; Kerstin Reisinger; Tzutzuy Ramirez; Barbara Rothen-Rutishauser; Monika Schäfer-Korting; Katrin Zeilinger; Marie-Gabriele Zurich
Journal:  ALTEX       Date:  2014-07-14       Impact factor: 6.043

4.  Automation and validation of micronucleus detection in the 3D EpiDerm™ human reconstructed skin assay and correlation with 2D dose responses.

Authors:  K E Chapman; A D Thomas; J W Wills; S Pfuhler; S H Doak; G J S Jenkins
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  2014-03-27       Impact factor: 3.000

5.  Incorporating new technologies into toxicity testing and risk assessment: moving from 21st century vision to a data-driven framework.

Authors:  Russell S Thomas; Martin A Philbert; Scott S Auerbach; Barbara A Wetmore; Michael J Devito; Ila Cote; J Craig Rowlands; Maurice P Whelan; Sean M Hays; Melvin E Andersen; M E Bette Meek; Lawrence W Reiter; Jason C Lambert; Harvey J Clewell; Martin L Stephens; Q Jay Zhao; Scott C Wesselkamper; Lynn Flowers; Edward W Carney; Timothy P Pastoor; Dan D Petersen; Carole L Yauk; Andy Nong
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2013-08-19       Impact factor: 4.849

6.  Combining Different In Vitro Bioassays to Evaluate Genotoxicity of Water-Accommodated Fractions from Petroleum Products.

Authors:  Sarah Johann; Mira Goßen; Peter A Behnisch; Henner Hollert; Thomas-Benjamin Seiler
Journal:  Toxics       Date:  2020-06-26

7.  The development and prevalidation of an in vitro mutagenicity assay based on MutaMouse primary hepatocytes, Part II: Assay performance for the identification of mutagenic chemicals.

Authors:  Julie A Cox; Edwin P Zwart; Mirjam Luijten; Paul A White
Journal:  Environ Mol Mutagen       Date:  2019-02-25       Impact factor: 3.216

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

9.  Use of HuH6 and other human-derived hepatoma lines for the detection of genotoxins: a new hope for laboratory animals?

Authors:  Monika Waldherr; Miroslav Mišík; Franziska Ferk; Jana Tomc; Bojana Žegura; Metka Filipič; Wolfgang Mikulits; Sören Mai; Oskar Haas; Wolfgang W Huber; Elisabeth Haslinger; Siegfried Knasmüller
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 5.153

10.  Development of an in vitro PIG-A gene mutation assay in human cells.

Authors:  Benjamin J Rees; Matthew Tate; Anthony M Lynch; Catherine A Thornton; Gareth J Jenkins; Richard M Walmsley; George E Johnson
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 2.954

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.