Literature DB >> 23262374

Bacterial mutagenicity screening in the pharmaceutical industry.

P A Escobar1, R A Kemper2, J Tarca2, J Nicolette3, M Kenyon4, S Glowienke5, S G Sawant6, J Christensen7, T E Johnson7, C McKnight7, G Ward7, S M Galloway7, L Custer8, E Gocke9, M R O'Donovan10, K Braun11, R D Snyder12, B Mahadevan7.   

Abstract

Genetic toxicity testing is used as an early surrogate for carcinogenicity testing. Genetic toxicity testing is also required by regulatory agencies to be conducted prior to initiation of first in human clinical trials and subsequent marketing for most small molecule pharmaceutical compounds. To reduce the chances of advancing mutagenic pharmaceutical candidates through the drug discovery and development processes, companies have focused on developing testing strategies to maximize hazard identification while minimizing resource expenditure due to late stage attrition. With a large number of testing options, consensus has not been reached on the best mutagenicity platform to use or on the best time to use a specific test to aid in the selection of drug candidates for development. Most companies use a process in which compounds are initially screened for mutagenicity early in drug development using tests that require only a few milligrams of compound and then follow those studies up with a more robust mutagenicity test prior to selecting a compound for full development. This review summarizes the current applications of bacterial mutagenicity assays utilized by pharmaceutical companies in early and late discovery programs. The initial impetus for this review was derived from a workshop on bacterial mutagenicity screening in the pharmaceutical industry presented at the 40th Annual Environmental Mutagen Society Meeting held in St. Louis, MO in October, 2009. However, included in this review are succinct summaries of use and interpretation of genetic toxicity assays, several mutagenicity assays that were not presented at the meeting, and updates to testing strategies resulting in current state-of the art description of best practices. In addition, here we discuss the advantages and liabilities of many broadly used mutagenicity screening platforms and strategies used by pharmaceutical companies. The sensitivity and specificity of these early mutagenicity screening assays using proprietary compounds and their concordance (predictivity) with the regulatory bacterial mutation test are discussed.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23262374     DOI: 10.1016/j.mrrev.2012.12.002

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


  8 in total

1.  Mutagenic and genotoxic effects of Anilofos with micronucleus, chromosome aberrations, sister chromatid exchanges and Ames test.

Authors:  Dilek Akyil; Muhsin Konuk; Yasin Eren; Recep Liman; Esra Sağlam
Journal:  Cytotechnology       Date:  2017-06-12       Impact factor: 2.058

2.  Increasing the Value of Data Within a Large Pharmaceutical Company Through In Silico Models.

Authors:  Alessandro Brigo; Doha Naga; Wolfgang Muster
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2022

3.  Genotoxicity of 12 Mycotoxins by the SOS/umu Test: Comparison of Liver and Kidney S9 Fraction.

Authors:  Maria Alonso-Jauregui; Elena González-Peñas; Adela López de Cerain; Ariane Vettorazzi
Journal:  Toxins (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-10       Impact factor: 5.075

4.  The mutagenicity analysis of imidapril hydrochloride and its degradant, diketopiperazine derivative, nitrosation mixtures by in vitro Ames test with two strains of Salmonella typhimurium.

Authors:  Katarzyna Regulska; Marek Murias; Beata Stanisz; Miłosz Regulski
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2014-05-02

5.  Cytotoxic and mutagenic potential of juglone: a comparison of free and nano-encapsulated form.

Authors:  Semiha Erisen; Tülin Arasoğlu; Banu Mansuroglu; İsmail Kocacaliskan; Serap Derman
Journal:  Arh Hig Rada Toksikol       Date:  2020-03-01       Impact factor: 1.948

6.  A Promising Copper(II) Complex as Antifungal and Antibiofilm Drug against Yeast Infection.

Authors:  Fabiana Gomes da Silva Dantas; Adriana Araújo de Almeida-Apolonio; Renata Pires de Araújo; Lis Regiane Vizolli Favarin; Pamella Fukuda de Castilho; Fernanda de Oliveira Galvão; Terezinha Inez Estivalet Svidzinski; Gleison Antônio Casagrande; Kelly Mari Pires de Oliveira
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2018-07-26       Impact factor: 4.411

Review 7.  Evaluation of the Suitability of Mammalian In Vitro Assays to Assess the Genotoxic Potential of Food Contact Materials.

Authors:  Elisabeth Pinter; Bernhard Rainer; Thomas Czerny; Elisabeth Riegel; Benoît Schilter; Maricel Marin-Kuan; Manfred Tacker
Journal:  Foods       Date:  2020-02-22

8.  Direct Comparison of the Lowest Effect Concentrations of Mutagenic Reference Substances in Two Ames Test Formats.

Authors:  Bernhard Rainer; Elisabeth Pinter; Lukas Prielinger; Chiara Coppola; Maricel Marin-Kuan; Benoit Schilter; Silvia Apprich; Manfred Tacker
Journal:  Toxics       Date:  2021-06-29
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.