Literature DB >> 25435357

Can in vitro mammalian cell genotoxicity test results be used to complement positive results in the Ames test and help predict carcinogenic or in vivo genotoxic activity? II. Construction and analysis of a consolidated database.

David Kirkland1, Errol Zeiger2, Federica Madia3, Raffaella Corvi4.   

Abstract

A Workshop sponsored by EURL ECVAM was held in Ispra, Italy in 2013 to consider whether the in vitro mammalian cell genotoxicity test results could complement and mitigate the implications of a positive Ames test response for the prediction of in vivo genotoxicity and carcinogenicity, and if patterns of results could be identified. Databases of Ames-positive chemicals that were tested for in vivo genotoxicity and/or carcinogenicity were collected from different sources and analysed individually (Kirkland et al., in this issue). Because there were overlaps and inconsistent test results among chemicals in the different databases, a combined database which eliminated the overlaps and evaluated the inconsistencies was considered preferable for addressing the above question. A database of >700 Ames-positive chemicals also tested in vivo was compiled, and the results in in vitro mammalian cell tests were analysed. Because the database was limited to Ames-positive chemicals, the majority (>85%) of carcinogens (103/119) and in vivo genotoxins (83/88) were positive when tested in both in vitro gene mutation and aneugenicity/clastogenicity tests. However, about half (>45%) of chemicals that were not carcinogenic (19/28) or genotoxic in vivo (33/73) also gave the same patterns of positive mammalian cell results. Although the different frequencies were statistically significant, positive results in 2 in vitro mammalian cell tests did not, per se, add to the predictivity of the positive Ames test. By contrast, negative results for both in vitro mammalian cell endpoints were rare for Ames-positive carcinogens (3/119) and in vivo genotoxins (2/88) but, were significantly more frequent for Ames-positive chemicals that are not carcinogenic (4/28) or genotoxic in vivo (14/73). Thus, in the case of an Ames-positive chemical, negative results in 2 in vitro mammalian cell tests covering both mutation and clastogenicity/aneugenicity endpoints should be considered as indicative of absence of in vivo genotoxic or carcinogenic potential.
Copyright © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Carcinogenicity; Database; Genotoxicity in vitro; Genotoxicity in vivo; Mammalian cell tests; Positive Ames tests

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25435357     DOI: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2014.10.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen        ISSN: 1383-5718            Impact factor:   2.873


  9 in total

1.  A comparison of transgenic rodent mutation and in vivo comet assay responses for 91 chemicals.

Authors:  David Kirkland; Dan D Levy; Matthew J LeBaron; Marilyn J Aardema; Carol Beevers; Javed Bhalli; George R Douglas; Patricia A Escobar; Christopher S Farabaugh; Melanie Guerard; George E Johnson; Rohan Kulkarni; Frank Le Curieux; Alexandra S Long; Jasmin Lott; David P Lovell; Mirjam Luijten; Francesco Marchetti; John J Nicolette; Stefan Pfuhler; Daniel J Roberts; Leon F Stankowski; Veronique Thybaud; Sandy K Weiner; Andrew Williams; Kristine L Witt; Robert Young
Journal:  Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen       Date:  2019-01-18       Impact factor: 2.873

2.  In silico prediction of chemical genotoxicity using machine learning methods and structural alerts.

Authors:  Defang Fan; Hongbin Yang; Fuxing Li; Lixia Sun; Peiwen Di; Weihua Li; Yun Tang; Guixia Liu
Journal:  Toxicol Res (Camb)       Date:  2017-12-15       Impact factor: 3.524

3.  The Extended ToxTracker Assay Discriminates Between Induction of DNA Damage, Oxidative Stress, and Protein Misfolding.

Authors:  Giel Hendriks; Remco S Derr; Branislav Misovic; Bruno Morolli; Fabienne M G R Calléja; Harry Vrieling
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2015-12-29       Impact factor: 4.849

4.  In Silico Methods for Carcinogenicity Assessment.

Authors:  Azadi Golbamaki; Emilio Benfenati; Alessandra Roncaglioni
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2022

Review 5.  Innovative organotypic in vitro models for safety assessment: aligning with regulatory requirements and understanding models of the heart, skin, and liver as paradigms.

Authors:  Chris S Pridgeon; Constanze Schlott; Min Wei Wong; Minne B Heringa; Tobias Heckel; Joe Leedale; Laurence Launay; Vitalina Gryshkova; Stefan Przyborski; Rachel N Bearon; Emma L Wilkinson; Tahera Ansari; John Greenman; Delilah F G Hendriks; Sue Gibbs; James Sidaway; Rowena L Sison-Young; Paul Walker; Mike J Cross; B Kevin Park; Chris E P Goldring
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2018-01-23       Impact factor: 5.153

6.  Biotoxicological Analyses of Trimeroside from Baccharis trimera Using a Battery of In Vitro Test Systems.

Authors:  Marcela Silva Dos Santos; Juliana da Silva; Ana Paula Simões Menezes; Francisco Maikon Corrêa de Barros; Maria Luisa Brodt Lemes; Raíssa R Rossatto; Cleverson Feistel; Indara Dedigo de Almeida; Ivana Grivicich; Lismare Prado; Jaqueline Nascimento Picada; Alexandre de Barros Falcão Ferraz
Journal:  Oxid Med Cell Longev       Date:  2018-08-19       Impact factor: 6.543

Review 7.  EURL ECVAM Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity Database of Substances Eliciting Negative Results in the Ames Test: Construction of the Database.

Authors:  Federica Madia; David Kirkland; Takeshi Morita; Paul White; David Asturiol; Raffaella Corvi
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  2020-05-21       Impact factor: 2.433

8.  Weight of evidence approach using a TK gene mutation assay with human TK6 cells for follow-up of positive results in Ames tests: a collaborative study by MMS/JEMS.

Authors:  Manabu Yasui; Takayuki Fukuda; Akiko Ukai; Jiro Maniwa; Tadashi Imamura; Tsuneo Hashizume; Haruna Yamamoto; Kaori Shibuya; Kazunori Narumi; Yohei Fujiishi; Emiko Okada; Saori Fujishima; Mika Yamamoto; Naoko Otani; Maki Nakamura; Ryoichi Nishimura; Maya Ueda; Masayuki Mishima; Kaori Matsuzaki; Akira Takeiri; Kenji Tanaka; Yuki Okada; Munehiro Nakagawa; Shuichi Hamada; Akihiko Kajikawa; Hiroshi Honda; Jun Adachi; Kentaro Misaki; Kumiko Ogawa; Masamitsu Honma
Journal:  Genes Environ       Date:  2021-03-06

9.  ChemBioSim: Enhancing Conformal Prediction of In Vivo Toxicity by Use of Predicted Bioactivities.

Authors:  Marina Garcia de Lomana; Andrea Morger; Ulf Norinder; Roland Buesen; Robert Landsiedel; Andrea Volkamer; Johannes Kirchmair; Miriam Mathea
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2021-06-21       Impact factor: 4.956

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.