Literature DB >> 25953400

IWGT report on quantitative approaches to genotoxicity risk assessment I. Methods and metrics for defining exposure-response relationships and points of departure (PoDs).

James T MacGregor1, Roland Frötschl2, Paul A White3, Kenny S Crump4, David A Eastmond5, Shoji Fukushima6, Melanie Guérard7, Makoto Hayashi8, Lya G Soeteman-Hernández9, Toshio Kasamatsu10, Dan D Levy11, Takeshi Morita12, Lutz Müller13, Rita Schoeny14, Maik J Schuler15, Véronique Thybaud16, George E Johnson17.   

Abstract

This report summarizes the discussion, conclusions, and points of consensus of the IWGT Working Group on Quantitative Approaches to Genetic Toxicology Risk Assessment (QWG) based on a meeting in Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil October 31-November 2, 2013. Topics addressed included (1) the need for quantitative dose-response analysis, (2) methods to analyze exposure-response relationships & derive point of departure (PoD) metrics, (3) points of departure (PoD) and mechanistic threshold considerations, (4) approaches to define exposure-related risks, (5) empirical relationships between genetic damage (mutation) and cancer, and (6) extrapolations across test systems and species. This report discusses the first three of these topics and a companion report discusses the latter three. The working group critically examined methods for determining point of departure metrics (PoDs) that could be used to estimate low-dose risk of genetic damage and from which extrapolation to acceptable exposure levels could be made using appropriate mode of action information and uncertainty factors. These included benchmark doses (BMDs) derived from fitting families of exponential models, the No Observed Genotoxic Effect Level (NOGEL), and "threshold" or breakpoint dose (BPD) levels derived from bilinear models when mechanistic data supported this approach. The QWG recognizes that scientific evidence suggests that thresholds below which genotoxic effects do not occur likely exist for both DNA-reactive and DNA-nonreactive substances, but notes that small increments of the spontaneous level cannot be unequivocally excluded either by experimental measurement or by mathematical modeling. Therefore, rather than debating the theoretical possibility of such low-dose effects, emphasis should be placed on determination of PoDs from which acceptable exposure levels can be determined by extrapolation using available mechanistic information and appropriate uncertainty factors. This approach places the focus on minimization of the genotoxic risk, which protects against the risk of the development of diseases resulting from the genetic damage. Based on analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of each method, the QWG concluded that the order of preference of PoD metrics is the statistical lower bound on the BMD > the NOGEL > a statistical lower bound on the BPD. A companion report discusses the use of these metrics in genotoxicity risk assessment, including scaling and uncertainty factors to be considered when extrapolating below the PoD and/or across test systems and to the human.
Copyright © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Benchmark dose; Genotoxicity; Points of departure; Quantitative risk assessment

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25953400     DOI: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2014.09.011

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


  19 in total

1.  Comparison of in vitro and in vivo clastogenic potency based on benchmark dose analysis of flow cytometric micronucleus data.

Authors:  Jeffrey C Bemis; John W Wills; Steven M Bryce; Dorothea K Torous; Stephen D Dertinger; Wout Slob
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  2015-06-06       Impact factor: 3.000

2.  Pig-a gene mutation assay study design: critical assessment of 3- versus 28-day repeat-dose treatment schedules.

Authors:  Azeddine Elhajouji; Tamsanqa Tafara Hove; Oliver O'Connell; Hansjoerg Martus; Stephen D Dertinger
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  2020-09-12       Impact factor: 3.000

Review 3.  Setting Occupational Exposure Limits for Genotoxic Substances in the Pharmaceutical Industry.

Authors:  Ester Lovsin Barle; Gian Christian Winkler; Susanne Glowienke; Azeddine Elhajouji; Jana Nunic; Hans-Joerg Martus
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 4.849

Review 4.  Estimating the carcinogenic potency of chemicals from the in vivo micronucleus test.

Authors:  Lya G Soeteman-Hernández; George E Johnson; Wout Slob
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  2015-07-10       Impact factor: 3.000

5.  Predictions of genotoxic potential, mode of action, molecular targets, and potency via a tiered multiflow® assay data analysis strategy.

Authors:  Stephen D Dertinger; Andrew R Kraynak; Ryan P Wheeldon; Derek T Bernacki; Steven M Bryce; Nikki Hall; Jeffrey C Bemis; Sheila M Galloway; Patricia A Escobar; George E Johnson
Journal:  Environ Mol Mutagen       Date:  2019-02-27       Impact factor: 3.216

6.  Quantitative differentiation of whole smoke solution-induced mutagenicity in the mouse lymphoma assay.

Authors:  Xiaoqing Guo; Robert H Heflich; Stacey L Dial; Mamata De; Patricia A Richter; Nan Mei
Journal:  Environ Mol Mutagen       Date:  2017-11-09       Impact factor: 3.216

Review 7.  Contributions of DNA repair and damage response pathways to the non-linear genotoxic responses of alkylating agents.

Authors:  Joanna Klapacz; Lynn H Pottenger; Bevin P Engelward; Christopher D Heinen; George E Johnson; Rebecca A Clewell; Paul L Carmichael; Yeyejide Adeleye; Melvin E Andersen
Journal:  Mutat Res Rev Mutat Res       Date:  2015-12-02       Impact factor: 5.657

8.  Comparative potency analysis of whole smoke solutions in the bacterial reverse mutation test.

Authors:  Fanxue Meng; Nan Mei; Jian Yan; Xiaoqing Guo; Patricia A Richter; Tao Chen; Mamata De
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  2021-08-27       Impact factor: 3.000

9.  Kinetic Modeling Reveals the Roles of Reactive Oxygen Species Scavenging and DNA Repair Processes in Shaping the Dose-Response Curve of KBrO₃-Induced DNA Damage.

Authors:  Maria A Spassova; David J Miller; Alexander S Nikolov
Journal:  Oxid Med Cell Longev       Date:  2015-09-10       Impact factor: 6.543

10.  Genotoxicity of flubendazole and its metabolites in vitro and the impact of a new formulation on in vivo aneugenicity.

Authors:  David J Tweats; George E Johnson; Ivan Scandale; James Whitwell; Dean B Evans
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  2015-10-06       Impact factor: 3.000

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.