Literature DB >> 25953401

IWGT report on quantitative approaches to genotoxicity risk assessment II. Use of point-of-departure (PoD) metrics in defining acceptable exposure limits and assessing human risk.

James T MacGregor1, Roland Frötschl2, Paul A White3, Kenny S Crump4, David A Eastmond5, Shoji Fukushima6, Melanie Guérard7, Makoto Hayashi8, Lya G Soeteman-Hernández9, George E Johnson10, Toshio Kasamatsu11, Dan D Levy12, Takeshi Morita13, Lutz Müller7, Rita Schoeny14, Maik J Schuler15, Véronique Thybaud16.   

Abstract

This is the second of two reports from the International Workshops on Genotoxicity Testing (IWGT) Working Group on Quantitative Approaches to Genetic Toxicology Risk Assessment (the QWG). The first report summarized the discussions and recommendations of the QWG related to the need for quantitative dose-response analysis of genetic toxicology data, the existence and appropriate evaluation of threshold responses, and methods to analyze exposure-response relationships and derive points of departure (PoDs) from which acceptable exposure levels could be determined. This report summarizes the QWG discussions and recommendations regarding appropriate approaches to evaluate exposure-related risks of genotoxic damage, including extrapolation below identified PoDs and across test systems and species. Recommendations include the selection of appropriate genetic endpoints and target tissues, uncertainty factors and extrapolation methods to be considered, the importance and use of information on mode of action, toxicokinetics, metabolism, and exposure biomarkers when using quantitative exposure-response data to determine acceptable exposure levels in human populations or to assess the risk associated with known or anticipated exposures. The empirical relationship between genetic damage (mutation and chromosomal aberration) and cancer in animal models was also examined. It was concluded that there is a general correlation between cancer induction and mutagenic and/or clastogenic damage for agents thought to act via a genotoxic mechanism, but that the correlation is limited due to an inadequate number of cases in which mutation and cancer can be compared at a sufficient number of doses in the same target tissues of the same species and strain exposed under directly comparable routes and experimental protocols.
Copyright © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Benchmark dose; Breakpoint dose; Extrapolation; Genotoxic risk assessment; Low-dose risk; Point of departure

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25953401     DOI: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2014.10.008

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


  23 in total

1.  Concentration-response studies of the chromosome-damaging effects of topoisomerase II inhibitors determined in vitro using human TK6 cells.

Authors:  P Gollapudi; V S Bhat; D A Eastmond
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  2019-05-15       Impact factor: 2.433

2.  Rat Pig-a mutation assay responds to the genotoxic carcinogen ethyl carbamate but not the non-genotoxic carcinogen methyl carbamate.

Authors:  Jeffrey C Bemis; Carson Labash; Svetlana L Avlasevich; Kristine Carlson; Ariel Berg; Dorothea K Torous; Matthew Barragato; James T MacGregor; Stephen D Dertinger
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  2015-04-01       Impact factor: 3.000

3.  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

Review 4.  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 5.  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

6.  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

7.  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 8.  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

9.  Comprehensive interpretation of in vitro micronucleus test results for 292 chemicals: from hazard identification to risk assessment application.

Authors:  Byron Kuo; Marc A Beal; John W Wills; Paul A White; Francesco Marchetti; Andy Nong; Tara S Barton-Maclaren; Keith Houck; Carole L Yauk
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2022-04-21       Impact factor: 6.168

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.