Literature DB >> 26049158

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

Jeffrey C Bemis, John W Wills1, Steven M Bryce, Dorothea K Torous, Stephen D Dertinger, Wout Slob2.   

Abstract

The application of flow cytometry as a scoring platform for both in vivo and in vitro micronucleus (MN) studies has enabled the efficient generation of high quality datasets suitable for comprehensive assessment of dose-response. Using this information, it is possible to obtain precise estimates of the clastogenic potency of chemicals. We illustrate this by estimating the in vivo and the in vitro potencies of seven model clastogenic agents (melphalan, chlorambucil, thiotepa, 1,3-propane sultone, hydroxyurea, azathioprine and methyl methanesulfonate) by deriving BMDs using freely available BMD software (PROAST). After exposing male rats for 3 days with up to nine dose levels of each individual chemical, peripheral blood samples were collected on Day 4. These chemicals were also evaluated for in vitro MN induction by treating TK6 cells with up to 20 concentrations in quadruplicate. In vitro MN frequencies were determined via flow cytometry using a 96-well plate autosampler. The estimated in vitro and in vivo BMDs were found to correlate to each other. The correlation showed considerable scatter, as may be expected given the complexity of the whole animal model versus the simplicity of the cell culture system. Even so, the existence of the correlation suggests that information on the clastogenic potency of a compound can be derived from either whole animal studies or cell culture-based models of chromosomal damage. We also show that the choice of the benchmark response, i.e. the effect size associated with the BMD, is not essential in establishing the correlation between both systems. Our results support the concept that datasets derived from comprehensive genotoxicity studies can provide quantitative dose-response metrics. Such investigational studies, when supported by additional data, might then contribute directly to product safety investigations, regulatory decision-making and human risk assessment.
© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the UK Environmental Mutagen Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26049158      PMCID: PMC6159540          DOI: 10.1093/mutage/gev041

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mutagenesis        ISSN: 0267-8357            Impact factor:   3.000


  18 in total

1.  Dose-response modeling of continuous endpoints.

Authors:  Wout Slob
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 4.849

2.  When pigs fly: immunomagnetic separation facilitates rapid determination of Pig-a mutant frequency by flow cytometric analysis.

Authors:  Stephen D Dertinger; Steven M Bryce; Souk Phonethepswath; Svetlana L Avlasevich
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  2011-01-28       Impact factor: 2.433

Review 3.  Reassessing the two-year rodent carcinogenicity bioassay: a review of the applicability to human risk and current perspectives.

Authors:  Palma Ann Marone; William C Hall; A Wallace Hayes
Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol       Date:  2013-11-25       Impact factor: 3.271

Review 4.  Shape and steepness of toxicological dose-response relationships of continuous endpoints.

Authors:  Wout Slob; R Woodrow Setzer
Journal:  Crit Rev Toxicol       Date:  2013-11-19       Impact factor: 5.635

5.  Quantitative approaches for assessing dose-response relationships in genetic toxicology studies.

Authors:  B B Gollapudi; G E Johnson; L G Hernandez; L H Pottenger; K L Dearfield; A M Jeffrey; E Julien; J H Kim; D P Lovell; J T Macgregor; M M Moore; J van Benthem; P A White; E Zeiger; V Thybaud
Journal:  Environ Mol Mutagen       Date:  2012-09-18       Impact factor: 3.216

Review 6.  What do animal cancer tests tell us about human cancer risk?: Overview of analyses of the carcinogenic potency database.

Authors:  L S Gold; T H Slone; B N Ames
Journal:  Drug Metab Rev       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 4.518

7.  Pig-a gene mutation and micronucleated reticulocyte induction in rats exposed to tumorigenic doses of the leukemogenic agents chlorambucil, thiotepa, melphalan, and 1,3-propane sultone.

Authors:  Stephen D Dertinger; Souk Phonethepswath; Svetlana L Avlasevich; Dorothea K Torous; Jared Mereness; John Cottom; Jeffrey C Bemis; James T Macgregor
Journal:  Environ Mol Mutagen       Date:  2014-01-21       Impact factor: 3.216

8.  Three-color labeling method for flow cytometric measurement of cytogenetic damage in rodent and human blood.

Authors:  Stephen D Dertinger; Kevin Camphausen; James T Macgregor; Michelle E Bishop; Dorothea K Torous; Svetlana Avlasevich; Siân Cairns; Carol R Tometsko; Cynthia Menard; Thierry Muanza; Yuhchyau Chen; Richard K Miller; Karin Cederbrant; Kerstin Sandelin; Ingrid Pontén; George Bolcsfoldi
Journal:  Environ Mol Mutagen       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 3.216

9.  Flow cytometric 96-well microplate-based in vitro micronucleus assay with human TK6 cells: protocol optimization and transferability assessment.

Authors:  Steven M Bryce; Svetlana L Avlasevich; Jeffrey C Bemis; Matthew Tate; Richard M Walmsley; Frédéric Saad; Kris Van Dijck; Marlies De Boeck; Freddy Van Goethem; Magdalena Lukamowicz-Rajska; Azeddine Elhajouji; Stephen D Dertinger
Journal:  Environ Mol Mutagen       Date:  2013-02-27       Impact factor: 3.216

10.  Efficient monitoring of in vivo pig-a gene mutation and chromosomal damage: summary of 7 published studies and results from 11 new reference compounds.

Authors:  Stephen D Dertinger; Souk Phonethepswath; Svetlana L Avlasevich; Dorothea K Torous; Jared Mereness; Steven M Bryce; Jeffrey C Bemis; Sara Bell; Pamela Weller; James T Macgregor
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2012-08-24       Impact factor: 4.849

View more
  10 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

Review 2.  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

3.  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

4.  Comparative Genotoxicity of TEMPO and 3 of Its Derivatives in Mouse Lymphoma Cells.

Authors:  Xiaoqing Guo; Ji-Eun Seo; Steven M Bryce; Jenna A Tan; Qiangen Wu; Stacey L Dial; Martha M Moore; Nan Mei
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2018-05-01       Impact factor: 4.849

5.  Benchmark dose analyses of multiple genetic toxicity endpoints permit robust, cross-tissue comparisons of MutaMouse responses to orally delivered benzo[a]pyrene.

Authors:  Alexandra S Long; John W Wills; Dorothy Krolak; Matthew Guo; Stephen D Dertinger; Volker M Arlt; Paul A White
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2017-11-24       Impact factor: 5.153

6.  Comparing BMD-derived genotoxic potency estimations across variants of the transgenic rodent gene mutation assay.

Authors:  John W Wills; George E Johnson; Hannah L Battaion; Wout Slob; Paul A White
Journal:  Environ Mol Mutagen       Date:  2017-09-25       Impact factor: 3.216

7.  A Method for Comparing the Impact on Carcinogenicity of Tobacco Products: A Case Study on Heated Tobacco Versus Cigarettes.

Authors:  Wout Slob; Lya G Soeteman-Hernández; Wieneke Bil; Yvonne C M Staal; W Edryd Stephens; Reinskje Talhout
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2020-05-01       Impact factor: 4.000

8.  Challenges in Predicting the Change in the Cumulative Exposure of New Tobacco and Related Products Based on Emissions and Toxicity Dose-Response Data.

Authors:  Yvonne C M Staal; Wieneke Bil; Bas G H Bokkers; Lya G Soeteman-Hernández; W Edryd Stephens; Reinskje Talhout
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-08-24       Impact factor: 4.614

9.  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

10.  Correlation of In Vivo Versus In Vitro Benchmark Doses (BMDs) Derived From Micronucleus Test Data: A Proof of Concept Study.

Authors:  Lya G Soeteman-Hernández; Mick D Fellows; George E Johnson; Wout Slob
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2015-10-05       Impact factor: 4.849

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.