Literature DB >> 26163673

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

Lya G Soeteman-Hernández, George E Johnson1, Wout Slob2.   

Abstract

In this study, we investigated the applicability of using in vivo mouse micronucleus (MN) data to derive cancer potency information. We also present a new statistical methodology for correlating estimated potencies between in vivo MN tests and cancer studies, which could similarly be used for other systems (e.g. in vitro vs. in vivo genotoxicity tests). The dose-response modelling program PROAST was used to calculate benchmark doses (BMDs) for estimating the genotoxic and carcinogenic potency for 48 compounds in mice; most of the data were retrieved from the National Toxicology Program (NTP) database, while some additional data were retrieved from the Carcinogenic Potency Database and published studies. BMD05s (doses with 5% increase in MN frequency) were derived from MN data, and BMD10s (doses with 10% extra cancer risk) were derived from carcinogenicity data, along with their respective lower (BMDL) and upper (BMDU) confidence bounds. A clear correlation between the in vivo MN BMD05s and the cancer BMD10s was observed when the lowest BMD05 from the in vivo MN was plotted against the lowest BMD10 from the carcinogenicity data for each individual compound. By making a further selection of BMDs related to more or less equally severe cancer lesions, the correlation was considerably improved. Getting a general scientific consensus on how we can quantitatively compare different tumour lesion types and investigating the impact of MN study duration are needed to refine this correlation analysis. Nevertheless, our results suggest that a BMD derived from genotoxicity data might provide a prediction of the tumour potency (BMD10) with an uncertainty range spanning roughly a factor of 100.
© 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: 26163673      PMCID: PMC5909889          DOI: 10.1093/mutage/gev043

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


  23 in total

1.  Dose-response modeling of continuous endpoints.

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

Review 2.  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

3.  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

4.  The induction of micronuclei as a measure of genotoxicity. A report of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Gene-Tox Program.

Authors:  J A Heddle; M Hite; B Kirkhart; K Mavournin; J T MacGregor; G W Newell; M F Salamone
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1983-09       Impact factor: 2.433

5.  A comparison of genotoxicity between three common heterocyclic amines and acrylamide.

Authors:  Louise J K Durling; Lilianne Abramsson-Zetterberg
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  2005-02-07       Impact factor: 2.433

6.  Comparison of alkaline single cell gel (Comet) and peripheral blood micronucleus assays in detecting DNA damage caused by direct and indirect acting mutagens.

Authors:  M Vrzoc; M L Petras
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1997-11-19       Impact factor: 2.433

7.  Organ variation in the mutagenicity of MeIQ in Big Blue lacI transgenic mice.

Authors:  T Suzuki; M Hayashi; M Ochiai; K Wakabayashi; T Ushijima; T Sugimura; M Nagao; T Sofuni
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1996-07-10       Impact factor: 2.433

Review 8.  Use of transgenic mice in carcinogenicity hazard assessment.

Authors:  David Jacobson-Kram; Frank D Sistare; Abigail C Jacobs
Journal:  Toxicol Pathol       Date:  2004 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.902

9.  The micronucleus test of benzo[a]pyrene with mouse and rat peripheral blood reticulocytes.

Authors:  H Shimada; H Suzuki; S Itoh; C Hattori; Y Matsuura; S Tada; C Watanabe
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1992 Feb-Mar       Impact factor: 2.433

10.  Activity of 1,2-dimethylhydrazine in the mouse bone marrow micronucleus assay using a triple- and a single-dosing protocol.

Authors:  C Meli; A H Seeberg
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1990 Jun-Aug       Impact factor: 2.433

View more
  13 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.  Biomarkers of DNA damage response improve in vitro micronucleus assays by revealing genotoxic mode of action and reducing the occurrence of irrelevant positive results.

Authors:  Svetlana Avlasevich; Tina Pellegrin; Manali Godse; Steven Bryce; Jeffrey Bemis; Peter Bajorski; Stephen Dertinger
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  2021-11-29       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

Review 4.  Comparison of methods used for evaluation of mutagenicity/genotoxicity of model chemicals - parabens.

Authors:  J Chrz; B Hošíková; L Svobodová; D Očadlíková; H Kolářová; M Dvořáková; K Kejlová; L Malina; G Jírová; A Vlková; M Mannerström
Journal:  Physiol Res       Date:  2020-12-31       Impact factor: 1.881

5.  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

6.  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

7.  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

8.  An Automated, Single Cell Quantitative Imaging Microscopy Approach to Assess Micronucleus Formation, Genotoxicity and Chromosome Instability.

Authors:  Chloe C Lepage; Laura L Thompson; Bradley Larson; Kirk J McManus
Journal:  Cells       Date:  2020-02-02       Impact factor: 6.600

9.  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.  Evaluation of the automated MicroFlow® and Metafer™ platforms for high-throughput micronucleus scoring and dose response analysis in human lymphoblastoid TK6 cells.

Authors:  Jatin R Verma; Benjamin J Rees; Eleanor C Wilde; Catherine A Thornton; Gareth J S Jenkins; Shareen H Doak; George E Johnson
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2016-12-10       Impact factor: 6.168

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.