Literature DB >> 26774663

Updated recommended lists of genotoxic and non-genotoxic chemicals for assessment of the performance of new or improved genotoxicity tests.

David Kirkland1, Peter Kasper2, Hans-Jörg Martus3, Lutz Müller4, Jan van Benthem5, Federica Madia6, Raffaella Corvi7.   

Abstract

In 2008 we published recommendations on chemicals that would be appropriate to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of new/modified mammalian cell genotoxicity tests, in particular to avoid misleading positive results. In light of new data it is appropriate to update these lists of chemicals. An expert panel was convened and has revised the recommended chemicals to fit the following different sets of characteristics: • Group 1: chemicals that should be detected as positive in in vitro mammalian cell genotoxicity tests. Chemicals in this group are all in vivo genotoxins at one or more endpoints, either due to DNA-reactive or non DNA-reactive mechanisms. Many are known carcinogens with a mutagenic mode of action, but a sub-class of probable aneugens has been introduced. • Group 2: chemicals that should give negative results in in vitro mammalian cell genotoxicity tests. Chemicals in this group are usually negative in vivo and non-DNA-reactive. They are either non-carcinogenic or rodent carcinogens with a non-mutagenic mode of action. • Group 3: chemicals that should give negative results in in vitro mammalian cell genotoxicity tests, but have been reported to induce gene mutations in mouse lymphoma cells, chromosomal aberrations or micronuclei, often at high concentrations or at high levels of cytotoxicity. Chemicals in this group are generally negative in vivo and negative in the Ames test. They are either non-carcinogenic or rodent carcinogens with an accepted non-mutagenic mode of action. This group contains comments as to any conditions that can be identified under which misleading positive results are likely to occur. This paper, therefore, updates these three recommended lists of chemicals and describes how these should be used for any test evaluation program.
Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  EURL ECVAM; Genotoxicity; Improved tests; In vitro test; Reference chemicals; Reliability

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26774663     DOI: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2015.10.006

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


  41 in total

1.  Aneugen Molecular Mechanism Assay: Proof-of-Concept With 27 Reference Chemicals.

Authors:  Derek T Bernacki; Steven M Bryce; Jeffrey C Bemis; Stephen D Dertinger
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2019-08-01       Impact factor: 4.849

2.  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

3.  Investigating the Generalizability of the MultiFlow ® DNA Damage Assay and Several Companion Machine Learning Models With a Set of 103 Diverse Test Chemicals.

Authors:  Steven M Bryce; Derek T Bernacki; Stephanie L Smith-Roe; Kristine L Witt; Jeffrey C Bemis; Stephen D Dertinger
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 4.849

4.  Interlaboratory evaluation of a multiplexed high information content in vitro genotoxicity assay.

Authors:  Steven M Bryce; Derek T Bernacki; Jeffrey C Bemis; Richard A Spellman; Maria E Engel; Maik Schuler; Elisabeth Lorge; Pekka T Heikkinen; Ulrike Hemmann; Véronique Thybaud; Sabrina Wilde; Nina Queisser; Andreas Sutter; Andreas Zeller; Melanie Guérard; David Kirkland; Stephen D Dertinger
Journal:  Environ Mol Mutagen       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 3.216

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.  γH2AX and p53 responses in TK6 cells discriminate promutagens and nongenotoxicants in the presence of rat liver S9.

Authors:  Derek T Bernacki; Steven M Bryce; Jeffrey C Bemis; David Kirkland; Stephen D Dertinger
Journal:  Environ Mol Mutagen       Date:  2016-07-01       Impact factor: 3.216

7.  Development and Application of TK6-derived Cells Expressing Human Cytochrome P450s for Genotoxicity Testing.

Authors:  Xilin Li; Si Chen; Xiaoqing Guo; Qiangen Wu; Ji-Eun Seo; Lei Guo; Mugimane G Manjanatha; Tong Zhou; Kristine L Witt; Nan Mei
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 4.849

8.  Genotoxic mode of action predictions from a multiplexed flow cytometric assay and a machine learning approach.

Authors:  Steven M Bryce; Derek T Bernacki; Jeffrey C Bemis; Stephen D Dertinger
Journal:  Environ Mol Mutagen       Date:  2016-01-13       Impact factor: 3.216

9.  Extending (Q)SARs to incorporate proprietary knowledge for regulatory purposes: is aromatic N-oxide a structural alert for predicting DNA-reactive mutagenicity?

Authors:  Alexander Amberg; Lennart T Anger; Joel Bercu; David Bower; Kevin P Cross; Laura Custer; James S Harvey; Catrin Hasselgren; Masamitsu Honma; Candice Johnson; Robert Jolly; Michelle O Kenyon; Naomi L Kruhlak; Penny Leavitt; Donald P Quigley; Scott Miller; David Snodin; Lidiya Stavitskaya; Andrew Teasdale; Alejandra Trejo-Martin; Angela T White; Joerg Wichard; Glenn J Myatt
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  2019-03-06       Impact factor: 3.000

10.  Sensitive CometChip assay for screening potentially carcinogenic DNA adducts by trapping DNA repair intermediates.

Authors:  Le P Ngo; Norah A Owiti; Carol Swartz; John Winters; Yang Su; Jing Ge; Aoli Xiong; Jongyoon Han; Leslie Recio; Leona D Samson; Bevin P Engelward
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2020-02-20       Impact factor: 16.971

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.