Literature DB >> 27591928

The current limitations of in vitro genotoxicity testing and their relevance to the in vivo situation.

Fabrice Nesslany1.   

Abstract

The standard regulatory core battery of genotoxicity tests generally includes 2 or 3 validated tests with at least one in vitro test in bacteria and one in vitro test on cell cultures. However, limitations in in vitro genotoxicity testing may exist at many levels. The knowledge of the underlying mechanisms of genotoxicity is particularly useful to assess the level of relevance for the in vivo situation. In order to avoid wrong conclusions regarding the actual genotoxicity status of any test substance, it appears very important to be aware of the various origins of related bias leading to 'false positives and negatives' by using in vitro methods. Among these, mention may be made on the metabolic activation system, experimental (extreme) conditions, specificities of the test systems implemented, cell type used etc. The knowledge of the actual 'limits' of the in vitro test systems used is clearly an advantage and may contribute to avoid some pitfalls in order to better assess the level of relevance for the in vivo situation.
Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords:  False negative; False positive; In vitro and in vivo genotoxicity; Limitations

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27591928     DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2016.08.035

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Food Chem Toxicol        ISSN: 0278-6915            Impact factor:   6.023


  6 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  In Vitro Mutagenic and Genotoxic Assessment of a Mixture of the Cyanotoxins Microcystin-LR and Cylindrospermopsin.

Authors:  Leticia Díez-Quijada; Ana I Prieto; María Puerto; Ángeles Jos; Ana M Cameán
Journal:  Toxins (Basel)       Date:  2019-06-04       Impact factor: 4.546

3.  Comparative Analysis of Transcriptional Responses to Genotoxic and Non-Genotoxic Agents in the Blood Cell Model TK6 and the Liver Model HepaRG.

Authors:  Katrin Kreuzer; Heike Sprenger; Albert Braeuning
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2022-03-22       Impact factor: 5.923

4.  A novel in vitro 3D model of the human bone marrow to bridge the gap between in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity testing.

Authors:  Alexander R Vernon; Roy M Pemberton; H Ruth Morse
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  2022-05-04       Impact factor: 2.954

5.  Integrated Genotoxicity Testing of three anti-infective drugs using the TGx-DDI transcriptomic biomarker and high-throughput CometChip® assay in TK6 cells.

Authors:  Julie K Buick; Andrea Rowan-Carroll; Rémi Gagné; Andrew Williams; Renxiang Chen; Heng-Hong Li; Albert J Fornace; Christy Chao; Bevin P Engelward; Roland Frötschl; Heidrun Ellinger-Ziegelbauer; Syril D Pettit; Jiri Aubrecht; Carole L Yauk
Journal:  Front Toxicol       Date:  2022-09-23

Review 6.  Digital PCR as an Emerging Tool for Monitoring of Microbial Biodegradation.

Authors:  Yiqi Cao; Miao Yu; Guihua Dong; Bing Chen; Baiyu Zhang
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2020-02-06       Impact factor: 4.411

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.