Literature DB >> 28799093

An appraisal of critical effect sizes for the benchmark dose approach to assess dose-response relationships in genetic toxicology.

Andreas Zeller1, Gonzalo Duran-Pacheco2, Melanie Guérard2.   

Abstract

The benchmark dose (BMD) concept is increasingly utilized to analyze quantitative dose-response relationships in genetic toxicology. This methodology requires the user (i.e. the toxicologist) to a priori define a small increase over controls that is "acceptable" to be induced by a genotoxic test substance. The increase is called benchmark response (BMR) or critical effect size (CES), depending on the software used. To render the metrics calculated from the data of animals treated with the test substance applicable for risk assessment, the BMR or CES must represent biologically relevant changes of parameters measured in in vivo genotoxicity assays such as the Micronucleus, Comet, Transgenic rodent or Pig-a assay. Current recommendations for CES in genotoxicology are arbitrary (10% increase over mean vehicle controls) or based on limited, usually 5-6, data points (i.e. the standard deviation of the concurrent vehicle control group). We have, therefore, analyzed historical vehicle control data of standard in vivo genotoxicity test systems with statistical methods. Based on this evaluation, we illustrate limitations of the currently recommended CES values and propose a pragmatic approach that may contribute to better defining endpoint-specific CES values for BMD software like PROAST.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Benchmark dose concept; Critical effect size; Quantitative dose-response analysis

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28799093     DOI: 10.1007/s00204-017-2037-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Toxicol        ISSN: 0340-5761            Impact factor:   5.153


  8 in total

1.  Genotoxicity evaluation of nitrosamine impurities using human TK6 cells transduced with cytochrome P450s.

Authors:  Xilin Li; Xiaobo He; Yuan Le; Xiaoqing Guo; Matthew S Bryant; Aisar H Atrakchi; Timothy J McGovern; Karen L Davis-Bruno; David A Keire; Robert H Heflich; Nan Mei
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2022-07-26       Impact factor: 6.168

2.  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

3.  Use of benchmark dose models in risk assessment for occupational handlers of eight pesticides used in pome fruit production.

Authors:  Jane Gurnick Pouzou; John Kissel; Michael G Yost; Richard A Fenske; Alison C Cullen
Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol       Date:  2019-10-23       Impact factor: 3.271

Review 4.  Comet assay: a versatile but complex tool in genotoxicity testing.

Authors:  Eugenia Cordelli; Margherita Bignami; Francesca Pacchierotti
Journal:  Toxicol Res (Camb)       Date:  2021-01-05       Impact factor: 3.524

5.  Dose-response genotoxicity of triclosan in mice: an estimate of acceptable daily intake based on organ toxicity.

Authors:  Yiyi Cao; Jing Xi; Xinyue You; Weiying Liu; Yang Luan
Journal:  Toxicol Res (Camb)       Date:  2021-11-08       Impact factor: 3.524

6.  Influencing factors and health risk assessment of microcystins in the Yongjiang river (China) by Monte Carlo simulation.

Authors:  Chan-Chan Xiao; Mao-Jian Chen; Fan-Biao Mei; Xiang Fang; Tian-Ren Huang; Ji-Lin Li; Wei Deng; Yuan-Dong Li
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2018-11-16       Impact factor: 2.984

7.  Utility of a next generation framework for assessment of genomic damage: A case study using the industrial chemical benzene.

Authors:  Mirjam Luijten; Nicholas S Ball; Kerry L Dearfield; B Bhaskar Gollapudi; George E Johnson; Federica Madia; Lauren Peel; Stefan Pfuhler; Raja S Settivari; Wouter Ter Burg; Paul A White; Jan van Benthem
Journal:  Environ Mol Mutagen       Date:  2019-11-27       Impact factor: 3.216

8.  Genotoxicity of Aluminum and Aluminum Oxide Nanomaterials in Rats Following Oral Exposure.

Authors:  Pégah Jalili; Sylvie Huet; Rachelle Lanceleur; Gérard Jarry; Ludovic Le Hegarat; Fabrice Nesslany; Kevin Hogeveen; Valérie Fessard
Journal:  Nanomaterials (Basel)       Date:  2020-02-11       Impact factor: 5.076

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.