Literature DB >> 30744809

A comparison of transgenic rodent mutation and in vivo comet assay responses for 91 chemicals.

David Kirkland1, Dan D Levy2, Matthew J LeBaron3, Marilyn J Aardema4, Carol Beevers5, Javed Bhalli6, George R Douglas7, Patricia A Escobar8, Christopher S Farabaugh9, Melanie Guerard10, George E Johnson11, Rohan Kulkarni6, Frank Le Curieux12, Alexandra S Long7, Jasmin Lott13, David P Lovell14, Mirjam Luijten15, Francesco Marchetti7, John J Nicolette16, Stefan Pfuhler17, Daniel J Roberts9, Leon F Stankowski9, Veronique Thybaud18, Sandy K Weiner19, Andrew Williams7, Kristine L Witt20, Robert Young6.   

Abstract

A database of 91 chemicals with published data from both transgenic rodent mutation (TGR) and rodent comet assays has been compiled. The objective was to compare the sensitivity of the two assays for detecting genotoxicity. Critical aspects of study design and results were tabulated for each dataset. There were fewer datasets from rats than mice, particularly for the TGR assay, and therefore, results from both species were combined for further analysis. TGR and comet responses were compared in liver and bone marrow (the most commonly studied tissues), and in stomach and colon evaluated either separately or in combination with other GI tract segments. Overall positive, negative, or equivocal test results were assessed for each chemical across the tissues examined in the TGR and comet assays using two approaches: 1) overall calls based on weight of evidence (WoE) and expert judgement, and 2) curation of the data based on a priori acceptability criteria prior to deriving final tissue specific calls. Since the database contains a high prevalence of positive results, overall agreement between the assays was determined using statistics adjusted for prevalence (using AC1 and PABAK). These coefficients showed fair or moderate to good agreement for liver and the GI tract (predominantly stomach and colon data) using WoE, reduced agreement for stomach and colon evaluated separately using data curation, and poor or no agreement for bone marrow using both the WoE and data curation approaches. Confidence in these results is higher for liver than for the other tissues, for which there were less data. Our analysis finds that comet and TGR generally identify the same compounds (mainly potent mutagens) as genotoxic in liver, stomach and colon, but not in bone marrow. However, the current database content precluded drawing assay concordance conclusions for weak mutagens and non-DNA reactive chemicals.
Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  DNA damage; Genotoxicity in vivo; Mutagens; Risk assessment; Transgenic rodents

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30744809      PMCID: PMC6697155          DOI: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2019.01.007

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


  21 in total

1.  In vivo transgenic mutation assays.

Authors:  Véronique Thybaud; Stephen Dean; Takehiko Nohmi; Johan de Boer; George R Douglas; Barry W Glickman; Nancy J Gorelick; John A Heddle; Robert H Heflich; Iain Lambert; Hans-Jörg Martus; Jon C Mirsalis; Takayoshi Suzuki; Nobuhiro Yajima
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  2003-10-07       Impact factor: 2.433

2.  Comparison of Comet assay dose-response for ethyl methanesulfonate using freshly prepared versus cryopreserved tissues.

Authors:  Leslie Recio; Grace E Kissling; Cheryl A Hobbs; Kristine L Witt
Journal:  Environ Mol Mutagen       Date:  2011-11-08       Impact factor: 3.216

Review 3.  Detailed review of transgenic rodent mutation assays.

Authors:  Iain B Lambert; Timothy M Singer; Sherri E Boucher; George R Douglas
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 2.433

Review 4.  The comet assay as an indicator test for germ cell genotoxicity.

Authors:  Günter Speit; Marie Vasquez; Andreas Hartmann
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  2008-03-30       Impact factor: 2.433

5.  A core in vitro genotoxicity battery comprising the Ames test plus the in vitro micronucleus test is sufficient to detect rodent carcinogens and in vivo genotoxins.

Authors:  David Kirkland; Lesley Reeve; David Gatehouse; Philippe Vanparys
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  2011-01-14       Impact factor: 2.433

6.  Single cell gel/comet assay: guidelines for in vitro and in vivo genetic toxicology testing.

Authors:  R R Tice; E Agurell; D Anderson; B Burlinson; A Hartmann; H Kobayashi; Y Miyamae; E Rojas; J C Ryu; Y F Sasaki
Journal:  Environ Mol Mutagen       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 3.216

7.  Pulmonary exposure to carbon black by inhalation or instillation in pregnant mice: effects on liver DNA strand breaks in dams and offspring.

Authors:  Petra Jackson; Karin Sørig Hougaard; Anne Mette Z Boisen; Nicklas Raun Jacobsen; Keld Alstrup Jensen; Peter Møller; Gunnar Brunborg; Kristine Bjerve Gutzkow; Ole Andersen; Steffen Loft; Ulla Vogel; Håkan Wallin
Journal:  Nanotoxicology       Date:  2011-06-08       Impact factor: 5.913

8.  Effect of mitogenic or regenerative cell proliferation on lacz mutant frequency in the liver of MutaTMMice treated with 5, 9-dimethyldibenzo[c,g]carbazole.

Authors:  F Tombolan; D Renault; D Brault; M Guffroy; F Périn; V Thybaud
Journal:  Carcinogenesis       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 4.944

Review 9.  The comet assay with multiple mouse organs: comparison of comet assay results and carcinogenicity with 208 chemicals selected from the IARC monographs and U.S. NTP Carcinogenicity Database.

Authors:  Y F Sasaki; K Sekihashi; F Izumiyama; E Nishidate; A Saga; K Ishida; S Tsuda
Journal:  Crit Rev Toxicol       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 5.635

10.  A comparison of intraperitoneal and oral gavage administration in comet assay in mouse eight organs.

Authors:  K Sekihashi; T Sasaki; A Yamamoto; K Kawamura; T Ikka; S Tsuda; Y F Sasaki
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  2001-06-27       Impact factor: 2.433

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Utility of a next-generation framework for assessment of genomic damage: A case study using the pharmaceutical drug candidate etoposide.

Authors:  John Nicolette; Mirjam Luijten; Jennifer C Sasaki; Laura Custer; Michelle Embry; Roland Froetschl; George Johnson; Gladys Ouedraogo; Raja Settivari; Veronique Thybaud; Kerry L Dearfield
Journal:  Environ Mol Mutagen       Date:  2021-11-22       Impact factor: 3.579

Review 2.  EURL ECVAM Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity Database of Substances Eliciting Negative Results in the Ames Test: Construction of the Database.

Authors:  Federica Madia; David Kirkland; Takeshi Morita; Paul White; David Asturiol; Raffaella Corvi
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  2020-05-21       Impact factor: 2.433

3.  The BlueScreen HC assay to predict the genotoxic potential of fragrance materials.

Authors:  Yax Thakkar; Kaushal Joshi; Christina Hickey; Joseph Wahler; Brian Wall; Sylvain Etter; Benjamin Smith; Peter Griem; Matthew Tate; Frank Jones; Gladys Oudraogo; Stefan Pfuhler; Christopher Choi; Gary Williams; Helmut Greim; Gerhard Eisenbrand; Wolfgang Dekant; Anne Marie Api
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  2022-04-02       Impact factor: 3.000

4.  Genotoxicity Evaluation of Propyl-Propane-Thiosulfinate (PTS) from Allium genus Essential Oils by a Combination of Micronucleus and Comet Assays in Rats.

Authors:  Antonio Cascajosa-Lira; María Puerto; Ana I Prieto; Silvia Pichardo; Leticia Díez-Quijada Jiménez; Alberto Baños; Enrique Guillamón; Rosario Moyano; Verónica Molina-Hernández; Ángeles Jos; Ana M Cameán
Journal:  Foods       Date:  2021-05-01

5.  Cylindrospermopsin-Microcystin-LR Combinations May Induce Genotoxic and Histopathological Damage in Rats.

Authors:  Leticia Díez-Quijada; Concepción Medrano-Padial; María Llana-Ruiz-Cabello; Giorgiana M Cătunescu; Rosario Moyano; Maria A Risalde; Ana M Cameán; Ángeles Jos
Journal:  Toxins (Basel)       Date:  2020-05-26       Impact factor: 4.546

6.  Validation of the 3D reconstructed human skin Comet assay, an animal-free alternative for following-up positive results from standard in vitro genotoxicity assays.

Authors:  Stefan Pfuhler; Ralph Pirow; Thomas R Downs; Andrea Haase; Nicola Hewitt; Andreas Luch; Marion Merkel; Claudia Petrick; André Said; Monika Schäfer-Korting; Kerstin Reisinger
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  2021-04-28       Impact factor: 3.000

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.