Andrea Hartwig1, Michael Arand2, Bernd Epe3, Sabine Guth4, Gunnar Jahnke5, Alfonso Lampen6, Hans-Jörg Martus7, Bernhard Monien6, Ivonne M C M Rietjens8, Simone Schmitz-Spanke9, Gerlinde Schriever-Schwemmer5, Pablo Steinberg10, Gerhard Eisenbrand11. 1. Department of Food Chemistry and Toxicology, Institute of Applied Biosciences (IAB), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Adenauerring 20a, 76131, Karlsruhe, Germany. andrea.hartwig@kit.edu. 2. Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Zurich, 8057, Zurich, Switzerland. 3. Institute of Pharmacy and Biochemistry, University of Mainz, 55099, Mainz, Germany. 4. Department of Toxicology, IfADo-Leibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors, TU Dortmund, Ardeystr. 67, 44139, Dortmund, Germany. 5. Department of Food Chemistry and Toxicology, Institute of Applied Biosciences (IAB), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Adenauerring 20a, 76131, Karlsruhe, Germany. 6. Department of Food Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), 10589, Berlin, Germany. 7. Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, 4002, Basel, Switzerland. 8. Division of Toxicology, Wageningen University, Stippeneng 4, 6708 WE, Wageningen, The Netherlands. 9. Institute and Outpatient Clinic of Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Henkestr. 9-11, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. 10. Max Rubner-Institut, Federal Research Institute of Nutrition and Food, Haid-und-Neu-Str. 9, 76131, Karlsruhe, Germany. 11. Retired Senior Professor for Food Chemistry and Toxicology, Kühler Grund 48/1, 69126, Heidelberg, Germany. eisenbra@rhrk.uni-kl.de.
Abstract
The risk assessment of chemical carcinogens is one major task in toxicology. Even though exposure has been mitigated effectively during the last decades, low levels of carcinogenic substances in food and at the workplace are still present and often not completely avoidable. The distinction between genotoxic and non-genotoxic carcinogens has traditionally been regarded as particularly relevant for risk assessment, with the assumption of the existence of no-effect concentrations (threshold levels) in case of the latter group. In contrast, genotoxic carcinogens, their metabolic precursors and DNA reactive metabolites are considered to represent risk factors at all concentrations since even one or a few DNA lesions may in principle result in mutations and, thus, increase tumour risk. Within the current document, an updated risk evaluation for genotoxic carcinogens is proposed, based on mechanistic knowledge regarding the substance (group) under investigation, and taking into account recent improvements in analytical techniques used to quantify DNA lesions and mutations as well as "omics" approaches. Furthermore, wherever possible and appropriate, special attention is given to the integration of background levels of the same or comparable DNA lesions. Within part A, fundamental considerations highlight the terms hazard and risk with respect to DNA reactivity of genotoxic agents, as compared to non-genotoxic agents. Also, current methodologies used in genetic toxicology as well as in dosimetry of exposure are described. Special focus is given on the elucidation of modes of action (MOA) and on the relation between DNA damage and cancer risk. Part B addresses specific examples of genotoxic carcinogens, including those humans are exposed to exogenously and endogenously, such as formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and the corresponding alcohols as well as some alkylating agents, ethylene oxide, and acrylamide, but also examples resulting from exogenous sources like aflatoxin B1, allylalkoxybenzenes, 2-amino-3,8-dimethylimidazo[4,5-f] quinoxaline (MeIQx), benzo[a]pyrene and pyrrolizidine alkaloids. Additionally, special attention is given to some carcinogenic metal compounds, which are considered indirect genotoxins, by accelerating mutagenicity via interactions with the cellular response to DNA damage even at low exposure conditions. Part C finally encompasses conclusions and perspectives, suggesting a refined strategy for the assessment of the carcinogenic risk associated with an exposure to genotoxic compounds and addressing research needs.
The risk assesspan class="Species">ment of chemical carcinogens is one major task in toxicology. Even though exposure has been mitin>n class="Chemical">gated effectively during the last decades, low levels of carcinogenic substances in food and at the workplace are still present and often not completely avoidable. The distinction between genotoxic and non-genotoxic carcinogens has traditionally been regarded as particularly relevant for risk assessment, with the assumption of the existence of no-effect concentrations (threshold levels) in case of the latter group. In contrast, genotoxic carcinogens, their metabolic precursors and DNA reactive metabolites are considered to represent risk factors at all concentrations since even one or a few DNA lesions may in principle result in mutations and, thus, increase tumour risk. Within the current document, an updated risk evaluation for genotoxic carcinogens is proposed, based on mechanistic knowledge regarding the substance (group) under investigation, and taking into account recent improvements in analytical techniques used to quantify DNA lesions and mutations as well as "omics" approaches. Furthermore, wherever possible and appropriate, special attention is given to the integration of background levels of the same or comparable DNA lesions. Within part A, fundamental considerations highlight the terms hazard and risk with respect to DNA reactivity of genotoxic agents, as compared to non-genotoxic agents. Also, current methodologies used in genetic toxicology as well as in dosimetry of exposure are described. Special focus is given on the elucidation of modes of action (MOA) and on the relation between DNA damage and cancer risk. Part B addresses specific examples of genotoxic carcinogens, including those humans are exposed to exogenously and endogenously, such as formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and the corresponding alcohols as well as some alkylating agents, ethylene oxide, and acrylamide, but also examples resulting from exogenous sources like aflatoxin B1, allylalkoxybenzenes, 2-amino-3,8-dimethylimidazo[4,5-f] quinoxaline (MeIQx), benzo[a]pyrene and pyrrolizidine alkaloids. Additionally, special attention is given to some carcinogenic metal compounds, which are considered indirect genotoxins, by accelerating mutagenicity via interactions with the cellular response to DNA damage even at low exposure conditions. Part C finally encompasses conclusions and perspectives, suggesting a refined strategy for the assessment of the carcinogenic risk associated with an exposure to genotoxic compounds and addressing research needs.
Authors: Klaus Abraham; Jan Hielscher; Tobias Kaufholz; Hans Mielke; Alfonso Lampen; Bernhard Monien Journal: Arch Toxicol Date: 2018-12-10 Impact factor: 5.153
Authors: Ala' A A Al-Subeihi; Bert Spenkelink; Ans Punt; Marelle G Boersma; Peter J van Bladeren; Ivonne M C M Rietjens Journal: Toxicol Appl Pharmacol Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 4.219
Authors: Melvin E Andersen; Harvey J Clewell; Edilberto Bermudez; Darol E Dodd; Gabrielle A Willson; Jerry L Campbell; Russell S Thomas Journal: Toxicol Sci Date: 2010-09-30 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Ala A A Al-Subeihi; Bert Spenkelink; Novalia Rachmawati; Marelle G Boersma; Ans Punt; Jacques Vervoort; Peter J van Bladeren; Ivonne M C M Rietjens Journal: Toxicol In Vitro Date: 2010-09-07 Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: Melvin E Andersen; P Robinan Gentry; James A Swenberg; Kenneth A Mundt; Kimberly W White; Chad Thompson; James Bus; James H Sherman; Helmut Greim; Hermann Bolt; Gary M Marsh; Harvey Checkoway; David Coggon; Harvey J Clewell Journal: Regul Toxicol Pharmacol Date: 2019-05-03 Impact factor: 3.271
Authors: Melvin E Andersen; Harvey J Clewell; Edilberto Bermudez; Gabrielle A Willson; Russell S Thomas Journal: Toxicol Sci Date: 2008-05-21 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Klaus-Michael Wollin; Petra Apel; Yvonni Chovolou; Ulrike Pabel; Thomas Schettgen; Marike Kolossa-Gehring; Claudia Röhl; On Behalf Of The Human Biomonitoring Commission Of The German Environment Agency Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-13 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Gerhard Eisenbrand; Matthias Baum; Alexander T Cartus; Patrick Diel; Karl-Heinz Engel; Barbara Engeli; Bernd Epe; Tilman Grune; Sabine Guth; Dirk Haller; Volker Heinz; Michael Hellwig; Jan G Hengstler; Thomas Henle; Hans-Ulrich Humpf; Henry Jäger; Hans-Georg Joost; Sabine Kulling; Dirk W Lachenmeier; Alfonso Lampen; Marcel Leist; Angela Mally; Doris Marko; Ute Nöthlings; Elke Röhrdanz; Angelika Roth; Joachim Spranger; Richard Stadler; Stefan Vieths; Wim Wätjen; Pablo Steinberg Journal: Arch Toxicol Date: 2022-05-04 Impact factor: 6.168