| Literature DB >> 33544138 |
Stefan Pfuhler1, Thomas R Downs1, Nicola J Hewitt2, Sebastian Hoffmann3, Greg C Mun4, Gladys Ouedraogo5, Shambhu Roy6, Rodger D Curren4, Marilyn J Aardema7.
Abstract
In vitro test batteries have become the standard approach to determine the genotoxic potential of substances of interest across industry sectors. While useful for hazard identification, standard in vitro genotoxicity assays in 2D cell cultures have limited capability to predict in vivo outcomes and may trigger unnecessary follow-up animal studies or the loss of promising substances where animal tests are prohibited or not desired. To address this problem, a team of regulatory, academia and industry scientists was established to develop and validate 3D in vitro human skin-based genotoxicity assays for use in testing substances with primarily topical exposure. Validation of the reconstructed human skin micronucleus (RSMN) assay in MatTek Epi-200™ skin models involved testing 43 coded chemicals selected by independent experts, in four US/European laboratories. The results were analysed by an independent statistician according to predefined criteria. The RSMN assay showed a reproducibly low background micronucleus frequency and exhibited sufficient capacity to metabolise pro-mutagens. The overall RSMN accuracy when compared to in vivo genotoxicity outcomes was 80%, with a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 84%, and the between- and within-laboratory reproducibility was 77 and 84%, respectively. A protocol involving a 72-h exposure showed increased sensitivity in detecting true positive chemicals compared to a 48-h exposure. An analysis of a test strategy using the RSMN assay as a follow-up test for substances positive in standard in vitro clastogenicity/aneugenicity assays and a reconstructed skin Comet assay for substances with positive results in standard gene mutation assays results in a sensitivity of 89%. Based on these results, the RSMN assay is considered sufficiently validated to establish it as a 'tier 2' assay for dermally exposed compounds and was recently accepted into the OECD's test guideline development program.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33544138 PMCID: PMC8081377 DOI: 10.1093/mutage/geaa035
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mutagenesis ISSN: 0267-8357 Impact factor: 3.000
Fig. 1.RSMN assay validation timeline. Progression of the RSMN assay validation project phases over the course of the project.
Fig. 2.(A) Decision tree for the validation exercise using exclusively 48-h protocol for Phases 1 and 2a and 48- and 72-h protocols for Phases 2b–2d. (B) Recommended decision tree for all forward-looking work, using the 72-h protocol only. Decision tree is in line with OECD 487 where clear positive or clear negative results do not need to be reproduced.
Overview of validation outcome of the RSMN experiments conducted within the coded validation effort in all phases
| Chemical | CAS No. | Cat | Phase | Lab A | Lab B | Lab C | Lab D | BLR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2-Acetylaminofluorene (2-AAF) | 53-96-3 | TP | 2a,c | Neg | Neg | Neg | 1 | |
| 2-Amino-3-methylimidazo[4,5- | 76180-96-6 | TP | 2d |
| – | |||
| Azidothymidine (AZT) | 30516-87-1 | TP | 2d |
| – | |||
| Cadmium chloride (CdCl2) | 10108-64-2 | TP | 2a,b,c |
| Neg |
| 0 | |
| Colchicine | 64-86-8 | TP | 2a |
|
| 1 | ||
| Cyclopenta[ | 27208-37-3 | TP | 2a,b |
| Nega | – | ||
| Cytosine arabinoside | 147-94-4 | TP | 2a,b | Neg | – | |||
| 2,4-Diaminotoluene (2,4-DAT) | 95-80-7 | TP | 2a,b |
| Neg | Neg | 0 | |
| 2,3-Dibromo-1-propanol | 96-13-9 | TP | 2a |
| – | |||
| Diethylstilbestrol | 56-53-1 | TP | 2a,b |
| – | |||
| 7,12-Dimethylbenz[ | 57-97-6 | TP | 2d | Neg | – | |||
| Ethyl methanesulfonate (EMS) | 62-50-0 | TP | 2a,c |
|
| 1 | ||
|
| 759-73-9 | TP | 1 |
|
|
| 1 | |
| Etoposide | 33419-42-0 | TP | 2a |
|
| 1 | ||
| 5-Fluorouracil | 51-21-8 | TP | 2a,b,c |
| Neg | 0 | ||
| Methyl methanesulfonate (MMS) | 66-27-3 | TP | 2a |
| – | |||
|
| 70-25-7 | TP | 2d |
| – | |||
| Mitomycin C | 50-07-7 | TP | 1 |
|
|
| 1 | |
| Potassium bromate | 7758-01-2 | TP | 2a,b,c |
|
|
| 1 | |
| Taxol | 33069-62-4 | TP | 2a |
| – | |||
| 4-Vinyl-1-cyclohexene diepoxide | 106-87-6 | TP | 2a,b,c |
|
|
| 1 | |
| Ampicillin sodium salt | 69-52-3 | TN | 2a | Neg | – | |||
| Beclomethasone dipropionate | 5534-09-8 | TN | 2a | Neg | – | |||
|
| 109-69-3 | TN | 2a,c | Neg | Neg | Neg | Neg | 1 |
| Curcumin | 458-37-7 | MP | 2a |
| – | |||
| Cyclohexanone | 108-94-1 | TN | 1 | Neg | Neg | Neg | 1 | |
| 2,6-Diaminotoluene (2,6-DAT) | 823-40-5 | MP | 2a | Neg | – | |||
| 2,4-Dichlorophenol | 120-83-2 | MP | 2a | Neg | Neg | 1 | ||
| Diclofenac | 15307-79-6 | TN | 2a,c |
|
|
| 1 | |
| Ethionamide | 536-33-4 | MP | 2a,c | Neg | Neg | Neg | 1 | |
| Eugenol | 97-53-0 | MP | 2d |
| – | |||
| 8-Hydroxyquinoline | 148-24-3 | MP | 2a | Neg | – | |||
|
| 5989-27-5 | TN | 2a,c | Neg | Neg | Neg | 1 | |
|
| 69-65-8 | TN | 2a | Neg | Neg | 1 | ||
| Nifedipine | 21829-25-4 | TN | 2a | Neg | – | |||
| Nitrofurantoin | 67-20-9 | MP | 2a | Neg | – | |||
| 1-Nitronaphthalene | 86-57-7 | MP | 2a | Neg | – | |||
| 4-Nitrophenol | 100-02-7 | MP | 2a,c | Neg | Neg | Neg | Neg | 1 |
| Phenanthrene | 85-01-8 | TN | 2a,b |
| Neg | Neg | Neg | 0 |
| Phenol | 108-95-2 | MP | 2a | Neg | – | |||
| Propyl gallate | 121-79-9 | MP | 2a | Neg | – | |||
| Resorcinol | 108-46-3 | MP | 2a,c | Equiv | Neg | 0.5 | ||
| Tolbutamide | 64-77-7 | TN | 2a | Equiv | Neg | Neg | 0.5 |
In Phase 1, each chemical was tested in three laboratories (21). Subsequently, in Phases 2a–2d, chemicals were each tested in 1–3 laboratories each to expand the chemical space tested in the RSMN assay or to expand the overlap with chemicals tested in the RS Comet assay. Cat, Category, i.e. expected outcome based on historical in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity or carcinogenicity data as provided in Supplementary Table S1; MP, misleading positive; TN, true negative; TP, true positive; Pos, positive study outcome (printed in bold), DNA damage detected; Neg, negative; Equiv, equivocal; BLR, between-laboratory reproducibility.
aCounted for predictivity but not for between-lab concordance since Lab C did not follow-up at 72 h and Lab B showed Pos at 72 h only.
bLab A repeated the initial 48-h experiment on behalf of Lab D at 72 h, so the Lab A call was recorded as overall call.
RSMN historical solvent control for the 95%-quantile of the mean of the historical SC control for the % MN-BN determined at the end of each testing phase (2a–2d) for the 48- (two-treatment) and 72-h (three-treatment) protocols for each of the four participating laboratories (A, B, C, D; n = the cumulative number of experiments for the 48- and 72-h protocols)
| 48 h protocol | Testing phase | 72 h protocol | Testing phase | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2a | 2b | 2c | 2d | 2b | 2c | 2d | ||
| Lab A ( | 0.35 (26) | 0.27 (78) | 0.27 (98) | 0.27 (101) | Lab A ( | 0.35 (25) | 0.33 (33) | 0.33 (37) |
| Lab B ( | 0.47 (22) | 0.40 (31) | 0.40 (35) | – | Lab B ( | 0.23 (12) | 0.23 (19) | – |
| Lab C ( | 0.17 (6) | 0.17 (24) | 0.13 (34) | – | Lab C ( | 0.17 (6) | 0.17 (13) | – |
| Lab D ( | 0.35 (37) | – | – | – | Lab D ( | – | – | – |
Overall reproducibility within and between laboratories over time [within-laboratory reproducibility (WLR) and between-laboratory reproducibility (BLR)] in Phases 1 and 2a–2d
| Discordant | Concordant | Total | % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WLR | Lab A | 6 | 17 | 23 | 73.9 |
| Lab B | 3 | 21 | 24 | 87.5 | |
| Lab C | 1 | 6 | 7 | 85.7 | |
| Lab D | 1 | 14 | 15 | 93.3 | |
| All labs | 11 | 58 | 69 | 84.1 | |
| BLR | 5 | 17 | 22 | 77.3 |
Predictive capacity of the RSMN calculated based on the evaluation criteria agreed on by the Steering Committee and other external experts
| Parameter | Lab A | Lab B | Lab C | Lab D | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity (%) | 93.3 | 61.5 | 75.0 | 50.0 | 75.0 |
| Specificity (%) | 71.4 | 85.7 | 100 | 90.0 | 84.1 |
| Accuracy (%) | 82.8 | 74.1 | 85.7 | 78.6 | 79.8 |
For a per lab view, also see Supplementary Table S1.