Literature DB >> 35128218

Integrating publicly available information to screen potential candidates for chemical prioritization under the Toxic Substances Control Act: A proof of concept case study using genotoxicity and carcinogenicity.

Grace Patlewicz1, Jeffry L Dean2, Catherine F Gibbons3, Richard S Judson1, Nagalakshmi Keshava4, Leora Vegosen5,6, Todd M Martin5, Prachi Pradeep1,6, Anita Simha7, Sarah H Warren1, Maureen R Gwinn1, David M DeMarini1.   

Abstract

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) became law in the U.S. in 1976 and was amended in 2016. The amended law requires the U.S. EPA to perform risk-based evaluations of existing chemicals. Here, we developed a tiered approach to screen potential candidates based on their genotoxicity and carcinogenicity information to inform the selection of candidate chemicals for prioritization under TSCA. The approach was underpinned by a large database of carcinogenicity and genotoxicity information that had been compiled from various public sources. Carcinogenicity data included weight-of-evidence human carcinogenicity evaluations and animal cancer data. Genotoxicity data included bacterial gene mutation data from the Salmonella (Ames) and Escherichia coli WP2 assays and chromosomal mutation (clastogenicity) data. Additionally, Ames and clastogenicity outcomes were predicted using the alert schemes within the OECD QSAR Toolbox and the Toxicity Estimation Software Tool (TEST). The evaluation workflows for carcinogenicity and genotoxicity were developed along with associated scoring schemes to make an overall outcome determination. For this case study, two sets of chemicals, the TSCA Active Inventory non-confidential portion list available on the EPA CompTox Chemicals Dashboard (33,364 chemicals, 'TSCA Active List') and a representative proof-of-concept (POC) set of 238 chemicals were profiled through the two workflows to make determinations of carcinogenicity and genotoxicity potential. Of the 33,364 substances on the 'TSCA Active List', overall calls could be made for 20,371 substances. Here 46.67%% (9507) of substances were non-genotoxic, 0.5% (103) were scored as inconclusive, 43.93% (8949) were predicted genotoxic and 8.9% (1812) were genotoxic. Overall calls for genotoxicity could be made for 225 of the 238 POC chemicals. Of these, 40.44% (91) were non-genotoxic, 2.67% (6) were inconclusive, 6.22% (14) were predicted genotoxic, and 50.67% (114) genotoxic. The approach shows promise as a means to identify potential candidates for prioritization from a genotoxicity and carcinogenicity perspective.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Carcinogenicity; Genotoxicity; Mutagenicity; TSCA; Toxic Substance Control Act

Year:  2021        PMID: 35128218      PMCID: PMC8809402          DOI: 10.1016/j.comtox.2021.100185

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Comput Toxicol        ISSN: 2468-1113


  25 in total

Review 1.  Current and Future Perspectives on the Development, Evaluation, and Application of in Silico Approaches for Predicting Toxicity.

Authors:  Grace Patlewicz; Jeremy M Fitzpatrick
Journal:  Chem Res Toxicol       Date:  2016-01-06       Impact factor: 3.739

2.  Mutagenicity testing for chemical risk assessment: update of the WHO/IPCS Harmonized Scheme.

Authors:  David A Eastmond; Andrea Hartwig; Diana Anderson; Wagida A Anwar; Michael C Cimino; Ivan Dobrev; George R Douglas; Takehiko Nohmi; David H Phillips; Carolyn Vickers
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  2009-06-17       Impact factor: 3.000

3.  Use of computerized data listings and activity profiles of genetic and related effects in the review of 195 compounds.

Authors:  M D Waters; H F Stack; A L Brady; P H Lohman; L Haroun; H Vainio
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1988 May-Aug       Impact factor: 2.433

4.  The OECD QSAR Toolbox Starts Its Second Decade.

Authors:  Terry W Schultz; Robert Diderich; Chanita D Kuseva; Ovanes G Mekenyan
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2018

Review 5.  Development and impact of the Gene-Tox-Program, genetic activity profiles, and their computerized data bases.

Authors:  M D Waters
Journal:  Environ Mol Mutagen       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 3.216

Review 6.  Evaluation of the rodent micronucleus assay in the screening of IARC carcinogens (groups 1, 2A and 2B) the summary report of the 6th collaborative study by CSGMT/JEMS MMS. Collaborative Study of the Micronucleus Group Test. Mammalian Mutagenicity Study Group.

Authors:  T Morita; N Asano; T Awogi; Y F Sasaki; S Sato; H Shimada; S Sutou; T Suzuki; A Wakata; T Sofuni; M Hayashi
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1997-02-28       Impact factor: 2.433

7.  Carcinogenicity of mutagens: predictive capability of the Salmonella mutagenesis assay for rodent carcinogenicity.

Authors:  E Zeiger
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  1987-03-01       Impact factor: 12.701

8.  The CompTox Chemistry Dashboard: a community data resource for environmental chemistry.

Authors:  Antony J Williams; Christopher M Grulke; Jeff Edwards; Andrew D McEachran; Kamel Mansouri; Nancy C Baker; Grace Patlewicz; Imran Shah; John F Wambaugh; Richard S Judson; Ann M Richard
Journal:  J Cheminform       Date:  2017-11-28       Impact factor: 5.514

9.  Predictions for the outcome of rodent carcinogenicity bioassays: identification of trans-species carcinogens and noncarcinogens.

Authors:  R W Tennant; J Spalding
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 9.031

10.  Key Characteristics of Carcinogens as a Basis for Organizing Data on Mechanisms of Carcinogenesis.

Authors:  Martyn T Smith; Kathryn Z Guyton; Catherine F Gibbons; Jason M Fritz; Christopher J Portier; Ivan Rusyn; David M DeMarini; Jane C Caldwell; Robert J Kavlock; Paul F Lambert; Stephen S Hecht; John R Bucher; Bernard W Stewart; Robert A Baan; Vincent J Cogliano; Kurt Straif
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2015-11-24       Impact factor: 9.031

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.