A benchmark concentration-based strategy for evaluating the combined effects of genotoxic compounds in TK6 cells

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 TOXICOLOGY
Julie Sanders, Roel Anthonissen, George E. Johnson, Tamara Vanhaecke, Birgit Mertens
{"title":"A benchmark concentration-based strategy for evaluating the combined effects of genotoxic compounds in TK6 cells","authors":"Julie Sanders,&nbsp;Roel Anthonissen,&nbsp;George E. Johnson,&nbsp;Tamara Vanhaecke,&nbsp;Birgit Mertens","doi":"10.1007/s00204-025-03971-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Chemical risk assessment has historically focused on single compounds, neglecting the implications of combined exposures. To bridge this gap, several methodologies, such as concentration addition (CA) and independent action (IA), have been developed. However, a systematic, consistent, and integrated approach across various legislative frameworks is still lacking. The assessment of combined effects of genotoxicants is even more challenging, as genotoxicity data are typically evaluated qualitatively, without considering the effect size. This study aimed to develop a quantitative approach for evaluating the combined effects of genotoxic compounds with both similar and dissimilar modes of action (MoA), based on the benchmark concentration (BMC) principle. A proof-of-concept study was conducted using the in vitro micronucleus (MNvit) test to examine two types of binary mixtures: ethyl methanesulfonate (EMS) and methyl methanesulfonate (MMS), which share similar MoA, and MMS and etoposide (ETP), which have dissimilar MoA. The methodology involved collecting data for individual compounds, calculating BMC values, composing mixtures with different ratios and inducing various effect levels, testing these mixtures, and comparing the experimental results with the modelled data to verify additivity. The findings indicated that for both mixtures, the experimental responses aligned with the predicted additive effects, supporting the validity of the additivity principle. This study highlights the potential of an optimized BMC-based approach as a robust framework for testing chemical mixtures. It should be adopted in future studies to evaluate a wider range of genotoxic compounds, offering a more comprehensive and quantitative strategy for assessing combined chemical exposures.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8329,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Toxicology","volume":"99 4","pages":"1581 - 1589"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00204-025-03971-y.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00204-025-03971-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"TOXICOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Chemical risk assessment has historically focused on single compounds, neglecting the implications of combined exposures. To bridge this gap, several methodologies, such as concentration addition (CA) and independent action (IA), have been developed. However, a systematic, consistent, and integrated approach across various legislative frameworks is still lacking. The assessment of combined effects of genotoxicants is even more challenging, as genotoxicity data are typically evaluated qualitatively, without considering the effect size. This study aimed to develop a quantitative approach for evaluating the combined effects of genotoxic compounds with both similar and dissimilar modes of action (MoA), based on the benchmark concentration (BMC) principle. A proof-of-concept study was conducted using the in vitro micronucleus (MNvit) test to examine two types of binary mixtures: ethyl methanesulfonate (EMS) and methyl methanesulfonate (MMS), which share similar MoA, and MMS and etoposide (ETP), which have dissimilar MoA. The methodology involved collecting data for individual compounds, calculating BMC values, composing mixtures with different ratios and inducing various effect levels, testing these mixtures, and comparing the experimental results with the modelled data to verify additivity. The findings indicated that for both mixtures, the experimental responses aligned with the predicted additive effects, supporting the validity of the additivity principle. This study highlights the potential of an optimized BMC-based approach as a robust framework for testing chemical mixtures. It should be adopted in future studies to evaluate a wider range of genotoxic compounds, offering a more comprehensive and quantitative strategy for assessing combined chemical exposures.

一种基于浓度的基准策略,用于评估基因毒性化合物在TK6细胞中的联合作用。
化学品风险评估历来侧重于单一化合物,而忽略了组合暴露的影响。为了弥补这一差距,已经开发了几种方法,如浓度增加(CA)和独立作用(IA)。然而,在各种立法框架之间仍然缺乏一种系统、一致和综合的方法。由于遗传毒性数据通常是定性评估,而不考虑效应大小,因此评估基因毒物的综合效应更具挑战性。本研究旨在建立一种基于基准浓度(BMC)原理的定量方法来评估具有相似和不同作用方式(MoA)的基因毒性化合物的综合效应。使用体外微核(MNvit)测试进行了概念验证研究,以检验两种二元混合物:具有相似MoA的甲磺酸乙酯(EMS)和甲磺酸甲酯(MMS),以及具有不同MoA的甲基磺酸乙酯和依托泊苷(ETP)。该方法包括收集单个化合物的数据,计算BMC值,组成不同比例的混合物并诱导不同的效果水平,测试这些混合物,并将实验结果与建模数据进行比较以验证可加性。结果表明,对于两种混合物,实验响应与预测的加性效应一致,支持加性原理的有效性。这项研究强调了优化的基于bmc的方法作为测试化学混合物的强大框架的潜力。未来的研究应采用该方法来评价更广泛的基因毒性化合物,为评估综合化学品暴露提供更全面和定量的策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Archives of Toxicology
Archives of Toxicology 医学-毒理学
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
4.90%
发文量
218
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: Archives of Toxicology provides up-to-date information on the latest advances in toxicology. The journal places particular emphasis on studies relating to defined effects of chemicals and mechanisms of toxicity, including toxic activities at the molecular level, in humans and experimental animals. Coverage includes new insights into analysis and toxicokinetics and into forensic toxicology. Review articles of general interest to toxicologists are an additional important feature of the journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信