Paul Fowler, Alessandra Bearzatto, Carol Beevers, Ewan D Booth, E Maria Donner, Lin Gan, Kerstin Hartmann, Krista Meurer, Maaike E Schutte, Raja S Settivari
{"title":"评估地下水代谢物三项测试遗传毒理学电池。","authors":"Paul Fowler, Alessandra Bearzatto, Carol Beevers, Ewan D Booth, E Maria Donner, Lin Gan, Kerstin Hartmann, Krista Meurer, Maaike E Schutte, Raja S Settivari","doi":"10.1093/mutage/gead037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The two-test in vitro battery for genotoxicity testing (Ames and micronucleus) has in the majority of cases replaced the three-test battery (as two-test plus mammalian cell gene mutation assay) for the routine testing of chemicals, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and agrochemical metabolites originating from food and feed as well as from water treatment. The guidance for testing agrochemical groundwater metabolites, however, still relies on the three-test battery. Data collated in this study from 18 plant protection and related materials highlights the disparity between the often negative Ames and in vitro chromosome aberration data and frequently positive in vitro mammalian cell gene mutation assays. Sixteen of the 18 collated materials with complete datasets were Ames negative, and overall had negative outcomes in in vitro chromosome damage tests (weight of evidence from multiple tests). Mammalian cell gene mutation assays (HPRT and/or mouse lymphoma assay (MLA)) were positive in at least one test for every material with this data. Where both MLA and HPRT tests were performed on the same material, the HPRT seemed to give fewer positive responses. In vivo follow-up tests included combinations of comet assays, unscheduled DNA synthesis, and transgenic rodent gene mutation assays, all gave negative outcomes. The inclusion of mammalian cell gene mutation assays in a three-test battery for groundwater metabolites is therefore not justified and leads to unnecessary in vivo follow-up testing.</p>","PeriodicalId":18889,"journal":{"name":"Mutagenesis","volume":" ","pages":"146-155"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10928834/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of the three-test genetic toxicology battery for groundwater metabolites.\",\"authors\":\"Paul Fowler, Alessandra Bearzatto, Carol Beevers, Ewan D Booth, E Maria Donner, Lin Gan, Kerstin Hartmann, Krista Meurer, Maaike E Schutte, Raja S Settivari\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/mutage/gead037\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The two-test in vitro battery for genotoxicity testing (Ames and micronucleus) has in the majority of cases replaced the three-test battery (as two-test plus mammalian cell gene mutation assay) for the routine testing of chemicals, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and agrochemical metabolites originating from food and feed as well as from water treatment. The guidance for testing agrochemical groundwater metabolites, however, still relies on the three-test battery. Data collated in this study from 18 plant protection and related materials highlights the disparity between the often negative Ames and in vitro chromosome aberration data and frequently positive in vitro mammalian cell gene mutation assays. Sixteen of the 18 collated materials with complete datasets were Ames negative, and overall had negative outcomes in in vitro chromosome damage tests (weight of evidence from multiple tests). Mammalian cell gene mutation assays (HPRT and/or mouse lymphoma assay (MLA)) were positive in at least one test for every material with this data. Where both MLA and HPRT tests were performed on the same material, the HPRT seemed to give fewer positive responses. In vivo follow-up tests included combinations of comet assays, unscheduled DNA synthesis, and transgenic rodent gene mutation assays, all gave negative outcomes. The inclusion of mammalian cell gene mutation assays in a three-test battery for groundwater metabolites is therefore not justified and leads to unnecessary in vivo follow-up testing.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18889,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mutagenesis\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"146-155\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10928834/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mutagenesis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/mutage/gead037\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GENETICS & HEREDITY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mutagenesis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/mutage/gead037","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Assessment of the three-test genetic toxicology battery for groundwater metabolites.
The two-test in vitro battery for genotoxicity testing (Ames and micronucleus) has in the majority of cases replaced the three-test battery (as two-test plus mammalian cell gene mutation assay) for the routine testing of chemicals, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and agrochemical metabolites originating from food and feed as well as from water treatment. The guidance for testing agrochemical groundwater metabolites, however, still relies on the three-test battery. Data collated in this study from 18 plant protection and related materials highlights the disparity between the often negative Ames and in vitro chromosome aberration data and frequently positive in vitro mammalian cell gene mutation assays. Sixteen of the 18 collated materials with complete datasets were Ames negative, and overall had negative outcomes in in vitro chromosome damage tests (weight of evidence from multiple tests). Mammalian cell gene mutation assays (HPRT and/or mouse lymphoma assay (MLA)) were positive in at least one test for every material with this data. Where both MLA and HPRT tests were performed on the same material, the HPRT seemed to give fewer positive responses. In vivo follow-up tests included combinations of comet assays, unscheduled DNA synthesis, and transgenic rodent gene mutation assays, all gave negative outcomes. The inclusion of mammalian cell gene mutation assays in a three-test battery for groundwater metabolites is therefore not justified and leads to unnecessary in vivo follow-up testing.
期刊介绍:
Mutagenesis is an international multi-disciplinary journal designed to bring together research aimed at the identification, characterization and elucidation of the mechanisms of action of physical, chemical and biological agents capable of producing genetic change in living organisms and the study of the consequences of such changes.