Utility of a next‐generation framework for assessment of genomic damage: A case study using the pharmaceutical drug candidate etoposide

We present a hypothetical case study to examine the use of a next-generation framework developed by the Genetic Toxicology Technical Committee of the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute for assessing the potential risk of genetic damage from a pharmaceutical perspective. We used etoposide, a genotoxic carcinogen, as a representative pharmaceutical for the purposes of this case study. Using the framework as guidance, we formulated a hypothetical scenario for the use of etoposide to illustrate the application of the framework to pharmaceuticals. We collected available data on etoposide considered relevant for assessment of genetic toxicity risk. From the data collected, we conducted a quantitative analysis to estimate margins of exposure (MOEs) to characterize the risk of genetic damage that could be used for decision-making regarding the predefined hypothetical use. We found the framework useful for guiding the selection of appropriate tests and selecting relevant endpoints that reflected the potential for genetic damage in patients. The risk characterization, presented as MOEs, allows decision makers to discern how much benefit is critical to balance any adverse effect(s) that may be induced by the pharmaceutical. Interestingly, pharmaceutical development already incorporates several aspects of the framework per regulations and health authority expectations. Moreover, we observed that quality dose response data can be obtained with carefully planned but routinely conducted genetic toxicity testing. This case study demonstrates the utility of the next-generation framework to quantitatively model human risk based on genetic damage, as applicable to pharmaceuticals

Approaches for identifying germ cell mutagens: Report of the 2013 IWGT workshop on germ cell assays☆

This workshop reviewed the current science to inform and recommend the best evidence-based approaches on the use of germ cell genotoxicity tests. The workshop questions and key outcomes were as follows. (1) Do genotoxicity and mutagenicity assays in somatic cells predict germ cell effects? Limited data suggest that somatic cell tests detect most germ cell mutagens, but there are strong concerns that dictate caution in drawing conclusions. (2) Should germ cell tests be done, and when? If there is evidence that a chemical or its metabolite(s) will not reach target germ cells or gonadal tissue, it is not necessary to conduct germ cell tests, notwithstanding somatic outcomes. However, it was recommended that negative somatic cell mutagens with clear evidence for gonadal exposure and evidence of toxicity in germ cells could be considered for germ cell mutagenicity testing. For somatic mutagens that are known to reach the gonadal compartments and expose germ cells, the chemical could be assumed to be a germ cell mutagen without further testing. Nevertheless, germ cell mutagenicity testing would be needed for quantitative risk assessment. (3) What new assays should be implemented and how? There is an immediate need for research on the application of whole genome sequencing in heritable mutation analysis in humans and animals, and integration of germ cell assays with somatic cell genotoxicity tests. Focus should be on environmental exposures that can cause de novo mutations, particularly newly recognized types of genomic changes. Mutational events, which may occur by exposure of germ cells during embryonic development, should also be investigated. Finally, where there are indications of germ cell toxicity in repeat dose or reproductive toxicology tests, consideration should be given to leveraging those studies to inform of possible germ cell genotoxicity

Utility of a next generation framework for assessment of genomic damage: A case study using the industrial chemical benzene

We recently published a next generation framework for assessing the risk of genomic damage via exposure to chemical substances. The framework entails a systematic approach with the aim to quantify risk levels for substances that induce genomic damage contributing to human adverse health outcomes. Here, we evaluated the utility of the framework for assessing the risk for industrial chemicals, using the case of benzene. Benzene is a well‐studied substance that is generally considered a genotoxic carcinogen and is known to cause leukemia. The case study limits its focus on occupational and general population health as it relates to benzene exposure. Using the framework as guidance, available data on benzene considered relevant for assessment of genetic damage were collected. Based on these data, we were able to conduct quantitative analyses for relevant data sets to estimate acceptable exposure levels and to characterize the risk of genetic damage. Key observations include the need for robust exposure assessments, the importance of information on toxicokinetic properties, and the benefits of cheminformatics. The framework points to the need for further improvement on understanding of the mechanism(s) of action involved, which would also provide support for the use of targeted tests rather than a prescribed set of assays. Overall, this case study demonstrates the utility of the next generation framework to quantitatively model human risk on the basis of genetic damage, thereby enabling a new, innovative risk assessment concept. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 61:94–113, 2020. © 2019 The Authors. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Environmental Mutagen Society.JRC.F.3-Chemicals Safety and Alternative Method

Compilation and Use of Genetic Toxicity Historical Control Data

The optimal use of historical control data for the interpretation of genotoxicity results was discussed at the 2009 International Workshop on Genotoxicity Testing (IWGT) in Basel, Switzerland. The historical control working group focused mainly on negative control data although positive control data were also considered to be important. Historical control data are typically used for comparison with the concurrent control data as part of the assay acceptance criteria. Historical control data are also important for providing evidence of the technical competence and familiarization of the assay at any given laboratory. Moreover, historical control data are increasingly being used to aid in the interpretation of genetic toxicity assay results. The objective of the working group was to provide generic advice for historical control data that could be applied to all assays rather than to give assay-specific recommendations. In brief, the recommendations include: 1. The experimental protocol should remain fixed throughout the period during which the historical control data relevant to the current experiment are being built up, unless it can be demonstrated that changes to the protocol have not affected the values. 2. All data (both individual and group mean values) should be accumulated. 3. No negative control values (i.e., vehicle /solvent controls and absolute/culture medium controls, when available) should be eliminated from the data set, even if considered unusual, unless there is a scientifically justified reason, such as when they were obtained by an identified technical error. However, experiments may need to be repeated if disqualified by historical control data. 4. A minimum set of data resulting from at least 10, preferably 20, independent experiments is recommended to create the historical data set, depending upon the complexity of the assay. 5. It is not appropriate to use the simple range (minimum and maximum value observed during the data accumulation period) of the accumulated historical, especially negative, control data for an assessment. Rather, the distribution of the data together with appropriate descriptive statistics should be considered (e.g., confidence intervals, 95-99% percentiles). 6. For an experiment, when statistically significant increases over the concurrent negative controls (i.e., vehicle/solvent controls) are comparable, i.e., within confidence intervals, with the negative historical data, the biological importance needs to be carefully considered. 7. Historical control data could potentially have an important role in the future to help interpret aspects of genotoxicity data, such as dose response relationships

Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Plasma Half-Life Determination and Long-Term Tissue Distribution in Beef Cattle (Bos taurus)

Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) is used in consumer products as a surfactant and is found in industrial and consumer waste, which ends up in wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). PFOS does not breakdown during WWTP processes and accumulates in the biosolids. Common practices include application of biosolids to pastures and croplands used for feed, and as a result, animals such as beef cattle are exposed to PFOS. To determine plasma and tissue depletion kinetics in cattle, 2 steers and 4 heifers were dosed with PFOS at 0.098 mg/kg body weight and 9.1 mg/kg, respectively. Plasma depletion half-lives for steers and heifers were 120 ± 4.1 and 106 ± 23.1 days, respectively. Specific tissue depletion half-lives ranged from 36 to 385 days for intraperitoneal fat, back fat, muscle, liver, bone, and kidney. These data indicate that PFOS in beef cattle has a sufficiently long depletion half-life to permit accumulation in edible tissues

Distribution and Excretion of Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) in Beef Cattle (<i>Bos taurus</i>)

Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), a perfluoroalkyl surfactant used in many industrial products, is present in industrial wastes and in wastewater treatment plant biosolids. Biosolids are commonly applied to pastures and crops used for animal feed; consequently, PFOS may accumulate in the edible tissues of grazing animals or in animals exposed to contaminated feeds. There are no data on the absorption, distribution, and excretion of PFOS in beef cattle, so a 28-day study was conducted to determine these parameters for PFOS in three Lowline Angus steers given a single oral dose of PFOS at approximately 8 mg/kg body weight. PFOS concentrations were determined by liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry in multiple tissue compartments. The major route of excretion was in the feces (11 ± 1.3% of the dose, mean ± standard deviation) with minimal PFOS elimination in urine (0.5 ± 0.07% of the dose). At day 28 the mean plasma concentration remained elevated at 52.6 ± 3.4 μg/mL, and it was estimated that 35.8 ± 4.3% of the dose was present in the plasma. Plasma half-lives could not be calculated due to multiple peaks caused by apparent redistributions from other tissues. These data indicate that after an acute exposure PFOS persists and accumulates in edible tissues. The largest PFOS body burdens were in the blood (∼36%), carcass remainder (5.7 ± 1.6%), and the muscle (4.3 ± 0.6%). It was concluded that PFOS would accumulate in edible tissues of beef, which could be a source of exposure for humans