Assessment of soil contamination and ecotoxicity by the use of an ascending flow percolation - bioassay approach

International audienceSoil contamination and subsequent ecotoxicity are to be assessed by the use of appropriate methodologies allowing high repeatability and reproducibility. Non-direct methods consist in preparing either lixiviates or percolates which can be analysed for chemical contaminants and whose toxicities on aquatic organisms may be further determined. During experimental water percolation through soil columns, the movement of water is generally due to natural gravity. Here we proposed a complementary method in which an ascending water flow through the soil column is created. This system was developed in order to minimise boundary flow during percolation, which may result in improving repeatability and reproducibility of the aqueous extraction. In this work, the ascending flow percolation method was used for studying soils sampled from 2 contaminated sites. The resulting percolates were then tested for contaminant concentrations, ecotoxicity and genotoxicity

A comparison of transgenic rodent mutation and in vivo comet assay responses for 91 chemicals.

A database of 91 chemicals with published data from both transgenic rodent mutation (TGR) and rodent comet assays has been compiled. The objective was to compare the sensitivity of the two assays for detecting genotoxicity. Critical aspects of study design and results were tabulated for each dataset. There were fewer datasets from rats than mice, particularly for the TGR assay, and therefore, results from both species were combined for further analysis. TGR and comet responses were compared in liver and bone marrow (the most commonly studied tissues), and in stomach and colon evaluated either separately or in combination with other GI tract segments. Overall positive, negative, or equivocal test results were assessed for each chemical across the tissues examined in the TGR and comet assays using two approaches: 1) overall calls based on weight of evidence (WoE) and expert judgement, and 2) curation of the data based on a priori acceptability criteria prior to deriving final tissue specific calls. Since the database contains a high prevalence of positive results, overall agreement between the assays was determined using statistics adjusted for prevalence (using AC1 and PABAK). These coefficients showed fair or moderate to good agreement for liver and the GI tract (predominantly stomach and colon data) using WoE, reduced agreement for stomach and colon evaluated separately using data curation, and poor or no agreement for bone marrow using both the WoE and data curation approaches. Confidence in these results is higher for liver than for the other tissues, for which there were less data. Our analysis finds that comet and TGR generally identify the same compounds (mainly potent mutagens) as genotoxic in liver, stomach and colon, but not in bone marrow. However, the current database content precluded drawing assay concordance conclusions for weak mutagens and non-DNA reactive chemicals

A novel, integrated in vitro carcinogenicity test to identify genotoxic and non-genotoxic carcinogens using human lymphoblastoid cells

Human exposure to carcinogens occurs via a plethora of environmental sources, with 70–90% of cancers caused by extrinsic factors. Aberrant phenotypes induced by such carcinogenic agents may provide universal biomarkers for cancer causation. Both current in vitro genotoxicity tests and the animal-testing paradigm in human cancer risk assessment fail to accurately represent and predict whether a chemical causes human carcinogenesis. The study aimed to establish whether the integrated analysis of multiple cellular endpoints related to the Hallmarks of Cancer could advance in vitro carcinogenicity assessment. Human lymphoblastoid cells (TK6, MCL-5) were treated for either 4 or 23 h with 8 known in vivo carcinogens, with doses up to 50% Relative Population Doubling (maximum 66.6 mM). The adverse effects of carcinogens on wide-ranging aspects of cellular health were quantified using several approaches; these included chromosome damage, cell signalling, cell morphology, cell-cycle dynamics and bioenergetic perturbations. Cell morphology and gene expression alterations proved particularly sensitive for environmental carcinogen identification. Composite scores for the carcinogens’ adverse effects revealed that this approach could identify both DNA-reactive and non-DNA reactive carcinogens in vitro. The richer datasets generated proved that the holistic evaluation of integrated phenotypic alterations is valuable for effective in vitro risk assessment, while also supporting animal test replacement. Crucially, the study offers valuable insights into the mechanisms of human carcinogenesis resulting from exposure to chemicals that humans are likely to encounter in their environment. Such an understanding of cancer induction via environmental agents is essential for cancer prevention

The autoradiographic test for unscheduled DNA synthesis : a sensitive assay for the detection of DNA repair in the HepG2 cell line

International audienc

Can in vitro mammalian cell genotoxicity test results be used to complement positive results in the Ames test and help predict carcinogenic or in vivo genotoxic activity? I. Reports of individual databases presented at an EURL ECVAM Workshop.

© 2014 The Authors.Positive results in the Ames test correlate well with carcinogenic potential in rodents. This correlation is not perfect because mutations are only one of many stages in tumour development. Also, situations can be envisaged where the mutagenic response may be specific to the bacteria or the test protocol, e.g., bacterial-specific metabolism, exceeding a detoxification threshold, or the induction of oxidative damage to which bacteria may be more sensitive than mammalian cells in vitro or tissues in vivo. Since most chemicals are also tested for genotoxicity in mammalian cells, the pattern of mammalian cell results may help identify whether Ames-positive results predict carcinogenic or in vivo mutagenic activity. A workshop was therefore organised and sponsored by the EU Reference Laboratory for Alternatives to Animal Testing (EURL ECVAM) to investigate this further. Participants presented results from other genotoxicity tests with Ames-positive compounds. Data came from published, regulatory agency, and industry sources. The question was posed whether negative results in mammalian cell tests were associated with absence of carcinogenic or in vivo genotoxic activity despite a positive Ames test. In the limited time available, the presented data were combined and an initial analysis suggested that the association of negative in vitro mammalian cell test results with lack of in vivo genotoxic or carcinogenic activity could have some significance. Possible reasons why a positive Ames test may not be associated with in vivo activity and what additional investigations/tests might contribute to a more robust evaluation were discussed. Because a considerable overlap was identified among the different databases presented, it was recommended that a consolidated database be built, with overlapping chemicals removed, so that a more robust analysis of the predictive capacity for potential carcinogenic and in vivo genotoxic activity could be derived from the patterns of mammalian cell test results obtained for Ames-positive compounds