Gene toxicity studies on titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanomaterials used for UV-protection in cosmetic formulations

Abstract

Titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanomaterials, used as UV protecting agents in sunscreens, were investigated for their potential genotoxicity in in vitro and in vivo test systems. Since standard OECD test methods are designed for soluble materials and genotoxicity testing for nanomaterials is still under revision, a battery of standard tests was used, covering different endpoints. Additionally, a procedure to disperse the nanomaterials in the test media and careful characterization of the dispersed test item was added to the testing methods. No genotoxicity was observed in vitro (Ames' Salmonella gene mutation test and V79 micronucleus chromosome mutation test) or in vivo (mouse bone marrow micronucleus test and Comet DNA damage assay in lung cells from rats exposed by inhalation). These results add to the still limited data base on genotoxicity test results with nanomaterials and provide congruent results of a battery of standard OECD test methods applied to nanomaterials.     

遗传毒性早期初筛试验方法的研究进展

遗传毒性评价是药物临床前安全性评价研究的重要环节,目前ICH推荐的的标准试验组合基本能够满足新化学实体注册遗传毒理学实验数据的需求。然而随着全程式毒理学研究模式的推进,各制药公司越来越重视在创新药物研发早期进行遗传毒性初筛,及早发现具有潜在遗传毒性的候选化合物,降低新药开发的风险。作为在新药研发早期用于遗传毒性初筛的试验方法,除了要求灵敏、快速、经济外,还必须尽量减少化合物的用量,逐步实现高通量和自动化的要求。文中综述了目前研究比较广泛的早期体外遗传毒性初筛试验方法的原理、检测终点和应用进展,为候选化合物的早期遗传毒性初筛工作的深入开展提供技术指导。     

Genetic toxicity assessment: employing the best science for human safety evaluation. Part II: Performances of the in vitro micronucleus test compared to the mouse lymphoma assay and the in vitro chromosome aberration assay.

The in vitro micronucleus test is commonly used in the early stages of pharmaceutical development as a predictive tool for the regulatory mouse lymphoma assay or in vitro chromosome aberration test. The accumulated data from this assay leads to the suggestion that it could be used as an alternative to the chromosome aberration test or the mouse lymphoma assay in the regulatory genotoxicity battery. In this paper, we present the results of the in vitro micronucleus test on L5178Y mouse lymphoma cells with 25 compounds from Servier research and have compared these results to those obtained in the genotoxicity regulatory battery. All the negative compounds were also negative in the in vitro micronucleus assay. Among the 14 positive compounds, two of them, positive in the mouse lymphoma assay, were found negative in the in vitro micronucleus test. However, this apparent discordance was likely to be due to cytotoxicity- or high concentration-related false positive responses in the mouse lymphoma assay. In addition, we confirmed that the in vitro micronucleus assay is useful for detecting aneugens, especially, when cells in metaphasis and multinucleated cells are also scored and when cells are allowed to recover after the long treatment. On this series of compounds, the in vitro micronucleus assay showed high sensitivity and possibly a better specificity than the mouse lymphoma assay. Thus, the in vitro micronucleus assay was shown to be at least as adequate as the mouse lymphoma assay or the in vitro chromosome aberration test to be used in the standard genotoxicity battery.     

Genetic toxicity assessment: employing the best science for human safety evaluation part IV: Recommendation of a working group of the Gesellschaft fuer Umwelt-Mutationsforschung (GUM) for a simple and straightforward approach to genotoxicity testing.

Based on new scientific developments and experience of the regulation of chemical compounds, a working group of the Gesellschaft fuer Umweltmutationsforschung (GUM), a German-speaking section of the European Environmental Mutagen Society, proposes a simple and straightforward approach to genotoxicity testing. This strategy is divided into basic testing (stage I) and follow-up testing (stage II). Stage I consists of a bacterial gene mutation test plus an in vitro micronucleus test, therewith covering all mutagenicity endpoints. Stage II testing is in general required only if relevant positive results occur in stage I testing and will usually be in vivo. However, an isolated positive bacterial gene mutation test in stage I can be followed up with a gene mutation assay in mammalian cells. If this assay turns out negative and there are no compound-specific reasons for concern, in vivo follow-up testing may not be required. In those cases where in vivo testing is indicated, a single study combining the analysis of micronuclei in bone marrow with the comet assay in appropriately selected tissues is suggested. Negative results for both end points in relevant tissues will generally provide sufficient evidence to conclude that the test compound is nongenotoxic in vivo. Compounds which were recognized as in vivo somatic cell mutagens/genotoxicants in this hazard identification step will need further testing. In the absence of additional data, such compounds will have to be assumed to be potential genotoxic carcinogens and potential germ cell mutagens.     

How accurate is in vitro prediction of carcinogenicity?

Positive genetic toxicity data suggest carcinogenic hazard, and this can stop a candidate pharmaceutical reaching the clinic. However, during the last decade, it has become clear that many non-carcinogens produce misleading positive results in one or other of the regulatory genotoxicity assays. These doubtful conclusions cost a lot of time and money, as they trigger additional testing of apparently genotoxic candidates, both in vitro and in animals, to discover whether the suggested hazard is genuine. This in turn means that clinical trials can be put on hold. This review describes the current approaches to the 'misleading positive' problem as well as efforts to reduce the use of animals in genotoxicity assessment. The following issues are then addressed: the application of genotoxicity testing screens earlier in development; the search for new or improved in vitro genotoxicity tests; proposed changes to the International Committee on Harmonisation guidance on genotoxicity testing [S2(R1)]. Together, developments in all these areas offer good prospects of a more rapid and cost-effective way to understand genetic toxicity concerns.     

Characterization of a genotoxicity biomarker in three‐spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.): Biotic variability and integration in a battery of biomarkers for environmental monitoring

As a large array of hazardous substances exhibiting genotoxicity are discharged into surface water, this work aimed at assessing the relevance of adding a genotoxicity biomarker in a battery of biomarkers recently developed in the model fish three‐spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus). First the confounding influence of gender, body length, and season (used as a proxy of age and of the fish reproductive status, respectively) on the level of primary DNA damage in erythrocytes was investigated in wild sticklebacks. Then, the genotoxity biomarker was included in a large battery of biomarkers assessing xenobiotic biotransformation, oxidative stress and neurotoxicity, and implemented in five sites. Gender, age and reproductive status did not influence DNA damage level in fish from the reference site. A significant relationship between the level of primary DNA damage and fish length (as a proxy of age also correlated to the season) was highlighted in the contaminated site. Among all biomarkers investigated in the field, the level of DNA damage was one of the four most discriminating biomarkers with EROD, catalase activity and the level of lipid peroxidation representing together 75.40% of the discriminating power in sampled fish. The level of DNA damage was correlated to the EROD activity and to the level of peroxidation, which mainly discriminated fish from sites under urban pressure. Finally, Integrated Biomarker Response indexes (IBRv2), which were calculated with the whole biomarker response dataset exhibited higher values in the Reveillon (9.62), the Scarpe and Rhonelle contaminated sites (5.11 and 4.90) compared with the two reference sites (2.38 and 2.55). The present work highlights that integration of a genotoxicity biomarker in a multiparametric approach is relevant to assess ecotoxicological risk in freshwater aquatic organisms. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Environ Toxicol 31: 415–426, 2016.     

Genotoxicity of engineered nanomaterials: A critical review

In view of the fast-growing industrial applications of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs), the evaluation of their genotoxic potential and of their mode of action is a necessity to conduct adequate hazard/risk assessment and to produce safer and sustainable ENMs. This review aims at: (i) Providing an evaluation of in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity data available for ENM, and (ii) proposing minimal criteria for conducting nano-genotoxicity assays. The possible modes of action of ENM (i.e., generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and mechanical interference with cellular components) and the potential cellular targets are discussed. The available studies are evaluated on the basis of specific quality criteria after categorisation according to ENMs type/size investigated. No definitive conclusion can be drawn concerning the genotoxic activity of ENMs, essentially because of the limited number of data, incomplete physico-chemical characterization of ENMs examined and shortcomings in experimental approaches. This evaluation revealed gaps to be considered in future studies (e.g., one-sided approach focusing mainly on ROS as mode of action) and the need to develop adequate positive controls for genotoxicity assays when conducted with nanomaterials.     

Genetic toxicity assessment: employing the best science for human safety evaluation Part VII: Why not start with a single test: a transformational alternative to genotoxicity hazard and risk assessment.

A transformational alternative for genotoxicity hazard and risk assessment is proposed to the current standard regulatory test battery. In principle, the proposed approach consists of a single in vitro test system with high genomic sequence homology to humans that addresses the relevant principal genetic lesions assessed in the current test battery. The single test system also possesses higher throughput attributes to permit the screening of large numbers of compounds and allow for an initial differentiation of genotoxic mechanisms (i.e., direct vs. indirect mechanisms) by how the hazard end point is measured. To differentiate compounds showing positive results, toxicogenomic analysis can be conducted to evaluate genotoxic mechanisms and further support risk assessment. Lastly, the results from the single test system can be followed up with a complementary in vivo assessment to establish mechanistic relevance at potential target tissues. Here, we propose the in vitro (yeast) DNA deletion (DEL) recombination assay as a single test alternative to the current genotoxicity test battery with a mechanistic follow up toxicogenomic analysis of genotoxic stress response as one approach that requires broader evaluation and validation. In this assay, intrachromosomal recombination events between a repeated DNA sequence lead to DNA deletions, which have been shown to be inducible by a variety of carcinogens including those both negative and positive in the standard Salmonella Ames assay. It is hoped that the general framework outlined along with this specific example will provoke broader interest to propose other potential test systems.     

Toxicological assessments of an ethanol extract complex of Descurainia sophia and Peucedanum praeruptorum: Subacute oral toxicity and genotoxicity studies

An ethanol extract complex of Descurainia sophia seeds and Peucedanum praeruptorum roots, called BP10A, has antitumor potential against colorectal cancer. In the present study, we evaluated the 28-day oral toxicity and the genotoxicity of BP10A. The subacute toxicity test was done through oral administration to mice. ICR mice (n = 10) received daily oral BP10A doses of 0, 500, 1000 and 2000 mg/kg for 28 consecutive days. During administration, general clinical signs, food consumption, organ weights, and hematologic, biochemical and histopathological parameters in male and female mice were assessed. No significant adverse effects up to the highest dose (2000 mg/kg) were found. The genotoxicity was evaluated using a battery of tests, including an in vitro bacterial reverse mutation (Ames) test, an in vivo micronucleus test using bone marrow cells in ICR mice and a chromosomal aberration test using CHL/IU cells. BP10A did not show any genotoxic signs in the Ames (up to 5000 μg/plate), micronucleus (up to 5000 mg/kg) and the chromosomal aberration tests (550-1750 μg/mL). Therefore, BP10A was considered safe based on the subacute toxicity and genotoxicity results, indicating that it is a useful pharmaceutical material with no adverse toxicity.     

Genetic toxicity assessment: employing the best science for human safety evaluation part III: the comet assay as an alternative to in vitro clastogenicity tests for early drug candidate selection.

Early screening of drug candidates for genotoxicity typically includes an analysis for mutagenicity in bacteria and for clastogenicity in cultured mammalian cells. In addition, in recent years, an early assessment of photogenotoxicity potential has become increasingly important. Also, for screening purposes, expert computer systems can be used to identify structural alerts. In cases where structural alerts are identified, mutagenicity testing limited to bacteria can be conducted. The sequence of computer-aided analysis and limited testing using bacteria allows for screening a comparatively large number of drug candidates. In contrast, considerably more resources, in terms of supplies, technical time, and the amount of a test substance needed, are required when screening for clastogenic activity in mammalian cells. In addition, the relatively large percentage of false positive results for rodent carcinogenicity associated with clastogenicity assays is of considerable concern. As a consequence, mammalian cell-based alternatives to clastogenicity assays are needed for early screening of mammalian genotoxicity. The comet assay is a relatively fast, simple, and sensitive technique for the analysis of DNA damage in mammalian cells. This assay seems especially useful for screening purposes because false positives associated with excessive toxicity appear to occur less frequently, only relatively small amounts of a test compound are needed, and certain steps of the test procedure can be automated. Therefore, the in vitro comet assay is proposed as an alternative to cytogenetic assays in early genotoxicity/photogenotoxicity screening of drug candidates.     

Inflammation and (secondary) genotoxicity of Ni and NiO nanoparticles

Abstract

Nanoparticle-induced genotoxicity can arise through different mechanisms, and generally, primary and secondary genotoxicity can be distinguished where the secondary is driven by an inflammatory response. It is, however, yet unclear how a secondary genotoxicity can be detected using in vitro methods. The aim of this study was to investigate inflammation and genotoxicity caused by agglomerated nickel (Ni) and nickel oxide (NiO) nanoparticles and, furthermore, to explore the possibility to test secondary (inflammation-driven) genotoxicity in vitro. As a benchmark particle to compare with, we used crystalline silica (quartz). A proteome profiler antibody array was used to screen for changes in release of 105 different cytokines and the results showed an increased secretion of various cytokines including vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) following exposure of macrophages (differentiated THP-1 cells). Both Ni and NiO caused DNA damage (comet assay) following exposure of human bronchial epithelial cells (HBEC) and interestingly conditioned media (CM) from exposed macrophages also resulted in DNA damage (2- and 3-fold increase for Ni and NiO, respectively). Similar results were also found when using a co-culture system of macrophages and epithelial cells. In conclusion, this study shows that it is possible to detect a secondary genotoxicity in lung epithelial cells by using in vitro methods based on conditioned media or co-cultures. Further investigation is needed in order to find out what factors that are causing this secondary genotoxicity and whether such effects are caused by numerous nanoparticles.     

The carcinogenic action of crystalline silica: A review of the evidence supporting secondary inflammation-driven genotoxicity as a principal mechanism

In 1987 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified crystalline silica (CS) as a probable carcinogen and in 1997 reclassified it as a Group 1 carcinogen, i.e., that there was sufficient evidence for carcinogenicity in experimental animals and sufficient evidence for carcinogenicity in humans. The Working Group noted that “carcinogenicity in humans was not detected in all industrial circumstances studied, carcinogenicity may be dependent on inherent characteristics of the crystalline silica or on external factors affecting its biological activity or distribution of its polymorphs.” This unusual statement that the physicochemical form of the CS influences its carcinogenicity is well understood at the toxicological level and arises as a consequence of the fact that CS activity depends on the reactivity of the CS surface, which can be blocked by a number of agents. We reviewed the literature on CS genotoxicity that has been published since the 1997 monograph, with special reference to the mechanism of CS genotoxicity. The mechanism of CS genotoxicity can be primary, a result of direct interaction of CS with target cells, or indirect, as a consequence of inflammation elicited by quartz, where the inflammatory cell-derived oxidants cause the genotoxicity. The review revealed a number of papers supporting the hypothesis that the CS genotoxic and inflammatory hazard is a variable one. In an attempt to attain a quantitative basis for the potential mechanism, we carried out analysis of published data and noted a 5-fold greater dose required to reach a threshold for genotoxic effects than for proinflammatory effects in the same cell line in vitro. When we related the calculated threshold dose at the proximal alveolar region for inflammation in a published study with the threshold dose for genotoxicity in vitro, we noted that a 60–120-fold greater dose was required for direct genotoxic effects in vitro. These data strongly suggests that inflammation is the driving force for genotoxicity and that primary genotoxicity of deposited CS would play a role only at very high, possibly implausible, exposures and deposited doses. Although based on rat studies and in vitro studies, and therefore with caveats, the analysis supports the hypothesis that the mechanism of CS genotoxicity is via inflammation-driven secondary genotoxicity. This may have implications for setting of the CS standard in workplaces. During the writing of this review (in May 2009), IARC undertook a review of carcinogenic substances, including CS. The Working Group met to reassess 10 separate agents including CS. This was not a normal monograph working group published as a large single monograph, but was published as a two-page report. This review group reaffirmed the carcinogenicity of “silica dust, crystalline in the form of quartz or cristobalite” as a Group 1 agent, with the lung as the sole tumor site. Of special relevance to the present review is that the cited “established mechanism events” for CS are restricted to the words “impaired particle clearance leading to macrophage activation and persistent inflammation.” The lack of mention of direct genotoxicity is in line with the conclusions reached in the present review.     

Risk Assessment in Immunotoxicology: I. Sensitivity and Predictability of Immune Tests

We have previously reported on the design and content of a screeningbattery involving a "tier" approach for detecting potentialimmunotoxic compounds in mice (Luster et al., 1988, Fundam.Appl. Toxicol. 10, 2–19). This battery has now been utilizedto examine a variety of compounds by the NIEHS ImmunotoxicologyLaboratory, the National Toxicology Programsponsored laboratories,and by the Cell Biology Department at the Chemical IndustryInstitute of Toxicology. The database generated from these studies,which consists of over 50 selected compounds, has been collectedand analyzed in an attempt to improve future testing strategiesand provide information to aid in quantitative risk assessmentfor immunotoxicity. Studies presented here have establishedthe ability of each of the tests or test combinations in thescreening battery to detect immunotoxic compounds. Efforts arecurrently underway using this database to determine the relationshipsbetween these immune tests and susceptibility to challenge withinfectious agents or transplantable tumor cells. The presentanalyses indicated that the performance of only two or threeimmune tests are sufficient to predict immunotoxic compoundsin rodents (>90% concordance). The tests that showed thehighest association with immunotoxicity were the splenic antibodyplaque forming cell response (78%) and cell surface marker analysis(83%). The relationship between immunotoxicity and carcinogenicity,as well as genotoxicity, was also determined. These analysessuggested that potential immunotoxic compounds are likely tobe rodent carcinogens (p = 0.019) although for compounds thatare not immunotoxic the carcinogenic status is unclear. Therewas no relationship observed between immunotoxicity and mutagenicityas determined using in vitro genotoxicity tests. The significanceof these observations is discussed in terms of the relationshipbetween immunotoxicity tests and biological/toxicological processesconcerned with human health (e.g., infectious disease).     

Evaluation of salidroside in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity

It is reported that salidroside, the main component of a traditional Chinese medicine, Rhodiola rosea, has the efficacy of protecting Coxsackie virus impairment. As part of a safety evaluation on salidroside for use in the treatment of viral myocarditis, the present study evaluated potential genotoxicity of salidroside by using the standard battery of tests (i.e., bacterial reverse mutation assay, chromosomal aberrations assay, and mouse micronucleus assay) recommended by the State Food and Drug Administration of China. The results showed that salidroside was not genotoxic under the conditions of the reverse mutation assay, chromosomal aberrations assay, and mouse micronucleus assay conditions. The anticipated clinical dose seems to be smaller than the doses administered in the genotoxicity assays. With confirmation from further toxicity studies, salidroside would hopefully prove to be a safe anti-Coxsackie virus agent.     

体内Pig-a基因突变试验方法的开发

体内基因突变是遗传毒理试验中非常重要的检测终点。国际人用药物注册技术协调会议（ICH）新版遗传毒性指导原则的出台,对体内遗传毒性检测方法的发展提出了更高的要求。新的检测体细胞突变的体内实验方法即磷脂酰肌醇聚糖A（Pig-a）基因突变试验,有望成为一项新药遗传毒性评价的标准试验。本文简要综述Pig-a体内基因突变试验的特点及其在新品种开发遗传毒性检测中的应用。     

Evaluation of 5-aminoisoquinoline (5-AIQ), a novel PARP-1 inhibitor for genotoxicity potential in vitro and in vivo

5-aminoisoquinoline (5-AIQ) is an active PARP-1 inhibitor as well as an important functional group various drugs. Quinolines are generally known as mutagenic and carcinogenic in various in vitro and in vivo systems, while both positive and negative findings are available on the mutagenic potential of several isoquinolines. Since no literature is available on the genotoxicity of 5-AIQ, a battery of tests were conducted, in accordance with relevant OECD protocols, such as bacterial reverse mutation test, in vitro chromosomal aberration test, and bone marrow micronucleus test in mouse. These studies demonstrate that 5-AIQ does not possess genotoxic activity both with in vitro and in vivo systems. The findings substantiate the therapeutic value of 5-AIQ.     

Genotoxicity investigations on nanomaterials

This review is based on the lecture presented at the April 2010 nanomaterials safety assessment Postsatellite to the 2009 EUROTOX Meeting and summarizes genotoxicity investigations on nanomaterials published in the open scientific literature (up to 2008). Special attention is paid to the relationship between particle size and positive versus negative outcome, as well as the dependence of the outcome on the test used. Salient conclusions and outstanding recommendations emerging from the information summarized in this review are as follows: recognize that nanomaterials are not all the same; therefore know and document what nanomaterial has been tested and in what form; take nanomaterials specific properties into account; in order to make your results comparable with those of others and on other nanomaterials: use or at least include in your studies standardized methods; use in vivo studies to put in vitro results into perspective; take uptake and distribution of the nanomaterial into account; and in order to become able to make extrapolations to risk for human: learn about the mechanism of nanomaterials genotoxic effects. Past experience with standard non-nanosubstances already had shown that mechanisms of genotoxic effects can be complex and their elucidation can be demanding, while there often is an immediate need to assess the genotoxic hazard. Thus, a practical and pragmatic approach to genotoxicity investigations of novel nanomaterials is the use of a battery of standard genotoxicity testing methods covering a wide range of mechanisms. Application of these standard methods to nanomaterials demands, however, adaptations, and the interpretation of results from the genotoxicity testing of nanomaterials needs additional considerations exceeding those used for standard size materials.     

The Comet Assay with Multiple Mouse Organs: Comparison of Comet Assay Results and Carcinogenicity with 208 Chemicals Selected from the IARC Monographs and U.S. NTP Carcinogenicity Database

ABSTRACT

The comet assay is a microgel electrophoresis technique for detecting DNA damage at the level of the single cell. When this technique is applied to detect genotoxicity in experimental animals, the most important advantage is that DNA lesions can be measured in any organ, regardless of the extent of mitotic activity. The purpose of this article is to summarize the in vivo genotoxicity in eight organs of the mouse of 208 chemicals selected from International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Groups 1, 2A, 2B, 3, and 4, and from the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) Carcinogenicity Database, and to discuss the utility of the comet assay in genetic toxicology.

Alkylating agents, amides, aromatic amines, azo compounds, cyclic nitro compounds, hydrazines, halides having reactive halogens, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were chemicals showing high positive effects in this assay. The responses detected reflected the ability of this assay to detect the fragmentation of DNA molecules produced by DNA single strand breaks induced chemically and those derived from alkali-labile sites developed from alkylated bases and bulky base adducts. The mouse or rat organs exhibiting increased levels of DNA damage were not necessarily the target organs for carcinogenicity. It was rare, in contrast, for the target organs not to show DNA damage. Therefore, organspecific genotoxicity was necessary but not sufficient for the prediction of organ-specific carcinogenicity. It would be expected that DNA crosslinkers would be difficult to detect by this assay, because of the resulting inhibition of DNA unwinding. The proportion of 10 DNA crosslinkers that was positive, however, was high in the gastrointestinal mucosa, stomach, and colon, but less than 50% in the liver and lung. It was interesting that the genotoxicity of DNA crosslinkers could be detected in the gastrointestinal organs even though the agents were administered intraperitoneally.

Chemical carcinogens can be classified as genotoxic (Ames test-positive) and putative nongenotoxic (Ames test-negative) carcinogens. The Ames test is generally used as a first screening method to assess chemical genotoxicity and has provided extensive information on DNA reactivity. Out of 208 chemicals studied, 117 are Ames test-positive rodent carcinogens, 43 are Ames test-negative rodent carcinogens, and 30 are rodent noncarcinogens (which include both Ames test-positive and negative noncarcinogens). High positive response ratio (110/117) for rodent genotoxic carcinogens and a high negative response ratio (6/30) for rodent noncarcinogens were shown in the comet assay. For Ames test-negative rodent carcinogens, less than 50% were positive in the comet assay, suggesting that the assay, which detects DNA lesions, is not suitable for identifying nongenotoxic carcinogens. In the safety evaluation of chemicals, it is important to demonstrate that Ames test-positive agents are not genotoxic in vivo. This assay had a high positive response ratio for rodent genotoxic carcinogens and a high negative response ratio for rodent genotoxic noncarcinogens, suggesting that the comet assay can be used to evaluate the in vivo genotoxicity of in vitro genotoxic chemicals. For chemicals whose in vivo genotoxicity has been tested in multiple organs by the comet assay, published data are summarized with unpublished data and compared with relevant genotoxicity and carcinogenicity data.

Because it is clear that no single test is capable of detecting all relevant genotoxic agents, the usual approach should be to carry out a battery of in vitro and in vivo tests for genotoxicity. The conventional micronucleus test in the hematopoietic system is a simple method to assess in vivo clastogenicity of chemicals. Its performance is related to whether a chemical reaches the hematopoietic system. Among 208 chemicals studied (including 165 rodent carcinogens), 54 rodents carcinogens do not induce micronuclei in mouse hematopoietic system despite the positive finding with one or two in vitro tests. Forty-nine of 54 rodent carcinogens that do not induce micronuclei were positive in the comet assay, suggesting that the comet assay can be used as a further in vivo test apart from the cytogenetic assays in hematopoietic cells. In this review, we provide one recommendation for the in vivo comet assay protocol based on our own data.     

In vitro and in vivo genotoxic effects of straight versus tangled multi-walled carbon nanotubes

Some multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) induce mesothelioma in rodents, straight MWCNTs showing a more pronounced effect than tangled MWCNTs. As primary and secondary genotoxicity may play a role in MWCNT carcinogenesis, we used a battery of assays for DNA damage and micronuclei to compare the genotoxicity of straight (MWCNT-S) and tangled MWCNTs (MWCNT-T) in vitro (primary genotoxicity) and in vivo (primary or secondary genotoxicity). C57Bl/6 mice showed a dose-dependent increase in DNA strand breaks, as measured by the comet assay, in lung cells 24?h after a single pharyngeal aspiration of MWCNT-S (1–200?μg/mouse). An increase was also observed for DNA strand breaks in lung and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) cells and for micronucleated alveolar type II cells in mice exposed to aerosolized MWCNT-S (8.2–10.8?mg/m³) for 4 d, 4?h/d. No systemic genotoxic effects, assessed by the γ-H2AX assay in blood mononuclear leukocytes or by micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes (MNPCEs) in bone marrow or blood, were observed for MWCNT-S by either exposure technique. MWCNT-T showed a dose-related decrease in DNA damage in BAL and lung cells of mice after a single pharyngeal aspiration (1–200?μg/mouse) and in MNPCEs after inhalation exposure (17.5?mg/m³). In vitro in human bronchial epithelial BEAS-2B cells, MWCNT-S induced DNA strand breaks at low doses (5 and 10?μg/cm²), while MWCNT-T increased strand breakage only at 200?μg/cm². Neither of the MWCNTs was able to induce micronuclei in vitro. Our findings suggest that both primary and secondary mechanisms may be involved in the genotoxicity of straight MWCNTs.