4.4 Article

Evaluation of high-throughput genotoxicity assays used in profiling the US EPA ToxCast™ chemicals

Journal

REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY
Volume 55, Issue 2, Pages 188-199

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2009.07.004

Keywords

Genotoxicity; In vitro; High-throughput screening; ToxCast; Pesticides; Hazard assessment; GreenScreen HC; CellCiphr; CellSensor; p53; GADD45 alpha

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Three high-throughput screening (HTS) genotoxicity assays-GreenScreen HC GADD45a-GFP (Gentronix Ltd.), CellCiphr p53 (Cellumen Inc.) and CellSensor p53RE-bla (Invitrogen Corp.)-were used to analyze the collection of 320 predominantly pesticide active compounds being tested in Phase I of US. Environmental Protection Agency's ToxCast (TM) research project. Between 9% and 12% of compounds were positive for genotoxicity in the assays. However, results of the varied tests only partially overlapped, suggesting a strategy of combining data from a battery of assays. The HTS results were compared to mutagenicity (Ames) and animal tumorigenicity data. Overall, the HTS assays demonstrated low sensitivity for rodent tumorigens, likely due to: screening at a low concentration, coverage of selected genotoxic mechanisms, lack of metabolic activation and difficulty detecting non-genotoxic carcinogens. Conversely, HTS results demonstrated high specificity, >88%. Overall concordance of the HTS assays with tumorigenicity data was low, around 50% for all tumorigens, but increased to 74-78% (vs. 60% for Ames) for those compounds producing tumors in rodents at multiple sites and, thus, more likely genotoxic carcinogens. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the utility of HTS assays to identify potential genotoxicity hazard in the larger context of the ToxCast project, to aid prioritization of environmentally relevant chemicals for further testing and assessment of carcinogenicity risk to humans. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available