Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Marilyn Aardema

Publications and source records attributed to Marilyn Aardema.

6 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens II. Further analysis of mammalian cell results, relative predictivity and tumour profiles.

One of the consequences of the low specificity of the in vitro mammalian cell genotoxicity assays reported in our previous paper [D. Kirkland, M. Aardema, L. Henderson, L. Muller, Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens. I. Sensitivity, specificity and relative predictivity, Mutat. Res. 584 (2005) 1-256] is industry and regulatory agencies dealing with a large number of false-positive results during the safety assessment of new chemicals and drugs. Addressing positive results from in vitro genotoxicity assays to determine which are "false" requires extensive resources, including the conduct of additional animal studies. In order to reduce animal usage, and to conserve industry and regulatory agency resources, we thought it was important to raise the question as to whether the protocol requirements for a valid in vitro assay or the criteria for a positive result could be changed in order to increase specificity without a significant loss in sensitivity of these tests. We therefore analysed some results of the mouse lymphoma assay (MLA) and the chromosomal aberration (CA) test obtained for rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens in more detail. For a number of chemicals that are positive only in either of these mammalian cell tests (i.e. negative in the Ames test) there was no correlation between rodent carcinogenicity and level of toxicity (we could not analyse this for the CA test as insufficient data were available in publications), magnitude of response or lowest effective positive concentration. On the basis of very limited in vitro and in vivo data, we could also find no correlation between the above parameters and formation of DNA adducts. Therefore, a change to the current criteria for required level of toxicity in the MLA, to limit positive calls to certain magnitudes of response, or to certain concentration ranges would not improve the specificity of the tests without significantly reducing the sensitivity. We also investigated a possible correlation between tumour profile (trans-species, trans-sex and multi-site versus single-species, single-sex and single-site) and pattern of genotoxicity results. Carcinogens showing the combination of trans-species, trans-sex and multi-site tumour profile were much more prevalent (70% more) in the group of chemicals giving positive results in all three in vitro assays than amongst those giving all negative results. However, single-species, single-sex, single-site carcinogens were not very prevalent even amongst those chemicals giving three negative results in vitro. Surprisingly, when mixed positive and negative results were compared, multi-site carcinogens were highly prevalent amongst chemicals giving only a single positive result in the battery of three in vitro tests. Finally we extended our relative predictivity (RP) calculations to combinations of positive and negative results in the genotoxicity battery. For two out of three tests positive, the RP for carcinogenicity was no higher than 1.0 and for 2/3 tests negative the RP for non-carcinogenicity was either zero (for Ames+MLA+MN) or 1.7 (for Ames+MLA+CA). Thus, all values were less than a meaningful RP of two, and indicate that it is not possible to predict outcome of the rodent carcinogenicity study when only 2/3 genotoxicity results are in agreement.

Animals↗
PubMed2005

Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens I. Sensitivity, specificity and relative predictivity.

The performance of a battery of three of the most commonly used in vitro genotoxicity tests--Ames+mouse lymphoma assay (MLA)+in vitro micronucleus (MN) or chromosomal aberrations (CA) test--has been evaluated for its ability to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens, from a large database of over 700 chemicals compiled from the CPDB ("Gold"), NTP, IARC and other publications. We re-evaluated many (113 MLA and 30 CA) previously published genotoxicity results in order to categorise the performance of these assays using the response categories we established. The sensitivity of the three-test battery was high. Of the 553 carcinogens for which there were valid genotoxicity data, 93% of the rodent carcinogens evaluated in at least one assay gave positive results in at least one of the three tests. Combinations of two and three test systems had greater sensitivity than individual tests resulting in sensitivities of around 90% or more, depending on test combination. Only 19 carcinogens (out of 206 tested in all three tests, considering CA and MN as alternatives) gave consistently negative results in a full three-test battery. Most were either carcinogenic via a non-genotoxic mechanism (liver enzyme inducers, peroxisome proliferators, hormonal carcinogens) considered not necessarily relevant for humans, or were extremely weak (presumed) genotoxic carcinogens (e.g. N-nitrosodiphenylamine). Two carcinogens (5-chloro-o-toluidine, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane) may have a genotoxic element to their carcinogenicity and may have been expected to produce positive results somewhere in the battery. We identified 183 chemicals that were non-carcinogenic after testing in both male and female rats and mice. There were genotoxicity data on 177 of these. The specificity of the Ames test was reasonable (73.9%), but all mammalian cell tests had very low specificity (i.e. below 45%), and this declined to extremely low levels in combinations of two and three test systems. When all three tests were performed, 75-95% of non-carcinogens gave positive (i.e. false positive) results in at least one test in the battery. The extremely low specificity highlights the importance of understanding the mechanism by which genotoxicity may be induced (whether it is relevant for the whole animal or human) and using weight of evidence approaches to assess the carcinogenic risk from a positive genotoxicity signal. It also highlights deficiencies in the current prediction from and understanding of such in vitro results for the in vivo situation. It may even signal the need for either a reassessment of the conditions and criteria for positive results (cytotoxicity, solubility, etc.) or the development and use of a completely new set of in vitro tests (e.g. mutation in transgenic cell lines, systems with inherent metabolic activity avoiding the use of S9, measurement of genetic changes in more cancer-relevant genes or hotspots of genes, etc.). It was very difficult to assess the performance of the in vitro MN test, particularly in combination with other assays, because the published database for this assay is relatively small at this time. The specificity values for the in vitro MN assay may improve if data from a larger proportion of the known non-carcinogens becomes available, and a larger published database of results with the MN assay is urgently needed if this test is to be appreciated for regulatory use. However, specificity levels of <50% will still be unacceptable. Despite these issues, by adopting a relative predictivity (RP) measure (ratio of real:false results), it was possible to establish that positive results in all three tests indicate the chemical is greater than three times more likely to be a rodent carcinogen than a non-carcinogen. Likewise, negative results in all three tests indicate the chemical is greater than two times more likely to be a rodent non-carcinogen than a carcinogen. This RP measure is considered a useful tool for industry to assess the likelihood of a chemical possessing carcinogenic potential from batteries of positive or negative results.

Animals↗
PubMed2005

Carcinogenicity.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Animal Testing Alternatives↗
PubMed2004

The utility of DNA microarrays for characterizing genotoxicity.

Microarrays provide an unprecedented opportunity for comprehensive concurrent analysis of thousands of genes. The global analysis of the response of genes to a toxic insult (toxicogenomics), as opposed to the historical method of examining a few select genes, provides a more complete picture of toxicologically significant events. Here we examine the utility of microarrays for providing mechanistic insights into the response of cells to DNA damage. Our data indicate that the value of the technology is in its potential to provide mechanistic insight into the mode of action of a genotoxic compound. Array-based expression profiling may be useful for differentiating compounds that interact directly with DNA from those compounds that are genotoxic via a secondary mechanism. As such, genomic microarrays may serve as a valuable alternative methodology that helps discriminate between these two classes of compounds. Key words: biomarkers, gene expression profile, genetic toxicology, mechanism of action, toxicogenomics.

Animals↗
PubMed2003

Report from the in vitro micronucleus assay working group.

UNLABELLED: At the Washington "2nd International Workshop on Genotoxicity Testing" (25-26 March 1999) current methodologies and data for the in vitro micronucleus test were reviewed. As a result, guidelines for the conduct of specific aspects of the protocol were developed. Agreement was achieved on the following topics: choice of cells, slide preparation, analysis of micronuclei, toxicity, use of cytochalasin-B, number of doses, and treatment/harvest times [Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 35 (2000) 167]. Because there were a number of important in vitro micronucleus validation studies in progress, it was not possible to design a definitive, internationally harmonized protocol at that time. These studies have now been completed and the data were reviewed at the Plymouth "3rd International Workshop on Genotoxicity Testing" (28-29 June 2002). Data from studies coordinated by the French Society of Genetic Toxicology, Japanese collaborative studies, European pharmaceutical industry validation studies, along with data from Lilly Research Laboratories were used to prepare conclusions on the main aspects of the in vitro micronucleus protocol. In this paper, the consensus agreements on the protocol for performing the in vitro micronucleus assay are presented. The major recommendations concern: 1. Demonstration of cell proliferation: both cell lines and lymphocytes can be used, but demonstration of cell proliferation in both control and treated cells is compulsory for the acceptance of the test. 2. Assessment of toxicity and dose range finding: assessment of toxicity should be performed by determining cell proliferation, e.g. increased cell counts (CC) or population doubling (PD) without cytochalasin-B, or e.g. cytokinesis-block proliferation index with cytochalasin-B; and by determining other markers for cytotoxicity (confluency, apoptosis, necrosis) which can provide valuable additional information. 3. Treatment schedules for cell lines and lymphocytes. 4. Choice of positive controls: without S9-mix both a clastogen (e.g. mitomycin C or bleomycin) and an aneugen (e.g. colchicine) should be included as positive controls and a clastogen that requires S9 for activity when S9-mix is used (e.g. dimethylnitrosamine, or cyclophosphamide in those cell types that cannot activate this agent directly). 5. Duplicate cultures and number of cells to be scored. 6. Repeat experiments: in lymphocytes, for each experiment blood from 2 different healthy young and non-smoking donors should be compared. In cell lines, the experiments need only to be repeated if the first one is negative. 7. STATISTICS: statistical significance should not be the sole factor for determining positive results. Biological meaning should serve as a guideline. Examples of statistical analyses are given.

Animals↗