In vitro micronucleus assay: Method for assessment of nanomaterials using cytochalasin B

The in vitro micronucleus (MNvit) assay is used to evaluate the aneugenic and clastogenic potential of a test material based upon its ability to induce micronuclei in the cells. This protocol is provided for testing of nanomaterials (NM) with standard cell lines in the absence of metabolic activation. The use of cytochalasin B (CytoB) and the analysis of binucleated cells in the cytokinesis-block version of the micronucleus assay ensures that cells analyzed have undergone cell division, which is required for expression of DNA damage and micronucleus formation. Issues specific to NM that were problematic with standard test methods are addressed, including test system choice, dose selection, test material exposures, CytoB timing, cytotoxicity determination, and DNA damage expression time. A step-by-step protocol for in vitro micronucleus assessment of NM is provided.

Genotoxicity Assessment of Nanomaterials: Recommendations on Best Practices, Assays, and Methods

Nanomaterials (NMs) present unique challenges in safety evaluation. An international working group, the Genetic Toxicology Technical Committee of the International Life Sciences Institute's Health and Environmental Sciences Institute, has addressed issues related to the genotoxicity assessment of NMs. A critical review of published data has been followed by recommendations on methods alterations and best practices for the standard genotoxicity assays: bacterial reverse mutation (Ames); in vitro mammalian assays for mutations, chromosomal aberrations, micronucleus induction, or DNA strand breaks (comet); and in vivo assays for genetic damage (micronucleus, comet and transgenic mutation assays). The analysis found a great diversity of tests and systems used for in vitro assays; many did not meet criteria for a valid test, and/or did not use validated cells and methods in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Test Guidelines, and so these results could not be interpreted. In vivo assays were less common but better performed. It was not possible to develop conclusions on test system agreement, NM activity, or mechanism of action. However, the limited responses observed for most NMs were consistent with indirect genotoxic effects, rather than direct interaction of NMs with DNA. We propose a revised genotoxicity test battery for NMs that includes in vitro mammalian cell mutagenicity and clastogenicity assessments; in vivo assessments would be added only if warranted by information on specific organ exposure or sequestration of NMs. The bacterial assays are generally uninformative for NMs due to limited particle uptake and possible lack of mechanistic relevance, and are thus omitted in our recommended test battery for NM assessment. Recommendations include NM characterization in the test medium, verification of uptake into target cells, and limited assay-specific methods alterations to avoid interference with uptake or endpoint analysis. These recommendations are summarized in a Roadmap guideline for testing.

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.