Workshop participants agreed that genotoxicity tests in mammalian cells in vitro produce a remarkably high and unacceptable occurrence of irrelevant positive results (e.g. when compared with rodent carcinogenicity). As reported in several recent reviews, the rate of irrelevant positives (i.e. low specificity) for some studies using in vitro methods (when compared to this "gold standard") means that an increased number of test articles are subjected to additional in vivo genotoxicity testing, in many cases before, e.g. the efficacy (in the case of pharmaceuticals) of the compound has been evaluated. If in vitro tests were more predictive for in vivo genotoxicity and carcinogenicity (i.e. fewer false positives) then there would be a significant reduction in the number of animals used. Beyond animal (or human) carcinogenicity as the "gold standard", it is acknowledged that genotoxicity tests provide much information about cellular behaviour, cell division processes and cellular fate to a (geno)toxic insult. Since the disease impact of these effects is seldom known, and a verification of relevant toxicity is normally also the subject of (sub)chronic animal studies, the prediction of in vivo relevant results from in vitro genotoxicity tests is also important for aspects that may not have a direct impact on carcinogenesis as the ultimate endpoint of concern. In order to address the high rate of in vitro false positive results, a 2-day workshop was held at the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM), Ispra, Italy in April 2006. More than 20 genotoxicity experts from academia, government and industry were invited to review data from the currently available cell systems, to discuss whether there exist cells and test systems that have a reduced tendency to false positive results, to review potential modifications to existing protocols and cell systems that might result in improved specificity, and to review the performance of some new test systems that show promise of improved specificity without sacrificing sensitivity. It was concluded that better guidance on the likely mechanisms resulting in positive results that are not biologically relevant for human health, and how to obtain evidence for those mechanisms, is needed both for practitioners and regulatory reviewers. Participants discussed the fact that cell lines commonly used for genotoxicity testing have a number of deficiencies that may contribute to the high false positive rate. These include, amongst others, lack of normal metabolism leading to reliance on exogenous metabolic activation systems (e.g. Aroclor-induced rat S9), impaired p53 function and altered DNA repair capability. The high concentrations of test chemicals (i.e. 10 mM or 5000 microg/ml, unless precluded by solubility or excessive toxicity) and the high levels of cytotoxicity currently required in mammalian cell genotoxicity tests were discussed as further potential sources of false positive results. Even if the goal is to detect carcinogens with short in vitro tests under more or less acute conditions, it does not seem logical to exceed the capabilities of cellular metabolic turnover, activation and defence processes. The concept of "promiscuous activation" was discussed. For numerous mutagens, the decisive in vivo enzymes are missing in vitro. However, if the substrate concentration is increased sufficiently, some other enzymes (that are unimportant in vivo) may take over the activation-leading to the same or a different active metabolite. Since we often do not use the right enzyme systems for positive controls in vitro, we have to rely on their promiscuous activation, i.e. to use excessive concentrations to get an empirical correlation between genotoxicity and carcinogenicity. A thorough review of published and industry data is urgently needed to determine whether the currently required limit concentration of 10mM or 5000 microg/ml, and high levels of cytotoxicity, are necessary for the detection of in vivo genotoxins and DNA-reactive, mutagenic carcinogens. In addition, various measures of cytotoxicity are currently allowable under OECD test guidelines, but there are few comparative data on whether different measures would result in different maximum concentrations for testing. A detailed comparison of cytotoxicity assessment strategies is needed. An assessment of whether test endpoints can be selected that are not intrinsically associated with cytotoxicity, and therefore are less susceptible to artefacts produced by cytotoxicity, should also be undertaken. There was agreement amongst the workshop participants that cell systems which are p53 and DNA-repair proficient, and have defined Phase 1 and Phase 2 metabolism, covering a broad set of enzyme forms, and used within the context of appropriately set limits of concentration and cytotoxicity, offer the best hope for reduced false positives. Whilst there is some evidence that human lymphocytes are less susceptible to false positives than the current rodent cell lines, other cell systems based on HepG2, TK6 and MCL-5 cells, as well as 3D skin models based on primary human keratinocytes also show some promise. Other human cell lines such as HepaRG, and human stem cells (the target for carcinogenicity) have not been used for genotoxicity investigations and should be considered for evaluation. Genetic engineering is also a valuable tool to incorporate missing enzyme systems into target cells. A collaborative research programme is needed to identify, further develop and evaluate new cell systems with appropriate sensitivity but improved specificity. In order to review current data for selection of appropriate top concentrations, measures and levels of cytotoxicity, metabolism, and to be able to improve existing or validate new assay systems, the participants called for the establishment of an expert group to identify the in vivo genotoxins and DNA-reactive, mutagenic carcinogens that we expect our in vitro genotoxicity assays to detect as well as the non-genotoxins and non-carcinogens we expect them not to detect.

How to reduce false positive results when undertaking in vitro genotoxicity testing and thus avoid unnecessary follow-up animal tests: Report of an ECVAM Workshop.

We have recently developed an alkaline elution/rat hepatocyte assay to sensitively measure DNA single-strand breaks induced by xenobiotics in non-radiolabeled rat hepatocytes. Here we have evaluated this assay as a predictor of carcinogenic/mutagenic activity by testing 91 compounds (64 carcinogens and 27 non-carcinogens) from more than 25 diverse chemical classes. Hepatocytes were isolated from uninduced rats by collagenase perfusion, exposed to chemicals for 3 h, harvested, and analyzed for DNA single-strand breaks by alkaline elution. DNA determinations were done fluorimetrically. Cytotoxicity was estimated by glutamate-oxaloacetate transaminase release or by trypan blue dye exclusion. The assay correctly predicted the reported carcinogenic/non-carcinogenic potential of 92% of the carcinogens tested and 85% of non-carcinogens tested. The assay detected a number of compounds, including inorganics, certain pesticides, and steroids, which give false-negative results in other short-term tests. Only 2 rat liver carcinogens were incorrectly identified; the other carcinogens incorrectly identified are weakly or questionably carcinogenic (i.e., they cause tumors only in one species, after lifetime exposure, or at high doses). Some chemicals cause DNA damage only at cytotoxic concentrations; of 16 such compounds in this study, 12 are weak carcinogens suggesting a link between DNA damage caused by cytotoxicity and carcinogenesis. Our data indicate that this assay rapidly, reproducibly, sensitively, and accurately detects DNA single-strand breaks in rat hepatocytes and that the production of these breaks correlates well with carcinogenic and mutagenic activity.

Evaluation of the alkaline elution/rat hepatocyte assay as a predictor of carcinogenic/mutagenic potential

The many complex phenotypes of cancer have all been attributed to “somatic mutation.” These phenotypes include anaplasia, autonomous growth, metastasis, abnormal cell morphology, DNA indices ranging from 0.5 to over 2, clonal origin but unstable and non-clonal karyotypes and phenotypes, abnormal centrosome numbers, immortality in vitro and in transplantation, spontaneous progression of malignancy, as well as the exceedingly slow kinetics from carcinogen to carcinogenesis of many months to decades. However, it has yet to be determined whether this mutation is aneuploidy, an abnormal number of chromosomes, or gene mutation. A century ago, Boveri proposed cancer is caused by aneuploidy, because it correlates with cancer and because it generates “pathological” phenotypes in sea urchins. But half a century later, when cancers were found to be non-clonal for aneuploidy, but clonal for somatic gene mutations, this hypothesis was abandoned. As a result aneuploidy is now generally viewed as a consequence, and mutated genes as a cause of cancer although, (1) many carcinogens do not mutate genes, (2) there is no functional proof that mutant genes cause cancer, and (3) mutation is fast but carcinogenesis is exceedingly slow. Intrigued by the enormous mutagenic potential of aneuploidy, we undertook biochemical and biological analyses of aneuploidy and gene mutation, which show that aneuploidy is probably the only mutation that can explain all aspects of carcinogenesis. On this basis we can now offer a coherent two-stage mechanism of carcinogenesis. In stage one, carcinogens cause aneuploidy, either by fragmenting chromosomes or by damaging the spindle apparatus. In stage two, ever new and eventually tumorigenic karyotypes evolve autocatalytically because aneuploidy destabilizes the karyotype, ie. causes genetic instability. Thus, cancer cells derive their unique and complex phenotypes from random chromosome number mutation, a process that is similar to regrouping assembly lines of a car factory and is analogous to speciation. The slow kinetics of carcinogenesis reflects the low probability of generating by random chromosome reassortments a karyotype that surpasses the viability of a normal cell, similar again to natural speciation. There is correlative and functional proof of principle: (1) solid cancers are aneuploid; (2) genotoxic and non-genotoxic carcinogens cause aneuploidy; (3) the biochemical phenotypes of cells are severely altered by aneuploidy affecting the dosage of thousands of genes, but are virtually un-altered by mutations of known hypothetical oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes; (4) aneuploidy immortalizes cells; (5) non-cancerous aneuploidy generates abnormal phenotypes in all species tested, e.g., Down syndrome; (6) the degrees of aneuploidies are proportional to the degrees of abnormalities in non-cancerous and cancerous cells; (7) polyploidy also varies biological phenotypes; (8) variation of the numbers of chromosomes is the basis of speciation. Thus, aneuploidy falls within the definition of speciation, and cancer is a species of its own. The aneuploidy hypothesis offers new prospects of cancer prevention and therapy. Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton 47:81–107, 2000. © 2000 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/1097-0169%28200010%2947%3A2%3C81%3A%3AAID-CM1%3E3.0.CO%3B2-%23

Aneuploidy, the somatic mutation that makes cancer a species of its own.

International Commission for Protection Against Environmental Mutagens and Carcinogens. Genotoxicity under extreme culture conditions. A report from ICPEMC Task Group 9

In vitro genotoxicity testing needs to include tests in both bacterial and mammalian cells, and be able to detect gene mutations, chromosomal damage and aneuploidy. This may be achieved by a combination of the Ames test (detects gene mutations) and the in vitro micronucleus test (MNvit), since the latter detects both chromosomal aberrations and aneuploidy. In this paper we therefore present an analysis of an existing database of rodent carcinogens and a new database of in vivo genotoxins in terms of the in vitro genotoxicity tests needed to detect their in vivo activity. Published in vitro data from at least one test system (most were from the Ames test) were available for 557 carcinogens and 405 in vivo genotoxins. Because there are fewer publications on the MNvit than for other mammalian cell tests, and because the concordance between the MNvit and the in vitro chromosomal aberration (CAvit) test is so high for clastogenic activity, positive results in the CAvit test were taken as indicative of a positive result in the MNvit where there were no, or only inadequate data for the latter. Also, because Hprt and Tk loci both detect gene-mutation activity, a positive Hprt test was taken as indicative of a mouse-lymphoma Tk assay (MLA)-positive, where there were no data for the latter. Almost all of the 962 rodent carcinogens and in vivo genotoxins were detected by an in vitro battery comprising Ames+MNvit. An additional 11 carcinogens and six in vivo genotoxins would apparently be detected by the MLA, but many of these had not been tested in the MNvit or CAvit tests. Only four chemicals emerge as potentially being more readily detected in MLA than in Ames+MNvit--benzyl acetate, toluene, morphine and thiabendazole--and none of these are convincing cases to argue for the inclusion of the MLA in addition to Ames+MNvit. Thus, there is no convincing evidence that any genotoxic rodent carcinogens or in vivo genotoxins would remain undetected in an in vitro test battery consisting of Ames+MNvit.

A core in vitro genotoxicity battery comprising the Ames test plus the in vitro micronucleus test is sufficient to detect rodent carcinogens and in vivo genotoxins.

The report reviews and evaluates the current literature (about 125 primary publications) on chemically induced specific locus mutations in the V79 Chinese hamster lung cell line. The V79 cell is convenient to use for mutagenesis studies since it has a rapid growth rate, high plating efficiency, and a stable karyotype. Mutation can be easily measured at either the hypoxanthine-guanine phosphoribosyl transferase or the Na+/K+ ATPase locus, both of which have been well characterized. Other less-studied markers are also described. We discuss the protocols for quantitative mutation studies including measurements of cytotoxicity, mutant expression times, mutant selection agents, cell densities during selection, and the stability and verification of mutant phenotypes. Mutations in the V79 cells by chemicals that require activation can be tested after their metabolism by cell homogenates or by intact cells, and the results with each type of activation are compared. For purposes of analysis, we classified a compound as mutagenic if it induced a mutation frequency that is at least 3 times higher than the spontaneous mutant frequency reported for that specific experiment. By this criterion two-thirds of the chemicals analyzed were mutagenic--; 11% with and 55% without metabolic activation. Of the 191 chemicals examined; 119 were polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; 25 were nitro or nitroso compounds, 9 were alkyl halides; 7 were purine or pyrimidine derivatives and the remaining 31 were from other chemical classes. We also defined mutagenic potency as the concentration of a compound that increases the mutant frequency by 10 times the spontaneous frequency. Mutagenic potencies of the compounds examined varied over a range of 5 X 10(6). We have also found large interlaboratory variations in the mutagenic potencies. Such variation in potency could be reduced by normalizing the results to a standard mutagen such as N-methyl-N'-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine. The role of the V79 assay in mutagenicity and carcinogenicity testing is discussed and recommendations are suggested for future investigation.

Mary C. Francis

Papers

Mutagenesis by chemical agents in V79 chinese hamster cells: a review and analysis of the literature. A report of the Gene-Tox Program