Title: Scientific opinion on genotoxicity testing strategies applicable to food and feed safety assessment
Abstract: EFSA JournalVolume 9, Issue 9 2379 OpinionOpen Access Scientific opinion on genotoxicity testing strategies applicable to food and feed safety assessment EFSA Scientific Committee, EFSA Scientific CommitteeSearch for more papers by this author EFSA Scientific Committee, EFSA Scientific CommitteeSearch for more papers by this author First published: 30 September 2011 https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2379Citations: 194 Scientific committee members: Boris Antunović, Susan Barlow, Andrew Chesson, Albert Flynn, Anthony Hardy, Michael-John Jeger, Ada Knaap, Harry Kuiper, John-Christian Larsen, David Lovell, Birgit Noerrung, Iona Pratt, Ivonne Rietjens, Josef Schlatter, Vittorio Silano, Frans Smulders and Philippe Vannier Correspondence: [email protected] Acknowledgement: The Scientific Committee wishes to thank the members of the Working Group on Genotoxicity testing Strategies: Gabriele Aquilina, Susan Barlow, Mona Lise Binderup, Claudia Bolognesi, Paul Brantom, Raffaella Corvi, Riccardo Crebelli, Eugenia Dogliotti, Metka Filipic, Corrado Galli (member until February 2011), Rainer Guertler, Andrea Hartwig, Peter Kasper, David Lovell, Daniel Marzin, Jan van Benthem for the preparatory work on this scientific opinion; David Kirkland as hearing expert. EFSA's staff member Daniela Maurici for the support provided to this scientific opinion. Adoption date: 13 September 2011 Published date: 30 September 2011 Question number: EFSA-Q-2009-00782 On request from: EFSA AboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Abstract The Scientific Committee reviewed the current state-of-the-science on genotoxicity testing and provided a commentary and recommendations on genotoxicity testing strategies. A step-wise approach is recommended for the generation and evaluation of data on genotoxic potential, beginning with a basic battery of in vitro tests, comprising a bacterial reverse mutation assay and an in vitro micronucleus assay. Consideration should be given to whether specific features of the test substance might require substitution of one or more of the recommended in vitro tests by other in vitro or in vivo tests in the basic battery. In the event of negative in vitro results, it can be concluded that the substance has no genotoxic potential. In case of inconclusive, contradictory or equivocal results, it may be appropriate to conduct further testing in vitro. In case of positive in vitro results, review of the available relevant data on the test substance and, where necessary, an appropriate in vivo study to assess whether the genotoxic potential observed in vitro is expressed in vivo is recommended. Suitable in vivo tests are the mammalian erythrocyte micronucleus test, transgenic rodent assay, and Comet assay. The approach to in vivo testing should be step-wise. If the first in vivo test is positive, no further testing is necessary and the substance should be considered as an in vivo genotoxin. If the test is negative, it may be possible to conclude that the substance is not an in vivo genotoxin. However, in some cases, a second in vivo test may be necessary (e.g. if the first test is negative but more than one endpoint in the in vitro tests are positive, an in vivo test on a second endpoint may be necessary). The combination of assessing different endpoints in different tissues in the same animal in vivo should also be considered. References Asanami S, Shimono K, 1997. Hypothermia induces micronuclei in mouse bone marrow cells. Mutat. Res. 393, 91– 98. Asanami S, Shimono K, Kaneda S, 1998. Transient hypothermia induces micronuclei in mice. Mutat. Res. 413, 7– 14. Ashby J, 1985. Fundamental structural alerts to potential carcinogenicity or noncarcinogenicity. Environ. Mutagenesis 7, 919– 921. Ashby J, 1986. Carcinogen/mutagen screening strategies. Mutagenesis 1, 309– 317. Ashby J, Tinwell H, Callander RD, 1990. Activity of urethane and N,N-dimethylurethane in the mouse bone-marrow micronucleus assay: equivalence of oral and intraperitoneal routes of exposure. Mutat. Res. 245, 227– 230. Benigni R, Bossa C, Worth A, 2010. Structural analysis and predictive value of the rodent in vivo micronucleus assay results. Mutagenesis 25, 335– 341. Benigni R, Bossa C, 2011. Alternative strategies for carcinogenicity assessment: an efficient and simplified approach based on in vitro mutagenicity and cell transformation assays. Mutagenesis 111, 455– 460. Bergman K, Müller L, Teigen SW, 1996. Series: current issues in mutagenesis and carcinogenesis, No. 65. The genotoxicity and carcinogenicity of paracetamol: a regulatory (re)view. Mutat. Res. 349, 263– 288. Birrell L, Cahill P, Hughes C, Tate M, Walmsley RM, 2010. GADD45a-GFP; GreenScreen HC assay results for the ECVAM recommended lists of genotoxic and non-genotoxic chemicals for assessment of new genotoxicity tests. Mutat. Res. 695, 87– 95. Bowen DE, Whitwell JW, Lillfordm L, Hnederson D, Kidd D, Mc Garry S, Pearce G, Beevers C, and Kirkland DJ. 2011. Evaluation of a multi-endpoint assay in rats, combining the bone-marrow micronucleus test, the Comet assay and the flow-cytometric peripheral blood micronucleus test, Mutat. Res. 722, 7– 19. Brown JP, Dietrich PS. 1983. Mutagenicity of selected sulfonated azo dyes in the Salmonella/microsome assay: use of aerobic and anaerobic activation procedures. Mutat Res. 116, 305– 315. Burke DA, Wedd DJ, Herriott D, Bayliss MK, Spalding DJ, Wilcox P, 1994. Evaluation of pyrazole and ethanol induced S9 fraction in bacterial mutagenicity testing, Mutagenesis 9, 23– 29. Burlinson B, Tice RR, Speit G, Agurell E, Brendler-Schwaab; SY, Collins AR, Escobar P, Honma M, Kumaravel TS, Nakajima M, Sasaki YF, Thybaud V, Uno Y, Vasquez M, Hartmann A, 2007. Fourth International Workgroup on Genotoxicity testing: results of the in vivo Comet assay workgroup. In vivo Comet Assay Workgroup, part of the Fourth International Workgroup on Genotoxicity Testing. Mutat. Res. 627, 31– 35. Cimino MC, 2006. Comparative overview of current international strategies and guidelines for genetic toxicology testing for regulatory purposes. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 47, 362– 390. Cimoli G, Malacarne D, Ponassi R, Valenti M, Alberti S, Parodi S, 2004. Meta-analysis of the role of p53 status in isogenic systems tested for sensitivity to cytotoxic antineoplastic drugs. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 1705, 103– 120. Clare MG, Lorenzon G, Akhurst LC, Marzin D, van Delft J, Montero R, Botta A, Bertens A, Cinelli S, Thybaud V, Lorge E, 2006. SFTG international collaborative study on in vitro micronucleus test II. Using human lymphocytes. Mutat. Res. 607, 37– 60. Claxton LD, Houk VS, Warren S, 2001. Methods for the spiral Salmonella mutagenicity assay including specialized applications. Mutat. Res. 488, 241– 257. Cole RJ, Taylor N, Cole J, Arlett CF, 1981. Short-term tests for transplacentally active carcinogens. I. Micronucleus formation in fetal and maternal mouse erythroblasts. Mutat. Res. 80, 141– 157. Collins AR, Oscoz AA, Brunborg G, Gaivão I, Giovannelli L, Kruszewski M, Smith CC, Stetina R, 2008. The Comet assay: topical issues. Mutagenesis 23, 143– 151. COM, 2011. Committee on Mutagenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumers Products, and the Environment (COM). Guidance on a strategy for genotoxicity testing of chemical substances. Available at: www.iacom.org.uk/guidstate/documents/COMGuidanceFINAL2.pdf Corvi R, Albertini S, Hartung T, Hoffmann S, Maurici D, Pfuhler S, van Benthem J, Vanparys P, 2008. ECVAM retrospective validation of the in vitro micronucleus test (MNT). Mutagenesis 271, 271– 283. Dearfield KL, Thybaud V, Cimino MC, Custer L, Czich A, Harvey JS, Hester S, Kim JH, Kirkland D, Levy DD, Lorge E, Moore MM, Ouédraogo-Arras; G, Schuler M, Suter W, Sweder K, Tarlo K, van Benthem J, van Goethem F, Witt KL, 2011. Follow-up actions from positive results of in vitro genetic toxicity testing. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 52, 177– 204. De Boeck M, van der Leede BJ, Van Goethem F, De Smedt A, Steemans M, Lampo A, Vanparys P, 2005. Flow cytometric analysis of micronucleated reticulocytes: Time- and dose-dependent response of known mutagens in mice, using multiple blood sampling. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 46, 30– 42. De Flora S, Izzotti A, 2007. Mutagenesis and cardiovascular diseases: molecular mechanisms, risk factors, and protective factors. Mutat. Res. 621, 5– 17. De Flora S, 2000. Threshold mechanisms and site specificity in chromium(VI) carcinogenesis. Carcinogenesis 21, 533– 541. Destici E, Oklejewicz M, Nijman R, Tamanini F, van der Horst GT, 2009. Impact of the circadian clock on in vitro genotoxic risk assessment assays. Mutat. Res. 680, 87– 94. Dobrovolsky VN, Miura D, Heflich RH, Dertinger SD, 2010. The in vivo Pig-a gene mutation assay, a potential tool for regulatory safety assessment. Env. Mol. Mutagen. 51, 825– 835. Doak SH, Jenkins GJ, Johnson GE, Quick E, Parry EM, Parry JM, 2007. Mechanistic influences for mutation induction curves after exposure to DNA-reactive carcinogens. Cancer Res. 67, 3904– 3911. Donato MT, Lahoz A, Castell JV, Gómez-Lech;ón MJ, 2008. Cell lines: a tool for in vitro drug metabolism studies. Curr. Drug Metab. 9, 1– 11. Eastmond DA, Hartwig A, Anderson D, Anwar W, Cimino MC, Dobrev I, Douglas GR, Nohmi T, Phillips DH, Vickers C, 2009. Mutagenicity testing for chemical risk assessment: update of the WHO/IPCS Harmonized Scheme. Mutagenesis 24, 341– 349. ECETOC, 1997. Aneuploidy. ECETOC Monograph No.27, August 1997. European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals, Brussels. ECHA, 2008a. Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment Chapter R.4: Evaluation of available information. Avaialable at: guidance.echa.europa.eu/docs/guidance_document/information_requirements_r4_en.pdf?vers=20_08_08. ECHA, 2008b. Guidance for the Implementation of REACH. Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment. Chapter R.7.a: Endpoint specific guidance. Section R.7.7 Mutagenicity and carcinogenicity, p 377. European Chemicals Agency, Helsinki. Available at: guidance.echa.europa.eu/docs/guidance_document/information_requirements_r7a_en.pdf?vers=02_02_10. EFSA, 2005. Opinion of the Scientific Committee on a request from EFSA related to A Harmonised Approach for Risk Assessment of Substances Which are both Genotoxic and Carcinogenic. The EFSA Journal 282, 1– 31. Available at: www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/282.htm. EFSA, 2007. Opinion of the Scientific Panel PPR related to the revision of Annexes II and III to Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market -Toxicological and metabolism studies. The EFSA Journal 449, 1– 60. Available at: www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/449.pdf. EFSA, 2008. Technical Guidance for establishing the safety of additives for the consumer prepared by the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed. Available at: www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/801.pdf. EFSA, 2009. Scientific Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Existing approaches incorporating replacement, reduction and refinement of animal testing: applicability in food and feed risk assessment. The EFSA Journal 1052, 1077. Available at: www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/1052.pdf. EFSA, 2011. Guidance on the risk assessment of the application of nanoscience and nanotechnologies in the food and feed chain. The EFSA Journal 9(5): 21– 40. Available at: www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/2140.pdf Elhajouji A, Van Hummelen P, Kirsch-Volders; M, 1995. Indications for a threshold of chemically-induced aneuploidy in vitro in human lymphocytes. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 26, 292– 304. Elhajouji A, Tibaldi F, Kirsch-Volders; M, 1997. Indication for thresholds of chromosome ***nondisjunction versus chromosome lagging induced by spindle inhibitors in vitro in human lymphocytes. Mutagenesis 12, 133– 140. Ellinger-Ziegelbauer; H Aubrecht J, Kleinjans JC, Ahr HJ, 2009. Application of toxicogenomics to study mechanisms of genotoxicity and carcinogenicity. Toxicol. Letters 186, 36– 44. EU, 2008. Council Regulation (EC) No 440/2008 of 30 May 2008 laying down test methods pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH). Official Journal of the European Union, L142, 1– 739. 31.05.2008. Erickson RP, 2010. Somatic gene mutation and human disease other than cancer: an update. Mutat. Res. 705, 96– 106. FAO/WHO, 2006. Evaluation of Certain Food Contaminants. Sixty-fourth Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. World Health Organization, Geneva. Available at: whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_930_eng.pdf. Fernando RC, Nair J, Barbin A, Miller JA, Bartsch JA, 1996. Detection of 1,N6-ethenodeoxyadenosine and 3,N4-ethenodeoxycytidine by immunoaffinity/32P-postlabelling in liver and lung DNA of mice treated with ethyl carbamate (urethane) or it's metabolites, Carcinogenesis 17, 1711– 1718. Flückiger-Isler; S, Baumeister M, Braun K, Gervais V, Hasler-Nguyen; N, Reimann R, Van Gompel J, Wunderlich HG, Engelhardt G, 2004. Assessment of the performance of the Ames II assay: a collaborative study with 19 coded compounds. Mutat. Res. 558, 181– 197. Forkert PG, Lee RP, 1997. Metabolism of ethyl carbamate by pulmonary cytochrome P450 and carboxylesterase isozymes: involvement of CYP2E1 and hydrolase A, Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 146, 245– 254. Fowler P, Smith K, Young J, Jeffrey L, Kirkland D, Pfuhler S, Carmichael P, 2011. Reduction of misleading (“false”) positive results in mammalian cell genotoxicity assays. I. Choice of cell type. In press Fowler, P., Williams, K., Jeffrey, L., Young, J., Carmichael, P., Aardema, M., Diembeck, W., Fautz, R., Harvey, J., Hewitt, N., Latil, A., Pfuhler, S., Quedraogo, G., Reisinger, K., Marrec-Fairley;, M., Kirkland, D. 2009. Reduction of misleading (False”) positive results in mammalian cell genotoxicity assays: I. Choice of cell type. VII World Congress on Alternatives & Animal Use in the Life Sciences, 30th August-3rd September, 2009. Rome, Italy. Altex 26, special issue, p. 190. altweb.jhsph.edu/altex/26_special/index.html. Frank SA, 2010. Evolution in health and medicine Sackler colloquium: Somatic evolutionary genomics: mutations during development cause highly variable genetic mosaicism with risk of cancer and neurodegeneration. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 107 Suppl 1, 1725– 1730. Galloway S, Lorge E, Aardema M, Eastmond D, Fellows M, Heflich R, Kirkland D, Levy DD, Lynch A, Marzin D, Morita T, Schuler M, Speit G, 2011. Workshop summary: top concentration for in vitro mammalian cell genotoxicity assays and report from working group on toxicity measures and top concentration for in vitro cytogenetics assays (chromosomal aberrations and micronucleus). Mutat. Res. 723, 77– 83. Gatehouse DG, Paes DJ, 1983. A demonstration of the in vitro bacterial mutagenicity of procarbazine, using the microtitre fluctuation test and large concentrations of S9 fraction. Carcinogenesis 4, 347– 352. Gaylor DW, Kodell RL, Chen JJ, Krewski D, 1999. A unified approach to risk assessment for cancer and noncancer endpoints based on benchmark doses and uncertainty/safety factors. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 29, 151– 157. Gocke E, Müller L, 2009. In vivo studies in the mouse to define a threshold for the genotoxicity of EMS and ENU. Mutat. Res. 678, 101– 107. Gold LS, Gaylor DW, Slone TH, 2003. Comparison of cancer risk estimates based on a variety of risk assessment methodologies. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 37, 45– 53. Hartmann A, Agurell E, Beevers C, Brendler-Schwaab; S, Burlinson B, Clay P, Collins A, Smith A, Speit G, Thybaud V, Tice RR; 4th International Comet Assay Workshop, 2003. Recommendations for conducting the in vivo alkaline Comet assay. 4th International Comet Assay Workshop. Mutagenesis 18, 45– 51. Hastwell PW, Chai LL, Roberts KJ, Webster TW, Harvey JS, Rees RW, Walmsley RM, 2006. High specificity and high-sensitivity genotoxicity assessment in a human cell line: validation of the GreenScreen HC GADD45a-GFP; genotoxicity assay. Mutat. Res. 607, 160– 175. Hastwell PW, Webster TW, Tate M, Billinton N, Lynch AM, Harvey JS, Rees RW, Walmsley RM, 2009. Analysis of 75 marketed pharmaceuticals using the GADD45a-GFP; ‘GreenScreen HC’ genotoxicity assay. Mutagenesis 24, 455– 463. Heddle JA, Dean S, Nohmi T, Boerrigter M, Casciano D, Douglas GR, Glickman BW, Gorelick NJ, Mirsalis JC, Martus HJ, Skopek TR, Thybaud V, Tindall KR, Yajima N, 2000. In vivo transgenic mutation assays. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 35, 253– 259. Hoeijmakers JH, 2009. DNA damage, aging, and cancer. New Engl. J. Med. 361, 1475– 1485. ICH, 2010. ICHS2(R1): Genotoxicity: Testing and Data Interpretation for Pharmaceuticals Intended for Human Use. Step 2 Document, 2008. Available at: www.ich.org/products/guidelines/safety/article/safety-guidelines.html. http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Safety/S2_R1/Step2/S2_R1__Guideline.pdf ILSI, 2008. HESI and Health Canada collaborate on toxicity testing. ***lnternational Life Sciences Institute, Washington DC. ILSI News, 26, 2– 3. Jagger C, Tate M, Cahill PA, Hughes C, Knight AW, Billinton N Walmsley RM, 2009. Assessment of the genotoxicity of S9-generated metabolites using the GreenScreen HC GADD45a-GFP; assay. Mutagenesis 24, 35– 50. Jenkins GJ, Zair Z, Johnson GE, Doak SH, 2010. Genotoxic thresholds, DNA repair, and susceptibility in human populations. Toxicology 278, 305– 310. JRC, 2010. Scientific Report submitted to EFSA. Applicability of QSAR analysis to the evaluation of the toxicological relevance of metabolites and degradates of pesticide active substances for dietary risk assessment. Available at: www.efsa.europa.eu/en/scdocs/scdoc/50e.htm. Kaina B, Christmann M, Naumann S, Roos WP, 2007. MGMT: key node in the battle against genotoxicity, carcinogenicity and apoptosis induced by alkylating agents. DNA Repair 6, 1079– 1099. Kasper P, Uno Y, Mauthe R, Asano N, Douglas G, Matthews E, Moore M, Mueller L, Nakajima M, Singer T, Speit G; IWGT Workgroup, 2007. Follow-up testing of rodent carcinogens not positive in the standard genotoxicity testing battery: IWGT workgroup report. Mutat. Res. 627, 106– 116. Kim BS, Margolin BH, 1999. Prediction of rodent carcinogenicity utilizing a battery of in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity tests. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 34, 297– 304. Kirkland D, Aardema M, Henderson L, Müller L, 2005. Evaluation of the ability of a battery of 3 in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens. I. Sensitivity, specificity and relative predictivity, Mutat. Res. 584, 1– 256. Kirkland D, Pfuhler S, Tweats D, Aardema M, Corvi R, Darroudi F, Elhajouji A, Glatt H, Hastwell P, Hayashi M, Kasper P, Kirchner S, Lynch A, Marzin D, Maurici D, Meunier JR, Müller L, Nohynek G, Parry J, Parry E, Thybaud V, Tice R, van Benthem J, Vanparys P, White P, 2007a. 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. Mutat. Res. 628, 31– 55. Kirkland DJ, Hayashi M, Jacobson-Kram; D, Kasper P, MacGregor JT, Müller L, Uno Y, 2007b. The International Workshops on Genotoxicity Testing (IWGT): history and achievements. Mutat. Res. 627, 1– 4. Kirkland D, Aardema M, Banduhn N, Carmichael P, Fautz R, Meunier J-R;, Pfuhler S, 2007c. In vitro approaches to develop weight of evidence (WoE) and mode of action (MoA) discussions with positive in vitro genotoxicity results. Mutagenesis 22, 161– 175. Kirkland D, Kasper P, Müller L, Corvi R, Speit G, 2008. Recommended lists of genotoxic and non-genotoxic chemicals for assessment of the performance of new or improved genotoxicity tests: A follow-up to an ECVAM workshop, Mutat. Res. 653, 99– 108. Kirkland D, Speit G, 2008. Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens III. Appropriate follow-up testing in vivo. Mutat Res. 654, 114– 1132. Kirkland D, Fowler P, 2010. Further analysis of Ames-negative rodent carcinogens that are only genotoxic in mammalian cells in vitro at concentrations exceeding 1 mM, including retesting of compounds of concern. Mutagenesis 25, 539– 553. Kirkland D, Reeve L, Gatehouse D, Vanparys P, 2011. 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. Mutat. Res. 721, 27– 73. Klimisch HJ, Andreae M, Tillmann U, 1997. A systematic approach for evaluating the quality of experimental toxicological and ecotoxicological data. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 25, 1– 5. Ku WW, Bigger A, Brambilla G, Glatt H, Gocke E, Guzzie PJ, Hakura A, Honma M, Martus HJ, Obach RS, Roberts S; Strategy Expert Group, IWGT, 2007. Strategy for genotoxicity testing-Metabolic; considerations. Mutat. Res. 627, 59– 77. Lambert IB, Singer TM, Boucher SE, Douglas GR, 2005. Detailed review of transgenic rodent mutation assays. Mutat. Res. 590, 1– 280. Lambert IB, Singer TM, Boucher SE, Douglas GR, 2008. Detailed review paper on transgenic rodent mutation assays. OECD Environmental, Health and Safety Publications, available at: www.oecd.org/dataoecd/53/35/40835004.pdf LeBoeuf RA, Kerckaert KA, Aardema MJ, Isfort RJ, 1999. Use of Syrian hamster embryo and BALB/c 3T3 cell transformation for assessing the carcinogenic potential of chemicals. IARC Sci. Publ. 146, 409– 425. Lehman TA, Modali R, Boukamp P, Stanek J, Bennett WP, Welsh JA, Metcalf RA, Stampfer MR, Fusenig N, Rogan EM, et al. 1993. P53 mutations in human immortalized epithelial cell lines. Carcinogenesis 14, 833– 839. Lorge E, Thybaud V, Aardema MJ, Oliver J, Wakata A, Lorenzon G, Marzin D, 2006. SFTG international collaborative study on in vitro micronucleus test I. General conditions and overall conclusions of the study. Mutat. Res. 607, 13– 36 Lynch AM, Sasaki JC, Elespuru R, Jacobson-Kram; D, Thybaud V, De Boeck M, Aardema MJ, Aubrecht J, Benz RD, Dertinger SD, Douglas GR, White PA, Escobar PA, Fornace A Jr, Honma M, Naven RT, Rusling JF, Schiestl RH, Walmsley RM, Yamamura E, van Benthem J, Kim JH, 2011. New and emerging technologies for genetic toxicity testing. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 52, 205– 223. Matthews EJ, Kruhlak NL, Cimino MC, Benz RD, Contrera JF, 2006. An analysis of genetic toxicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, and carcinogenicity data: I. Identification of carcinogens using surrogate endpoints. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 44, 83– 96 McCarroll N, Keshava N, Chen J, Akerman G, Kligerman A, Rinde E, 2010. An evaluation of the mode of action framework for mutagenic carcinogens case study II: chromium (VI). Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 51, 89– 111. Mirsalis JC, Shimon JA, Johnson A, Fairchild D, Kanazawa N, Nguyen T, de Boer J, Glickman B, Winegar RA, 2005. Evaluation of mutant frequencies of chemically induced tumors and normal tissues in lambda/cII transgenic mice. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 45, 17– 35. Moore MM, Honma M, Clements J, Awogi T, Bolcsfoldi G, Cole J, Gollapudi B, Harrington-Brock; K, Mitchell A, Muster W, Myhr B, O'Donovan M, Ouldelhkim MC, San R, Shimada H, Stankowski Jr LF, 2000. Mouse lymphoma thymidine kinase locus gene mutation assay: International Workshop on Genotoxicity Test Procedures Workgroup Report. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 35, 185– 190. Moore MM, Honma M, Clements J, Harrington-Brock; K, Awogi T, Bolcsfoldi G, Cifone M, Collard D, Fellows M, Flanders K, Gollapudi B, Jenkinson P, Kirby P, Kirchner S, Kraycer J, McEnaney S, Muster W, Myhr B, O'Donovan M, Oliver J, Ouldelhkim MC, Pant K, Preston R, Riach C, San R, Shimada H, Stankowski Jr LF, 2002. Mouse lymphoma thymidine kinase gene mutation assay: follow-up international workshop on genotoxicity test procedures, New Orleans, Louisiana, Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 40, 292– 299. Moore MM, Honma M, Clements J, Bolcsfoldi G, Cifone M, Delongchamp R, Fellows M, Gollapudi B, Jenkinson P, Kirby P, Kirchner S, Muster W, Myhr B, O'Donovan M, Oliver J, Omori T, Ouldelhkim MC, Pant K, Preston R, Riach C, San R, Stankowski Jr LF, Thakur A, Wakuri S, Yoshimura I, 2003. Mouse lymphoma thymidine kinase gene mutation assay: International Workshop on Genotoxicity Tests Workgroup Report - Plymouth, UK 2002, Mutat. Res. 540, 127– 140. Moore MM, Honma M, Clements J, Bolcsfoldi G, Burlinson B, Cifone M, Clarke J, Delongchamp R, Durward R, Fellows M, Gollapudi B, Hou S, Jenkinson P, Lloyd M, Majeska J, Myhr B, O'Donovan M, Omori T, Riach C, San R, Stankowski Jr LF, Thakur AK, Van Goethem F, Wakuri S, Yoshimura I, 2006. Mouse lymphoma thymidine kinase gene mutation assay: Follow-up meeting of the International Workshop on Genotoxicity Testing - Aberdeen, Scotland, 2003 -Assay acceptance criteria, positive controls, and data evaluation, Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 47, 1– 5. Moore MM, Honma M, Clements J, Bolcsfoldi G, Burlinson B, Cifone M, Clarke J, Clay P, Doppalapudi R, Fellows M, Gollapudi B, Hou S, Jenkinson P, Muster W, Pant K, Kidd DA, Lorge E, Lloyd M, Myhr B, O'Donovan M, Riach C, Stankowski LF Jr, Thakur AK, Van Goethem F; Mouse Lymphoma Assay Workgroup, IWGT, 2007. Mouse lymphoma thymidine kinase gene mutation assay: meeting of the International Workshop on Genotoxicity Testing, San Francisco, 2005, recommendations for 24-h treatment. Mutat. Res. 627, 36– 40. Morris SM, 2002. A role for p53 in the frequency and mechanism of mutation. Mutat Res. 511, 45– 62. Müller L, Blakey D, Dearfield KL, Galloway S, Guzzie P, Hayashi M, Kasper P, Kirkland D, MacGregor JT, Parry JM, Schechtman L, Smith A, Tanaka N, Tweats D, Yamasaki H: IWGT Expert Group, 2003. Strategy for genotoxicity testing and stratification of genotoxicity test results-report on initial activities of the IWGT Expert Group. Mutat. Res. 540, 177– 181. OECD, 1997a. OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals. Bacterial reverse mutation test (TG 471). Available at: www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/test-no-471-bacterial-reverse-mutation-test_9789264071247-en OECD, 1997b. OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals. Mammalian Erythrocyte Micronucleus Test (TG 474). Available at: www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/test-no-474-mammalian-erythrocyte-micronucleus-test_9789264071285-en OECD, 2007. Detailed review paper on cell transformation assays for detection of chemical carcinogens, OECD Environment, Health and Safety Publications, Series on Testing and Assessment, No. 31. Available at: applil.oecd.org/olis/2007doc.nsf/linkto/env-jm-mono(2007)18. OECD, 2009. Detailed review paper on transgenic rodent mutation assays, series on testing and assessment number 103, OECD, Paris, July 23, 2009. Available at: www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/displaydocumentpdf?cote=eNV/JM/MONO(2009)29&doclanguage=en OECD, 2010a. OECD Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals: In Vitro Mammalian Cell Micronucleus Test (TG 487). Available at: www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/test-no-487-in-vitro-mammalian-cell-micronucleus-test_9789264091016-en OECD 2010b. OECD Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals: Toxicokinetics (TG 417). Available at: www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/test-no-417-toxicokinetics_9789264070882-en;jsessionid=2pchhfj64vult.epsilon OECD, 2011. OECD Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals: Transgenic rodent somatic and germ cell gene mutation assays (TG 488). Available at: www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/test-no-488-transgenic-rodent-somatic-and-germ-cell-gene-mutation-assays_9789264122819-en OECD Guidelines for testing chemicals section 4: Health Effects: All available at: www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/oecd-guidelines-for-the-testing-of-chemicals-section-4-health-effects_20745788 Ogawa I, Furukawa S, Abe M, Tanaka Y, Hayashi S, Usuda K, 2009. Multi-endpoint genotoxic assay using L5178Y (Tk+/- -3.7.2c) cells. J. Toxicol. Sci. 34, 547– 553. Parry JM, Fielder RJ, McDonald A, 1994. Threshol