Genotoxicity assessment of nanomaterials: recommendations on best practices, assays and methods

Genotoxicity assessment of nanomaterials: recommendations on best practices, assays and methods Abstract 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. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Toxicology 2018. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the US. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices) http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Toxicological Sciences Oxford University Press

Loading next page...
 
/lp/ou_press/genotoxicity-assessment-of-nanomaterials-recommendations-on-best-Cbrs0ERywk
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Toxicology 2018. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the US.
ISSN
1096-6080
eISSN
1096-0929
D.O.I.
10.1093/toxsci/kfy100
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract 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. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Toxicology 2018. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the US. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices)

Journal

Toxicological SciencesOxford University Press

Published: Apr 26, 2018

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off