Abstract
AbstractCurrent in vitro genotoxicity tests can produce misleading positive results, indicating an inability to effectively predict a compound’s subsequent carcinogenic potential in vivo. Such oversensitivity can incur unnecessary in vivo tests to further investigate positive in vitro results, supporting the need to improve in vitro tests to better inform risk assessment. It is increasingly acknowledged that more informative in vitro tests using multiple endpoints may support the correct identification of carcinogenic potential. The present study, therefore, employed a holistic, multiple-endpoint approach using low doses of selected carcinogens and non-carcinogens (0.001–770 µM) to assess whether these chemicals caused perturbations in molecular and cellular endpoints relating to the Hallmarks of Cancer. Endpoints included micronucleus induction, alterations in gene expression, cell cycle dynamics, cell morphology and bioenergetics in the human lymphoblastoid cell line TK6. Carcinogens ochratoxin A and oestradiol produced greater Integrated Signature of Carcinogenicity scores for the combined endpoints than the “misleading” in vitro positive compounds, quercetin, 2,4-dichlorophenol and quinacrine dihydrochloride and toxic non-carcinogens, caffeine, cycloheximide and phenformin HCl. This study provides compelling evidence that carcinogens can successfully be distinguished from non-carcinogens using a holistic in vitro test system. Avoidance of misleading in vitro outcomes could lead to the reduction and replacement of animals in carcinogenicity testing.
Funder
National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research
Swansea University
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis,Toxicology,General Medicine
Reference64 articles.
1. Adeleye Y, Andersen M, Clewell R, Davies M, Dent M, Edwards S, Fowler P, Malcomber S, Nicol B, Scott A (2015) Implementing Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century (TT21C): Making safety decisions using toxicity pathways, and progress in a prototype risk assessment. Toxicology 332:102–111
2. Basic-Zaninovic T, Matijasevic Z, Alacevic M (1987) The relative size of micronuclei as an indicator of the mechanism of micronuclei induction by cycloheximide. Prehrambeno-tehnoloska i biotehnoloska revija (Yugoslavia) 25(3):69–72
3. Bašić-Zaninović T, Papeš D, Franekić J (1991) Cycloheximide genotoxicity in in vitro and in vivo test systems. Mut Res Lett 263(4):203–210
4. Benigni R (2014) Predicting the carcinogenicity of chemicals with alternative approaches: recent advances. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 10(9):1199–1208
5. Boorman, G. (1989). NTP Technical report on the toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of ochratoxin A (CAS No. 303–47–9) in F344/N Rats (Gavage Studies)(NIH Publication No. 89–2813). National Toxicology Program, US Department of Health and Human Services: Research Triangle Park, NC
Cited by
8 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献