Follow-up actions from positive results of in vitro genetic toxicity testing
Article first published online: 20 OCT 2010
Copyright © 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis
Volume 52, Issue 3, pages 177–204, April 2011
How to Cite
Dearfield, K. L., Thybaud, V., Cimino, M. C., Custer, L., Czich, A., Harvey, J. S., Hester, S., Kim, J. H., Kirkland, D., Levy, D. D., Lorge, E., Moore, M. M., Ouédraogo-Arras, G., Schuler, M., Suter, W., Sweder, K., Tarlo, K., van Benthem, J., van Goethem, F. and Witt, K. L. (2011), Follow-up actions from positive results of in vitro genetic toxicity testing. Environ. Mol. Mutagen., 52: 177–204. doi: 10.1002/em.20617
- Issue published online: 5 MAR 2011
- Article first published online: 20 OCT 2010
- Manuscript Accepted: 18 JUN 2010
- Manuscript Revised: 16 JUN 2010
- Manuscript Received: 19 MAR 2010
- genotoxicity assays;
- in vitro positives;
- ILSI HESI
Appropriate follow-up actions and decisions are needed when evaluating and interpreting clear positive results obtained in the in vitro assays used in the initial genotoxicity screening battery (i.e., the battery of tests generally required by regulatory authorities) to assist in overall risk-based decision making concerning the potential effects of human exposure to the agent under test. Over the past few years, the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI) Project Committee on the Relevance and Follow-up of Positive Results in In Vitro Genetic Toxicity (IVGT) Testing developed a decision process flow chart to be applied in case of clear positive results in vitro. It provides for a variety of different possibilities and allows flexibility in choosing follow-up action(s), depending on the results obtained in the initial battery of assays and available information. The intent of the Review Subgroup was not to provide a prescriptive testing strategy, but rather to reinforce the concept of weighing the totality of the evidence. The Review Subgroup of the IVGT committee highlighted the importance of properly analyzing the existing data, and considering potential confounding factors (e.g., possible interactions with the test systems, presence of impurities, irrelevant metabolism), and chemical modes of action when analyzing and interpreting positive results in the in vitro genotoxicity assays and determining appropriate follow-up testing. The Review Subgroup also examined the characteristics, strengths, and limitations of each of the existing in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity assays to determine their usefulness in any follow-up testing. Environ. Mol. Mutagen., 2011. © 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.