Time filter

Source Type

Dearfield K.L.,U.S. Department of Agriculture | Thybaud V.,Sanofi S.A. | Cimino M.C.,U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | Custer L.,Bristol Myers Squibb | And 16 more authors.
Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis | Year: 2011

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. © 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.


PubMed | ILSI Health and Environmental science Institute HESI, Environmental Health Science and Research Bureau, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment RIVM, University of Swansea and 10 more.
Type: | Journal: Environmental and molecular mutagenesis | Year: 2016

For several decades, regulatory testing schemes for genetic damage have been standardized where the tests being utilized examined mutations and structural and numerical chromosomal damage. This has served the genetic toxicity community well when most of the substances being tested were amenable to such assays. The outcome from this testing is usually a dichotomous (yes/no) evaluation of test results, and in many instances, the information is only used to determine whether a substance has carcinogenic potential or not. Over the same time period, mechanisms and modes of action (MOAs) that elucidate a wider range of genomic damage involved in many adverse health outcomes have been recognized. In addition, a paradigm shift in applied genetic toxicology is moving the field toward a more quantitative dose-response analysis and point-of-departure (PoD) determination with a focus on risks to exposed humans. This is directing emphasis on genomic damage that is likely to induce changes associated with a variety of adverse health outcomes. This paradigm shift is moving the testing emphasis for genetic damage from a hazard identification only evaluation to a more comprehensive risk assessment approach that provides more insightful information for decision makers regarding the potential risk of genetic damage to exposed humans. To enable this broader context for examining genetic damage, a next generation testing strategy needs to take into account a broader, more flexible approach to testing, and ultimately modeling, of genomic damage as it relates to human exposure. This is consistent with the larger risk assessment context being used in regulatory decision making. As presented here, this flexible approach for examining genomic damage focuses on testing for relevant genomic effects that can be, as best as possible, associated with an adverse health effect. The most desired linkage for risk to humans would be changes in loci associated with human diseases, whether in somatic or germ cells. The outline of a flexible approach and associated considerations are presented in a series of nine steps, some of which can occur in parallel, which was developed through a collaborative effort by leading genetic toxicologists from academia, government, and industry through the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI) Genetic Toxicology Technical Committee (GTTC). The ultimate goal is to provide quantitative data to model the potential risk levels of substances, which induce genomic damage contributing to human adverse health outcomes. Any good risk assessment begins with asking the appropriate risk management questions in a planning and scoping effort. This step sets up the problem to be addressed (e.g., broadly, does genomic damage need to be addressed, and if so, how to proceed). The next two steps assemble what is known about the problem by building a knowledge base about the substance of concern and developing a rational biological argument for why testing for genomic damage is needed or not. By focusing on the risk management problem and potential genomic damage of concern, the next step of assay(s) selection takes place. The work-up of the problem during the earlier steps provides the insight to which assays would most likely produce the most meaningful data. This discussion does not detail the wide range of genomic damage tests available, but points to types of testing systems that can be very useful. Once the assays are performed and analyzed, the relevant data sets are selected for modeling potential risk. From this point on, the data are evaluated and modeled as they are for any other toxicology endpoint. Any observed genomic damage/effects (or genetic event(s)) can be modeled via a dose-response analysis and determination of an estimated PoD. When a quantitative risk analysis is needed for decision making, a parallel exposure assessment effort is performed (exposure assessment is not detailed here as this is not the focus of this discussion; guidelines for this assessment exist elsewhere). Then the PoD for genomic damage is used with the exposure information to develop risk estimations (e.g., using reference dose (RfD), margin of exposure (MOE) approaches) in a risk characterization and presented to risk managers for informing decision making. This approach is applicable now for incorporating genomic damage results into the decision-making process for assessing potential adverse outcomes in chemically exposed humans and is consistent with the ILSI HESI Risk Assessment in the 21st Century (RISK21) roadmap. This applies to any substance to which humans are exposed, including pharmaceuticals, agricultural products, food additives, and other chemicals. It is time for regulatory bodies to incorporate the broader knowledge and insights provided by genomic damage results into the assessments of risk to more fully understand the potential of adverse outcomes in chemically exposed humans, thus improving the assessment of risk due to genomic damage. The historical use of genomic damage data as a yes/no gateway for possible cancer risk has been too narrowly focused in risk assessment. The recent advances in assaying for and understanding genomic damage, including eventually epigenetic alterations, obviously add a greater wealth of information for determining potential risk to humans. Regulatory bodies need to embrace this paradigm shift from hazard identification to quantitative analysis and to incorporate the wider range of genomic damage in their assessments of risk to humans. The quantitative analyses and methodologies discussed here can be readily applied to genomic damage testing results now. Indeed, with the passage of the recent update to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in the US, the new generation testing strategy for genomic damage described here provides a regulatory agency (here the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), but suitable for others) a golden opportunity to reexamine the way it addresses risk-based genomic damage testing (including hazard identification and exposure). Environ. Mol. Mutagen., 2016. 2016 The Authors. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.


Satoh R.,Japan National Agriculture and Food Research Organization | Teshima R.,Japan National Institute of Health Sciences | Kitta K.,Japan National Agriculture and Food Research Organization | Lang G.-H.,Japan National Agriculture and Food Research Organization | And 14 more authors.
Bioscience, Biotechnology and Biochemistry | Year: 2016

In rice, several allergens have been identified such as the non-specific lipid transfer protein-1, the α-amylase/trypsin-inhibitors, the á-globulin, the 33 kDa glyoxalase I (Gly I), the 52-63 kDa globulin, and the granule-bound starch synthetase. The goal of the present study was to define optimal rice extraction and detection methods that would allow a sensitive and reproducible measure of several classes of known rice allergens. In a three-laboratory ringtrial experiment, several protein extraction methods were first compared and analyzed by 1D multiplexed SDS-PAGE. In a second phase, an interlaboratory validation of 2D-DIGE analysis was conducted in five independent laboratories, focusing on three rice allergens (52 kDa globulin, 33 kDa glyoxalase I, and 14-16 kDa á-amylase/trypsin inhibitor family members). The results of the present study indicate that a combination of 1D multiplexed SDS-PAGE and 2D-DIGE methods would be recommended to quantify the various rice allergens. © 2016 The Author(s).


PubMed | BASF, ILSI Health and Environmental science Institute HESI, DuPont Company, Copenhagen University and 9 more.
Type: | Journal: Bioscience, biotechnology, and biochemistry | Year: 2016

In rice, several allergens have been identified such as the non-specific lipid transfer protein-1, the -amylase/trypsin-inhibitors, the -globulin, the 33kDa glyoxalase I (Gly I), the 52-63kDa globulin, and the granule-bound starch synthetase. The goal of the present study was to define optimal rice extraction and detection methods that would allow a sensitive and reproducible measure of several classes of known rice allergens. In a three-laboratory ring-trial experiment, several protein extraction methods were first compared and analyzed by 1D multiplexed SDS-PAGE. In a second phase, an inter-laboratory validation of 2D-DIGE analysis was conducted in five independent laboratories, focusing on three rice allergens (52kDa globulin, 33kDa glyoxalase I, and 14-16kDa -amylase/trypsin inhibitor family members). The results of the present study indicate that a combination of 1D multiplexed SDS-PAGE and 2D-DIGE methods would be recommended to quantify the various rice allergens.


Thybaud V.,Sanofi S.A. | Kasper P.,Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices BfArM | Sobol Z.,Pfizer | Elhajouji A.,Novartis | And 5 more authors.
Mutagenesis | Year: 2016

The ICH S6(R1) recommendations on safety evaluation of biotherapeutics have led to uncertainty in determining what would constitute a cause for concern that would require genotoxicity testing. A Health and Environmental Sciences Institute's Genetic Toxicology Technical Committee Workgroup was formed to review the current practice of genotoxicity assessment of peptide/protein-related biotherapeutics. There are a number of properties of peptide/protein-related biotherapeutics that distinguish such products from traditional 'small molecule' drugs and need to be taken into consideration when assessing whether genotoxicity testing may be warranted and if so, how to do it appropriately. Case examples were provided by participating companies and decision trees were elaborated to determine whether and when genotoxicity evaluation is needed for peptides containing natural amino acids, non-natural amino acids and other chemical entities and for unconjugated and conjugated proteins. From a scientific point of view, there is no reason for testing peptides containing exclusively natural amino acids irrespective of the manufacturing process. If non-natural amino acids, organic linkers and other non-linker chemical components have already been tested for genotoxicity, there is no need to re-evaluate them when used in different peptide/protein-related biotherapeutics. Unless the peptides have been modified to be able to enter the cells, it is generally more appropriate to evaluate the peptides containing the non-natural amino acids and other non-linker chemical moieties in vivo where the cleavage products can be formed. For linkers, it is important to determine if exposure to reactive forms are likely to occur and from which origin. When the linkers are anticipated to be potential mutagenic impurities they should be evaluated according to ICH M7. If linkers are expected to be catabolic products, it is recommended to test the entire conjugate in vivo, as this would ensure that the relevant 'free' linker forms stemming from in vivo catabolism are tested. © 2016 The Author. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the UK Environmental Mutagen Society.


PubMed | ILSI Health and Environmental science Institute HESI, Bayer AG, Pfizer, Novartis and 4 more.
Type: Journal Article | Journal: Mutagenesis | Year: 2016

The ICH S6(R1) recommendations on safety evaluation of biotherapeutics have led to uncertainty in determining what would constitute a cause for concern that would require genotoxicity testing. A Health and Environmental Sciences Institutes Genetic Toxicology Technical Committee Workgroup was formed to review the current practice of genotoxicity assessment of peptide/protein-related biotherapeutics. There are a number of properties of peptide/protein-related biotherapeutics that distinguish such products from traditional small molecule drugs and need to be taken into consideration when assessing whether genotoxicity testing may be warranted and if so, how to do it appropriately. Case examples were provided by participating companies and decision trees were elaborated to determine whether and when genotoxicity evaluation is needed for peptides containing natural amino acids, non-natural amino acids and other chemical entities and for unconjugated and conjugated proteins. From a scientific point of view, there is no reason for testing peptides containing exclusively natural amino acids irrespective of the manufacturing process. If non-natural amino acids, organic linkers and other non-linker chemical components have already been tested for genotoxicity, there is no need to re-evaluate them when used in different peptide/protein-related biotherapeutics. Unless the peptides have been modified to be able to enter the cells, it is generally more appropriate to evaluate the peptides containing the non-natural amino acids and other non-linker chemical moieties in vivo where the cleavage products can be formed. For linkers, it is important to determine if exposure to reactive forms are likely to occur and from which origin. When the linkers are anticipated to be potential mutagenic impurities they should be evaluated according to ICH M7. If linkers are expected to be catabolic products, it is recommended to test the entire conjugate in vivo, as this would ensure that the relevant free linker forms stemming from in vivo catabolism are tested.


Knudsen T.B.,U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | Kavlock R.J.,U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | Daston G.P.,Procter and Gamble | Stedman D.,Pfizer | And 2 more authors.
Birth Defects Research Part B - Developmental and Reproductive Toxicology | Year: 2011

The ILSI Health and Environmental Sciences Institute's Developmental and Reproductive Toxicology Technical Committee held a 2-day workshop entitled "Developmental Toxicology-New Directions" in April 2009. The fourth session of this workshop focused on new approaches and technologies for the assessment of developmental toxicology. This session provided an overview of the application of genomics technologies for developmental safety assessment, the use of mouse embryonic stem cells to capture data on developmental toxicity pathways, dynamical cell imaging of zebrafish embryos, the use of computation models of development pathways and systems, and finally, high-throughput in vitro approaches being utilized by the EPA ToxCast program. Issues discussed include the challenges of anchoring in vitro predictions to relevant in vivo endpoints and the need to validate pathway-based predictions with targeted studies in whole animals. Currently, there are 10,000 to 30,000 chemicals in world-wide commerce in need of hazard data for assessing potential health risks. The traditional animal study designs for assessing developmental toxicity cannot accommodate the evaluation of this large number of chemicals, requiring that alternative technologies be utilized. Though a daunting task, technologies are being developed and utilized to make that goal reachable. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.


Carney E.W.,Dow Chemical Company | Ellis A.L.,Center for Drug Evaluation and Research | Tyl R.W.,Rti International | Foster P.M.,National Health Research Institute | And 3 more authors.
Birth Defects Research Part B - Developmental and Reproductive Toxicology | Year: 2011

This review is the second in a series of four papers emanating from a workshop entitled "Developmental Toxicology-New Directions," which was sponsored by the ILSI Health and Environmental Sciences Institute's (HESI) Developmental and Reproductive Toxicology Technical Committee. The present review analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of current developmental safety testing approaches in an effort to identify those strengths that should be retained in the future versus the weaknesses that should be eliminated. Workshop participants considered the following to be key strengths of current testing approaches: the integrated biology of pregnant animal models including pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic processes, the ability to detect low incidence malformations as well as maternally mediated toxicity, and the long history of use coupled with extensive historical data. A number of weaknesses were related to the resource-intensive nature of developmental toxicity testing (e.g., large number of animals, high costs, low throughput, the inability to keep pace with the demand for more toxicity data). Other weaknesses included the use of very high dose levels that often far exceed human exposure levels, the confounding influence of maternal toxicity, sparse understanding of basic developmental mechanisms and genetics of standard animal models relative to mouse or lower organisms, difficulties interpreting low incidence findings, and issues surrounding the interpretation of minor skeletal variations. An appreciation of these strengths and weaknesses is critical for the design of new approaches to developmental toxicity testing in the 21st century. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.


Holsapple M.P.,ILSI Health and Environmental science Institute HESI | O'Lone R.,ILSI Health and Environmental science Institute HESI
Toxicologic Pathology | Year: 2012

Developmental immunotoxicity (DIT) testing is centered around the concern that exposure to immunotoxicants early in development may result in enhanced susceptibility of, or unique or more persistent effects on, the immune system, in comparison to adult exposure. Developmental immunotoxicity has been the focus of numerous workshops and reviews for at least fifteen years. Most of these earlier activities have focused on both environmental chemicals and pharmaceuticals and have concluded that the best approach to DIT is to address the possible impacts of exposure during all of the critical windows of development. This article will emphasize the critical role played by exposure during the juvenile stage of development. This article will also highlight several key issues that distinguish DIT testing of pharmaceuticals. Representatives from the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, academic, and regulatory sectors (both FDA and EMA) were brought together during a two-day workshop in May 2010 to consider the current state of the science of DIT as it pertains to the testing of pharmaceuticals. It is important to emphasize at the onset that there are currently no regulatory guidelines for either drugs or nondrug chemicals specifically focused on assessment of DIT, although some general guidelines are included in both developmental and reproductive toxicity and general immunotoxicology guidance documents. © 2012 Society of Toxicologic Pathology.

Loading ILSI Health and Environmental science Institute HESI collaborators
Loading ILSI Health and Environmental science Institute HESI collaborators