Genotoxic carcinogen or not genotoxic carcinogen? That is the question

The GADD45a-GFP GreenScreen HC assay

Mutagens, clastogens, and aneugens cause increased expression of the human GADD45a gene. This has been exploited in the GreenScreen HC genotoxicity assay in which the gene's expression is linked to the expression of green fluorescent protein (GFP). The host for the reporter construct is the human lymphoblastoid cell line TK6. It was chosen for its growth as a cell suspension, which allows simple pipette transfers, and for its wild-type p53 competent status. P53 is required for proper GADD45a expression, and more generally for genome stability. TK6 is a karyotypically stable cell line.The GreenScreen assays were designed to facilitate screening, and this is reflected in its microplate format and low compound requirement. Protocols are available for testing with and without S9 as a source of exogenous metabolic activation. Data is collected either spectrophotometrically or by flow cytometry, and a simple spreadsheet converts raw data into dose-response curves, and provides a statistically significant positive or negative result. Extensive validation has demonstrated that in contrast to other in vitro mammalian genotoxicity assays, the GADD45a assays have both high sensitivity and specificity - they very rarely produce misleading positive results.

New and emerging technologies for genetic toxicity testing

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 established an Emerging Technologies and New Strategies Workgroup to review the current State of the Art in genetic toxicology testing. The aim of the workgroup was to identify promising technologies that will improve genotoxicity testing and assessment of in vivo hazard and risk, and that have the potential to help meet the objectives of the IVGT. As part of this initiative, HESI convened a workshop in Washington, DC in May 2008 to discuss mature, maturing, and emerging technologies in genetic toxicology. This article collates the abstracts of the New and Emerging Technologies Workshop together with some additional technologies subsequently considered by the workgroup. Each abstract (available in the online version of the article) includes a section addressed specifically to the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats associated with the respective technology. Importantly, an overview of the technologies and an indication of how their use might be aligned with the objectives of IVGT are presented. In particular, consideration was given with regard to follow-up testing of positive results in the standard IVGT tests (i.e., Salmonella Ames test, chromosome aberration assay, and mouse lymphoma assay) to add weight of evidence and/or provide mechanism of action for improved genetic toxicity risk assessments in humans.

The development of RAD51C, Cystatin A, p53 and Nrf2 luciferase-reporter assays in metabolically competent HepG2 cells for the assessment of mechanism-based genotoxicity and of oxidative stress in the early research phase of drug development

Four different mechanism-based high-throughput luciferase-reporter assays were developed in human HepG2 cells, which contain phase I and II metabolic activity and a functionally active p53 protein. The promoter regions of RAD51C and Cystatin A, as well as the responsive element of the p53 protein, were selected for the generation of the genotoxicity reporter assays. Moreover, a luciferase-based reporter assay was generated that measures the activation of the Nrf2 oxidative stress pathway. Validation with respect to the ECVAM compound list [D. Kirkland, P. Kasper, L. Muller, R. Corvi, G. Speit, 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 (2008) 99-108] resulted in an overall sensitivity of the HepG2 genotoxicity reporter assays for genotoxicity of 85% (17/20). The specificity and predictivity were high with 81% (34/42) and 82% (51/62), respectively. Various compounds had a positive score although metabolic activation was needed. The HepG2 reporter data were also compared with the available data on bacterial mutagenicity (Ames test), in vitro clastogenicity and in vivo clastogenicity for an additional set of 192 compounds. The predictivity for mutagenicity results was 74% (sensitivity, 61%, 30/49; specificity, 80%, 77/96) and for in vitro clastogenicity 59% (sensitivity, 45%, 35/78; specificity 83%, 38/46). The correlation between results from the HepG2 genotoxicity reporter assays and in vivo clastogenicity was much higher with 77% (sensitivity, 74%, 28/38; specificity 81%, 26/32). Results from the Nrf2 reporter assay showed that a large number of genotoxic compounds activated the Nrf2 oxidative stress pathway. In conclusion, four high-throughput mechanism-based reporter assays in the HepG2 cell line were developed, which can be applied for screening in the early research phase of drug development. The use of these assays in combination with the previously validated Vitotox and RadarScreen assays will certainly reduce the attrition rate due to genotoxicity in the developmental phase of drug development.

Evaluation of the Vitotox and RadarScreen assays for the rapid assessment of genotoxicity in the early research phase of drug development

The Vitotox and RadarScreen assays were evaluated as early screens for mutagenicity and clastogenicity, respectively. The Vitotox assay is a bacterial reporter assay in Salmonella typhimurium based on the SOS-response, and it contains a luciferase gene under control of the recN promoter. The RadarScreen assay is a RAD54 promoter-linked beta-galactosidase reporter assay in yeast. The expression of this beta-galactosidase can easily be quantified by use of the substrate d-luciferin-o-beta-galactopyranoside, which is converted into galactose and luciferin that can be measured luminometrically. Recently, an ECVAM workgroup defined a list of 20 genotoxic and 42 non-genotoxic compounds [D. Kirkland, P. Kasper, L. Muller, R. Corvi, G. Speit, 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 (2008) 99-108.] that can be used for the validation and/or optimization of in vitro genotoxicity assays. In the present study, this compound set was used for the validation of the assays. Moreover, an additional set of 192 compounds was used to broaden this validation study. The compounds of this additional set can be classified as non-genotoxins and genotoxins and consists of both in-house and reference compounds. In case of the ECVAM compound list, the results from the Vitotox and RadarScreen assays were compared to the genotoxic/non-genotoxic classification of the compounds in this list. In case of the additionally tested compounds, the results of the Vitotox and RadarScreen assays were compared, respectively, with bacterial mutagenicity (Ames) results or in vitro clastogenicity data obtained in-house or from the literature. The validation with respect to the ECVAM compound list resulted in a sensitivity for both the Vitotox and RadarScreen assay of 70% (14/20). If both assays were combined the sensitivity increased to 85% (17/20). Both tests also gave a low number of false positive results. The specificity of the Vitotox and RadarScreen assays was 93% (39/42) and 83% (35/42), respectively. This resulted in a predictivity of the Vitotox and RadarScreen assay of 85% (53/62) and 79% (49/62), respectively. In case both tests were combined the specificity and the predictivity of the Vitotox and RadarScreen assay turned out to be 81% (34/42) and 82% (51/62), respectively. The results from the additional list of 192 compounds confirmed the results found with the ECVAM compound list. The results from the Vitotox assay showed a high correlation with Ames test of 91% (132/145). Subsequently, the RadarScreen assay had a correlation with in vitro clastogenicity of 76% (93/123). The specificity of the Vitotox assay was 94% (90/96) for Ames test results and that of the RadarScreen assay was 74% (34/46) for clastogenicity. Moreover, the sensitivities of the Vitotox and RadarScreen assays were 86% (42/49) and 77% (59/77), respectively. Implementation of the Vitotox and RadarScreen assays in the early research phase of drug development can lead to fast de-selection for genotoxicity. It is expected that this application will reduce the number of compounds that have a positive score in the regulatory Ames and clastogenicity tests. Moreover, problems with a complete compound class can be foreseen at an early time point in the research phase, which gives more time for issue resolution than late detection of these problems with the regulatory tests.