Short-term tests in the framework of carcinogen risk assessment to man

SCE induction in Chinese hamster ovary cells (CHO) exposed to G agents

Cultured Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells were exposed to two neurotoxic organophosphates, either sarin (GBI, GBII) at 1.4 X 10(-3) M or soman (GD) at 1.1 and 2.2 X 10(-3) M for 1 h, grown and their metaphase chromosomes scored for sister-chromatid exchanges (SCE). No cytotoxicity was seen with either agent at any dose level tested. Since histograms of SCE per cell showed that they were non-symmetrically arrayed around the mean, the number of SCEs were analyzed by using the nonparametric tests, Mann-Whitney and Kruskall-Wallis. Agents GBI and GBII did not show any significant increase in SCE over baseline. On the other hand, GD demonstrated a statistically significant increase in SCE with and without metabolic activation. Ethyl methanesulfonate (EMS) alone at 5 X 10(-3) M and cyclophosphamide (CP) at 10(-4) M in the presence of rat microsomes (S9) induced a 3- and 8-fold increase in SCE per cell, respectively.

Is your initiator really necessary?

There is little hard evidence for the involvement of specific genotoxic initiators in the pathogenesis of the common carcinoma. Recent findings suggest that sporadic carcinogenesis is a dynamic and probabilistic process which requires a critical mass of abnormal cells for its expression, and that this requirement may distinguish the evolution of carcinomas from that of paediatric or haematologic malignancies. The proposal that specific carcinogens are neither necessary nor sufficient for tumourigenesis is consistent with the growing realization that aberrant expression of specific oncogenes is neither necessary nor sufficient for cellular transformation. These new perspectives have major implications for basic research strategy and public health policy.

Implications of multiple mechanisms of carcinogenesis for short-term testing

The attempt has been made recently to categorize carcinogens into two mechanistic types based on their mechanism of action: genotoxic (capable of reacting with and damaging DNA) and epigenetic (unable to damage DNA to any detectable extent). By requiring that a given chemical fit into one or the other of these narrowly defined categories for regulatory purposes, we are probably oversimplifying potential biological effects. In fact, based on our limited understanding of carcinogenic mechanisms, this artificial distinction should probably be abandoned in favor of a more precise statement of each chemical's mechanism or relative potency of initiating and promoting effects. Since the standard short-term tests by which carcinogenicity of chemicals is screened were designed to detect certain chemical classes with active electrophilic intermediates, weak or specialized carcinogens may be missed and may be assumed erroneously to be nongenotoxic. The mechanisms of carcinogenicity for such carcinogens may include particulate deposition, active radical formation, liver toxicity, and hormonal interactions. Not all of these secondary mechanisms depend upon a detectable level of binding to DNA, damage to DNA, or modification of the DNA sequence, even though they may demonstrate other characteristics of a complete carcinogen (that is, irreversibility and lack of a threshold). Certain agents have been labeled as epigenetic. However, a consideration of the literature on sample agents (diethylstilbestrol, asbestos, and urethane) reveals that these are not epigenetic carcinogens despite their being labeled as such. Agents with irreversibility and no threshold have initiating potential and, as such, are genotoxic, whereas carcinogens that are classified as nongenotoxic are largely agents that promote the growth of liver tumors. Even promotion can be a mechanistically specialized phenomenon. For example, some promoters are cytotoxic to the liver, but not all liver toxins are liver tumor promoters or liver carcinogens. Further, the carcinogens commonly labeled as epigenetic might cause a unique specialized genotoxicity not detected by common screening tests routinely used for detecting genotoxicity. If we assume that this unrecognized but necessary initiating potential is mediated by some specialized genotoxicity, extra care must be taken to establish a genuine lack of genotoxicity before an agent can be classified (and regulated) as a promoter (lacking the ability to initiate tumor growth but still enhancing tumor development).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)