Raffaella Corvi

3S - Systematic, systemic, and systems biology and toxicology

Summary A biological system is more than the sum of its parts – it accomplishes many functions via synergy. Deconstructing the system down to the molecular mechanism level necessitates the complement of reconstructing functions on all levels, i.e., in our conceptualization of biology and its perturbations, our experimental models and computer modelling. Toxicology contains the somewhat arbitrary subclass “systemic toxicities”; however, there is no relevant toxic insult or general disease that is not systemic. At least inflammation and repair are involved that require coordinated signaling mechanisms across the organism. However, the more body components involved, the greater the challenge to recapitulate such toxicities using non-animal models. Here, the shortcomings of current systemic testing and the development of alternative approaches are summarized. We argue that we need a systematic approach to integrating existing knowledge as exemplified by systematic reviews and other evidence-based approaches. Such knowledge can guide us in modelling these systems using bioengineering and virtual computer models, i.e., via systems biology or systems toxicology approaches. Experimental multi-organon-chip and microphysiological systems (MPS) provide a more physiological view of the organism, facilitating more comprehensive coverage of systemic toxicities, i.e., the perturbation on organism level, without using substitute organisms (animals). The next challenge is to establish disease models, i.e., micropathophysiological systems (MPPS), to expand their utility to encompass biomedicine. Combining computational and experimental systems approaches and the challenges of validating them are discussed. The suggested 3S approach promises to leverage 21st century technology and systematic thinking to achieve a paradigm change in studying systemic effects.

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.

At a recent ECVAM workshop considering ways to reduce the frequency of irrelevant positive results in mammalian cell genotoxicity tests [D. Kirkland, S. Pfuhler, D. Tweats, M. Aardema, R. Corvi, F. Darroudi, A. Elhajouji, H.-R. Glatt, P. Hastwell, M. Hayashi, P. Kasper, S. Kirchner, A. Lynch, D. Marzin, D. Maurici, J.-R. Meunier, L. Müller, G. Nohynek, J. Parry, E. Parry, V. Thybaud, R. Tice, J. van Benthem, P. Vanparys, P. White, How to reduce false positive results when undertaking in vitro genotoxicity testing and thus avoid unnecessary followup animal tests: Report of an ECVAM Workshop, Mutat. Res. 628 (2007) 31-55], recommendations for improvements/modifications to existing tests, and suggestions for new assays were made. Following on from this, it was important to identify chemicals that could be used in the evaluation of modified or new assays. An expert panel was therefore convened and recommendations made for chemicals to fit three different sets of characteristics, namely: This paper therefore contains these three recommended lists of chemicals and describes how these should be used for any test-evaluation programme.

ECVAM retrospective validation of in vitro micronucleus test (MNT)

In the past decade several studies comparing the in vitro chromosome aberration test (CAT) and the in vitro micronucleus test (MNT) were performed. A high correlation was observed in each of the studies (>85%); however, no formal validation for the micronucleus in vitro assay had been carried out. Therefore, a working group was established by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) to perform a retrospective validation of the existing data, in order to evaluate the validity of the in vitro MNT on the basis of the modular validation approach. The primary focus of this retrospective validation was on the evaluation of the potential of the in vitro MNT as alternative to the standard in vitro CAT. The working group evaluated, in a first step, the available published data and came to the conclusion that two studies [German ring trial, von der Hude, W., Kalweit, S., Engelhardt, G. et al. (2000) In-vitro micronucleus assay with Chinese hamster V79 cells: results of a collaborative study with 26 chemicals. Mutat. Res., 468, 137–163, and SFTG International Collaborative Study, Lorge, E., Thybaud, V., Aardema, M., Oliver, J., Wataka, A., Lorenzon, G. and Marzin, D. (2006) SFTG International Collaborative Study on in-vitro micronucleus test I. General conditions and overall conclusions of the study. Mutat. Res., 607, 13–36] met the criteria for a retrospective validation according to the criteria previously defined by the working group. These two studies were evaluated in depth (including the reanalysis of raw data) and provided the information required for assessing the reliability (reproducibility) of the test. For the assessment of the concordance between the in vitro MNT and the in vitro CAT, additional published data were considered. Based on this retrospective validation, the ECVAM Validation Management Team concluded that the in vitro MNT is reliable and relevant and can therefore be used as an alternative method to the in vitro CAT. Following peer review, these conclusions were formally endorsed by the ECVAM Scientific Advisory Committee.

Reduction of use of animals in regulatory genotoxicity testing : Identification and implementation opportunities-Report from an ECVAM workshop

In vivo genetic toxicology tests measure direct DNA damage or the formation of gene or chromosomal mutations, and are used to predict the mutagenic and carcinogenic potential of compounds for regulatory purposes and/or to follow-up positive results from in vitro testing. These tests are widely used and consume large numbers of animals, with a foreseeable marked increase as a result of the EU chemicals legislation (REACH), which may require follow-up of any positive outcome in the in vitro standard battery with appropriate in vivo tests, regardless of the tonnage level of the chemical. A 2-day workshop with genotoxicity experts from academia, regulatory agencies and industry was hosted by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) in Ranco, Italy from 24 to 25 June 2008. The objectives of the workshop were to discuss how to reduce the number of animals in standard genotoxicity tests, whether the application of smarter test strategies can lead to lower animal numbers, and how the possibilities for reduction can be promoted and implemented. The workshop agreed that there are many reduction options available that are scientifically credible and therefore ready for use. Most of these are compliant with regulatory guidelines, i.e. the use of one sex only, one administration and two sampling times versus two or three administrations and one sampling time for micronucleus (MN), chromosomal aberration (CA) and Comet assays; and the integration of the MN endpoint into repeat-dose toxicity studies. The omission of a concurrent positive control in routine CA and MN tests has been proven to be scientifically acceptable, although the OECD guidelines still require this; also the combination of acute MN and Comet assay studies are compliant with guidelines, except for sampling times. Based on the data presented at the workshop, the participants concluded that these options have not been sufficiently utilized to date. Key factors for this seem to be the uncertainty regarding regulatory compliance/acceptance, lack of awareness, and an in many cases unjustified uncertainty regarding the scientific acceptance of reduction options. The workshop therefore encourages the use and promotion of these options as well as the dissemination of data related to reduction opportunities by the scientific community in order to boost the acceptance level of these approaches. Furthermore, experimental proof is needed and under way to demonstrate the credibility of additional options for reduction of the number of animals, such as the integration of the Comet assay into repeat-dose toxicity studies.

Meeting report: Validation of toxicogenomics-based test systems: ECVAM-ICCVAM/NICEATM considerations for regulatory use

This is the report of the first workshop “Validation of Toxicogenomics-Based Test Systems” held 11–12 December 2003 in Ispra, Italy. The workshop was hosted by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) and organized jointly by ECVAM, the U.S. Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM), and the National Toxicology Program (NTP) Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM). The primary aim of the workshop was for participants to discuss and define principles applicable to the validation of toxicogenomics platforms as well as validation of specific toxicologic test methods that incorporate toxicogenomics technologies. The workshop was viewed as an opportunity for initiating a dialogue between technologic experts, regulators, and the principal validation bodies and for identifying those factors to which the validation process would be applicable. It was felt that to do so now, as the technology is evolving and associated challenges are identified, would be a basis for the future validation of the technology when it reaches the appropriate stage. Because of the complexity of the issue, different aspects of the validation of toxicogenomics-based test methods were covered. The three focus areas include a) biologic validation of toxicogenomics-based test methods for regulatory decision making, b) technical and bioinformatics aspects related to validation, and c) validation issues as they relate to regulatory acceptance and use of toxicogenomics-based test methods. In this report we summarize the discussions and describe in detail the recommendations for future direction and priorities.

The carcinoGENOMICS project: Critical selection of model compounds for the development of omics-based in vitro carcinogenicity screening assays

Recent changes in the European legislation of chemical-related substances have forced the scientific community to speed up the search for alternative methods that could partly or fully replace animal experimentation. The Sixth Framework Program project carcinoGENOMICS was specifically raised to develop omics-based in vitro screens for testing the carcinogenic potential of chemical compounds in a pan-European context. This paper provides an in-depth analysis of the complexity of choosing suitable reference compounds used for creating and fine-tuning the in vitro carcinogenicity assays. First, a number of solid criteria for the selection of the model compounds are defined. Secondly, the strategy followed, including resources consulted, is described and the selected compounds are briefly illustrated. Finally, limitations and problems encountered during the selection procedure are discussed. Since selecting an appropriate set of chemicals is a frequent impediment in the early stages of similar research projects, the information provided in this paper might be extremely valuable.

ECVAM prevalidation study on in vitro cell transformation assays: general outline and conclusions of the study.

The potential for a compound to induce carcinogenicity is a key consideration when ascertaining hazard and risk assessment of chemicals. Among the in vitro alternatives that have been developed for predicting carcinogenicity, in vitro cell transformation assays (CTAs) have been shown to involve a multistage process that closely models important stages of in vivo carcinogenesis and have the potential to detect both genotoxic and non-genotoxic carcinogens. These assays have been in use for decades and a substantial amount of data demonstrating their performance is available in the literature. However, for the standardised use of these assays for regulatory purposes, a formal evaluation of the assays, in particular focusing on development of standardised transferable protocols and further information on assay reproducibility, was considered important to serve as a basis for the drafting of generally accepted OECD test guidelines. To address this issue, a prevalidation study of the CTAs using the BALB/c 3T3 cell line, SHE cells at pH 6.7, and SHE cells at pH 7.0 was coordinated by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) and focused on issues of standardisation of protocols, test method transferability and within- and between-laboratory reproducibility. The study resulted in the availability of standardised protocols that had undergone prevalidation [1,2]. The results of the ECVAM study demonstrated that for the BALB/c 3T3 method, some modifications to the protocol were needed to obtain reproducible results between laboratories, while the SHE pH 6.7 and the SHE pH 7.0 protocols are transferable between laboratories, and results are reproducible within- and between-laboratories. It is recommended that the BALB/c 3T3 and SHE protocols as instituted in this prevalidation study should be used in future applications of these respective transformation assays. To support their harmonised use and regulatory application, the development of an OECD test guideline for the SHE CTAs, based on the protocol published in this issue, is recommended. The development of an OECD test guideline for the BALB/c 3T3 CTA should likewise be further pursued upon the availability of additional supportive data and improvement of the statistical analysis.

Analysis of published data for top concentration considerations in mammalian cell genotoxicity testing

The ability of the in vitro mammalian cell tests currently used to identify genotoxins has been shown to be limited by a high rate of false-positive results, triggering further unnecessary testing in vivo. During an European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods workshop on how to improve the specificity of these assays, testing at high concentrations was identified as one possible source of false positives. Thus far, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development genotoxicity test guidelines have required testing of chemicals using mammalian cells in vitro should be undertaken to concentrations as high as 10 mM (5000 μg/ml). Recently, a draft revision of the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use genotoxicity test guidelines has recommended that testing concentrations should be reduced to 1 mM (500 μg/ml). To assess the impact that this lowering would have on the outcome of in vitro genotoxicity testing, we established a database of 384 chemicals classified as rodent carcinogens and reported Ames test results and the test concentrations that produced positive results in the mouse lymphoma assay (MLA), in vitro chromosome aberration (CA) assay and in vitro micronucleus test. Genotoxicity testing results were illustrated for 229 and 338 compounds in the MLA and in vitro CA assay, respectively. Of these test compounds, 62.5% produced positive results in the MLA, of which 20.3% required testing between 1 and 10 mM. A total of 58.0% produced positive results in in vitro CA assays, of which 25.0% required testing between 1 and 10 mM. If the testing concentration limit for mammalian cell assays was reduced to 1 mM, 24 (6.25%) potential carcinogens would not be detected in any part of the standard in vitro genotoxicity test battery (Ames test, MLA and in vitro CA assay). Further re-evaluation and/or retest of these compounds by Kirkland and Fowler [Kirkland, D. and Fowler, P. (2010) Further analysis of Ames-negative rodent carcinogens that are only genotoxic in mammalian cells in vitro at concentrations exceeding 1 mM, including retesting of compounds of concern. Mutagenesis 25, 539-553] suggest that the current 10 mM top concentration can be reduced without any loss of sensitivity in detecting rodent carcinogens.

JaCVAM-organized international validation study of the in vivo rodent alkaline comet assay for the detection of genotoxic carcinogens: I. Summary of pre-validation study results.

The in vivo rodent alkaline comet assay (comet assay) is used internationally to investigate the in vivo genotoxic potential of test chemicals. This assay, however, has not previously been formally validated. The Japanese Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods (JaCVAM), with the cooperation of the U.S. NTP Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM)/the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM), the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM), and the Japanese Environmental Mutagen Society/Mammalian Mutagenesis Study Group (JEMS/MMS), organized an international validation study to evaluate the reliability and relevance of the assay for identifying genotoxic carcinogens, using liver and stomach as target organs. The ultimate goal of this exercise was to establish an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) test guideline. The study protocol was optimized in the pre-validation studies, and then the definitive (4th phase) validation study was conducted in two steps. In the 1st step, assay reproducibility was confirmed among laboratories using four coded reference chemicals and the positive control ethyl methanesulfonate. In the 2nd step, the predictive capability was investigated using 40 coded chemicals with known genotoxic and carcinogenic activity (i.e., genotoxic carcinogens, genotoxic non-carcinogens, non-genotoxic carcinogens, and non-genotoxic non-carcinogens). Based on the results obtained, the in vivo comet assay is concluded to be highly capable of identifying genotoxic chemicals and therefore can serve as a reliable predictor of rodent carcinogenicity.

Updated recommended lists of genotoxic and non-genotoxic chemicals for assessment of the performance of new or improved genotoxicity tests

In 2008 we published recommendations on chemicals that would be appropriate to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of new/modified mammalian cell genotoxicity tests, in particular to avoid misleading positive results. In light of new data it is appropriate to update these lists of chemicals. An expert panel was convened and has revised the recommended chemicals to fit the following different sets of characteristics: • Group 1: chemicals that should be detected as positive in in vitro mammalian cell genotoxicity tests. Chemicals in this group are all in vivo genotoxins at one or more endpoints, either due to DNA-reactive or non DNA-reactive mechanisms. Many are known carcinogens with a mutagenic mode of action, but a sub-class of probable aneugens has been introduced. • Group 2: chemicals that should give negative results in in vitro mammalian cell genotoxicity tests. Chemicals in this group are usually negative in vivo and non-DNA-reactive. They are either non-carcinogenic or rodent carcinogens with a non-mutagenic mode of action. • Group 3: chemicals that should give negative results in in vitro mammalian cell genotoxicity tests, but have been reported to induce gene mutations in mouse lymphoma cells, chromosomal aberrations or micronuclei, often at high concentrations or at high levels of cytotoxicity. Chemicals in this group are generally negative in vivo and negative in the Ames test. They are either non-carcinogenic or rodent carcinogens with an accepted non-mutagenic mode of action. This group contains comments as to any conditions that can be identified under which misleading positive results are likely to occur. This paper, therefore, updates these three recommended lists of chemicals and describes how these should be used for any test evaluation program.