Ashby J
Imperial Chemical Industries plc., Central Toxicology Laboratory, Alderley Park, Nr. Macclesfield, Cheshire, UK.
Mutagenesis. 1986 Jan;1(1):3-16. doi: 10.1093/mutage/1.1.3.
It is proposed that the many sets of Regulatory Guidelines for the assessment of chemical carcinogenicity and mutagenicity should be simplified and harmonized in light of current experimental data. Data are discussed which illustrate that an absolute distinction would be drawn between assays conducted in vitro from those in vivo, and that the genotoxicity of a chemical can be adequately defined using a combination of the Salmonella mutation assay and one for the assessment of chromosome aberrations in vitro. It is specifically recommended that once a chemical has shown a clear positive response in vitro, further short-term assays should be conducted in vivo; this avoids considering the 'weight of evidence' of in vitro data, the dangers of which are illustrated. It has now been unequivocally established that not all in vitro genotoxins prove carcinogenic to mammals. It is therefore recommended that all new in vitro genotoxins should be assessed in vivo using the mouse bone marrow micronucleus assay, and if a negative response is observed, a liver genotoxicity test. At present an assay for the induction of unscheduled DNA synthesis (UDS) in the liver is the most well developed for this purpose. Current data indicate that an in vitro genotoxin found to be inactive in these two in vivo assays will be neither carcinogenic nor mutagenic to the germ cells of mammals. Equally, genotoxicity produced in mammals indicates a carcinogenic and mutagenic potential which can usually only be countered by appropriate chronic bioassays. The use of short-term in vivo assays in this critical role requires attention to the selection of appropriate dose-levels and routes of exposure - these issues are discussed. The above testing strategy will not detect certain animal carcinogens, some of which are specifically discussed. These carcinogens have been variously referred to in the literature as epigenetic/non-genotoxic/hormonal/toxic/ambiguous or ambivalent carcinogens. It is suggested that they present a minor potential hazard to man when compared with that of genotoxic carcinogens and that their short-term detection can only be achieved by the development of new whole mammal assays employing non-genetic endpoints. This is in contrast to the present tendency to employ additional genotoxicity assays for their detection in the unjustified belief that they possess an exquisite specificity of genotoxic action. This article represents a personal view, but the testing strategy proposed is based to a large extent on the original three-tier approach of Bridges.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
有人提议,鉴于当前的实验数据,应简化并统一多套化学物质致癌性和致突变性评估的监管指南。文中讨论了相关数据,这些数据表明,体外实验和体内实验应明确区分,并且一种化学物质的遗传毒性可以通过沙门氏菌突变试验和一种体外染色体畸变评估试验相结合来充分界定。特别建议,一旦一种化学物质在体外显示出明确的阳性反应,就应在体内进行进一步的短期试验;这样可以避免考虑体外数据的“证据权重”,文中说明了其风险。现已明确证实,并非所有体外遗传毒素对哺乳动物都具有致癌性。因此建议,所有新的体外遗传毒素都应使用小鼠骨髓微核试验在体内进行评估,如果观察到阴性反应,则进行肝脏遗传毒性试验。目前,用于此目的的肝脏非程序性DNA合成(UDS)诱导试验是最成熟的。当前数据表明,在这两种体内试验中无活性的体外遗传毒素对哺乳动物生殖细胞既无致癌性也无致突变性。同样,哺乳动物体内产生的遗传毒性表明具有致癌和致突变潜力,通常只能通过适当的慢性生物试验来应对。在这一关键作用中使用短期体内试验需要注意选择合适的剂量水平和暴露途径——文中讨论了这些问题。上述测试策略无法检测某些动物致癌物,文中对其中一些进行了具体讨论。这些致癌物在文献中被不同地称为表观遗传/非遗传毒性/激素/毒性/不明确或矛盾的致癌物。与遗传毒性致癌物相比,它们对人类的潜在危害较小,并且只有通过开发采用非遗传终点的新的全哺乳动物试验才能实现对它们的短期检测。这与目前倾向于采用额外的遗传毒性试验来检测它们的做法形成对比,这种做法是基于不合理的信念,即它们具有精确的遗传毒性作用特异性。本文代表个人观点,但所提议的测试策略在很大程度上基于布里奇斯最初的三层方法。(摘要截选至400字)