The EFSA Scientific Committee addressed in this document the peculiarities related to the genotoxicity assessment of chemical mixtures. The EFSA Scientific Committee suggests that first a mixture should be chemically characterised as far as possible. Although the characterisation of mixtures is relevant also for other toxicity aspects, it is particularly significant for the assessment of genotoxicity. If a mixture contains one or more chemical substances that are individually assessed to be genotoxic in vivo via a relevant route of administration, the mixture raises concern for genotoxicity. If a fully chemically defined mixture does not contain genotoxic chemical substances, the mixture is of no concern with respect to genotoxicity. If a mixture contains a fraction of chemical substances that have not been chemically identified, experimental testing of the unidentified fraction should be considered as the first option or, if this is not feasible, testing of the whole mixture should be undertaken. If testing of these fraction(s) or of the whole mixture in an adequately performed set of in vitro assays provides clearly negative results, the mixture does not raise concern for genotoxicity. If in vitro testing provides one or more positive results, an in vivo follow‐up study should be considered. For negative results in the in vivo follow‐up test(s), the possible limitations of in vivo testing should be weighed in an uncertainty analysis before reaching a conclusion of no concern with respect to genotoxicity. For positive results in the in vivo follow‐up test(s), it can be concluded that the mixture does raise a concern about genotoxicity.

The mechanisms of progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) are poorly understood. Epidemiologic studies suggest a strong genetic component, but the genes that contribute to the onset and progression of CKD are largely unknown. Here, we applied an experimental model of CKD (75% excision of total renal mass) to six different strains of mice and found that only the FVB/N strain developed renal lesions. We performed a genome-scan analysis in mice generated by back-crossing resistant and sensitive strains; we identified a major susceptibility locus (Ckdp1) on chromosome 6, which corresponds to regions on human chromosome 2 and 3 that link with CKD progression. In silico analysis revealed that the locus includes the gene encoding the EGF receptor (EGFR) ligand TGF-␣. TGF-␣ protein levels markedly increased after nephron reduction exclusively in FVB/N mice, and this increase preceded the development of renal lesions. Furthermore, pharmacologic inhibition of EGFR prevented the development of renal lesions in the sensitive FVB/N strain. These data suggest that variable TGF-␣ expression may explain, in part, the genetic susceptibility to CKD progression. EGFR inhibition may be a therapeutic strategy to counteract the genetic predisposition to CKD. Human chronic kidney diseases (CKD), regardless of their etiology, are characterized by progressive destruction of the renal parenchyma and loss of functional nephrons, leading to ESRD. Approximately 13% of adults suffer from CKD in industrialized countries and the incidence of ESRD increases by 6% to 8% per year. Therefore, understanding the pathophysiology of CKD is a key challenge for public health.The mechanisms of CKD progression are poorly understood. Although clinical studies point to the important role of environmental factors in the biologic processes leading to renal deterioration, epidemiologic studies have underscored the importance of genetic components. Indeed, it has been observed that the evolution of CKD varies considerably among individual patients exposed to the same risk factors. Only a proportion of patients with diabetes or hypertension develop renal failure, and this occurs independently of glycemic control or hypertension. 1,2 However, the propensity to develop ESRD differs among ethnic groups 3-7 and it shows familial clustering. [7][8][9][10] Similarly, the rate of progression of primary hereditary kidney diseases can vary among members of the same family, [11][12][13] suggesting that genes unrelated to the disease

The EFSA Scientific Committee was asked to provide guidance on the most appropriate in vivo tests to follow up on positive in vitro results for aneugenicity, and on the approach to risk assessment for substances that are aneugenic but not clastogenic nor causing gene mutations. The Scientific Committee confirmed that the preferred approach is to perform an in vivo mammalian erythrocyte micronucleus test with a relevant route of administration. If this is positive, it demonstrates that the substance is aneugenic in vivo . A negative result with evidence that the bone marrow is exposed to the test substance supports a conclusion that aneugenic activity is not expressed in vivo . If there is no evidence of exposure to the bone marrow, a negative result is viewed as inconclusive and further studies are required. The liver micronucleus assay, even though not yet fully validated, can provide supporting information for substances that are aneugenic following metabolic activation. The gastrointestinal micronucleus test, conversely, to be further developed, may help to assess aneugenic potential at the initial site of contact for substances that are aneugenic in vitro without metabolic activation. Based on the evidence in relation to mechanisms of aneugenicity, the Scientific Committee concluded that, in principle, health‐based guidance values can be established for substances that are aneugenic but not clastogenic nor causing gene mutations, provided that a comprehensive toxicological database is available. For situations in which the toxicological database is not sufficient to establish health‐based guidance values, some approaches to risk assessment are proposed. The Scientific Committee recommends further development of the gastrointestinal micronucleus test, and research to improve the understanding of aneugenicity to support risk assessment.