The present publication surveys several applications of in silico (i.e., computational) toxicology approaches across different industries and institutions. It highlights the need to develop standardized protocols when conducting toxicity-related predictions. This contribution articulates the information needed for protocols to support in silico predictions for major toxicological endpoints of concern (e.g., genetic toxicity, carcinogenicity, acute toxicity, reproductive toxicity, developmental toxicity) across several industries and regulatory bodies. Such novel in silico toxicology (IST) protocols, when fully developed and implemented, will ensure in silico toxicological assessments are performed and evaluated in a consistent, reproducible, and well-documented manner across industries and regulatory bodies to support wider uptake and acceptance of the approaches. The development of IST protocols is an initiative developed through a collaboration among an international consortium to reflect the state-of-the-art in in silico toxicology for hazard identification and characterization. A general outline for describing the development of such protocols is included and it is based on in silico predictions and/or available experimental data for a defined series of relevant toxicological effects or mechanisms. The publication presents a novel approach for determining the reliability of in silico predictions alongside experimental data. In addition, we discuss how to determine the level of confidence in the assessment based on the relevance and reliability of the information.

An international, multi-lab trial was conducted to evaluate a flow cytometry-based method for scoring micronuclei in mouse lymphoma L5178Y cells [Avlasevich et al., Environ. Molec. Mutagen. 47 (2006) [56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66]. A reference laboratory investigated the potential of six chemicals to induce micronuclei-the genotoxicants mitomycin C, etoposide, and vinblastine, and the non-genotoxicants sucrose, staurosporine, or dexamethasone. The latter two non-genotoxicants were selected as extreme challenges to the assay because of their potent apoptogenic activity. Three collaborating laboratories were supplied with prototype In Vitro MicroFlow ™ kits, and each was assigned one genotoxicant and one non-genotoxicant. Cells were treated continuously for 24 hrs over a range of concentrations up to 5 mg/ml, or overtly cytotoxic concentrations. Micronuclei were scored via standard microscopy and flow cytometry. In addition to enumerating micronucleus frequencies, a cytotoxicity measurement that is simultaneously acquired with the flow cytometric micronucleus scoring procedure was evaluated (Flow-NBR). With this method, latex particles served as counting beads, and facilitated relative survival measurements that exclude the presence of dead/dying cells. For comparison purposes, additional cytotoxicity endpoints were measured, including several that are based on cell number, and others that reflect compromised membrane integrity, including dye permeability and/or phospholipid distribution. Key findings for this set of compounds include the following: (1) significant discrepancies in top concentration selection were found when cytotoxicity measurements were based on different methods, with the Flow-NBR approach tending to be the most sensitive, (2) both microscopy-and flow cytometry-based scoring methods detected concentrationdependent micronucleus formation for the three genotoxic agents studied, with good agreement between the reference laboratory and the collaborating laboratories, and (3) whereas flow cytometric analyses showed no significant increases for the non-genotoxicants when top concentration selection was based on Flow-NBR, significantly elevated micronucleus frequencies were observed for concentrations that were chosen based on less-sensitive cytotoxicity assays. Collectively, these results indicate that rapid assessment of genotoxicity can be accomplished with a relatively simple Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. NIH Public Access

Nineteen coded chemicals were tested in an international collaborative study for their mutagenic activity. The assay system employed was the Ames II Mutagenicity Assay, using the tester strains TA98 and TAMix (TA7001-7006). The test compounds were selected from a published study with a large data set from the standard Ames plate-incorporation test. The following test compounds including matched pairs were investigated: cyclophoshamide, 2-naphthylamine, benzo(a)pyrene, pyrene, 2-acetylaminofluorene, 4,4'-methylene-bis(2-chloroaniline), 9,10-dimethylanthracene, anthracene, 4-nitroquinoline-N-oxide, diphenylnitrosamine, urethane, isopropyl-N(3-chlorophenyl)carbamate, benzidine, 3,3'-5,5'-tetramethylbenzidine, azoxybenzene, 3-aminotriazole, diethylstilbestrol, sucrose and methionine. The results of both assay systems were compared, and the inter-laboratory consistency of the Ames II test was assessed. Of the eight mutagens selected, six were correctly identified with the Ames II assay by all laboratories, one compound was judged positive by five of six investigators and one by four of six laboratories. All seven non-mutagenic samples were consistently negative in the Ames II assay. Of the four chemicals that gave inconsistent results in the traditional Ames test, three were uniformly classified as either positive or negative in the present study, whereas one compound gave equivocal results. A comparison of the test outcome of the different investigators resulted in an inter-laboratory consistency of 89.5%. Owing to the high concordance between the two test systems, and the low inter-laboratory variability in the Ames II assay results, the Ames II is an effective screening alternative to the standard Ames test, requiring less test material and labor.

No abstract

The ICH M7 guideline describes a consistent approach to identify, categorize, and control DNA reactive, mutagenic, impurities in pharmaceutical products to limit the potential carcinogenic risk related to such impurities. This paper outlines a series of principles and procedures to consider when generating (Q)SAR assessments aligned with the ICH M7 guideline to be included in a regulatory submission. In the absence of adequate experimental data, the results from two complementary (Q)SAR methodologies may be combined to support an initial hazard classification. This may be followed by an assessment of additional information that serves as the basis for an expert review to support or refute the predictions. This paper elucidates scenarios where additional expert knowledge may be beneficial, what such an expert review may contain, and how the results and accompanying considerations may be documented. Furthermore, the use of these principles and procedures to yield a consistent and robust (Q)SAR-based argument to support impurity qualification for regulatory purposes is described in this manuscript.