No abstract

A yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) DNA repair reporter assay termed the GreenScreen assay (GSA) is described. This is a novel, cost-effective genotoxicity screen, developed to provide a pre-regulatory screening assay for use by the pharmaceutical industry and in other applications where significant numbers of compounds need to be tested. It provides a higher throughput and a lower compound consumption than existing eukaryotic genotoxicity assays and is sensitive to a broad spectrum of mutagens and, importantly, clastogens. We describe a simple, robust assay protocol and a validation study. The end-point of the test reflects the typically eukaryotic chromosomes and DNA metabolizing enzymes of yeast. The capacity for metabolic activation (MA) in yeast is limited compared with the mammalian liver or its extracts, but the assay does detect a subset of compounds that would require MA in existing genotoxicity tests. The GSA detects a different spectrum of compounds to bacterial genotoxicity assays and thus, together with an in silico structure-activity relationship (SAR) screen, and possibly a high throughput bacterial screen, would provide an effective preview of the regulatory battery of genotoxicity tests.

Exposure to genotoxic carcinogens leads to increased expression of the GADD45a gene in mammalian cells. This signature of genotoxic hazard has previously been exploited in the GreenScreen HC assay, in which GADD45a expression is linked to green fluorescent protein (GFP) expression in the human TK6 lymphoblastoid cell line. This article describes the development and validation of an alternative assay ("BlueScreen HC"), in which expression is linked to Gaussia luciferase (GLuc) expression, yielding a luminescent reporter, the preferred optical output in high-throughput screening. The coelentrazine substrate of GLuc is relatively unstable, and a new buffer is reported that improves its stability. A more sensitive method is demonstrated for the measurement of cell densities in the assay, using the fluorescent cyanine dye thiazole orange. A protocol amendment also allows the assessment of pro-genotoxicity using S9 liver extracts. Compounds from the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) recommended list for the assessment of new or improved genotoxicity assays were evaluated with and without S9 in the new assay. The new GLuc assay was as effective as the GFP assay in producing positive results for all classes of genotoxic carcinogen and negative results for all nongenotoxins tested.

The GADD45a-GFP (GreenScreen HC) reporter assay detects genotoxic damage in the human lymphoblastoid TK6 cell line and gives positive results for all classes of genotoxin, including mutagens, aneugens and clastogens. In this study, a collection of 75 marketed pharmaceuticals were tested in the assay. Compounds in the collection represent a broad range of chemical structures, pharmacologies and therapeutic indications, including neoplasia and viral infection where positive genotoxicity results are often associated with the pharmacological activity. Based on the results of this study, two main conclusions can be drawn: (i) the GreenScreen HC is more predictive of in vivo genotoxicity (88%) and genotoxic carcinogenicity (93%) data than the any of the other regulatory in vitro genotoxicity assay and (ii) no compounds were uniquely positive in the GADD45a-GFP assay. This analysis therefore provides additional evidence to support the use of the GADD45a-GFP assay as an effective tool either in early genotoxic liability identification or non-clinical safety assessment of candidate pharmaceuticals during development.

Positive genetic toxicity data suggest carcinogenic hazard, and this can stop a candidate pharmaceutical reaching the clinic. However, during the last decade, it has become clear that many non-carcinogens produce misleading positive results in one or other of the regulatory genotoxicity assays. These doubtful conclusions cost a lot of time and money, as they trigger additional testing of apparently genotoxic candidates, both in vitro and in animals, to discover whether the suggested hazard is genuine. This in turn means that clinical trials can be put on hold. This review describes the current approaches to the 'misleading positive' problem as well as efforts to reduce the use of animals in genotoxicity assessment. The following issues are then addressed: the application of genotoxicity testing screens earlier in development; the search for new or improved in vitro genotoxicity tests; proposed changes to the International Committee on Harmonisation guidance on genotoxicity testing [S2(R1)]. Together, developments in all these areas offer good prospects of a more rapid and cost-effective way to understand genetic toxicity concerns. AbbreviationsCA, chromosome aberrations; ECVAM, European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods; GLP, Good Laboratory Practice; ICH, International Committee on Harmonisation; RCC, relative cell counts; RICC, relative increase in cell counts; RPD, relative population doubling Chemical carcinogenicity and genetic toxicologyChildren working as chimney sweeps often died from cancers. It was subsequently discovered that a chemical in soot, benzo[a]pyrene, causes animal cancers, as well as mutations in bacteria (reviewed by Phillips, 1983). Thus, the concept of chemical carcinogenicity and the discipline of genetic toxicology were born. Difficulties soon emerged. First, it was recognized that not all animal carcinogens are bacterial mutagens (McCann et al., 1975). This was thought to reflect the differences between animals and bacteria, including xenobiotic metabolism in the liver and other organs. So, mammalian cell lines were developed, and liver extracts were included in test protocols. This combination of bacterial and mammalian cell tests produces the 'desired' positive results for about nine out of 10 carcinogens (Kirkland et al., 2005). This is not, however, as good a result as it seems, as this same combination also produces positive results for as many as nine out of 10 non-carcinogens (Kirkland et al., 2005). Finally, it was recognized that many carcinogens do not actually have a genotoxic mode of action (Shaw and Jones, 1994). Thus, the unanticipated consequence of a focus on sensitivity during genotoxicity assay development was that many of the compounds now producing positive results are either not carcinogens, or carcinogens that do not have a genotoxic mode of action. This means that there are many compounds carrying positive genotoxicity information that is not relevant to the assessment of cancer risk. Some of these are potentially useful pharmaceuticals. It is the...