Genetic toxicology: can we design predictive in vivo assays?

Abstract

The present analysis examines the assumptions in, the perceptions and predictivity of and the need for short-term tests (STTs) for genotoxicity in light of recent findings that most noncarcinogens from the National Toxicology Program are genotoxic (i.e., positive in one or more in vitro STTs). Reasonable assumptions about the prevalence for carcinogens (1-10% of all chemicals), the sensitivity of these STTs (ca. 90% of all carcinogens are genotoxic) and their estimated "false positive" incidence (60-75%) imply that the majority of chemicals elicit genotoxic responses and, consequently, that most in vitro genotoxins are likely to be noncarcinogenic. Thus, either the usual treatment conditions used in these in vitro STTS are producing a large proportion of artifactual and meaningless positive results or else in vitro mutagenicity is too common a property of chemicals to serve as a useful predictor of carcinogenicity or other human risk. In contrast, the limited data base on in vivo STTs suggests that the current versions of these assays may have low sensitivity which appears unlikely to improve without dropping either their 'short-term' aspect or the rodent carcinogenicity benchmark. It is suggested that in vivo genotoxicity protocols be modified to take into consideration both the fundamentals of toxicology as well as the lessons learned from in vitro genetic toxicology. In the meantime, while in vivo assays are undergoing rigorous validation, genetic toxicology, as currently practiced, should not be a formal aspect of chemical or drug development on the grounds that it is incapable of providing realistic and reliable information on human risk. It is urged that data generated in new, unvalidated in vivo genotoxicity assays be exempted from the normal regulatory reporting requirements in order to encourage industry to participate in the laborious and expensive development of this next phase of genetic toxicology.