Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 May 7;19(1):32.
doi: 10.1186/s12989-022-00476-9.

The application of existing genotoxicity methodologies for grouping of nanomaterials: towards an integrated approach to testing and assessment

Rachel Verdon  1 , Vicki Stone  1 , Fiona Murphy  1 , Emily Christopher  1 , Helinor Johnston  1 , Shareen Doak  2 , Ulla Vogel  3 , Andrea Haase  4 , Ali Kermanizadeh  5
Affiliations

The application of existing genotoxicity methodologies for grouping of nanomaterials: towards an integrated approach to testing and assessment

Rachel Verdon et al. Part Fibre Toxicol. .

Abstract

The incorporation of nanomaterials (NMs) in consumer products has proven to be highly valuable in many sectors. Unfortunately, however, the same nano specific physicochemical properties, which make these material attractive, might also contribute to hazards for people exposed to these materials. The physicochemical properties of NMs will impact their interaction with biological surroundings and influence their fate and their potential adverse effects such as genotoxicity. Due to the large and expanding number of NMs produced, their availability in different nanoforms (NFs) and their utilization in various formats, it is impossible for risk assessment to be conducted on an individual NF basis. Alternative methods, such as grouping are needed for streamlining hazard assessment. The GRACIOUS Framework provides a logical and science evidenced approach to group similar NFs, allowing read-across of hazard information from source NFs (or non-NFs) with adequate hazard data to target NFs that lack such data. Here, we propose a simple three-tiered testing strategy to gather evidence to determine whether different NFs are sufficiently similar with respect to their potential to induce genotoxicity, in order to be grouped. The tiered testing strategy includes simple in vitro models as well as a number of alternative more complex multi-cellular in vitro models to allow for a better understanding of secondary NM-induced DNA damage, something that has been more appropriate in vivo until recently.

Keywords: Alternative physiological multi-cellular models; Genotoxicity; Grouping; Nanomaterials; Tiered testing strategy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
A generic IATA as used in the GRACIOUS Framework to test grouping hypotheses and thereby support grouping of NFs. The blue boxes are the decision nodes which provide the questions to be addressed to streamline the information gathering. Each decision node is supported by a tiered testing strategy consisting of standard operating procedures (SOPs) where possible. Answering all of the decision nodes ‘yes’ results in moving down through the decision tree and acceptance of the hypothesis. If any of the answers is “no” this results in rejection of the grouping hypothesis and exiting the decision tree to the right. The tiered testing strategy described in this short communication would support one decision node in such an IATA
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
A simple three-tiered strategy to assessing and grouping of NF-induced genotoxicity
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Tier 1 of the strategy for the assessment of NF-induced genotoxicity based on utilisation of simple mono-culture systems and two genotoxicity tests to assess gene mutation and chromosomal damage
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Tier 2 of the strategy for the assessment of NF-induced genotoxicity based on utilisation of advanced co-culture in vitro systems
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Gkika DA, Vordos N, Magafas L, Mitropoulos AC, Kyzas GZ. Risk return profile of nanomaterials. J Mol Struct. 2021;1228:129740. doi: 10.1016/j.molstruc.2020.129740. - DOI
    1. Lamon L, Aschberger K, Asturiol D, Richarz A, Worth A. Grouping of nanomaterials to read-across hazard endpoints: a review. Nanotoxicology. 2019;13:100–118. doi: 10.1080/17435390.2018.1506060. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gupta R, Xie H. Nanoparticles in daily life: applications, toxicity and regulations. J Environ Pathol Toxicol Oncol. 2018;37:209–230. doi: 10.1615/JEnvironPatholToxicolOncol.2018026009. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kermanizadeh A, Powell LG, Stone V. A review of hepatic nanotoxicology—summation of recent findings and considerations for the next generation of study designs. J Toxicol Environ Health Part B. 2020;23:137–176. doi: 10.1080/10937404.2020.1751756. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Belade E, Chrusciel S, Armand L, Simon-Deckers A, Bussy C, Caramelle P, Gagliolo JM, Boyer L, Lanone S, Pairon JC, Kermanizadeh A, Boczkowski J. The role of p53 in lung macrophages following exposure to a panel of manufactured nanomaterials. Arch Toxicol. 2015;89:1543–1556. doi: 10.1007/s00204-014-1324-5. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources