Genotoxicity assessment: opportunities, challenges and perspectives for quantitative evaluations of dose-response data
- PMID: 37402810
- PMCID: PMC10404208
- DOI: 10.1007/s00204-023-03553-w
Genotoxicity assessment: opportunities, challenges and perspectives for quantitative evaluations of dose-response data
Abstract
Genotoxicity data are mainly interpreted in a qualitative way, which typically results in a binary classification of chemical entities. For more than a decade, there has been a discussion about the need for a paradigm shift in this regard. Here, we review current opportunities, challenges and perspectives for a more quantitative approach to genotoxicity assessment. Currently discussed opportunities mainly include the determination of a reference point (e.g., a benchmark dose) from genetic toxicity dose-response data, followed by calculation of a margin of exposure (MOE) or derivation of a health-based guidance value (HBGV). In addition to new opportunities, major challenges emerge with the quantitative interpretation of genotoxicity data. These are mainly rooted in the limited capability of standard in vivo genotoxicity testing methods to detect different types of genetic damage in multiple target tissues and the unknown quantitative relationships between measurable genotoxic effects and the probability of experiencing an adverse health outcome. In addition, with respect to DNA-reactive mutagens, the question arises whether the widely accepted assumption of a non-threshold dose-response relationship is at all compatible with the derivation of a HBGV. Therefore, at present, any quantitative genotoxicity assessment approach remains to be evaluated case-by-case. The quantitative interpretation of in vivo genotoxicity data for prioritization purposes, e.g., in connection with the MOE approach, could be seen as a promising opportunity for routine application. However, additional research is needed to assess whether it is possible to define a genotoxicity-derived MOE that can be considered indicative of a low level of concern. To further advance quantitative genotoxicity assessment, priority should be given to the development of new experimental methods to provide a deeper mechanistic understanding and a more comprehensive basis for the analysis of dose-response relationships.
Keywords: Dose–response analysis; Genetic toxicology; Health-based guidance value; Margin of exposure; Point of departure; Risk assessment.
© 2023. The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Similar articles
-
IWGT report on quantitative approaches to genotoxicity risk assessment I. Methods and metrics for defining exposure-response relationships and points of departure (PoDs).Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen. 2015 May 1;783:55-65. doi: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2014.09.011. Epub 2014 Oct 13. Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen. 2015. PMID: 25953400
-
Establishing a quantitative framework for regulatory interpretation of genetic toxicity dose-response data: Margin of exposure case study of 48 compounds with both in vivo mutagenicity and carcinogenicity dose-response data.Environ Mol Mutagen. 2023 Jan;64(1):4-15. doi: 10.1002/em.22517. Epub 2023 Jan 6. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2023. PMID: 36345771 Free PMC article.
-
Next generation testing strategy for assessment of genomic damage: A conceptual framework and considerations.Environ Mol Mutagen. 2017 Jun;58(5):264-283. doi: 10.1002/em.22045. Epub 2016 Sep 21. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2017. PMID: 27650663 Review.
-
IWGT report on quantitative approaches to genotoxicity risk assessment II. Use of point-of-departure (PoD) metrics in defining acceptable exposure limits and assessing human risk.Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen. 2015 May 1;783:66-78. doi: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2014.10.008. Epub 2014 Oct 27. Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen. 2015. PMID: 25953401
-
Genotoxicity testing: progress and prospects for the next decade.Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2017 Oct;13(10):1089-1098. doi: 10.1080/17425255.2017.1375097. Epub 2017 Sep 10. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2017. PMID: 28889778 Review.
Cited by
-
Scientific opinion on the renewal of the authorisation of SmokEz Enviro-23 (SF-006) as a smoke flavouring Primary Product.EFSA J. 2023 Nov 16;21(11):e08368. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8368. eCollection 2023 Nov. EFSA J. 2023. PMID: 38027452 Free PMC article.
-
Assessment of Ingested Micro- and Nanoplastic (MNP)-Mediated Genotoxicity in an In Vitro Model of the Small Intestinal Epithelium (SIE).Nanomaterials (Basel). 2024 May 6;14(9):807. doi: 10.3390/nano14090807. Nanomaterials (Basel). 2024. PMID: 38727401 Free PMC article.
-
Scientific opinion on the renewal of the authorisation of Zesti Smoke Code 10 (SF-002) as a smoke flavouring Primary Product.EFSA J. 2023 Nov 16;21(11):e08364. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8364. eCollection 2023 Nov. EFSA J. 2023. PMID: 38027431 Free PMC article.
-
Evaluating the Genotoxicity and Mutagenicity of Food Contaminants: Acrylamide, Penitrem A, and 3-Acetyldeoxynivalenol in Individual and Combined Exposure In Vitro.J Appl Toxicol. 2025 Sep;45(9):1750-1760. doi: 10.1002/jat.4805. Epub 2025 May 6. J Appl Toxicol. 2025. PMID: 40326165 Free PMC article.
-
Cytotoxic and genotoxic effects of tert-butylhydroquinone, butylated hydroxyanisole and propyl gallate as synthetic food antioxidants.Food Sci Nutr. 2024 Aug 7;12(10):7004-7016. doi: 10.1002/fsn3.4373. eCollection 2024 Oct. Food Sci Nutr. 2024. PMID: 39479655 Free PMC article. Review.
References
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources