Cargando…

Impact of sampling time on the detection of mutations in rapidly proliferating tissues using transgenic rodent gene mutation models: A review

The OECD Test Guideline 488 (TG 488) for the Transgenic Rodent Gene Mutation Assay has undergone several revisions to update the recommended design for studying mutations in somatic tissues and male germ cells. The recently revised TG recommends a single sampling time of 28 days following 28 days of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Douglas, George R., Beevers, Carol, Gollapudi, Bhaskar, Keig‐Shevlin, Zena, Kirkland, David, O'Brien, Jason M., van Benthem, Jan, Yauk, Carole L., Young, Robert R., Marchetti, Francesco
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10099936/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36271823
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/em.22514
_version_ 1785025166004191232
author Douglas, George R.
Beevers, Carol
Gollapudi, Bhaskar
Keig‐Shevlin, Zena
Kirkland, David
O'Brien, Jason M.
van Benthem, Jan
Yauk, Carole L.
Young, Robert R.
Marchetti, Francesco
author_facet Douglas, George R.
Beevers, Carol
Gollapudi, Bhaskar
Keig‐Shevlin, Zena
Kirkland, David
O'Brien, Jason M.
van Benthem, Jan
Yauk, Carole L.
Young, Robert R.
Marchetti, Francesco
author_sort Douglas, George R.
collection PubMed
description The OECD Test Guideline 488 (TG 488) for the Transgenic Rodent Gene Mutation Assay has undergone several revisions to update the recommended design for studying mutations in somatic tissues and male germ cells. The recently revised TG recommends a single sampling time of 28 days following 28 days of exposure (i.e., 28 + 28 days) for all tissues, irrespective of proliferation rates. An alternative design (i.e., 28 + 3 days) is appropriate when germ cell data is not required, nor considered. While the 28 + 28 days design is clearly preferable for slowly proliferating somatic tissues and germ cells, there is still uncertainty about the impact of extending the sampling time to 28 days for rapidly somatic tissues. Here, we searched the available literature for evidence supporting the applicability and utility of the 28 + 28 days design for rapidly proliferating tissues. A total of 79 tests were identified. When directly comparing results from both designs in the same study, there was no evidence that the 28 + 28 days regimen resulted in a qualitatively different outcome from the 28 + 3 days design. Studies with a diverse range of agents that employed only a 28 + 28 days protocol provide further evidence that this design is appropriate for rapidly proliferating tissues. Benchmark dose analyses demonstrate high quantitative concordance between the 28 + 3 and 28 + 28 days designs for rapidly proliferating tissues. Accordingly, our review confirms that the 28 + 28 days design is appropriate to assess mutagenicity in both slowly and rapidly proliferating somatic tissues, and germ cells, and provides further support for the recommended design in the recently adopted TG 488.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10099936
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-100999362023-04-14 Impact of sampling time on the detection of mutations in rapidly proliferating tissues using transgenic rodent gene mutation models: A review Douglas, George R. Beevers, Carol Gollapudi, Bhaskar Keig‐Shevlin, Zena Kirkland, David O'Brien, Jason M. van Benthem, Jan Yauk, Carole L. Young, Robert R. Marchetti, Francesco Environ Mol Mutagen Review The OECD Test Guideline 488 (TG 488) for the Transgenic Rodent Gene Mutation Assay has undergone several revisions to update the recommended design for studying mutations in somatic tissues and male germ cells. The recently revised TG recommends a single sampling time of 28 days following 28 days of exposure (i.e., 28 + 28 days) for all tissues, irrespective of proliferation rates. An alternative design (i.e., 28 + 3 days) is appropriate when germ cell data is not required, nor considered. While the 28 + 28 days design is clearly preferable for slowly proliferating somatic tissues and germ cells, there is still uncertainty about the impact of extending the sampling time to 28 days for rapidly somatic tissues. Here, we searched the available literature for evidence supporting the applicability and utility of the 28 + 28 days design for rapidly proliferating tissues. A total of 79 tests were identified. When directly comparing results from both designs in the same study, there was no evidence that the 28 + 28 days regimen resulted in a qualitatively different outcome from the 28 + 3 days design. Studies with a diverse range of agents that employed only a 28 + 28 days protocol provide further evidence that this design is appropriate for rapidly proliferating tissues. Benchmark dose analyses demonstrate high quantitative concordance between the 28 + 3 and 28 + 28 days designs for rapidly proliferating tissues. Accordingly, our review confirms that the 28 + 28 days design is appropriate to assess mutagenicity in both slowly and rapidly proliferating somatic tissues, and germ cells, and provides further support for the recommended design in the recently adopted TG 488. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2022-11-15 2022-12 /pmc/articles/PMC10099936/ /pubmed/36271823 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/em.22514 Text en © 2022 His Majesty the King in Right of Canada. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Environmental Mutagen Society. Reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Health Canada. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Review
Douglas, George R.
Beevers, Carol
Gollapudi, Bhaskar
Keig‐Shevlin, Zena
Kirkland, David
O'Brien, Jason M.
van Benthem, Jan
Yauk, Carole L.
Young, Robert R.
Marchetti, Francesco
Impact of sampling time on the detection of mutations in rapidly proliferating tissues using transgenic rodent gene mutation models: A review
title Impact of sampling time on the detection of mutations in rapidly proliferating tissues using transgenic rodent gene mutation models: A review
title_full Impact of sampling time on the detection of mutations in rapidly proliferating tissues using transgenic rodent gene mutation models: A review
title_fullStr Impact of sampling time on the detection of mutations in rapidly proliferating tissues using transgenic rodent gene mutation models: A review
title_full_unstemmed Impact of sampling time on the detection of mutations in rapidly proliferating tissues using transgenic rodent gene mutation models: A review
title_short Impact of sampling time on the detection of mutations in rapidly proliferating tissues using transgenic rodent gene mutation models: A review
title_sort impact of sampling time on the detection of mutations in rapidly proliferating tissues using transgenic rodent gene mutation models: a review
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10099936/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36271823
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/em.22514
work_keys_str_mv AT douglasgeorger impactofsamplingtimeonthedetectionofmutationsinrapidlyproliferatingtissuesusingtransgenicrodentgenemutationmodelsareview
AT beeverscarol impactofsamplingtimeonthedetectionofmutationsinrapidlyproliferatingtissuesusingtransgenicrodentgenemutationmodelsareview
AT gollapudibhaskar impactofsamplingtimeonthedetectionofmutationsinrapidlyproliferatingtissuesusingtransgenicrodentgenemutationmodelsareview
AT keigshevlinzena impactofsamplingtimeonthedetectionofmutationsinrapidlyproliferatingtissuesusingtransgenicrodentgenemutationmodelsareview
AT kirklanddavid impactofsamplingtimeonthedetectionofmutationsinrapidlyproliferatingtissuesusingtransgenicrodentgenemutationmodelsareview
AT obrienjasonm impactofsamplingtimeonthedetectionofmutationsinrapidlyproliferatingtissuesusingtransgenicrodentgenemutationmodelsareview
AT vanbenthemjan impactofsamplingtimeonthedetectionofmutationsinrapidlyproliferatingtissuesusingtransgenicrodentgenemutationmodelsareview
AT yaukcarolel impactofsamplingtimeonthedetectionofmutationsinrapidlyproliferatingtissuesusingtransgenicrodentgenemutationmodelsareview
AT youngrobertr impactofsamplingtimeonthedetectionofmutationsinrapidlyproliferatingtissuesusingtransgenicrodentgenemutationmodelsareview
AT marchettifrancesco impactofsamplingtimeonthedetectionofmutationsinrapidlyproliferatingtissuesusingtransgenicrodentgenemutationmodelsareview