JaCVAM-organized international validation study of the in vivo rodent alkaline comet assay for the detection of genotoxic carcinogens: I. Summary of pre-validation study results.

The in vivo rodent alkaline comet assay (comet assay) is used internationally to investigate the in vivo genotoxic potential of test chemicals. This assay, however, has not previously been formally validated. The Japanese Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods (JaCVAM), with the cooperation of the U.S. NTP Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM)/the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM), the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM), and the Japanese Environmental Mutagen Society/Mammalian Mutagenesis Study Group (JEMS/MMS), organized an international validation study to evaluate the reliability and relevance of the assay for identifying genotoxic carcinogens, using liver and stomach as target organs. The ultimate goal of this validation effort was to establish an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) test guideline. The purpose of the pre-validation studies (i.e., Phase 1 through 3), conducted in four or five laboratories with extensive comet assay experience, was to optimize the protocol to be used during the definitive validation study.

The JaCVAM international validation study on the in vivo comet assay: Selection of test chemicals.

The Japanese Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods (JaCVAM) sponsored an international prevalidation and validation study of the in vivo rat alkaline pH comet assay. The main objective of the study was to assess the sensitivity and specificity of the assay for correctly identifying genotoxic carcinogens, as compared with the traditional rat liver unscheduled DNA synthesis assay. Based on existing carcinogenicity and genotoxicity data and chemical class information, 90 chemicals were identified as primary candidates for use in the validation study. From these 90 chemicals, 46 secondary candidates and then 40 final chemicals were selected based on a sufficiency of carcinogenic and genotoxic data, differences in chemical class or genotoxic or carcinogenic mode of action (MOA), availability, price, and ease of handling. These 40 chemicals included 19 genotoxic carcinogens, 6 genotoxic non-carcinogens, 7 non-genotoxic carcinogens and 8 non-genotoxic non-carcinogens. "Genotoxicity" was defined as positive in the Ames mutagenicity test or in one of the standard in vivo genotoxicity tests (primarily the erythrocyte micronucleus assay). These chemicals covered various chemicals classes, MOAs, and genotoxicity profiles and were considered to be suitable for the purpose of the validation study. General principles of chemical selection for validation studies are discussed.

JaCVAM-organized international validation study of the in vivo rodent alkaline comet assay for detection of genotoxic carcinogens: II. Summary of definitive validation study results.

The in vivo rodent alkaline comet assay (comet assay) is used internationally to investigate the in vivo genotoxic potential of test chemicals. This assay, however, has not previously been formally validated. The Japanese Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods (JaCVAM), with the cooperation of the U.S. NTP Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM)/the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM), the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM), and the Japanese Environmental Mutagen Society/Mammalian Mutagenesis Study Group (JEMS/MMS), organized an international validation study to evaluate the reliability and relevance of the assay for identifying genotoxic carcinogens, using liver and stomach as target organs. The ultimate goal of this exercise was to establish an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) test guideline. The study protocol was optimized in the pre-validation studies, and then the definitive (4th phase) validation study was conducted in two steps. In the 1st step, assay reproducibility was confirmed among laboratories using four coded reference chemicals and the positive control ethyl methanesulfonate. In the 2nd step, the predictive capability was investigated using 40 coded chemicals with known genotoxic and carcinogenic activity (i.e., genotoxic carcinogens, genotoxic non-carcinogens, non-genotoxic carcinogens, and non-genotoxic non-carcinogens). Based on the results obtained, the in vivo comet assay is concluded to be highly capable of identifying genotoxic chemicals and therefore can serve as a reliable predictor of rodent carcinogenicity.

Application of in vitro cell transformation assays in regulatory toxicology for pharmaceuticals, chemicals, food products and cosmetics.

Two year rodent bioassays play a key role in the assessment of carcinogenic potential of chemicals to humans. The seventh amendment to the European Cosmetics Directive will ban in 2013 the marketing of cosmetic and personal care products that contain ingredients that have been tested in animal models. Thus 2-year rodent bioassays will not be available for cosmetics/personal care products. Furthermore, for large testing programs like REACH, in vivo carcinogenicity testing is impractical. Alternative ways to carcinogenicity assessment are urgently required. In terms of standardization and validation, the most advanced in vitro tests for carcinogenicity are the cell transformation assays (CTAs). Although CTAs do not mimic the whole carcinogenesis process in vivo, they represent a valuable support in identifying transforming potential of chemicals. CTAs have been shown to detect genotoxic as well as non-genotoxic carcinogens and are helpful in the determination of thresholds for genotoxic and non-genotoxic carcinogens. The extensive review on CTAs by the OECD (OECD (2007) Environmental Health and Safety Publications, Series on Testing and Assessment, No. 31) and the proven within- and between-laboratories reproducibility of the SHE CTAs justifies broader use of these methods to assess carcinogenic potential of chemicals.

Rodent cell transformation assays-a brief historical perspective.

In vitro cell transformation is a process characterized by a series of progressive distinctive events that often emulate manifestations occurring in vivo and which are associated with neoplasia. Attendant cellular and sub-cellular alterations include, among others: cellular immortality, phenotypic changes, aneuploidy, genetic variability, cellular disarray, anchorage-independent growth, and tumorigenicity in vivo. Early chemically induced neoplastic transformation studies involved the use of normal diploid (Syrian) hamster embryo (SHE) cells and monitored the formation of morphologically altered colonies. Later investigations employed primarily two established mouse cell lines, i.e. the BALB/c 3T3 A31 cell line and the C3H 10T 1/2 cell line, and monitored the induction of morphologically aberrant foci. In either case, such transformed cellular clusters (colonies and foci) could induce tumors upon inoculation in vivo. Some subsequent noteworthy advancements using these systems included pH adjustments, metabolic supplementation, amplification of expression of formerly latent transformed foci, concurrent detection of mutagenesis and transformation, and use of a Bhas 42 cell line (v-Ha-ras transfected BALB/c 3T3 cells) to detect both tumor initiators and promoters. Over time, such transformation assay systems have been found useful in academic, industry and regulatory laboratories, generally for research purposes, but also occasionally as screening tools for potential chemical carcinogens. Nevertheless, to date, use of these assays for decision-making purposes in the regulatory arena remains elusive and will require comprehensive validation to gain universal acceptance.

Cell transformation assays for prediction of carcinogenic potential: state of the science and future research needs.

Cell transformation assays (CTAs) have long been proposed as in vitro methods for the identification of potential chemical carcinogens. Despite showing good correlation with rodent bioassay data, concerns over the subjective nature of using morphological criteria for identifying transformed cells and a lack of understanding of the mechanistic basis of the assays has limited their acceptance for regulatory purposes. However, recent drivers to find alternative carcinogenicity assessment methodologies, such as the Seventh Amendment to the EU Cosmetics Directive, have fuelled renewed interest in CTAs. Research is currently ongoing to improve the objectivity of the assays, reveal the underlying molecular changes leading to transformation and explore the use of novel cell types. The UK NC3Rs held an international workshop in November 2010 to review the current state of the art in this field and provide directions for future research. This paper outlines the key points highlighted at this meeting.

ECVAM prevalidation study on in vitro cell transformation assays: general outline and conclusions of the study.

The potential for a compound to induce carcinogenicity is a key consideration when ascertaining hazard and risk assessment of chemicals. Among the in vitro alternatives that have been developed for predicting carcinogenicity, in vitro cell transformation assays (CTAs) have been shown to involve a multistage process that closely models important stages of in vivo carcinogenesis and have the potential to detect both genotoxic and non-genotoxic carcinogens. These assays have been in use for decades and a substantial amount of data demonstrating their performance is available in the literature. However, for the standardised use of these assays for regulatory purposes, a formal evaluation of the assays, in particular focusing on development of standardised transferable protocols and further information on assay reproducibility, was considered important to serve as a basis for the drafting of generally accepted OECD test guidelines. To address this issue, a prevalidation study of the CTAs using the BALB/c 3T3 cell line, SHE cells at pH 6.7, and SHE cells at pH 7.0 was coordinated by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) and focused on issues of standardisation of protocols, test method transferability and within- and between-laboratory reproducibility. The study resulted in the availability of standardised protocols that had undergone prevalidation [1,2]. The results of the ECVAM study demonstrated that for the BALB/c 3T3 method, some modifications to the protocol were needed to obtain reproducible results between laboratories, while the SHE pH 6.7 and the SHE pH 7.0 protocols are transferable between laboratories, and results are reproducible within- and between-laboratories. It is recommended that the BALB/c 3T3 and SHE protocols as instituted in this prevalidation study should be used in future applications of these respective transformation assays. To support their harmonised use and regulatory application, the development of an OECD test guideline for the SHE CTAs, based on the protocol published in this issue, is recommended. The development of an OECD test guideline for the BALB/c 3T3 CTA should likewise be further pursued upon the availability of additional supportive data and improvement of the statistical analysis.

ECVAM prevalidation of three cell transformation assays.

A prevalidation study on the cell transformation assays in SHE cells at pH 6.7, SHE cells at pH 7.0 and Balb/c 3T3 cell line was coordinated by ECVAM focussing on issues of standardisation of protocols, within-laboratory reproducibility, test method transferability and between-laboratory reproducibility. The Validation Management Team concluded that standardised protocols are now available that should be the basis for future use. The SHE pH 6.7, and the SHE pH 7.0 protocols and the assays system themselves are transferable between laboratories, and are reproducible within- and between-laboratories. For the Balb/c 3T3 method, some clarifications and modifications to the protocol were needed to obtain reproducible results. Overall, three methods have shown to be valuable to detect rodent carcinogens.

Meeting report: Validation of toxicogenomics-based test systems: ECVAM-ICCVAM/NICEATM considerations for regulatory use.

This is the report of the first workshop "Validation of Toxicogenomics-Based Test Systems" held 11-12 December 2003 in Ispra, Italy. The workshop was hosted by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) and organized jointly by ECVAM, the U.S. Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM), and the National Toxicology Program (NTP) Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM). The primary aim of the workshop was for participants to discuss and define principles applicable to the validation of toxicogenomics platforms as well as validation of specific toxicologic test methods that incorporate toxicogenomics technologies. The workshop was viewed as an opportunity for initiating a dialogue between technologic experts, regulators, and the principal validation bodies and for identifying those factors to which the validation process would be applicable. It was felt that to do so now, as the technology is evolving and associated challenges are identified, would be a basis for the future validation of the technology when it reaches the appropriate stage. Because of the complexity of the issue, different aspects of the validation of toxicogenomics-based test methods were covered. The three focus areas include a) biologic validation of toxicogenomics-based test methods for regulatory decision making, b) technical and bioinformatics aspects related to validation, and c) validation issues as they relate to regulatory acceptance and use of toxicogenomics-based test methods. In this report we summarize the discussions and describe in detail the recommendations for future direction and priorities.

The FDA's regulatory role in the ICCVAM process.

The Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM), a permanent body set forth in the ICCVAM Authorization Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-545), is charged with establishing criteria and processes for the validation and regulatory acceptance of toxicological test methods of interest to Federal agencies, including alternative methods that reduce, refine, or replace the use of animals for research and testing purposes. In response to that mandate, 15 Federal regulatory and research agencies and programmes that would consider utilising such methods or the results derived from them, now participate in cross-agency efforts directed toward the identification, standardisation, validation, acceptance, regulatory implementation and international harmonisation and adoption of such test methods. As an integral member of ICCVAM since its inception, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has established processes for responding to ICCVAM issues and recommendations. The participating FDA units include all FDA research and product-based centres and oversight offices. FDA product centres respond to distinct regulatory mandates and regulate different products. Upon completion of a validation effort, ICCVAM forwards its recommendations to member Government agencies regarding the validity and technical acceptability of a method. The FDA's response consists of the conclusions reached by each of its regulatory components and addresses such factors as their concurrence with ICCVAM's conclusions, the practical applicability of the method to the products they regulate and the feasibility of implementation of an accepted method to supplement or supplant those currently used. Each centre/office independently determines which of the ICCVAM-recommended tests are appropriate for implementation to satisfy its regulatory obligations to ensure product safety and to protect human health. The adoption of a method triggers a notification process to announce the availability and utility of a method, encourage its use, and inform, educate and train end-users and regulatory review staff.

The safety assessment process--setting the scene: an FDA perspective.

The process by which the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) evaluates the safety/hazard potential of the products under its purview has evolved from a constellation of scientific research achievements in toxicology and related areas and a succession of historical events, some tragic, which encouraged dramatic changes in the oversight and regulation of foods, drugs, and cosmetics. The process is science based and has, over the years, achieved significant success in protecting human health. The authority by which the FDA provides pre- and postmarketing oversight of the products it regulates is established in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which has been amended extensively to broaden FDA's authority to include different products and product classes and to include oversight of safety and efficacy, greater stringency regarding reporting requirements, and enforcement processes. The structure of the agency, which comprises six regulatory components and a principal multidisciplinary research facility, is both practical and functional, providing regulatory oversight, regulatory guidance to industry, and fundamental and applied research. FDA's participation in different national and international scientific initiatives has helped bring focus to the prioritization, standardization, validation, and globalization of testing strategies and methodologies and the practical and widespread application of these initiatives to the regulation of consumer products. The agency is a leading advocate of alternative methods that refine procedures using animals to limit pain and distress, reduce and replace animal use in research and testing as scientifically appropriate and feasible, and have the potential to yield data comparable with or better than that obtained from conventional methods. The current scientific and technological advances and the rapidity with which they emerge offer new opportunities for the scientific community, industry, and regulatory authorities to alter current toxicological practices and promote the use of validated, reliable, and relevant alternative methods.

Implementation of the 3Rs (refinement, reduction, and replacement): validation and regulatory acceptance considerations for alternative toxicological test methods.

Toxicological testing in the current regulatory environment is steeped in a history of using animals to answer questions about the safety of products to which humans are exposed. That history forms the basis for the testing strategies that have evolved to satisfy the needs of the regulatory bodies that render decisions that affect, for the most part, virtually all phases of premarket product development and evaluation and, to a lesser extent, postmarketing surveillance. Only relatively recently have the levels of awareness of, and responsiveness to, animal welfare issues reached current proportions. That paradigm shift, although sluggish, has nevertheless been progressive. New and alternative toxicological methods for hazard evaluation and risk assessment have now been adopted and are being viewed as a means to address those issues in a manner that considers humane treatment of animals yet maintains scientific credibility and preserves the goal of ensuring human safety. To facilitate this transition, regulatory agencies and regulated industry must work together toward improved approaches. They will need assurance that the methods will be reliable and the results comparable with, or better than, those derived from the current classical methods. That confidence will be a function of the scientific validation and resultant acceptance of any given method. In the United States, to fulfill this need, the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) and its operational center, the National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM), have been constituted as prescribed in federal law. Under this mandate, ICCVAM has developed a process and established criteria for the scientific validation and regulatory acceptance of new and alternative methods. The role of ICCVAM in the validation and acceptance process and the criteria instituted toward that end are described. Also discussed are the participation of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the ICCVAM process and that agency's approach to the application and implementation of ICCVAM-recommended methods.

The Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM): a review of the ICCVAM test method evaluation process and current international collaborations with the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM).

Over the last decade, national authorities in the USA and Europe have launched initiatives to validate new and improved toxicological test methods. In the USA, the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) and its supporting National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM) were established by the Federal Government to work with test developers and Federal agencies to facilitate the validation, review, and adoption of new scientifically sound test methods, including alternatives that can refine, reduce, and replace animal use. In Europe, the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) was established to conduct validation studies on alternative test methods. Despite differences in organisational structure and processes, both organisations seek to achieve the adoption and use of alternative test methods. Accordingly, both have adopted similar validation and regulatory acceptance criteria. Collaborations and processes have also evolved to facilitate the international adoption of new test methods recommended by ECVAM and ICCVAM. These collaborations involve the sharing of expertise and data for test-method workshops and independent scientific peer reviews, and the adoption of processes to expedite the consideration of test methods already reviewed by the other organisation. More recently, NICEATM and ECVAM initiated a joint international validation study on in vitro methods for assessing acute systemic toxicity. These collaborations are expected to contribute to accelerated international adoption of harmonised new test methods that will support improved public health and provide for reduced and more-humane use of laboratory animals.

ECVAM-ICCVAM: prospects for future collaboration.

The level and complexity of testing for hazard and risk assessment of marketed products and environmental agents has increased substantially over time, resulting in the use of greater numbers of both animals and humans for testing. Today, industry and regulatory bodies worldwide face increasing pressures to demonstrate responsible utilisation of laboratory animals, to limit their use, and to employ alternative non-animal tests. Institutions have also been established to identify, encourage development of, conduct research on, and validate new, improved, and surrogate test methods that will reduce and replace animal use. Two such organisations are ECVAM and the Interagency Coordinating Committee for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM). As the evolutionary changes occurring in the field of toxicology result in an unprecedented increase in the introduction of alternative methodologies, these will strain the capacities of such alternative methods institutions. That realisation is causing a shift in thinking and creating an impetus to seek approaches by which to collaborate and develop more-efficient operational procedures for the validation and regulatory acceptance of alternative methods. Similarities in objectives, functions, scientific standards, and commitment to the principles of validation and animal welfare support the value of a cooperative arrangement between ECVAM and ICCVAM, to minimise duplication of effort, maximise productivity, and influence the international adoption of alternative tests. Opportunities for ECVAM-ICCVAM collaboration are discussed, which illustrate the feasibility and potential benefits of such a partnership.