Abstract
The methods of applied genetic toxicology are changing from qualitative hazard identification to quantitative risk assessment. Recently, quantitative analysis with point of departure (PoD) metrics and benchmark dose (BMD) modeling have been applied to in vitro genotoxicity data. Two software packages are commonly used for BMD analysis. In previous studies, we performed quantitative dose-response analysis by using the PROAST software to quantitatively evaluate the mutagenicity of four piperidine nitroxides with various substituent groups on the 4-position of the piperidine ring and six cigarette whole smoke solutions (WSSs) prepared by bubbling machine-generated whole smoke. In the present study, we reanalyzed the obtained genotoxicity data by using the EPA’s BMD software (BMDS) to evaluate the inter-platform quantitative agreement of the estimates of genotoxic potency. We calculated the BMDs for 10%, 50%, and 100% (i.e., a two-fold increase), and 200% increases over the concurrent vehicle controls to achieve better discrimination of the dose-responses, along with their BMDLs (the lower 95% confidence interval of the BMD) and BMDUs (the upper 95% confidence interval of the BMD). The BMD values and rankings estimated in this study by using the EPA’s BMDS were reasonably similar to those calculated in our previous studies by using PROAST. These results indicated that both software packages were suitable for dose-response analysis using the mouse lymphoma assay and that the BMD modeling results from these software packages produced comparable rank orders of the mutagenic potency.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Crump, K.S. (1984) A new method for determining allowable daily intakes. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol., 4, 854–871.
Cronin, M.T.D., Enoch, S.J., Mellor, C.L., Przybylak, K.R., Richarz, A.N. and Madden, J.C. (2017) In silico prediction of organ level toxicity: Linking chemistry to adverse effects. Toxicol. Res., 33, 173–182.
Brandon, E.F., Bulder, A.S., van Engelen, J.G., Mahieu, C.M., Mennes, W.C., Pronk, M.E., Rietveld, A.G., van de Ven, B.M., Ten Voorde, S.E., Wolterink, G., Slob, W., Zeilmaker, M.J. and Bessems, J.G. (2013) Does EU legislation allow the use of the Benchmark Dose (BMD) approach for risk assessment? Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 67, 182–188.
EPA (1994) Methods for derivation of inhalation reference concentrations and application of inhalation dosimetry. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [Accessed on 2018 Aug 7]. Available from: http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=30001K30004C.PDF/.
EPA (1999) What is benchmark dose software (BMDS)? U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [Accessed on 2018 Aug 7]. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/bmds/what-benchmark-dose-software-bmds/.
Barnes, D.G., Daston, G.P., Evans, J.S., Jarabek, A.M., Kavlock, R.J., Kimmel, C.A., Park, C. and Spitzer, H.L. (1995) Benchmark Dose Workshop: criteria for use of a benchmark dose to estimate a reference dose. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 21, 296–306.
Mattison, D.R. and Sandler, J.D. (1994) Summary of the workshop on issues in risk assessment: quantitative methods for developmental toxicology. Risk Anal., 14, 595–604.
Slikker, W., Jr., Crump, K.S., Andersen, M.E. and Bellinger, D. (1996) Biologically based, quantitative risk assessment of neurotoxicants. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol., 29, 18–30.
Van Landingham, C.B., Allen, B.C., Shipp, A.M. and Crump, K.S. (2001) Comparison of the EU T25 single point estimate method with benchmark dose response modeling for estimating potency of carcinogens. Risk Anal., 21, 641–656.
Burgoon, L.D. and Zacharewski, T.R. (2008) Automated quantitative dose-response modeling and point of departure determination for large toxicogenomic and high-throughput screening data sets. Toxicol. Sci., 104, 412–418.
Thomas, R.S., Clewell, H.J., 3rd, Allen, B.C., Wesselkamper, S.C., Wang, N.C., Lambert, J.C., Hess-Wilson, J.K., Zhao, Q.J. and Andersen, M.E. (2011) Application of transcriptional benchmark dose values in quantitative cancer and noncancer risk assessment. Toxicol. Sci., 120, 194–205.
EPA (2005) Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [Accessed on 2018 Aug 7]. Available from: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-2009/documents/cancer_guidelines_final_2013-2025-2005.pdf/.
Guo, X., Heflich, R.H., Dial, S.L., Richter, P.A., Moore, M.M. and Mei, N. (2016) Quantitative analysis of the relative mutagenicity of five chemical constituents of tobacco smoke in the mouse lymphoma assay. Mutagenesis, 31, 287–296.
Hernandez, L.G., Slob, W., van Steeg, H. and van Benthem, J. (2011) Can carcinogenic potency be predicted from in vivo genotoxicity data? a meta-analysis of historical data. Environ. Mol. Mutagen., 52, 518–528.
Cao, X., Mittelstaedt, R.A., Pearce, M.G., Allen, B.C., Soeteman-Hernandez, L.G., Johnson, G.E., Bigger, C.A. and Heflich, R.H. (2014) Quantitative dose-response analysis of ethyl methanesulfonate genotoxicity in adult gpt-delta transgenic mice. Environ. Mol. Mutagen., 55, 385–399.
Paini, A., Scholz, G., Marin-Kuan, M., Schilter, B., O’Brien, J., van Bladeren, P.J. and Rietjens, I.M. (2011) Quantitative comparison between in vivo DNA adduct formation from exposure to selected DNA-reactive carcinogens, natural background levels of DNA adduct formation and tumour incidence in rodent bioassays. Mutagenesis, 26, 605–618.
Gollapudi, B.B., Johnson, G.E., Hernandez, L.G., Pottenger, L.H., Dearfield, K.L., Jeffrey, A.M., Julien, E., Kim, J.H., Lovell, D.P., Macgregor, J.T., Moore, M.M., van Benthem, J., White, P.A., Zeiger, E. and Thybaud, V. (2013) Quantitative approaches for assessing dose-response relationships in genetic toxicology studies. Environ. Mol. Mutagen., 54, 8–18.
Johnson, G.E., Soeteman-Hernandez, L.G., Gollapudi, B.B., Bodger, O.G., Dearfield, K.L., Heflich, R.H., Hixon, J.G., Lovell, D.P., MacGregor, J.T., Pottenger, L.H., Thompson, C.M., Abraham, L., Thybaud, V., Tanir, J.Y., Zeiger, E., van Benthem, J. and White, P.A. (2014) Derivation of point of departure (PoD) estimates in genetic toxicology studies and their potential applications in risk assessment. Environ. Mol. Mutagen., 55, 609–623.
MacGregor, J.T., Frotschl, R., White, P.A., Crump, K.S., Eastmond, D.A., Fukushima, S., Guerard, M., Hayashi, M., Soeteman-Hernandez, L.G., Kasamatsu, T., Levy, D.D., Morita, T., Muller, L., Schoeny, R., Schuler, M.J., Thybaud, V. and Johnson, G.E. (2015) 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., 783, 55–65.
MacGregor, J.T., Frotschl, R., White, P.A., Crump, K.S., Eastmond, D.A., Fukushima, S., Guerard, M., Hayashi, M., Soeteman-Hernandez, L.G., Johnson, G.E., Kasamatsu, T., Levy, D.D., Morita, T., Muller, L., Schoeny, R., Schuler, M.J. and Thybaud, V. (2015) 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., 783, 66–78.
White, P.A. and Johnson, G.E. (2016) Genetic toxicology at the crossroads-from qualitative hazard evaluation to quantitative risk assessment. Mutagenesis, 31, 233–237.
Guo, X., Seo, J.E., Bryce, S.M., Tan, J.A., Wu, Q., Dial, S.L., Moore, M.M. and Mei, N. (2018) Comparative genotoxicity of TEMPO and 3 of its derivatives in mouse lymphoma cells. Toxicol. Sci., 163, 214–225.
Guo, X., Heflich, R.H., Dial, S.L., De, M., Richter, P.A. and Mei, N. (2018) Quantitative differentiation of whole smoke solution-induced mutagenicity in the mouse lymphoma assay. Environ. Mol. Mutagen., 59, 103–113.
RIVM (2013) PROAST. The Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment [Accessed on 2018 Aug 7]. Available from: http://www.rivm.nl/en/Documents_and_-publications/Scientific/Models/PROAST/.
EPA (2012) Benchmark dose technical guidance. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [Accessed on 2018 Aug 7]. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/risk/benchmark-dose-technical-guidance/.
Davis, J.A., Gift, J.S. and Zhao, Q.J. (2011) Introduction to benchmark dose methods and U.S. EPA’s benchmark dose software (BMDS) version 2.1.1. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol., 254, 181–191.
Moore, M.M., Honma, M., Clements, J., Bolcsfoldi, G., Burlinson, B., Cifone, M., Clarke, J., Delongchamp, R., Durward, R., Fellows, M., Gollapudi, B., Hou, S., Jenkinson, P., Lloyd, M., Majeska, J., Myhr, B., O’Donovan, M., Omori, T., Riach, C., San, R., Stankowski, L.F., Jr., Thakur, A.K., Van Goethem, F., Wakuri, S. and Yoshimura, I. (2006) Mouse lymphoma thymidine kinase gene mutation assay: follow-up meeting of the International Workshop on Genotoxicity Testing--Aberdeen, Scotland, 2003--Assay acceptance criteria, positive controls, and data evaluation. Environ. Mol. Mutagen., 47, 1–5.
Guo, X., Chen, S., Zhang, Z., Dobrovolsky, V.N., Dial, S.L., Guo, L. and Mei, N. (2015) Reactive oxygen species and c-Jun N-terminal kinases contribute to TEMPO-induced apoptosis in L5178Y cells. Chem. Biol. Interact., 235, 27–36.
Guo, X., Mittelstaedt, R.A., Guo, L., Shaddock, J.G., Heflich, R.H., Bigger, A.H., Moore, M.M. and Mei, N. (2013) Nitroxide TEMPO: a genotoxic and oxidative stress inducer in cultured cells. Toxicol. In Vitro, 27, 1496–1502.
EFSA (2017) Update: use of the benchmark dose approach in risk assessment. The EFSA Journal, 15, 4658.
Wills, J.W., Johnson, G.E., Doak, S.H., Soeteman-Hernandez, L.G., Slob, W. and White, P.A. (2016) Empirical analysis of BMD metrics in genetic toxicology part I: in vitro analyses to provide robust potency rankings and support MOA determinations. Mutagenesis, 31, 255–263.
PHE (2014) Carcinogenic dose response: defining a point of departure and potency estimates. Public Health England [Accessed on 2018 Jul 5]. Available from: http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/carcinogenic-dose-response-defining-a-point-of-departure-and-potency-estimates/.
EFSA (2009) Guidance of the Scientific Committee on a request from EFSA on the use of the benchmark dose approach in risk assessment The EFSA Journal, 1150, 1–72.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
About this article
Cite this article
Guo, X., Mei, N. Benchmark Dose Modeling of In Vitro Genotoxicity Data: a Reanalysis. Toxicol Res. 34, 303–310 (2018). https://doi.org/10.5487/TR.2018.34.4.303
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5487/TR.2018.34.4.303