Overview on Current Status

  • Stefan PfuhlerEmail author
  • Kerstin Reisinger


The assessment of the genotoxicity hazard of chemicals is a central requirement in many legislations which often decides on the fate of raw materials during product development. Genotoxicity defines the potential of a chemical to damage DNA, and such DNA-damaging agents are differentiated into three classes: mutagens, clastogens, and aneugens. No single in vitro or in vivo assay is able to detect all types of genotoxins, and assessment of the genotoxic potential of a compound therefore usually is done using two or more assays, a so-called test battery. Such a battery approach, however, has shown to exhibit a high rate of “false” or “misleading” positives, which can lead to unnecessary in vivo follow-up testing. Such in vivo testing would today, in a modern testing strategy, consider the anticipated route of human exposure, which for dermally exposed substances is the skin. As a surrogate or replacement for in vivo follow-up assays, more complex alternative assays do now exist and base on human 3D skin models, namely, the 3D Skin Comet assay and the reconstructed skin micronucleus assay (RSMN). They allow for identification of DNA lesions resulting from mutagens, clastogens, and aneugens and are composed of human primary cells which eliminate the species barrier and, at the same time, resemble human skin in terms of bioavailability of a dermally exposed substance as well as in terms of an organ- and species-specific xenobiotic metabolism.


  1. 1.
    EU Regulation. EC. No 1272/2008 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006. Official Journal of the European Union L 353/1. 2008.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    UN Globally Harmonized System. 4th ed., United Nation, New York Geneva. 2011.
  3. 3.
    EU Regulation. EC No. 1907/2006 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No. 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC. Official Journal of the European Union L 36/84. 2006.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ICH Guideline. GUIDANCE ON GENOTOXICITY TESTING AND DATA INTERPRETATION FOR PHARMACEUTICALS INTENDED FOR HUMAN USE S2(R1). Approval by the Steering Committee of S2(R1) under Step 4 and recommendation for adoption to the three ICH regulatory bodies (9 Nov 2011).
  5. 5.
    EU Regulation. EC No. 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products. Official Journal of the European Union L 167. 2012.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    EU Regulation. EC No. 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC. Official Journal of the European Union L 309/1. 2009.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    SCCS. ADDENDUM to the SCCS’s Notes of Guidance (NoG) for the Testing of Cosmetic Ingredients and their Safety Evaluation, 8th Revision (SCCS/1501/12) 2014.
  8. 8.
    OECD. Guideline for the testing of chemicals, test no. 474: mammalian erythrocyte micronucleus test. 2014.
  9. 9.
    OECD. Guidelines for the testing of chemicals, test no. 489: in vivo mammalian alkaline comet assay. 2014.;jsessionid=npkmv8v01k1s.x-oecd-live-02.
  10. 10.
    EU Regulation. EC No. 1223/2009 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products. Official Journal of the European Union L 342/59.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kirkland D, Aardema M, Müller L, Hayashi M. Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens II. Further analysis of mammalian cell results, relative predictivity and tumour profiles. Mutat Res. 2006;608(1):29–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kirkland D, Aardema M, Henderson L, Müller L. Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens I. Sensitivity, specificity and relative predictivity. Mutat Res. 2005;584(1-2):1–256.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pfuhler S, Kirst A, Aardema M, Banduhn N, Goebel C, Araki D, Costabel-Farkas M, Dufour E, Fautz R, Harvey J, Hewitt NJ, Hibatallah J, Carmichael P, Macfarlane M, Reisinger K, Rowland J, Schellauf F, Schepky A, Scheel J. A tiered approach to the use of alternatives to animal testing for the safety assessment of cosmetics: genotoxicity. A COLIPA analysis. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2010;57(2-3):315–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    OECD. Guideline for the testing of chemicals, test no. 488: transgenic rodent somatic and germ cell gene mutation assay. 2013.
  15. 15.
    Speit G, Kojima H, Burlinson B, Collins AR, Kasper P, Plappert-Helbig U, Uno Y, Vasquez M, Beevers C, De Boeck M, Escobar PA, Kitamoto S, Pant K, Pfuhler S, Tanaka J, Levy DD. Critical issues with the in vivo comet assay: a report of the comet assay working group in the 6th international workshop on Genotoxicity testing (IWGT). Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mol Mutagen. 2015;783:6–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nishikawa T, Haresaku M, Adachi K, Masuda M, Hayashi M. Study of a rat skin in vivo micronucleus test: data generated by mitomycin C and methyl methanesulfonate. Mutat Res. 1999;444(1):159–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Morita T, MacGregor JT, Hayashi M. Micronucleus assays in rodent tissues other than bone marrow. Mutagenesis. 2011;26(1):223–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nishikawa T, Haresaku M, Fukushima A, Nakamura T, Adachi K, Masuda M, Hayashi M. Further evaluation of an in vivo micronucleus test on rat and mouse skin: results with five skin carcinogens. MutatRes. 2002;513(1-2):93–102.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hewitt NJ, Edwards RJ, Fritsche E, Goebel C, Aeby P, Scheel J, Reisinger K, Ouédraogo G, Duche D, Eilstein J, Latil A, Kenny J, Moore C, Kuehnl J, Barroso J, Fautz R, Pfuhler S. Use of human in vitro skin models for accurate and ethical risk assessment: metabolic considerations. Toxicol Sci. 2013;133:209–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wiegand C, Hewitt NJ, Merk HF, Reisinger K. Dermal xenobiotic metabolism: a comparison between native human skin, four in vitro skin test systems and a liver system. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2014;27:263–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Procter and Gamble, Mason Business CentreMasonUSA
  2. 2.Henkel Beauty CareDüsseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations