Reconstructed Skin Micronucleus Assay (RSMN)

Chapter

Abstract

The micronucleus test is increasingly used for testing of substances since it is a central component of many current genotoxicity testing batteries. In this assay dividing cells are evaluated with regard to the appearance of small extra nuclei, i.e. micronuclei, which either comprise chromosome fragments or entire chromosomes, thereby detecting clastogenic as well as aneugenic effects. Micronuclei can be evaluated in vivo (OECD TG 474) or in various primary cells or cell lines (OECD TG 487). In general, the in vivo micronucleus test is optimized to predict results that represent the oral route of exposure. For dermally applied compounds like household products and a growing number of pharmaceuticals or cosmetics, a dermal in vivo micronucleus test was developed. However, it is not considered by the respective OECD TG and cannot be used for cosmetics since animal experiments are prohibited for cosmetic ingredients in Europe. Therefore, a skin-based in vitro micronucleus assay has been developed which utilizes human 3D reconstructed skin models, namely EpiDerm™ (MatTek, Ashland, MA). This Reconstructed Skin MicroNucleus assay (RSMN) considers the barrier function of the skin and the organ- and species-specific metabolism, enabling exposure of chemicals relevant for the situation of use. After first proof-of-concept studies with model genotoxins and initial favourable assessment of transferability and intra- and inter-laboratory reproducibility, a validation program was designed and funded by Cosmetics Europe thereby expanding the program to an international scale. While the formal validation is yet unpublished, data generated to date suggest a good predictive capacity and broad applicability of the assay. In consequence, the RSMN is considered a valuable new in vitro method for the assessment of genotoxicity of dermally exposed chemicals and drugs. The RSMN is intended to be used for following-up positive or equivocal results generated in the standard in vitro genotoxicity tests, thereby filling a critical gap in the test battery.

References

  1. 1.
    Corvi R, Albertini S, Hartung T, Hoffmann S, Maurici D, Pfuhler S, van Benthem J, Vanparys P. ECVAM retrospective validation of in vitro micronucleus test (MNT). Mutagenesis. 2008;23(4):271–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kirsch-Volders M, Sofuni T, Aardema M, Albertini S, Eastmond D, Fenech M, Ishidate M Jr, Kirchner S, Lorge E, Morita T, Norppa H, Surralles J, Vanhauwaert A, Wakata A. Report from the in vitro micronucleus assay working group. Mutat Res. 2003;540:153–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    OECD. Guideline for the testing of chemicals, test no. 474: mammalian erythrocyte micronucleus test. 2014. http://www.oecdilibrary.org/environment/test-no-487-in-vitro-mammalian-cell-micronucleus-test_9789264224438-en;jsessionid=2nxqxkmd6f46d.x-oecd-live-02.
  4. 4.
    OECD. Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals, test no. 487: In vitro mammalian cell micronucleus test. 2014. http://www.oecdlibrary.org/docserver/download/9714561e.pdf?expires=1432204443&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=E96719F50FF0E66958D3C8A91B41B507.
  5. 5.
    Fowler P, Smith R, Smith K, Young J, Jeffrey L, Carmichael P, Kirkland D, Pfuhler S. Reduction of misleading (“false”) positive results in mammalian cell genotoxicity assays. III: sensitivity of human cell types to known genotoxic agents. Mutat Res. 2014;767:28–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fowler P, Smith K, Young J, Jeffrey L, Kirkland D, Pfuhler S, Carmichael P. Reduction of misleading (“false”) positive results in mammalian cell genotoxicity assays. I. Choice of cell type. Mutat Res. 2012;742(1–2):11–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fenech M, Morley AA. Cytokinesis-block micronucleus method in human lymphocytes: effect of in vivo ageing and low dose X-irradiation. Mutat Res. 1986;161:193–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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. Mutat Res. 2002;513(1–2):93–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Uno Y, Morita T, Luijten M, Beevers C, Hamada S, Itoh S, Ohyama W, Takasawa H. Micronucleus test in rodent tissues other than liver or erythrocytes: report of the IWGT working group. Mutat Res. 2015;783:19–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Morita T, MacGregor JT, Hayashi M. Micronucleus assays in rodent tissues other than bone marrow. Mutagenesis. 2011;26(1):223–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Curren RD, Mun GC, Gibson DP, Aardema MJ. Development of a method for assessing micronucleus induction in a 3D human skin model (EpiDerm™). Mutat Res. 2006;607:192–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maurici D, Aardema M, Corvi R, Kleber M, Krul C, Laurent C, Loprieno N, Pasanen M, Pfuhler S, Phillips B, Sabbioni E, Sanner T, Vanparys P. Alternative (non-animal) methods for cosmetics testing: current status and future prospects. Genotoxicity/Mutagenicity. ATLA. 2005;33(Suppl 1):117–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pfuhler S, Fellows M, van Benthem J, Corvi R, Curren R, Dearfield K, Fowler P, Frötschl R, Elhajouji A, Le Hégarat L, Kasamatsu T, Kojima H, Ouédraogo G, Scott A, Speit G. In vitro genotoxicity test approaches with better predictivity: summary of an IWGT workshop. Mutat Res. 2011;723:101–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    SCCS. Position statement on genotoxicity/mutagenicity testing of cosmetic ingredients without animal experiments (SCCP/1212/09). 2009. http://ec.europa.eu/health/archive/ph_risk/committees/04_sccp/docs/sccp_s_08.pdf.
  16. 16.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hu T, Kaluzhny Y, Mun GC, Barnett B, Karetsky V, Wilt N, Klausner M, Curren R, Aardema MJ. Intralaboratory and interlaboratory evaluation of the EpiDerm™ 3D human reconstructed skin micronucleus (RSMN) assay. Mutat Res. 2009;673:100–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mun GC, Aardema MJ, Hu T, Barnett B, Kaluzhny Y, Klausner M, Karetsky V, Dahl EL, Curren RD. Further development of the EpiDerm™ 3D reconstructed human skin micronucleus (RSMN) assay. Mutat Res. 2009;673:92–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aardema MJ, Barnett BB, Khambatta Z, Reisinger K, Ouedraogo-Arras G, Faquet B, Ginestet AC, Mun GC, Dahl EL, Hewitt NJ, Corvi R, Curren RC. International prevalidation studies of the EpiDerm™ 3D human reconstructed skin micronucleus (RSMN) assay: transferability and reproducibility. Mutat Res. 2010;701(2):123–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dahl EL, Curren R, Barnett BC, Khambatta Z, Reisinger K, Ouedraogo G, Faquet B, Ginestet AC, Mun G, Hewitt NJ, Carr G, Pfuhler S, Aardema MJ. The reconstructed skin micronucleus assay (RSMN) in EpiDerm™: detailed protocol and harmonized scoring atlas. Mutat Res. 2011;720(1–2):42–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pfuhler S, Fautz R, Ouedraogo G, Latil A, Kenny J, Moore C, Diembeck W, Hewitt NJ, Reisinger K, Barroso J. The cosmetics Europe strategy for animal-free genotoxicity testing: project status up-date. Toxicol In Vitro. 2014;28:18–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yuki K, Ikeda N, Nishiyama N, Kasamatsu T. The reconstructed skin micronucleus assay in EpiDerm™: reduction of false-positive results - a mechanistic study with epigallocatechin gallate. Mutat Res. 2013;757(2):148–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pfuhler S, Barnett B, Aardema MJ. Evaluation of aromatic amines in the EpiDerm™ 3D human reconstructed skin micronucleus (RSMN) assay. Mutat Res. 2017 (submitted).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chapman KE, Thomas AD, Wills JW, Pfuhler S, Doak SH, Jenkins GJ. Automation and validation of micronucleus detection in the 3D EpiDerm™ human reconstructed skin assay and correlation with 2D dose responses. Mutagenesis. 2014;29(3):165–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schmid TE, Dollinger G, Hable V, Greubel C, Zlobinskaya O, Michalski D, Molls M, Röper B. Relative biological effectiveness of pulsed and continuous 20 MeV protons for micronucleus induction in 3D human reconstructed skin tissue. Radiother Oncol. 2010;95(1):66–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Götz C, Hewitt NJ, Jermann E, Tigges J, Kohne Z, Hübenthal U, Krutmann J, Merk HF, Fritsche E. Effects of the genotoxic compounds, benzo[a]pyrene and cyclophosphamide on phase 1 and 2 activities in EpiDerm™ models. Xenobiotica. 2012;42(6):526–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Reus AA, Reisinger K, Downs TR, Carr GJ, Zeller A, Corvi R, Krul CA, Pfuhler S. Comet assay in reconstructed 3D human epidermal skin models--investigation of intra- and inter-laboratory reproducibility with coded chemicals. Mutagenesis. 2013;28(6):709–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zijno P, Leopardi P, Marcon F, Crebelli R. Analysis of chromosome segregation by means of fluorescence in situ hybridization: application to cytokinesis-blocked human lymphocytes. Mutat Res. 1996;372(2):211–9.CrossRefGoogle 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