No abstract

Because the ability of the mycotoxin patulin (PAT) to cause gene mutations in mammalian cells is still ambiguous, we have studied the mutagenicity of PAT at the hypoxanthine-guanine phosphoribosyltransferase (HPRT) gene locus in cultured Chinese hamster V79 cells with normal, depleted, and elevated glutathione (GSH) levels. PAT was more toxic to GSH-depleted cells than to normal cells and caused an increase of the intracellular GSH level in normal and GSH-depleted cells. It also caused synchronization of the cell cycle due to a temporary accumulation of cells in the G2/M phase; this G2/M arrest was more persistent in GSH-depleted than in normal cells. PAT gave rise to a clear and concentration-dependent induction of HPRT mutations at non-cytotoxic concentrations in V79 cells with normal GSH level; the lowest PAT concentration causing a significant number of mutant cells was 0.3 micromolar, and the mutagenic potency of PAT equaled that of the established mutagen 4-nitroquinoline-N-oxide. The mutagenicity of PAT was again more pronounced, by a factor of about three, in GSH-depleted V79 cells. Elevated GSH levels abolished all observed effects of PAT. These data support the notion that PAT is a mutagenic mycotoxin, in particular in cells with low GSH concentration. The ability of PAT to cause gene mutations in mammalian cells might have a bearing on its carcinogenicity.

The advent of new testing systems and "omics"-technologies has left regulatory toxicology facing one of the biggest challenges for decades. That is the question whether and how these methods can be used for regulatory purposes. The new methods undoubtedly enable regulators to address important open questions of toxicology such as species-specific toxicity, mixture toxicity, low-dose effects, endocrine effects or nanotoxicology, while promising faster and more efficient toxicity testing with the use of less animals. Consequently, the respective assays, methods and testing strategies are subject of several research programs worldwide. On the other hand, the practical application of such tests for regulatory purposes is a matter of ongoing debate. This document summarizes key aspects of this debate in the light of the European "regulatory status quo", while elucidating new perspectives for regulatory toxicity testing.

No abstract

Genotoxicity data are mainly interpreted in a qualitative way, which typically results in a binary classification of chemical entities. For more than a decade, there has been a discussion about the need for a paradigm shift in this regard. Here, we review current opportunities, challenges and perspectives for a more quantitative approach to genotoxicity assessment. Currently discussed opportunities mainly include the determination of a reference point (e.g., a benchmark dose) from genetic toxicity dose–response data, followed by calculation of a margin of exposure (MOE) or derivation of a health-based guidance value (HBGV). In addition to new opportunities, major challenges emerge with the quantitative interpretation of genotoxicity data. These are mainly rooted in the limited capability of standard in vivo genotoxicity testing methods to detect different types of genetic damage in multiple target tissues and the unknown quantitative relationships between measurable genotoxic effects and the probability of experiencing an adverse health outcome. In addition, with respect to DNA-reactive mutagens, the question arises whether the widely accepted assumption of a non-threshold dose–response relationship is at all compatible with the derivation of a HBGV. Therefore, at present, any quantitative genotoxicity assessment approach remains to be evaluated case-by-case. The quantitative interpretation of in vivo genotoxicity data for prioritization purposes, e.g., in connection with the MOE approach, could be seen as a promising opportunity for routine application. However, additional research is needed to assess whether it is possible to define a genotoxicity-derived MOE that can be considered indicative of a low level of concern. To further advance quantitative genotoxicity assessment, priority should be given to the development of new experimental methods to provide a deeper mechanistic understanding and a more comprehensive basis for the analysis of dose–response relationships.