Somatic mutations have long been considered a possible cause of ageing. To directly study mutational events in organs and tissues of ageing mammals, a transgenic mouse model has been generated that harbours lacZ reporter genes as part of chromosomally integrated plasmids. Using this model, we determined spontaneous mutant frequencies and spectra in mouse liver and brain as a function of age. In the liver, mutant frequencies increased with age from birth to 34 months; in the brain, an increase was observed only between birth and 4-6 months. Molecular characterization of the mutations showed that a substantial portion involved genome rearrangement events, with one breakpoint in a reporter gene and the other in the mouse flanking sequence. In the liver, these genome rearrangements did not increase with age until after 27 months, when they increased rapidly. In brain, the frequency of genome rearrangements was lower than in liver and did not increase with age.

In 2008 we published recommendations on chemicals that would be appropriate to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of new/modified mammalian cell genotoxicity tests, in particular to avoid misleading positive results. In light of new data it is appropriate to update these lists of chemicals. An expert panel was convened and has revised the recommended chemicals to fit the following different sets of characteristics: • Group 1: chemicals that should be detected as positive in in vitro mammalian cell genotoxicity tests. Chemicals in this group are all in vivo genotoxins at one or more endpoints, either due to DNA-reactive or non DNA-reactive mechanisms. Many are known carcinogens with a mutagenic mode of action, but a sub-class of probable aneugens has been introduced. • Group 2: chemicals that should give negative results in in vitro mammalian cell genotoxicity tests. Chemicals in this group are usually negative in vivo and non-DNA-reactive. They are either non-carcinogenic or rodent carcinogens with a non-mutagenic mode of action. • Group 3: chemicals that should give negative results in in vitro mammalian cell genotoxicity tests, but have been reported to induce gene mutations in mouse lymphoma cells, chromosomal aberrations or micronuclei, often at high concentrations or at high levels of cytotoxicity. Chemicals in this group are generally negative in vivo and negative in the Ames test. They are either non-carcinogenic or rodent carcinogens with an accepted non-mutagenic mode of action. This group contains comments as to any conditions that can be identified under which misleading positive results are likely to occur. This paper, therefore, updates these three recommended lists of chemicals and describes how these should be used for any test evaluation program.

The risk assessment of chemical carcinogens is one major task in toxicology. Even though exposure has been mitigated effectively during the last decades, low levels of carcinogenic substances in food and at the workplace are still present and often not completely avoidable. The distinction between genotoxic and non-genotoxic carcinogens has traditionally been regarded as particularly relevant for risk assessment, with the assumption of the existence of no-effect concentrations (threshold levels) in case of the latter group. In contrast, genotoxic carcinogens, their metabolic precursors and DNA reactive metabolites are considered to represent risk factors at all concentrations since even one or a few DNA lesions may in principle result in mutations and, thus, increase tumour risk. Within the current document, an updated risk evaluation for genotoxic carcinogens is proposed, based on mechanistic knowledge regarding the substance (group) under investigation, and taking into account recent improvements in analytical techniques used to quantify DNA lesions and mutations as well as “omics” approaches. Furthermore, wherever possible and appropriate, special attention is given to the integration of background levels of the same or comparable DNA lesions. Within part A, fundamental considerations highlight the terms hazard and risk with respect to DNA reactivity of genotoxic agents, as compared to non-genotoxic agents. Also, current methodologies used in genetic toxicology as well as in dosimetry of exposure are described. Special focus is given on the elucidation of modes of action (MOA) and on the relation between DNA damage and cancer risk. Part B addresses specific examples of genotoxic carcinogens, including those humans are exposed to exogenously and endogenously, such as formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and the corresponding alcohols as well as some alkylating agents, ethylene oxide, and acrylamide, but also examples resulting from exogenous sources like aflatoxin B1, allylalkoxybenzenes, 2-amino-3,8-dimethylimidazo[4,5-f] quinoxaline (MeIQx), benzo[a]pyrene and pyrrolizidine alkaloids. Additionally, special attention is given to some carcinogenic metal compounds, which are considered indirect genotoxins, by accelerating mutagenicity via interactions with the cellular response to DNA damage even at low exposure conditions. Part C finally encompasses conclusions and perspectives, suggesting a refined strategy for the assessment of the carcinogenic risk associated with an exposure to genotoxic compounds and addressing research needs.

A new transgenic mouse model for studying in vivo somatic mutations is based on the efficient recovery of chromosomally integrated lacZ-containing plasmids, using magnetic beads.