Search

3-Aminobenzamide, a potent inhibitor of nuclear poly ADP-ribosyl synthetase, was tested for its ability to alter the toxic and/or transforming effects of ethyl methanesulfonate, methyl methanesulfonate and 3-methylcholanthrene in BALB/3T3 clone A31-1 cells. 3-Aminobenzamide enhanced the toxic effects of both ethyl methanesulfonate and methyl methanesulfonate in a dose dependent manner, but had minimal effects on 3-methylcholanthrene induced toxicity. Similarly, 3-aminobenzamide greatly enhanced ethyl methanesulfonate induced transformation while failing to enhance the transformation of BALB/3T3 clone A31-1 cells by 3-methylcholanthrene. These results stress the importance of poly ADP-ribosyl synthetase in repair of DNA damage and the chemical induction of transformation . [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The in vivo rodent alkaline comet assay (comet assay) is used internationally to investigate the in vivo genotoxic potential of test chemicals. This assay, however, has not previously been formally validated. The Japanese Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods (JaCVAM), with the cooperation of the U.S. NTP Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM)/the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM), the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM), and the Japanese Environmental Mutagen Society/Mammalian Mutagenesis Study Group (JEMS/MMS), organized an international validation study to evaluate the reliability and relevance of the assay for identifying genotoxic carcinogens, using liver and stomach as target organs. The ultimate goal of this validation effort was to establish an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) test guideline. The purpose of the pre-validation studies ( i.e. , Phase 1 through 3), conducted in four or five laboratories with extensive comet assay experience, was to optimize the protocol to be used during the definitive validation study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Japanese Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods (JaCVAM) sponsored an international prevalidation and validation study of the in vivo rat alkaline pH comet assay. The main objective of the study was to assess the sensitivity and specificity of the assay for correctly identifying genotoxic carcinogens, as compared with the traditional rat liver unscheduled DNA synthesis assay. Based on existing carcinogenicity and genotoxicity data and chemical class information, 90 chemicals were identified as primary candidates for use in the validation study. From these 90 chemicals, 46 secondary candidates and then 40 final chemicals were selected based on a sufficiency of carcinogenic and genotoxic data, differences in chemical class or genotoxic or carcinogenic mode of action (MOA), availability, price, and ease of handling. These 40 chemicals included 19 genotoxic carcinogens, 6 genotoxic non-carcinogens, 7 non-genotoxic carcinogens and 8 non-genotoxic non-carcinogens. “Genotoxicity” was defined as positive in the Ames mutagenicity test or in one of the standard in vivo genotoxicity tests (primarily the erythrocyte micronucleus assay). These chemicals covered various chemicals classes, MOAs, and genotoxicity profiles and were considered to be suitable for the purpose of the validation study. General principles of chemical selection for validation studies are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A prevalidation study on the cell transformation assays in SHE cells at pH 6.7, SHE cells at pH 7.0 and Balb/c 3T3 cell line was coordinated by ECVAM focussing on issues of standardisation of protocols, within-laboratory reproducibility, test method transferability and between-laboratory reproducibility. The Validation Management Team concluded that standardised protocols are now available that should be the basis for future use. The SHE pH 6.7, and the SHE pH 7.0 protocols and the assays system themselves are transferable between laboratories, and are reproducible within- and between-laboratories. For the Balb/c 3T3 method, some clarifications and modifications to the protocol were needed to obtain reproducible results. Overall, three methods have shown to be valuable to detect rodent carcinogens.

The Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM), a permanent body set forth in the ICCVAM Authorization Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-545), is charged with establishing criteria and processes for the validation and regulatory acceptance of toxicological test methods of interest to Federal agencies, including alternative methods that reduce, refine, or replace the use of animals for research and testing purposes. In response to that mandate, 15 Federal regulatory and research agencies and programmes that would consider utilising such methods or the results derived from them, now participate in cross-agency efforts directed toward the identification, standardisation, validation, acceptance, regulatory implementation and international harmonisation and adoption of such test methods. As an integral member of ICCVAM since its inception, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has established processes for responding to ICCVAM issues and recommendations. The participating FDA units include all FDA research and product-based centres and oversight offices. FDA product centres respond to distinct regulatory mandates and regulate different products. Upon completion of a validation effort, ICCVAM forwards its recommendations to member Government agencies regarding the validity and technical acceptability of a method. The FDA's response consists of the conclusions reached by each of its regulatory components and addresses such factors as their concurrence with ICCVAM's conclusions, the practical applicability of the method to the products they regulate and the feasibility of implementation of an accepted method to supplement or supplant those currently used. Each centre/office independently determines which of the ICCVAM-recommended tests are appropriate for implementation to satisfy its regulatory obligations to ensure product safety and to protect human health. The adoption of a method triggers a notification process to announce the availability and utility of a method, encourage its use, and inform, educate and train end-users and regulatory review staff.

The level and complexity of testing for hazard and risk assessment of marketed products and environmental agents has increased substantially over time, resulting in the use of greater numbers of both animals and humans for testing. Today, industry and regulatory bodies worldwide face increasing pressures to demonstrate responsible utilisation of laboratory animals, to limit their use, and to employ alternative non-animal tests. Institutions have also been established to identify, encourage development of, conduct research on, and validate new, improved, and surrogate test methods that will reduce and replace animal use. Two such organisations are ECVAM and the Interagency Coordinating Committee for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM). As the evolutionary changes occurring in the field of toxicology result in an unprecedented increase in the introduction of alternative methodologies, these will strain the capacities of such alternative methods institutions. That realisation is causing a shift in thinking and creating an impetus to seek approaches by which to collaborate and develop more-efficient operational procedures for the validation and regulatory acceptance of alternative methods. Similarities in objectives, functions, scientific standards, and commitment to the principles of validation and animal welfare support the value of a cooperative arrangement between ECVAM and ICCVAM, to minimise duplication of effort, maximise productivity, and influence the international adoption of alternative tests. Opportunities for ECVAM-ICCVAM collaboration are discussed, which illustrate the feasibility and potential benefits of such a partnership.

Over the last decade, national authorities in the USA and Europe have launched initiatives to validate new and improved toxicological test methods. In the USA, the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) and its supporting National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM) were established by the Federal Government to work with test developers and Federal agencies to facilitate the validation, review, and adoption of new scientifically sound test methods, including alternatives that can refine, reduce, and replace animal use. In Europe, the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) was established to conduct validation studies on alternative test methods. Despite differences in organisational structure and processes, both organisations seek to achieve the adoption and use of alternative test methods. Accordingly, both have adopted similar validation and regulatory acceptance criteria. Collaborations and processes have also evolved to facilitate the international adoption of new test methods recommended by ECVAM and ICCVAM. These collaborations involve the sharing of expertise and data for test-method workshops and independent scientific peer reviews, and the adoption of processes to expedite the consideration of test methods already reviewed by the other organisation. More recently, NICEATM and ECVAM initiated a joint international validation study on in vitro methods for assessing acute systemic toxicity. These collaborations are expected to contribute to accelerated international adoption of harmonised new test methods that will support improved public health and provide for reduced and more-humane use of laboratory animals.

The process by which the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) evaluates the safety/hazard potential of the products under its purview has evolved from a constellation of scientific research achievements in toxicology and related areas and a succession of historical events, some tragic, which encouraged dramatic changes in the oversight and regulation of foods, drugs, and cosmetics. The process is science based and has, over the years, achieved significant success in protecting human health. The authority by which the FDA provides pre- and postmarketing oversight of the products it regulates is established in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which has been amended extensively to broaden FDA's authority to include different products and product classes and to include oversight of safety and efficacy, greater stringency regarding reporting requirements, and enforcement processes. The structure of the agency, which comprises six regulatory components and a principal multidisciplinary research facility, is both practical and functional, providing regulatory oversight, regulatory guidance to industry, and fundamental and applied research. FDA's participation in different national and international scientific initiatives has helped bring focus to the prioritization, standardization, validation, and globalization of testing strategies and methodologies and the practical and widespread application of these initiatives to the regulation of consumer products. The agency is a leading advocate of alternative methods that refine procedures using animals to limit pain and distress, reduce and replace animal use in research and testing as scientifically appropriate and feasible, and have the potential to yield data comparable with or better than that obtained from conventional methods. The current scientific and technological advances and the rapidity with which they emerge offer new opportunities for the scientific community, industry, and regulatory authorities to alter current toxicological practices and promote the use of validated, reliable, and relevant alternative methods.

Toxicological testing in the current regulatory environment is steeped in a history of using animals to answer questions about the safety of products to which humans are exposed. That history forms the basis for the testing strategies that have evolved to satisfy the needs of the regulatory bodies that render decisions that affect, for the most part, virtually all phases of premarket product development and evaluation and, to a lesser extent, postmarketing surveillance. Only relatively recently have the levels of awareness of, and responsiveness to, animal welfare issues reached current proportions. That paradigm shift, although sluggish, has nevertheless been progressive. New and alternative toxicological methods for hazard evaluation and risk assessment have now been adopted and are being viewed as a means to address those issues in a manner that considers humane treatment of animals yet maintains scientific credibility and preserves the goal of ensuring human safety. To facilitate this transition, regulatory agencies and regulated industry must work together toward improved approaches. They will need assurance that the methods will be reliable and the results comparable with, or better than, those derived from the current classical methods. That confidence will be a function of the scientific validation and resultant acceptance of any given method. In the United States, to fulfill this need, the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) and its operational center, the National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM), have been constituted as prescribed in federal law. Under this mandate, ICCVAM has developed a process and established criteria for the scientific validation and regulatory acceptance of new and alternative methods. The role of ICCVAM in the validation and acceptance process and the criteria instituted toward that end are described. Also discussed are the participation of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the ICCVAM process and that agency's approach to the application and implementation of ICCVAM-recommended methods.