clearly negative slightly negative equivocal slightly positive clearly positive Total
Mouse bone marrow micronucleus test (Gallapudi, 1985) 100.00% 3 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3
Dominant lethal assay (Gallapudi, 1998) 66.67% 2 33.33% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3
Big Blue mouse assay (Gallapudi, 1997) 66.67% 2 0.00% 0 33.33% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3
32P Post-labelling assay (Stott, 1997) 33.33% 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3
Big Blue rat assay via oral route (Young, 2018) 100.00% 3 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 3

Answer Explanations 3

clearly negativeslightly negativeequivocalslightly positiveclearly positive
Mouse bone marrow micronucleus test (Gallapudi, 1985)10000
Dominant lethal assay (Gallapudi, 1998)10000
Big Blue mouse assay (Gallapudi, 1997)00100
32P Post-labelling assay (Stott, 1997)00100
Big Blue rat assay via oral route (Young, 2018)10000
Taken together, the results indicate that 1,3-D is not a strong genotoxin, but the evidence so far has not ruled out a weak genotoxic activity.
clearly negativeslightly negativeequivocalslightly positiveclearly positive
Mouse bone marrow micronucleus test (Gallapudi, 1985)10000
Dominant lethal assay (Gallapudi, 1998)01000
Big Blue mouse assay (Gallapudi, 1997)10000
32P Post-labelling assay (Stott, 1997)01000
Big Blue rat assay via oral route (Young, 2018)10000
Gallapudi 1985: see this as a clear negative despite the 8-fold increase for females at 48h vs control in the high dose. Reason is that the corresponding 24h negative control was at comparable level (and no scientific reason why the 24 and 48h controls should differ), so likely this is caused by an unusually low neg control at 48 h. Ideally historical neg control data should be available/added Gallapudi 1998: Neg for implants, but there seems a dose-response for the observed resorptions (3 and 4). Also wondering if the increase from 1.7% to 7.7% is not stat significant? To note, I am not an expert in this assay Gollapudi 1997: Clear neg Scott 1997: Difficult to judge without the original report. Detection limit for postlabeling seems low, at least for the lower range (1/million) given. Young 2018: Clean negative. Belive the dose selection should be described more clearly, could be critical
Expert 14
clearly negativeslightly negativeequivocalslightly positiveclearly positive
Mouse bone marrow micronucleus test (Gallapudi, 1985)10000
Dominant lethal assay (Gallapudi, 1998)10000
Big Blue mouse assay (Gallapudi, 1997)10000
32P Post-labelling assay (Stott, 1997)10000
Big Blue rat assay via oral route (Young, 2018)10000
1) I judged the results of the mouse bone marrow micronucleus test (Gollapudi et al. 1985) clearly negative. However, no evidence of target tissue exposure is overall evident, based on the data on %PCE available. In any case some shortcomings and inconsistencies are present in this parameter. There is an unjustified difference in the percentage of PCE in the negative control group between male and female animals (56.8 and 68.8 respectively at the 24 hour sampling time) and within female animals at 24 and 48 hour sampling times (68.8 and 61.5, respectively). In addition, the statistical sample (1000 PCE) which was considered adequate at the time, is nowadays judged insufficient. 2) Technically, the dominant lethal assay (Gollapudi, 1998) is clearly negative and essentially complies, with the relevant 478 OECD Guideline. 3) The Big Blue mouse assay (Gollapudi, 1997) is clearly negative and essentially complies, with the relevant 488 OECD Guideline with the exception that the administration period was 14 days instead of 28 days requested for slow proliferating tissues/organs (e.g. liver). 4) The 32P Post-labelling assay (Stott, 1997) is clearly negative. 5) The Big Blue rat assay via oral route (Young, 2018) is clearly negative
2 votes 2 0 votes
Expert 14
04/19/2019 02:09

Answer 1: “Big blue assay for Gallapudi…..”: I cannot completely follow the Colleague in this respect. I think that this study, though performed before adoption of the relevant OECD Guideline (TG 488), it essentially adheres to the main requirements of the TG. I only noted (my comments in round 1) that the administration period was 14 days instead of 28 days requested for slow proliferating tissues/organs (e.g. liver). The background of mutation frequencies appears to regular (see also background mutation frequencies in the rat study by Young, 2018). Concerning the route of exposure in the study by Young (2018), I cannot see a real problem, since administration by diet is one of the recommended routes of exposure. In this respect, the only issue I can see, is the use of the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) as the top dose. From the white paper it is not possible to assess this, but I believe that MTD was used as top dose. Overall, the in vivo studies with transgenic animals relevant for induction of point mutations are the most reliable among the studies available. Based on this, I concluded that these results can overrule the concern for point mutation observed in some in vitro studies and in particular in the Ames test (Lawlor 2009) and in mammalian cells (Myhr and Caspary, 1991).

1 vote 1 0 votes
Expert 14
04/19/2019 02:28

Answer 2: I agre with the Colleague. Concerning the dose-response for the observed resorptions (3 and 4) and also the increase from 1.7% to 7.7% for resorption 3 and its possible statistical significance I would not pay much attention. Statistical significance has not been reported in the white paper and I believe that this is due to the high variability of results obtained among the animals.

0
Expert 5
04/20/2019 10:26

Concerning the Gallapudi Big Blue assay, I don't agree with the white paper. The OECD guideline specifies the use of 5 animals to detect a 2 fold change in mutant fraction (However, as 1,3-D is likely weakly mutagenic (if at all)) 5 animals would not be sufficient to detect a 1.5 fold increase . Yet this could be important biologically. Also, since 1,3-D is at best weakly mutagenic, and mutations in the BB assay simply integrate over time, the 28 day treatment period would have doubled the sensitivity.
The Young BB assay was much more thorough, with a larger number animals and a longer exposure period, but the fixation was only several days for the last exposures (but longer for the earlier exposures). The sensitivity of the assay might have been increased with a longer fixation period. Although the OECD guideline states oral exposure is acceptable, it also states that the anticipated route of exposure should e considered when designing the assay; and inhalation exposure seems more relevant for 1,3-D.
Nonetheless, although certain limitations can be pointed out, (others were identified by the above reviewers)I think the weight of evidence is still against in vivo genotoxicity for 1,3-D. The in vivo tests referred to in the question, do not show any clear evidence of genotoxicity, If unlimited resources were available, the sensitivity of the post-labelling assay and the BB assays could be increased, but at biologically relevant exposures it would likely not change risk estimation.

1 vote 1 0 votes
Expert 1
04/21/2019 19:18

Don't think the acceptance of the Gallapudi 1985 study is all that relevant since there is a recent, guideline compliant TGR study available which is clearly negative. As stated earlier, for this study (Young 2018), the lack of through substantiation of the maximum dose used. Given the votes shown in the above table, it seems like there is good consensus on a lack of mutation by BB but less clarity on the 'clastogenicity' side

0
Expert 4
04/22/2019 09:53

Nothing to add

Comments are closed for this page.