定量遗传毒性风险评估研究进展

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-616x.2020.02.013

癌变·畸变·突变 ›› 2020, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (2): 155-158,161.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-616x.2020.02.013

定量遗传毒性风险评估研究进展

霍娇, 朱雪娇, 曾珠, 刘运杰, 陈锦瑶, 张立实

四川大学华西公共卫生学院, 四川省食品安全监测与风险评估重点实验室, 四川成都 610041

收稿日期:2019-04-30 修回日期:2020-02-25 出版日期:2020-03-30 发布日期:2020-04-10
通讯作者: 陈锦瑶,E-mail:umbrellayy@163.com;张立实,E-mail:lishizhang_56@163.com E-mail:umbrellayy@163.com;lishizhang_56@163.com
作者简介:霍娇,E-mail:lamarhj@126.com。
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金面上项目（8157120809）；四川大学创新火花项目（2018SCUH0005）；国家自然科学基金青年科学基金（81703258）

Received:2019-04-30 Revised:2020-02-25 Online:2020-03-30 Published:2020-04-10

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 传统方法上，通过成组遗传毒性试验后，在阐释和应用遗传毒性数据时均使用的是定性分析，而非基于剂量-反应关系的定量分析。然而近年来，随着高通量、高涵盖面、高准确度的试验方法的建立，以及定量遗传毒性风险评估策略的提出，化学物遗传毒性评估正面临着新的挑战和机遇。本篇综述讨论和总结了定量遗传毒性风险评估研究进展，包括以下3个内容：定量遗传毒性风险评估对遗传毒性试验方案/方法的要求；基于剂量-反应关系分析的定量评估方法；定量遗传毒性风险评估在管理毒理学中的意义。

关键词: 遗传毒性, 定量风险评估, 起始点, 基准剂量, 无可见遗传毒性作用水平, 断点剂量

中图分类号:

R394.6

霍娇, 朱雪娇, 曾珠, 刘运杰, 陈锦瑶, 张立实. 定量遗传毒性风险评估研究进展[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2020, 32(2): 155-158,161.

参考文献

[1] Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Advisory Committee on Mutagenesis. Guidelines on the use of mutagenicity tests in the toxicological evaluation of chemicals[J]. Environ Mol Mutagen, 1988, 11(2):261-304.
[2] WASSOM J S, MALLING H V, SANKARANARAYANAN K, et al. Reflections on the origins and evolution of genetic toxicology and the Environmental Mutagen Society[J]. Environ Mol Mutagen, 2010, 51(8/9):746-760.
[3] International Council on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. ICH Topic S2(R1) Guidance on genotoxicity testing and data interpretation for pharmaceuticals intended for human use[S/OL].[2011-01-12]. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/ich-s2-r1-genotoxicity-testing-data-interpretation-pharmaceuticals-intended-human-use.
[4] COMMITTEE E S. Scientific opinion on genotoxicity testing strategies applicable to food and feed safety assessment[J]. EFSA J, 2011, 9(9):2379.
[5] 中华人民共和国国家卫生和计划生育委员会. GB 15193.1-2014食品安全国家标准食品安全性毒理学评价程序[S]. 北京:中国标准出版社, 2014.
[6] ELHAJOUJI A, VAN HUMMELEN P, KIRSCH-VOLDERS M. Indications for a threshold of chemically-induced aneuploidy in vitro in human lymphocytes[J]. Environ Mol Mutagen, 1995, 26(4):292-304.
[7] DOAK S H, JENKINS G J, JOHNSON G E, et al. Mechanistic influences for mutation induction curves after exposure to DNA-reactive carcinogens[J]. Cancer Res, 2007, 67(8):3904-3911.
[8] JOHNSON G E, DOAK S H, GRIFFITHS S M, et al. Non-linear dose-response of DNA-reactive genotoxins:recommendations for data analysis[J]. Mutat Res, 2009, 678(2):95-100.
[9] GUÉRARD M, BAUM M, BITSCH A, et al. Assessment of mechanisms driving non-linear dose-response relationships in genotoxicity testing[J]. Mutat Res Rev Mutat Res, 2015, 763:181-201.
[10] MACGREGOR J T, FRÖTSCHL R, WHITE P A, et al. IWGT report on quantitative approaches to genotoxicity risk assessment I. Methods and metrics for defining exposure-response relationships and points of departure (PoDs)[J]. Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen, 2015, 783:55-65.
[11] GOLLAPUDI B B, JOHNSON G E, HERNANDEZ L G, et al. Quantitative approaches for assessing dose-response relationships in genetic toxicology studies[J]. Environ Mol Mutagen, 2013, 54(1):8-18.
[12] MÜLLER L, GOCKE E, LAVÉ T, et al. Ethyl methanesulfonate toxicity in Viracept:a comprehensive human risk assessment based on threshold data for genotoxicity[J]. Toxicol Lett, 2009, 190(3):317-329.
[13] WALKER V E, CASCIANO D A, TWEATS D J. The Viracept-EMS case:Impact and outlook[J]. Toxicol Lett, 2009, 190(3):333-339.
[14] JOHNSON G E, SLOB W, DOAK S H, et al. New approaches to advance the use of genetic toxicology analyses for human health risk assessment[J]. Toxicol Res (Camb), 2015, 4(3):667-676.
[15] POTTENGER L H, GOLLAPUDI B B. Genotoxicity testing:moving beyond qualitative "screen and Bin" approach towards characterization of dose-response and thresholds[J]. Environ Mol Mutagen, 2010, 51(8/9):792-799.
[16] JOHNSON G E, SOETEMAN-HERNÁNDEZ L G, GOLLAPUDI B B, et al. Derivation of point of departure (PoD) estimates in genetic toxicology studies and their potential applications in risk assessment[J]. Environ Mol Mutagen, 2014, 55(8):609-623.
[17] HOTHORN L A. Statistical evaluation of toxicological bioassays-A review[J]. Toxicol Res (Camb), 2014, 3(6):418-432.
[18] LUTZ W K, LUTZ R W. Statistical model to estimate a threshold dose and its confidence limits for the analysis of sublinear dose-response relationships, exemplified for mutagenicity data[J]. Mutat Res, 2009, 678(2):118-122.
[19] Vito M R M. Segmented:An R package to Fit Regression Models with Broken-Line Relationships[J]. R News, 2008, 8(1):20-25.
[20] CRUMP K S. Use of threshold and mode of action in risk assessment[J]. Crit Rev Toxicol, 2011, 41(8):637-650.
[21] LUTZ W K, GAYLOR D W, CONOLLY R B, et al. Nonlinearity and thresholds in dose-response relationships for carcinogenicity due to sampling variation, logarithmic dose scaling, or small differences in individual susceptibility[J]. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol, 2005, 207(2 Suppl):565-569.
[22] HARDY A, BENFORD D, HALLDORSSON T, et al. Update:use of the benchmark dose approach in risk assessment[J]. EFSA J, 2016, 15(1):4658.
[23] EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain. Update of the risk assessment on 3-monochloropropane diol and its fatty acid esters[J]. EFSA J, 2018, 16(1):5083.
[24] IZADI H, GRUNDY J E, BOSE R. Evaluation of the benchmark dose for point of departure determination for a variety of chemical classes in applied regulatory settings[J]. Risk Anal, 2012, 32(5):830-835.
[25] ZELLER A, TANG L L, DERTINGER S D, et al. A proposal for a novel rationale for critical effect size in dose-response analysis based on a multi-endpoint in vivo study with methyl methanesulfonate[J]. Mutagenesis, 2016, 31(3):239-253.
[26] CAO X F, MITTELSTAEDT R A, PEARCE M G, et al. Quantitative dose-response analysis of ethyl methanesulfonate genotoxicity in adult gpt-delta transgenic mice[J]. Environ Mol Mutagen, 2014, 55(5):385-399.
[27] SLOB W. Dose-response modeling of continuous endpoints[J]. Toxicol Sci, 2002, 66(2):298-312.
[28] DAVIS J A, GIFT J S, ZHAO Q J. Introduction to benchmark dose methods and US EPA's benchmark dose software (BMDS) version 2.1.1[J]. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol, 2011, 254(2):181-191.
[29] BARLOW S, RENWICK A G, KLEINER J, et al. Risk assessment of substances that are both genotoxic and carcinogenic report of an International Conference organized by EFSA and WHO with support of ILSI Europe[J]. Food Chem Toxicol, 2006, 44(10):1636-1650.
[30] Health Canada. The assessment of mutagenicity health protection branch mutagenicity guidelines[J]. Environ Mol Mutagen, 1993, 21(1):15-37.
[31] MACGREGOR J T, FRÖTSCHL R, WHITE P A, et al. IWGT report on quantitative approaches to genotoxicity risk assessment Ⅱ. Use of point-of-departure (PoD) metrics in defining acceptable exposure limits and assessing human risk[J]. Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen, 2015, 783:66-78.
[32] European Medicines Agency. European public assessment (EPAR) Viracept[R]. 2008.
[33] BLAKEY D, GALLOWAY S M, KIRKLAND D J, et al. Regulatory aspects of genotoxicity testing:from hazard identification to risk assessment[J]. Mutat Res, 2008, 657(1):84-90.

定量遗传毒性风险评估研究进展

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	杨玉, 黄雅理, 林飞, 汤龙. 抗肿瘤血清胸腺因子9肽的急性毒性和遗传毒性[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2022, 34(1): 57-61.
[2]	杜秀明, 洪丽玲, 徐灵芝, 周庆云. 采用体外染色体畸变试验检测锐钛型纳米二氧化钛的遗传毒性[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2022, 34(1): 67-71.
[3]	蔡绮, 高德煜, 史建峰, 于浩, 韩妍, 杨柳, 赵蕾, 王召旭. 以树鼩为微核试验新型动物模型的初步研究[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2021, 33(5): 370-374,382.
[4]	敬海明, 李国君, 宁钧宇. 苯丙(a)蒽的毒性研究进展[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2021, 33(2): 149-152.
[5]	周长慧, 韩天娇, 黄鹏程, 马璟, 常艳. 大鼠多器官彗星试验方法的验证研究[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2020, 32(3): 233-237.
[6]	曹易懿, 刘维映, 尤馨悦, 奚晶, 陈瑞雪, 张新宇, 栾洋. 多溴联苯醚BDE-3、BDE-47和BDE-209的体外遗传毒性评价[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2020, 32(1): 15-20,28.
[7]	王全凯, 谢广云, 马顺鹏, 郭浩然, 乌瀚宝栎尔, 宋佳阳, 许建宁. 甲基丙烯酸环氧丙酯的遗传毒性评价[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2019, 31(6): 479-482.
[8]	陈高峰, 王亚楠, 王丹, 毛志慧, 黄芝瑛, 文海若, 王雪. Pig-a基因突变试验研究进展[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2019, 31(6): 492-497.
[9]	唐娇, 杨颖, 李庆, 赵敏, 杨杏芬. 利用中国仓鼠肺细胞体外微核试验评价三七提取液的遗传毒性[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2019, 31(5): 397-400.
[10]	王亚楠, 文海若, 王雪. 遗传毒性基因突变评价方法的研究进展[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2019, 31(5): 406-411.
[11]	李若婉, 周长慧, 黄鹏程, 常艳. 基于TK6细胞的体外PIG-A基因突变检测方法的建立[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2019, 31(3): 242-248.
[12]	文海若, 邵安良, 陈亮, 淡墨, 胡燕平, 王雪, 徐丽明. 适合纳米材料遗传毒性评价方法的选择[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2018, 30(4): 326-331.
[13]	王丹, 耿兴超, 李波, 王雪, 文海若. 体外细胞转化试验的研究与应用进展[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2018, 30(4): 310-314.
[14]	夏莹, 付少华, 张寅静, 王薇. 农药哌虫啶的遗传毒性试验[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2018, 30(2): 136-139.
[15]	曹易懿, 奚晶, 唐伟锋, 尤馨悦, 刘维映, 栾洋. 三氯生的体外遗传毒性评价[J]. 癌变·畸变·突变, 2018, 30(1): 71-75.