» Articles » PMID: 33676587

Weight of Evidence Approach Using a TK Gene Mutation Assay with Human TK6 Cells for Follow-up of Positive Results in Ames Tests: a Collaborative Study by MMS/JEMS

Abstract

Background: Conflicting results between bacterial mutagenicity tests (the Ames test) and mammalian carcinogenicity tests might be due to species differences in metabolism, genome structure, and DNA repair systems. Mutagenicity assays using human cells are thought to be an advantage as follow-up studies for positive results in Ames tests. In this collaborative study, a thymidine kinase gene mutation study (TK6 assay) using human lymphoblastoid TK6 cells, established in OECD TG490, was used to examine 10 chemicals that have conflicting results in mutagenicity studies (a positive Ames test and a negative result in rodent carcinogenicity studies).

Results: Two of 10 test substances were negative in the overall judgment (20% effective as a follow-up test). Three of these eight positive substances were negative after the short-term treatment and positive after the 24 h treatment, despite identical treatment conditions without S9. A toxicoproteomic analysis of TK6 cells treated with 4-nitroanthranilic acid was thus used to aid the interpretation of the test results. This analysis using differentially expressed proteins after the 24 h treatment indicated that in vitro specific oxidative stress is involved in false positive response in the TK6 assay.

Conclusions: The usefulness of the TK6 assay, by current methods that have not been combined with new technologies such as proteomics, was found to be limited as a follow-up test, although it still may help to reduce some false positive results (20%) in Ames tests. Thus, the combination analysis with toxicoproteomics may be useful for interpreting false positive results raised by 24 h specific reactions in the assay, resulting in the more reduction (> 20%) of false positives in Ames test.

Citing Articles

Dual-directional epi-genotoxicity assay for assessing chemically induced epigenetic effects utilizing the housekeeping TK gene.

Yamada H, Odagiri M, Yamakita K, Chiba A, Ukai A, Yasui M Sci Rep. 2025; 15(1):7780.

PMID: 40044744 PMC: 11882845. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-92121-6.


Multiparametric in vitro and in vivo analysis of the safety profile of self-assembling peptides.

Ramirez-Labrada A, Santiago L, Pesini C, Arrieta M, Arias M, Calvo Perez A Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):4395.

PMID: 38388659 PMC: 10883997. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-54051-7.


A fast and reliable method for monitoring genomic instability in the model organism Caenorhabditis elegans.

Nicolai M, Witt B, Hartwig A, Schwerdtle T, Bornhorst J Arch Toxicol. 2021; 95(10):3417-3424.

PMID: 34458933 PMC: 8448691. DOI: 10.1007/s00204-021-03144-7.

References
1.
Hardy A, Benford D, Halldorsson T, Jeger M, Knutsen H, More S . Clarification of some aspects related to genotoxicity assessment. EFSA J. 2020; 15(12):e05113. PMC: 7009892. DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2017.5113. View

2.
Taningher M, Peluso M, Parodi S, Ledda-Columbano G, Columbano A . Genotoxic and non-genotoxic activities of 2,4- and 2,6-diaminotoluene, as evaluated in Fischer-344 rat liver. Toxicology. 1995; 99(1-2):1-10. DOI: 10.1016/0300-483x(95)02976-f. View

3.
Zeiger E, Anderson B, Haworth S, Lawlor T, Mortelmans K . Salmonella mutagenicity tests: IV. Results from the testing of 300 chemicals. Environ Mol Mutagen. 1988; 11 Suppl 12:1-157. View

4.
. Bioassay of 1-nitronaphthalene for possible carcinogenicity. Natl Cancer Inst Carcinog Tech Rep Ser. 1978; 64:1-118. View

5.
Zeiger E, Anderson B, Haworth S, Lawlor T, Mortelmans K . Salmonella mutagenicity tests: V. Results from the testing of 311 chemicals. Environ Mol Mutagen. 1992; 19 Suppl 21:2-141. DOI: 10.1002/em.2850190603. View