P.I. Petkov , H. Ivanova , M. Honma , T. Yamada , T. Morita , A. Furuhama , S. Kotov , E. Kaloyanova , G. Dimitrova , O. Mekenyan
{"title":"代谢引起的体外和体内遗传毒性的差异:动力学的作用","authors":"P.I. Petkov , H. Ivanova , M. Honma , T. Yamada , T. Morita , A. Furuhama , S. Kotov , E. Kaloyanova , G. Dimitrova , O. Mekenyan","doi":"10.1016/j.comtox.2022.100222","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Traditional QSAR models predict mutagenicity solely based on structural alerts for the interaction of parent chemicals or their metabolites with target macromolecules. In the present work, it is demonstrated that the presence of an alert is necessary to identify damage but it is not always sufficient to assess mutagenic potential. This is addressed by accounting for the kinetics of simulating metabolism and formation of adducts with macromolecules. The mutagenic potential of chemicals is related to the degree to which selected macromolecules are altered. This extent is estimated by the amount of formed DNA/protein adducts. Here the effect of modelling kinetic factors is investigated for chemicals having documented <em>in vitro</em> negative and <em>in vivo</em> positive data in mutagenicity and clastogenicity tests of similar capacity - <em>in vitro</em> Ames vs <em>in vivo</em> TGR and <em>in vitro</em> CA vs <em>in vivo</em> MN tests. Two factors justify the conflict in mutagenicity data: the differences in enzyme expression in the <em>in vitro</em> vs <em>in vivo</em> metabolism and the difference in exposure time for <em>in vitro</em> and <em>in vivo</em> tests. Addressing these factors required simulating the formation of DNA/protein adducts and introducing empirically-defined thresholds for the amounts of the adducts leading to mutagenic potential.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":37651,"journal":{"name":"Computational Toxicology","volume":"22 ","pages":"Article 100222"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differences between in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity due to metabolism: The role of kinetics\",\"authors\":\"P.I. Petkov , H. Ivanova , M. Honma , T. Yamada , T. Morita , A. Furuhama , S. Kotov , E. Kaloyanova , G. Dimitrova , O. Mekenyan\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.comtox.2022.100222\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Traditional QSAR models predict mutagenicity solely based on structural alerts for the interaction of parent chemicals or their metabolites with target macromolecules. In the present work, it is demonstrated that the presence of an alert is necessary to identify damage but it is not always sufficient to assess mutagenic potential. This is addressed by accounting for the kinetics of simulating metabolism and formation of adducts with macromolecules. The mutagenic potential of chemicals is related to the degree to which selected macromolecules are altered. This extent is estimated by the amount of formed DNA/protein adducts. Here the effect of modelling kinetic factors is investigated for chemicals having documented <em>in vitro</em> negative and <em>in vivo</em> positive data in mutagenicity and clastogenicity tests of similar capacity - <em>in vitro</em> Ames vs <em>in vivo</em> TGR and <em>in vitro</em> CA vs <em>in vivo</em> MN tests. Two factors justify the conflict in mutagenicity data: the differences in enzyme expression in the <em>in vitro</em> vs <em>in vivo</em> metabolism and the difference in exposure time for <em>in vitro</em> and <em>in vivo</em> tests. Addressing these factors required simulating the formation of DNA/protein adducts and introducing empirically-defined thresholds for the amounts of the adducts leading to mutagenic potential.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37651,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Computational Toxicology\",\"volume\":\"22 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100222\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Computational Toxicology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S246811132200010X\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"TOXICOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computational Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S246811132200010X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"TOXICOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Differences between in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity due to metabolism: The role of kinetics
Traditional QSAR models predict mutagenicity solely based on structural alerts for the interaction of parent chemicals or their metabolites with target macromolecules. In the present work, it is demonstrated that the presence of an alert is necessary to identify damage but it is not always sufficient to assess mutagenic potential. This is addressed by accounting for the kinetics of simulating metabolism and formation of adducts with macromolecules. The mutagenic potential of chemicals is related to the degree to which selected macromolecules are altered. This extent is estimated by the amount of formed DNA/protein adducts. Here the effect of modelling kinetic factors is investigated for chemicals having documented in vitro negative and in vivo positive data in mutagenicity and clastogenicity tests of similar capacity - in vitro Ames vs in vivo TGR and in vitro CA vs in vivo MN tests. Two factors justify the conflict in mutagenicity data: the differences in enzyme expression in the in vitro vs in vivo metabolism and the difference in exposure time for in vitro and in vivo tests. Addressing these factors required simulating the formation of DNA/protein adducts and introducing empirically-defined thresholds for the amounts of the adducts leading to mutagenic potential.
期刊介绍:
Computational Toxicology is an international journal publishing computational approaches that assist in the toxicological evaluation of new and existing chemical substances assisting in their safety assessment. -All effects relating to human health and environmental toxicity and fate -Prediction of toxicity, metabolism, fate and physico-chemical properties -The development of models from read-across, (Q)SARs, PBPK, QIVIVE, Multi-Scale Models -Big Data in toxicology: integration, management, analysis -Implementation of models through AOPs, IATA, TTC -Regulatory acceptance of models: evaluation, verification and validation -From metals, to small organic molecules to nanoparticles -Pharmaceuticals, pesticides, foods, cosmetics, fine chemicals -Bringing together the views of industry, regulators, academia, NGOs