Modern approaches to the assessment and classification of the hazard posed by substances with mutagenic effects

UDC: 
614.3
DOI: 
10.21668/health.risk/2024.4.01.eng
Authors: 

Kh.Kh. Khamidulina1,2, D.N. Rabikova1,2, E.V. Tarasova1, T.A. Sinitskaya3, I.V. Zamkova1, A.K. Nazarenko1,4

Organization: 

1The Russian Register of Potentially Hazardous Chemical and Biological Substances – the branch of F.F. Erisman Federal Scientific Center of Hygiene of the Rospotrebnadzor, 8 Bagrationovskii passage, bldg 2, Moscow, 121087, Russian Federation
2Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education, 2/1 Barrikadnaya St., bldg 1, Moscow, 125993, Russian Federation
3F.F. Erisman Federal Scientific Center of Hygiene of the Rospotrebnadzor, 2 Semashko St., Mytishchi, Moscow region, 141000, Russian Federation
4D.I. Mendeleev Russian Chemical Technical University, 9 Miusskaya square, bldg 6, Moscow, 125047, Russian Federation

Abstract: 

There are no lists of chemicals with mutagenic effects in the Russian Federation and in the states of the Eurasian Economic Union. Therefore, within the framework of the program ‘Development of integrated approaches to testing, assessing hazards and risk of exposure to chemicals for human health and improvement of the evidence base of toxicological research results’ (deadlines: 2024–2025), the Russian Register of Potentially Hazardous Chemical and Biological Substances – Branch of F.F. Erisman Federal Scientific Center of Hygiene of the Rospotrebnadzor has completed several work tasks concerning selection of substances with mutagenic effects, assessment and classification of their hazard.

Data available in international legislation, documents issued by the United Nations structures, scientific articles, monographs, and official national and foreign databases were analyzed in order to identify candidate substances with genotoxic/mutagenic effects and to form their toxicological profiles to assess the degree of hazard. Classifications of potential mutagens were based on the principles stated in the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals and Mixtures.

Selection of substances, assessment and classification of hazards is a complex process that requires in-depth analysis of the entire set of obtained data. An approach based on the principles of a step-by-step comprehensive assessment and classification of hazards posed by chemicals with mutagenic effects made it possible to scientifically substantiate and form a national list of mutagens. This list was employed as the basis for a number of normative and methodological documents, including Methodological Recommendations ‘Assessment and Classification of the Hazard of Mutagens’, appendices to the Procedure for creating and maintaining a register of chemicals and mixtures of the Eurasian Economic Union Technical Regulations ‘On Safety of Chemical Products’ (TR EAEU 041/2017), as well as the draft national Technical regulation ‘On safety of chemical products’. The official status of the mutagen list will contribute not only to making relevant management decisions but also to resolving disputes arising between the business community and regulatory authorities due to differences in interpretation of research results.

Keywords: 
mutagen, mutagenic effect, classification, toxicity, hazard, chemical safety, regulation, exposure risk
Khamidulina Kh.Kh., Rabikova D.N., Tarasova E.V., Sinitskaya T.A., Zamkova I.V., Nazarenko A.K. Modern approaches to the assessment and classification of the hazard posed by substances with mutagenic effects. Health Risk Analysis, 2024, no. 4, pp. 4–13. DOI: 10.21668/health.risk/2024.4.01.eng
References: 
  1. Menz J., Götz M.E., Gündel U., Gürtler R., Herrmann K., Hessel-Pras S., Kneuer C., Kolrep F. [et al.]. Genotoxicity assessment: opportunities, challenges and perspectives for quantitative evaluations of dose-response data. Arch. Toxicol., 2023, vol. 97, no. 9, pp. 2303–2328. DOI: 10.1007/s00204-023-03553-w
  2. Steiblen G., van Benthem J., Johnson G. Strategies in genotoxicology: Acceptance of innovative scientific methods in a regulatory context and from an industrial perspective. Mutat. Res. Genet. Toxicol. Environ. Mutagen., 2020, vol. 853, pp. 503171. DOI: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2020.503171
  3. Khamidulina Kh.Kh., Rabikova D.N. Development of the national list of carcinogens, mutagens and reprotoxicants and its implementation in the regulation of the circulation of chemicals over the territory of the Russian Federation and member states of the Eurasian Economic Union. Gigiena i sanitariya, 2021, vol. 100, no. 9, pp. 897–902. DOI: 10.47470/0016-9900-2021-100-9-897-902 (in Russian).
  4. Rabikova D.N., Tarasova E.V., Proskurina A.S., Khamidulina Kh.Kh. Natsional'nyi perechen' khimicheskikh vesh-chestv, vyzyvayushchikh obespokoennost', kak vozmozhnyi instrument sistemy bezopasnogo regulirovaniya [The national list of chemicals of concern as a possible tool of the system for safe regulation]. Zdorov'e i okruzhayushchaya sreda: sbornik materialov mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii, Minsk, November 23–24, 2023, pp. 596–600 (in Russian).
  5. Johnson G.E., Slob W., Doak S.H., Fellows M.D., Gollapudi B.B., Heflich R.H., Rees B.J., Soeteman-Hernández L.G. [et al.]. New Approaches to Advance the use of Genetic Toxicology Analyses for Human Health Risk Assessment and Regulatory Decision-Making. Toxicology Research, 2015, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 667–676. DOI: 10.1039/C4TX00118D
  6. Bhagat J. Combinations of genotoxic tests for the evaluation of group 1 IARC carcinogens. J. Appl. Toxicol., 2018, vol. 38, no 1, pp. 81–99. DOI: 10.1002/jat.3496
  7. Sasaki Y.F., Sekihashi K., Izumiyama F., Nishidate E., Saga A., Ishida K., Tsuda S. The comet assay with multiple mouse organs: comparison of comet assay results and carcinogenicity with 208 chemicals selected from the IARC monographs and U.S. NTP Carcinogenicity Database. Crit. Rev. Toxicol., 2000, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 629–799. DOI: 10.1080/10408440008951123
  8. Yazid M.F.H.A., Ta G.C., Mokhtar M. Classified chemicals in accordance with the Globally harmonized system of classification and labeling of chemicals: comparison of lists of the European Union, Japan, Malaysia and New Zealand. Saf. Health Work, 2020, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 152–158. DOI: 10.1016/j.shaw.2020.03.002
  9. Eastmond D.A., Hartwig A., Anderson D., Anwar W.A., Cimino M.C., Dobrev I., Douglas G.R., Nohmi T. [et al.]. Mutagenicity testing for chemical risk assessment: update of the WHO/IPCS Harmonized Scheme. Mutagenesis, 2009, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 341–349. DOI: 10.1093/mutage/gep014
  10. Dearfield K.L., Gollapudi B.B., Bemis J.C., Benz R.D., Douglas G.R., Elespuru R.K., Johnson G.E., Kirkland D.J. [et al.]. Next generation testing strategy for assessment of genomic damage: A conceptual framework and considerations. Environ. Mol. Mutagen., 2017, vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 264–283. DOI: 10.1002/em.22045
  11. Ilyushina N.A. Genetic toxicology in hygiene. Toksikologicheskii vestnik, 2022, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 271–276. DOI: 10.47470/0869-7922-2022-30-5-271-276 (in Russian).
  12. Ilyushina N.A., Revazova Yu.A. Proshloe i nastoyashchee geneticheskikh issledovanii v gigiene [Past and present of genetic research in hygiene]. Erismanovskie chteniya – 2023. Novoe v profilakticheskoi meditsine i obespechenii sanitarno-epidemiologicheskogo blagopoluchiya naseleniya: Materialy I Vserossiiskogo nauchnogo kongressa s mezhdunarodnym uchastiem, Mytishchi, November 23–24, 2023, pp. 109–110 (in Russian).
  13. Aoki Y. Evaluation of in vivo mutagenesis for assessing the health risk of air pollutants. Genes Environ., 2017, vol. 39, pp. 16. DOI: 10.1186/s41021-016-0064-6
  14. Thomas D.N., Wills J.W., Tracey H., Baldwin S.J., Burman M., Williams A.N., Harte D.S.G., Buckley R.A., Lynch A.M. Ames test study designs for nitrosamine mutagenicity testing: qualitative and quantitative analysis of key assay parameters. Mutagenesis, 2024, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 78–95. DOI: 10.1093/mutage/gead033
  15. Ladeira C., Møller P., Giovannelli L., Gajski G., Haveric A., Bankoglu E.E., Azqueta A., Gerić M. [et al.]. The Comet assay as a tool in human biomonitoring studies of environmental and occupational exposure to chemicals-a systematic scoping review. Toxics, 2024, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 270. DOI: 10.3390/toxics12040270
  16. Hartwig A., Arand M., Epe B., Guth S., Jahnke G., Lampen A., Martus H.-J., Monien B. [et al.]. Mode of action-based risk assessment of genotoxic carcinogen. Arch. Toxicol., 2020, vol. 94, no. 6, pp. 1787–1877. DOI: 10.1007/s00204-020-02733-2
  17. Chrz J., Hošíková B., Svobodová L., Očadlíková D., Kolářová H., Dvořáková M., Kejlová K., Malina L. [et al.]. Comparison of methods used for evaluation of mutagenicity/genotoxicity of model chemicals – parabens. Physiol. Res., 2020, vol. 69, suppl. 4, pp. S661–S679. DOI: 10.33549/physiolres.934615
  18. Adiga G.P., Ranjan B., Venkataramulu D., Krishnappa M., Ahuja V. P03-25: Predicting genotoxicity, carcinogenicity and skin sensitization of agrochemicals using OECD QSAR toolbox, Toxtree, Pred-skin and TEST. Toxicology Letters, 2023, vol. 384, no. 1, pp. S95. DOI: 10.1016/S0378-4274(23)00489-7
  19. Benigni R. Structure-activity relationship studies of chemical mutagens and carcinogens: mechanistic investigations and prediction approaches. Chem. Rev., 2005, vol. 105, no. 5, pp. 1767–1800. DOI: 10.1021/cr030049y
  20. Honma M. An assessment of mutagenicity of chemical substances by (quantitative) structure-activity relationship. Genes Environ., 2020, vol. 42, pp. 23. DOI: 10.1186/s41021-020-00163-1
Received: 
17.10.2024
Approved: 
23.10.2024
Accepted for publication: 
17.12.2024

You are here

Home