4.6 Article

A theoretical approach for a weighted assessment of the mutagenic potential of nanomaterials

期刊

NANOTOXICOLOGY
卷 11, 期 8, 页码 964-977

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17435390.2017.1382601

关键词

Nanomaterials; mutagenicity assessment; genotoxicity; weight of evidence

资金

  1. European Commission 7th Framework Programme FP7-NMP project GUIDEnano [604387]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several approaches have recently been proposed for predicting the potential hazard and risk to human health of engineered nanomaterials (NMs). Here, we present a theoretical approach to assess the mutagenic potential of NMs, which could be incorporated into risk assessment tools. Following the weight of evidence approach recommended for chemicals, we describe criteria for evaluating and weighting existing literature information, based on current knowledge on the relevance and limitations of genotoxicity and mutagenicity assays used in testing NMs. The relevant assays are then categorized according to the genotoxic events detected in three categories: DNA damage, gene mutations and chromosomal damage - the former weighing lower than the two latter ones, since unrepairable alterations have more weight than those depicting primary DNA damage that can still be repaired. Besides, evidence from in vivo tests are given a higher weight than data coming from in vitro tests, because animal studies can more accurately predict secondary genotoxicity. Although studies conducted according to validated protocols have greater weight, studies that do not comply with conventional test guidelines are also considered, trying to make use of all available information for each NM. A threshold of agreement among studies belonging to the same category is required to consider this category positive or negative for mutagenicity. The final outcome is a statement on the mutagenic potential of the nanoform and the uncertainty of this evaluation. Finally, we discuss new methods and possible improvements in current assays that could be incorporated in future guidelines.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据