Journal of Environmental Health Sciences (한국환경보건학회지)

Korean Society of Environmental Health (한국환경보건학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

[Retracted] Novel Genotoxic Strategies for Efficiently Detect Chemicals' Carcinogenicity

[논문 철회] 노동자 건강보호를 위한 최신 유전독성학 연구전략

  • Rim, Kyung-Taek (Chemicals Research Bureau, Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute, KOSHA)
  • 임경택 (안전보건공단 산업안전보건연구원 산업화학연구실)
  • Received : 2018.01.15
  • Accepted : 2018.02.20
  • Published : 2018.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives: Effective genetic toxicology and molecular biology research techniques and strategies that are highly correlated with the carcinogenic inhalation toxicity test and related research are required. The aim of this study was to maximize the utilization of chemical substances to prevent workers' occupational diseases. Methods: We surveyed the literature, domestic and international references, and the status of relevant domestic and foreign professional organizations. Expert advisory opinions were reflected, and experts were consulted by participating in domestic and overseas academic conferences. Results: The current status of domestic and international genotoxic toxicity evaluation was examined through various documents from related organizations. Cell models for in vitro lung toxicology were investigated and summarized, and the human resources and performance results of genetic toxicity studies and pilot projects were compared and analyzed by holding an advisory meeting. We examined domestic and international genotoxicity guidelines and investigated new test methods for the development of genotoxicity and carcinogenicity. Ultimately, we described long-term future predictions, including the implementation of our researchers' recommendations and occupational genetic toxicology forecasts for future worker health protection. Conclusions: This research project aims to establish current genetic toxicology and molecular biology research techniques and strategies that can maximize the linkage with the carcinogenic inhalation toxicity test and research in the future. We expanded the study of genetic toxicity and establish a foundation forgenetic toxicity in accordance with research trends in Korea and abroad.

Keywords

References

  1. Seo Y, Lee YJ, Lee JH, Chung SW, JY Kwon, Chung HJ, et al. Study on the establishment of evaluation system for genotoxicity using genotoxic biomarker genes. Report to Korea Food & Drug Administration; 2007.
  2. Kirkland, D, Aardema M, Henderson L, Muller L. Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens: I. Sensitivity, specificity and relative predictivity. Mutation Research/ Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis 2005; 584(1-2): 1-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrgentox.2005.02.004
  3. Sohn SJ, Kim TS, Kim JH, Lee JS, Ko KW, Ahn IY, et al. A study on the introduction of internationally adopted genotoxicity testing battery and guidelines for pharmaceuticals. Report to Korea Food & Drug Administration; 2015.
  4. Seo JW, Hyun SA, Hyun SW, Kim BR, Kim KS, Kang SW, et al. Development of Safety Pharmacology method using 3D cardiac tissue model with Human iPS-induced cardiomyocyte. Report to Korea Food & Drug Administration; 2016
  5. Kim J, Seo JW, Kim T, Kim HK, Park S, Kim PJ. Prediction of Human Health and Ecotoxicity of Chemical Substances Using the OECD QSAR Application Toolbox. J Environ Health Sci. 2013; 39(2):130-137.
  6. Ryu JC, Kim MS, Kim YJ, Jun HK, Cho EM, Song M, et al. Study on next generation toxicological tools of molecular biomarker(s) and risk assessment to environmental hazardous chemicals. Report to Ministry of Enviroment, ROK; 2008
  7. Sohn SJ, Cha HJ, Lee YK, Yum YN, Han SY. Establishment and International Cooperation of Korean Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods. Journal of Alternatives to Animal Experiments 2010; 4(2): 29-32.
  8. Ralph Meuwissen, Anton Berns. Mouse models for human lung cancer. Genes & Development 2005; 19: 643-664. https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.1284505
  9. Ministry of Environment. WHITE PAPER OFENVIROMENT. Gwacheon: Ministry of Environment Press; 2012. p. 240-272.
  10. Kim JY, Choi KM, Kim KS, Kim DI. QSAR Approach for Toxicity Prediction of Chemicals Used in Electronics Industries. 2014; 40(2): 105-113.
  11. Kim J, Choi K, Kim K, Kim D. QSAR Approach for Toxicity Prediction of Chemicals Used in Electronics Industries. J Environ Health Sci. 2014; 40(2): 105-113
  12. OECD. OECD series on testing and assessment Number 34, Guidance document on the validation and international acceptance of new or updated test methods for hazard assessment, ENJ/JM/MONO 14; 2005.
  13. Environmental Protection Agency. User's Guide for The Toxicity Estimation Software Tool: U.S. Washington: Environmental Protection Agency Press; 2012.
  14. In YY, Lee SK, Kim PJ, No KT. Prediction of Acute Toxicity to Fathead Minnow by Local ModelBased QSAR and Global QSAR Approaches. Bull Korean Chem Soc 2012; 33(2): 613-619. https://doi.org/10.5012/bkcs.2012.33.2.613
  15. Furuhama A, Toida T, Nishikawa N, Aoki Y, Yoshioka Y, Shiraishi H. Development of an ecotoxicity QSAR model for the KAshinhou Tool for Ecotoxicity( KATE) system, March 2009 version. SAR QSAR Environ Res 2010; 21(5-6): 403-413. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062936X.2010.501815
  16. Pizzo F, Lombardo A, Manganaro A, Benfenati E. In silico models for predicting ready biodegradability under REACH: A comparative study. Sci Total Environ 2013; 463-464: 161-1688.
  17. Teubner W, Mehling A, Schuster PX, Guth K,Worth A, Burton J, et al. Computer models versusreality: how well do in silico models currently predictthe sensitization potential of a substance. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2013; 67(3): 468-485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2013.09.007
  18. Kovarich S, Papa E, Li J, Gramatica P. QSAR classification models for the screening of the endocrine disrupting activity of perfluorinated compounds. SAR QSAR Environ Res 2012; 23(3-4): 207-220. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062936X.2012.657235
  19. Freidig AP, Dekkers S, Verwei M, Zvinavashe E, Bessems JGM, Sandt JJM. Development of a QSAR for worst case estimates of acute toxicity of chemically reactive compounds. Toxicol Lett 2007; 170(3): 214-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2007.03.008
  20. Yang SY, Maeng SH, Lee JY, Lee YM, Chung HK,Chung HW, et al. Comparison of QSAR mutagenicity prediction data with Ames test results. Environmental Mutagens & Carcinogens 2000; 20(1): 21-25.
  21. Cariello NF, Wilson JD, Britt BH, Wedd DJ, Burlinson B, Gombar V. Comparison of the computer programs DEREK and TOPKAT to predict bacterial mutagenicity. Mutagenesis 2002; 17(4): 321-329. https://doi.org/10.1093/mutage/17.4.321
  22. Mombelli E. An evaluation of the predictive abilityof the QSAR software packages, DEREK, HAXARDEXPERT and TOPKAT, to describe chemicallyinduced skin irritation. Altern Lab Anim 2008; 36(1): 15-24.
  23. Devillers J, Mombelli E. Evaluation of the OECD QSAR Application Toolbox and Toxtree for estimating the mutagenicity of chemicals. Part 1. Aromatic amines. SAR QSAR Environ Res 2010; 21(7- 8): 753-769. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062936X.2010.528959
  24. Weed DL. Weight of Evidence: A Review of Concept and Method. Risk Anal 2005; 25(6): 1545- 1557. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00699.x
  25. Sturla SJ, Boobis AR, FitzGerald RE, Hoeng J, Kavlock RJ, Schirmer K, et al. Systems toxicology: from basic research to risk assessment. Chem Res Toxicol 2014; 27(3): 314-329. https://doi.org/10.1021/tx400410s
  26. Peitsch MC, de Graaf D. A decade of systems biology: where are we and where are we going to? Drug Discov Today 2014; 19(2): 105-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2013.06.002
  27. Andersen ME, Krewski D. Toxicity testing in the 21st century: bringing the vision to life. Toxicol Sci 2009; 107(2): 324-330. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfn255
  28. Choi GR, Lee SB. Application and Prospects of Molecular Imaging. 2014; 8(3): 123-136. https://doi.org/10.7742/jksr.2014.8.3.123
  29. Choi K, et al., "Molecular Imaging", Vol. 6, 2007. p. 75-84.
  30. Wu JC, Tseng JR, Gambhir SS. Molecular imaging of cardiovascular gene products. J Nucl Cardiol 2004; 11: 491-505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclcard.2004.04.004
  31. Howard, J, Murashov V, Schulte P. Synthetic Biology and Occupational Risk. J Occ Env Hyg 2017; 14(3): 224-236. https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2016.1237031
  32. National Research Council of the National Academies. Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century-A Vision and A Strategy. The National Academies Press. Washington, D.C. 2007
  33. Andersen ME, Betts K, Dragan Y, Fitzpatrick S, Goodman JL, Hartung T, et al. Developing microphysiological systems for use as regulatory toolschallenges and opportunities. ALTEX 2014; 31(3): 364-367. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.1405151
  34. Umar A, Dunn BK, Greenwald P. Future directions in cancer prevention. Nat Rev Cancer 2012; 12(12): 835-848. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc3397