Applicability of the Ames test and micronucleus test in vivo for the evaluation of the equivalence of pesticide technical grade active ingredients compared to original active substances

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Introduction. Analogs of pesticides may differ from the original products in their properties because of the elevated level or the modified composition of the impurities. Therefore, it is necessary to determine the equivalence of such analogs using a number of criteria, including mutagenicity, to ensure their safety. The article compares the results of the research of genotoxic effects of technical grade active ingredients of pesticides in vitro and in vivo conditions to assess the applicability of such methods for equivalence determination of analogs of pesticides to patented products.

Material and methods. The genotoxicity of 99 technical grade active ingredients of pesticides (59 names) was studied in vitro (Ames test) and in vivo.

Results. In the Ames test mutagenic dose-dependent effects were revealed in the study of technical products of mesotrione, dimethoate, and pendimethalin both in the presence and in the absence of a metabolic activation system.In the in vivo test, a statistically significant dose-dependent increase in the frequency of micronucleated polychromatophilic erythrocytes in mouse bone marrow was detected after administration of six technical products mesotrione, pyrimiphos-methyl, dimethoate, glyphosate (2 products), isoproturon. Furthermore, different levels of genotoxic effects were found with technical materials of the same active ingredient from various productions, probably due to differences in the qualitative and quantitative composition of impurities.

Conclusion. The present study indicated that in vitro and in vivo tests do not always demonstrate the same results of the genotoxicity assessment. Therefore, the use of only one bacterial reverse mutation test may not be sufficient to determine the equivalence of technical grade active ingredients of pesticides to the original active substances. To obtain а reliable evidence for the safe use of analogs of pesticides, it is necessary to usе at least two methods on different test objects.

About the authors

Nataliya A. Ilyushina

F.F. Erisman Federal Scientific Center of Hygiene of the Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Wellbeing

Author for correspondence.
Email: Ilyushina-na@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-9122-9465

PhD., Head of Genetic Toxicology Department of the Institution of Hygiene, Toxicology of Pesticides and Chemical Safety of the Federal Budgetary Establishment of Science «Federal Scientific Center of Hygiene named after F.F. Erisman» of Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Wellbeing, Mytishchi, 141014, Russian Federation.

e-mail: Ilyushina-na@mail.ru

Russian Federation

O. V. Egorova

F.F. Erisman Federal Scientific Center of Hygiene of the Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Wellbeing

Email: noemail@neicon.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4748-8771
Russian Federation

Yu. A. Revazova

F.F. Erisman Federal Scientific Center of Hygiene of the Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Wellbeing

Email: noemail@neicon.ru
Russian Federation

References

  1. Paptsov A.G., Popova A.G. The world market of chemical plant protection products and tendencies of its development. Agroprodovol’stvennaya politika Rossii. 2013; 11 (23): 104-7. (in Russian).
  2. anual on development and use of FAO and WHO specifications for pesticides. First edition - third revision March 2016. Available at: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/246192/1/WHO-HTM-NTD-WHOPES-2016.4-eng.pdf
  3. Guidance Document on the Assessment of the Equivalence of Technical Materials of Substances regulated under Rregulation (EC) No 1107/2009. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/plant/docs/pesticides_guidance_equivalence-chem-substances_en.pdf
  4. Committee on Mutagenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products, and the Environment. Interim guidance on a strategy for genotoxicity testing and mutagenic hazard assessment of impurities in chemical substances. 2012. COM/12/S2. 10 P. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/genotoxicity-assessment-of-impurities-in-chemical-substances.
  5. Abilev S.K. Identification and prediction of mutagenic activity of chemical compounds of the environment. Abstract for the degree of Doctor of Biological Sciences. Moscow, 2003: 50 р. Available at: http://earthpapers.net/vyyavlenie-i-prognozirovanie-mutagennoy-aktivnosti-himicheskih-soedineniy-okruzhayuschey-sredy-1 (in Russian).
  6. D. Kirkland, L. Reeve, D. Gatehouse, P.Vanparys. A core in vitro genotoxicity battery comprising the Ames test plus the in vitro micronucleus test is sufficient to detect rodent carcinogens and in vivo genotoxins. Mutat Res. 2011 Mar 18; 721 (1): 27-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/.mrgentox.2010.12.015.
  7. Rakitskii V.N., Revazova Yu.A., Ilyushina N.A. Strategy and tactics of the pesticide mutagenicity assessment. Toksikologicheskij vestnik. 2015; 134 (5): 10-3. (in Russian).
  8. Abilev S.K., Glaser V.M., Aslanian M.M. Fundamentals of mutagenesis and genotoxicology. The lecture: schoolbook. M., St. Petersburg: NestorHistory. 2012, 148 p. (in Russian).
  9. Gireesh H. Kamath and K.S. Rao. Genotoxicity guidelines recommended by International conference of harmonization (ICH). In: Dhawan A.and Bajpayee M. (eds) Genotoxicity Assessment: Methods and Protocols, Methods Mol Biol. 2013; 1044: 431-58. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-62703-529-3_24
  10. OECD, test 471:1997, IDT. Bacterial reverse mutation test.
  11. Maron D.M., Bruce N. Ames. Revised methods for the Salmonella mutagenicity test. Mutation Research, 113 (1983) 173-215. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1161(83)90010-9
  12. Mortelmans K., Zeiger E. The Ames Salmonella/microsome mutagenicity assay. Mutation Research. 2000; 455: 29-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0027-5107(00)00064-6
  13. uidelines on short-term methods for detection of mutagenic and cancerogenic chemicals. A Co-Publishing of United Nations Environment Programme, International Labour Organization and World Health Organization. M.: Meditsina, 1989: 26-38. (in Russian).
  14. OECD Test No. 474: Mammalian Erythrocyte Micronucleus Test, 2014.
  15. Methodological guidelines. Assessment of mutagenic activity of pesticides (MU-1.2.3364-16). М. Federal Center of Hygiene and Epidemiology of Rospotrebnadzor: 2016 (in Russian).
  16. Guidelines. Assessment of mutagenic activity of environmental factors in cells of different mammalian organs using the micronucleus method. Moscow: Interdepartmental Scientific Council on Human Ecology and Environmental Hygiene of the Russian Federation 2001. (in Russian).
  17. McCullagh P., Nelder J.A. Generalized linear models. CRC Monographs on Statistics & Applied Probability 37. Second Edition. Chapman and Hall: London, New York, 1983: 261 p. https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.4710290217
  18. McDonald J.H. Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel test for repeated tests of independence. Handbook of Biological Statistics (3rd ed.). Sparky House Publishing, Baltimore, Maryland. 2014: 94-100 p. http://www.biostathandbook.com/cmh.html
  19. Guideline OECD № 489 «In vivo Mammalian Alkaline Comet Assay», 2014.
  20. FAO Specifications and Evaluations for Agricultural Pesticides. Glyphosate. N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine. Available at: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agphome/documents/Pests_Pesticides/Specs/Glypho_2014.pdf
  21. Kier L., Kirkland D. Review of genotoxicity studies of glyphosate and glyphosate-based formulations. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2013 Apr; 43 (4): 283-315.
  22. IARC Monographs Volume 112: Evaluation of five organophosphate insecticides and herbicides. International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization (March 20, 2015).
  23. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper. 229. Pesticide residues in food 2016. The Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues report 2016. World Health Organization Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
  24. Rue J.C., Kim K.-R. Evaluation of genetic toxicity of synthetic chemicals (VII) – a synthetic selective herbicide pendimethalin. J. Environ. Toxicol 2003;18 (2): 121-9.
  25. EPA USA. Pendimethalin. Human Health Risk Assessment for the Proposed Food Uses of the Herbicide on Artichoke, Globe; Asparagus; Brassica Head and Stem Vegetables, Subgroup 5A; and Grape (PP#6E7129). 2007. 34 p.
  26. Health Effects Division EPA USA. Pendimethalin registration eligibility decision document. Review. 53 p.
  27. Behera BC1, Bhunya SP. Genotoxic effect of isoproturon (herbicide) as revealed by three mammalian in vivo mutagenic bioassays. Indian J Exp Biol. 1990 Sep; 28 (9): 862-7.
  28. European Commission Health & Consumer Protection DirectorateGeneral. Isoproturon. Sanco /849/2002. http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/eu-pesticides-database/public/?event=activesubstance.ViewReview&id=68
  29. Watson M. Dimethoate. Pesticides Safety Directorate. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, United Kingdom. http://www.inchem.org/documents/jmpr/jmpmono/v96pr05.htm
  30. Review report for the active substance mesotrione. SANCO/1416/2001 – Final, April 2003 http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/eu-pesticidesdatabase/public/?event=activesubstance.ViewReview&id=350

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2024 Ilyushina N.A., Egorova O.V., Revazova Y.A.


СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: серия ПИ № ФС 77 - 37884 от 02.10.2009.