In silico tools and transcriptomics analyses in the mutagenicity assessment of cosmetic ingredients: a proof-of-principle on how to add weight to the evidence.

Prior to the downstream development of chemical substances, including pharmaceuticals and cosmetics, their influence on the genetic apparatus has to be tested. Several in vitro and in vivo assays have been developed to test for genotoxicity. In a first tier, a battery of two to three in vitro tests is recommended to cover mutagenicity, clastogenicity and aneugenicity as main endpoints. This regulatory in vitro test battery is known to have a high sensitivity, which is at the expense of the specificity. The high number of false positive in vitro results leads to excessive in vivo follow-up studies. In the case of cosmetics it may even induce the ban of the particular compound since in Europe the use of experimental animals is no longer allowed for cosmetics. In this article, an alternative approach to derisk a misleading positive Ames test is explored. Hereto we first tested the performance of five existing computational tools to predict the potential mutagenicity of a data set of 132 cosmetic compounds with a known genotoxicity profile. Furthermore, we present, as a proof-of-principle, a strategy in which a combination of computational tools and mechanistic information derived from in vitro transcriptomics analyses is used to derisk a misleading positive Ames test result. Our data shows that this strategy may represent a valuable tool in a weight-of-evidence approach to further evaluate a positive outcome in an Ames test.