{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02280974598237429, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00414722654224987, 'mean_word_length': 5.678200692041522, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparative overview of current international strategies and guidelines for genetic toxicology testing for regulatory purposes

National and international regulatory agencies historically have used genotoxicity information as part of a weight‐of‐evidence approach to evaluate potential human carcinogenicity. Additionally, some agencies consider heritable mutation a regulatory endpoint. Furthermore, genotoxicity has the potential to contribute to other adverse health conditions. This article provides a comparative overview of the testing strategies used by regulatory agencies throughout the world. Despite minor variations in details, the genotoxicity test schemes for most regulatory entities generally comprise three tests: a bacterial gene mutation assay, an in vitro mammalian cell assay for gene mutation and/or chromosome aberrations, and often an in vivo assay for chromosomal effects. In some cases, fewer than these three tests are required. In other cases, when exposure data, structure‐activity considerations, or other factors warrant, even chemicals negative in the three baseline tests may be subject to additional testing. If genotoxicity is identified by the baseline screening tests, assessment of the ability of the chemical to interact with DNA in the gonad may be required. This may apply regardless of whether or not a cancer bioassay has been triggered. Mutagens positive in second stage gonadal assay(s) may be tested in third stage in vivo rodent tests to provide data for a quantitative risk assessment. In all testing, theutilization of internationally‐recognized protocols, where they exist, is advisable, although not in all instances required. When testing for regulatory purposes, it is advisable to verify the testing program with the specific regulatory body or bodies responsible forregulatory oversight before beginning testing. Environ. Mol. Mutagen., 2006. Published 2006 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.