ICH M7 Guidance and Tests to Investigate the In Vivo Relevance of In Vitro Mutagens

Similar documents
New Technologies for Predicting Genotoxic Risk in Humans

Genotoxicity Testing Strategies: application of the EFSA SC opinion to different legal frameworks in the food and feed area

VICH GL23: Studies to evaluate the safety of residues of veterinary drugs in human food: genotoxicity testing

Genetic Toxicology. Toxicology for Industrial and Regulatory Scientists

The Comet Assay Tails of the (Un)expected

Overview of USP General Chapters <476> and <1086> Prescription/Non-Prescription Stakeholder Forum October 19, 2017

Genetic Toxicology: Progress on International Test Guidelines and New Methods

Lecture -2- Environmental Biotechnology

Scientific Opinion on the safety of Hostazym X as a feed additive for poultry and pigs 1

The in vivo genotoxicity studies on nivalenol and deoxynivalenol 1

PQRI PODP Extractables & Leachables Workshop Derivation of the Parenteral Safety Concern Threshold (SCT)

Organic Impurities in Drug Substances and Drug Products. Antonio Hernandez-Cardoso, M.Sc. Senior Scientific Liaison September 8, 2017

Genotoxicity of formaldehyde in vitro and in vivo. Günter Speit

Genotoxic and acute toxic properties of selected synthetic cannabinoids

Nonclinical Safety Evaluation of Inhalation Drug Products

MANGANESE & HEALTH: A BALANCE OF STORIES

B. 12. MUTAGENICITY IN VIVO MAMMALIAN ERYTHROCYTE MICRONUCLEUS TEST

Dr. Josef Schlatter Member of the Scientific Committee and EFSA s WG on Novel Foods

Regulation of Genotoxic and Carcinogenic Impurities in

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and

OECD/OCDE OECD GUIDELINE FOR THE TESTING OF CHEMICALS. Mammalian Erythrocyte Micronucleus Test

ANDA Submissions Refuse to Receive for Lack of Proper Justification of Impurity Limits Guidance for Industry

Dose-Response Data From Potency

Genotoxicity of 2-Hydroxy-1,4-naphthoquinone (Lawsone, CAS )

5.36 THIOPHANATE-METHYL (077)

The effect of REACH implementation on genotoxicity and carcinogenicity testing Jan van Benthem

Glyphosate Hazard and Risk Assessment: A Comparison of the Approaches of Two International Agencies

EVALUATION OF CYTOTOXICITY OF DICHLORVOS PESTICIDE IN LABORATORY MOUSE

ACRYLAMIDE - EU Summary of Activities

Control MMC MMC+Vit-E MMC+ALCAR MMC+Vit-E +ALCAR

Use of Bridging Justifications to Support the Safety of Excipients in Generic Drug Products

Comparison of different genotoxicity tests in vitro for assessment of surface water quality E. Dopp, J. Richard, S. Zander-Hauck

Maria João Silva H. Louro 1, T. Borges 2, J. Lavinha 1, J.M. Albuquerque 1

Application of a Multiplexed Flow Cytometric Assay and Machine Learning to Provide Genotoxic Mode of Action Information

DISCUSSION GROUP 3. Mechanism of carcinogenicity. EFSA Scientific Colloquium on Acrylamide carcinogenicity, 22/23 May

Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Food on an additional list of monomers and additives for food contact materials (adopted the 18 September 1998)

Section 5.3: Preclinical safety data

GLYPHOSATE (addendum)

Annex II. Scientific conclusions and grounds for variation to the terms of the marketing authorisations

OECD QSAR Toolbox v.4.2. An example illustrating RAAF scenario 6 and related assessment elements

NOTE FOR GUIDANCE ON TOXICOKINETICS: THE ASSESSMENT OF SYSTEMIC EXPOSURE IN TOXICITY STUDIES S3A

General Biology. Overview: The Key Roles of Cell Division. Unicellular organisms

Scientific opinion on genotoxicity testing strategies applicable to food and feed safety assessment 1

General Biology. Overview: The Key Roles of Cell Division The continuity of life is based upon the reproduction of cells, or cell division

(a) Reproduction. (b) Growth and development. (c) Tissue renewal

IMPURITIES: GUIDELINE FOR RESIDUAL SOLVENTS PDE FOR CUMENE

Outcome of the pesticides peer review meeting on general recurring issues in mammalian toxicology

Evaluation of genome damage in subjects occupationally exposed to possible carcinogens. D. Želježi, M. Mladini, N. Kopjar, A. Hursidic Radulovic

PQRI PODP Extractables & Leachables Workshop Leachable Evaluation of a Container Closure System - What to do When Above the Threshold

Incorporating Computational Approaches into Safety Assessment

Mugimane Manjanatha, Ph.D

Safety of Allura Red AC in feed for cats and dogs

COMMITTEE FOR VETERINARY MEDICINAL PRODUCTS

Scientific opinion on genotoxicity testing strategies applicable to food and feed safety assessment 1

COMMITTEE FOR VETERINARY MEDICINAL PRODUCTS

Optimal Design for in Vivo Mutation Studies to Inform Cancer Mode-of- Action Assessment

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. EFSA Panel on food contact materials, enzymes, flavourings and processing aids (CEF) 2, 3

Conflict of Interest Statement

Boronic acids: a novel class of bacterial mutagen

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) 2, 3

Mutagenic properties of dimethylaniline isomers in mice as evaluated by comet, micronucleus and transgenic mutation assays

The Italian approach to the safety assessment of coatings intended for food contact application

CHAPTER 4 ASSESSMENT OF CYTOTOXIC AND GENOTOXIC POTENTIAL OF REPEATED DOSE OF THIACLOPRID IN RAT

December 11 th, 2013 Richard W. Hutchinson, DVM, PhD, DABT Johnson & Johnson Global Surgery Group

Supplementary Table 1. Properties of lysates of E. coli strains expressing CcLpxI point mutants

Mutagenesis. David M. DeMarini, Ph.D. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

OECD/OCDE Adopted: 29 July 2016

DOSE SELECTION FOR CARCINOGENICITY STUDIES OF PHARMACEUTICALS *)

EVALUATION OF POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN CLAY TARGET FRAGMENTS AND SURFACE SOIL AT SHOT GUN RANGE SITES Presenter: Glenn Hoeger and Brian

ToxStrategies, Inc. and Summit Toxicology

Comments CLH proposal Cadmium hydroxide

ICH Topic S1C(R2) Dose Selection for Carcinogenicity Studies of Pharmaceuticals. Step 5

Mitosis THE CELL CYCLE. In unicellular organisms, division of one cell reproduces the entire organism Multicellular organisms use cell division for..

Supplemental Figure 1. Activated splenocytes upregulate Serpina3g and Serpina3f expression.

DRAFT for public consultation. Reflection on interpretation of some aspects related to genotoxicity assessment. EFSA Scientific Committee:

LECTURE PRESENTATIONS

The Cell Cycle. Chapter 12. PowerPoint Lecture Presentations for Biology Eighth Edition Neil Campbell and Jane Reece

The Cell Cycle CAMPBELL BIOLOGY IN FOCUS SECOND EDITION URRY CAIN WASSERMAN MINORSKY REECE

Risk Assessment in Drug Development (or How much of compound X is safe? ) (EYP 2006) Colin Fish

BIOLOGY 4/6/2015. Cell Cycle - Mitosis. Outline. Overview: The Key Roles of Cell Division. identical daughter cells. I. Overview II.

alternative short-chain fluorinated product technology

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET

WP 6 In vivo genotoxicity

Nutrition and Foods Safety Agency of the Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, People s Republic of China. Testing Report

Trifluridine Ophthalmic Solution, 1% Sterile

The Cell Cycle and How Cells Divide

The Cell Cycle. Chapter 12. Biology Eighth Edition Neil Campbell and Jane Reece. PowerPoint Lecture Presentations for

EFSA Info Session on Applications. Technical meeting on food flavourings applications. Parma, 20 th January 2015

The Cell Cycle. Chapter 12. Biology. Edited by Shawn Lester. Eighth Edition Neil Campbell and Jane Reece. PowerPoint Lecture Presentations for

Breaking Up is Hard to Do (At Least in Eukaryotes) Mitosis

Why do cells reproduce?

5.17 PENTHIOPYRAD (253)

Introduction to biomarkers of exposure what can they tell us

A. Incorrect! All the cells have the same set of genes. (D)Because different types of cells have different types of transcriptional factors.

VIROPTIC Ophthalmic Solution, 1% Sterile (trifluridine ophthalmic solution)

Figure S1. Generation of inducible PTEN deficient mice and the BMMCs (A) B6.129 Pten loxp/loxp mice were mated with B6.

FDA Expectations and Evaluation of Inhalation Toxicology Studies

1st SETAC Europe Special Science Symposium

Spot the Difference: Effect of TK blood

Transcription:

ICH M7 Guidance and Tests to Investigate the In Vivo Relevance of In Vitro Mutagens Leon F. Stankowski, Jr., PhD Principal Scientist/Program Consultant PNWBIO 04 June 2014

Agenda ICH M7 guidance Assay overview Micronucleus Chromosome aberration Comet assay Transgenic rodent gene mutation assay Pig-a gene mutation assay Sample data from integrated studies 2

Guidance ICH M7: Assessment and Control of DNA Reactive (Mutagenic) Impurities in Pharmaceuticals to Limit Potential Carcinogenic Risk Current Step 3 version (February 2013) Step 4 target t date June 2014 3

Scope new drug substances and new drug products IND or NDA existing marketed products changes in synthesis result in new impurities or increased acceptance criteria for existing impurities; changes in formulation, composition or manufacturing process result in new degradants or increased acceptance criteria for existing degradants; changes in indication or dosage that significantly affect the acceptable cancer risk level 4

Scope Exempted biological/biotechnological, peptide, oligonucleotide, radiopharmaceutical, fermentation products, herbal products, and crude products of animal or plant origin UNLESS, products such as biologicals and peptides are chemically synthesized or modified (e.g., addition of organic chemical linkers, semi-synthetic products) drug substances and drug products intended for advanced cancer (see ICH S9) drug substance known to be genotoxic at therapeutic concentrations and may be associated with an increased cancer risk 5

Impurities Two-stage process actual, observed impurities, especially when levels exceed identification thresholds (see ICH Q3A) potential impurities likely to be present in the final drug substance starting materials, reagents and intermediates identified impurities in starting materials and intermediates reasonably expected reaction by-products 6

Degradants Two-stage process actual, identified degradants (in drug substance and drug product), especially when levels exceed identification thresholds (see ICH Q3A/Q3B) potential degradants (in drug substance and drug product) likely to be present in the final drug substance starting materials, reagents and intermediates identified impurities in starting materials and intermediates reasonably expected reaction by-products 7

Classification Table 1: Impurities Classification with Respect to Mutagenic and Carcinogenic Potential and Resulting Control Actions Class Definition Proposed Controls 1 Known mutagenic carcinogens Control < compound-specific acceptable limit 2 Known mutagens with unknown carcinogenic potential (Ames or other positive, no carc data) 3 Alerting structure unrelated to drug substance; no mutagenicity data Control <TTC Control <TTC or perform Ames (negative Class 5, positive Class 2 4 Alerting structure same as in drug substance bt which hihis non-mutagenic 5 No structural alerts, or alerts with sufficient data to demonstrate lack of mutagenicity Treat as non-mutagenic impurity Treat as non-mutagenic impurity 8

TTC Table 2: Acceptable intakes for an individual impurity Treatment duration <1 month 1-12 months >1-10 years >10 years Daily intake [µg/day] 120 20 10 1.5 Table 3: Acceptable intakes for total impurities Treatment duration <1 month 1-1212 months >1-10 10 years >10 years Daily intake [µg/day] 120 60 10 (30) 5 For clinical development up to 3 years. Similar principles could be applied to marketed products with justification. Higher or lower limits may be justified (case-by-case) 9

So you ve got a positive... Further hazard assessment of a Class 2 impurity (Ames or other in vitro positive) may be appropriate levels of the impurity cannot be controlled at an appropriate limit test the impurity in an in vivo gene mutation assay. Other in vivo genotoxicity assays should be justified based on mechanism of action of the impurity and site of contact (Note 3) 10

ICH M7 Note 3 Tests to investigate the in vivo relevance of in vitro mutagens (positive bacterial mutagenicity) In vivo test Transgenic mutation assays Mechanistic data to justify choice of test any Ames (+); justify tissue/organ Pig-a assay (blood) direct-acting Ames (+) Micronucleus test (blood/bm) direct-acting Ames (+) and clastogens Rat liver UDS test Ames (+) with S9 only; responsible liver metabolite generated in the test species; induces bulky adducts Comet assay chemical class specific; form alkaline labile sites or ss DNA breaks; justify tissue/organ Others with convincing justification 11

ICH M7 Note 3 Tests to investigate the in vivo relevance of in vitro mutagens (positive bacterial mutagenicity) In vivo test Transgenic mutation assays Mechanistic data to justify choice of test any Ames (+); justify tissue/organ Pig-a assay (blood) direct-acting Ames (+) Micronucleus test (blood/bm) direct-acting Ames (+) and clastogens Rat liver UDS test Ames (+) with S9 only; responsible liver metabolite generated in the test species; induces bulky adducts Comet assay chemical class specific; form alkaline labile sites or ss DNA breaks; justify tissue/organ Others with convincing justification 12

Historical Perspectives and Background Micronucleus Literally, small nucleus Historically i developed d and performed in rodent bone marrow Polychromatic Erythrocyte (PCE) Normochromatic Erythrocyte (NCE) Normal Maturation/expulsion of nucleus Normal NCE Stem Cell (erythroblast) Chromosomal Damage Micronuceated NCE 13

Historical Perspectives and Background Micronucleus Also allows determination of mechanism of action i.e. Clastogens i.e. Aneugens 14

Mechanism of Action: FISH and CREST CREST antikinetochore staining - antibodies FISH (fluorescent in situ hybridisation) 15

Mechanism of Action: FISH Uses fluorescent probes to detect centromeric DNA MN MN Negative Positive 16

Mechanism of Action: FISH Pancentromeric DNA probes for human and mouse 17

Mechanism of Action: CREST CREST - immunological detection of kinetochores (all species) 18

Historical Perspectives and Background Chrom Abs Structural or numerical changes in karyotype Similar il treatment/harvest t t/h t of bone marrow/peripheral blood, but score individual cells at metaphase Polyploidy Endoreduplication 19

Historical Perspectives and Background Comet Single Cell Gel Electrophoresis Assay Detects t ss/ds DNA breaks and alkali-labile li l sites Skin Bladder Spleen Kidney Brain Intestine Lung Bone Marrow Peripheral Blood Lymphocytes Liver Stomach 20

Historical Perspectives and Background Comet Level of DNA damage is correlated to length and amount of fragmented DNA migrating out of the nucleus (comet tail) 21

Historical Perspectives and Background TRM Big Blue models available in mice and rats Measure gene mutation ti in ANY tissue in the body Utilizes transgenic rodents that carry multiple copies of the viral vector in EVERY cell Measure temperature sensitive mutations in lambda cii gene 22

Historical Perspectives and Background TRM Dose animals Usually 28 days Collect/freeze tissues Day 31 and/or Day 77 Extract high MW DNA Excise shuttle vector Package into capsid (empty phage envelope) Infect E. coli Plate for plaque formation 24ºC selective for mutants 37ºC all plaques form (denominator) Count plaques and evaluate 23 Lambert et al. Mut. Res. 2005

Historical Perspectives and Background Pig-a Phosphatidylinositol N-acetylglucosaminyltransferase, subunit A X-linked gene involved in first step of producing anchor proteins for surface markers/antigens (e.g., CD59, CD24) 24 GPI-anchor EA P Man GLcN I P Protein I P EA P GLcN Man Man P EA CO EA P Man NH 2 Membrane : Phosphoethanolamine : Mannose :Glucosamine : Inositolphosphate DPM1 DPM2 Dol-P-Man syntase Phosphatidylinositol Acyl-CoA +NAc- Gln Dolicolphospatemannose Phospho- ethanolamine Protein UDP-N-acetylglucosamine (deacetylation) +mannose +ethanolamine Transamidase GPI-anchored Protein PIG-A PIG-C PIG-H GPI1 PIG-L PIG-B PIG-F GPI8 GAA1

Historical Perspectives and Background Pig-a Wild-type Cell fluorescent labeled antibodies against GPI-anchored proteins Pig-a Mutant Cell GPI Pig-a FCM analysis FCM analysis CD59 Fluorescent positive Fluorescent negative Genotoxin 25

Historical Perspectives and Background Pig-a A: Instrument Calibration Standard B: ENU Treated Rat, PRE Column C: ENU Treated Rat, POST Column Nucleic Acid Dye Fluorescen nce Anti CD59 PE Fluorescence ENU 40 mg/kg/day, g 3X UL = mutant phenotype RETs UR = wt RETs LL = mutant phenotype NCEs LR = wt NCEs 26

Sample Data: Integrated Studies Various genotoxicity endpoints can be integrated into classical in vivo subchronic toxicology studies micronucleus assay in peripheral blood or bone marrow chromosome aberration assay in peripheral blood or bone marrow Comet assay in peripheral blood or virtually any other tissue Pig-a gene mutation in peripheral blood 27

Sample Data: Stage III Pig-a 4-NQO 28-day subchronic study with 4NQO (Stankowski, et al., 2011) Dosing occurs on Days 1 28 (plus Day 29 since tissue Comet is included) Day: 11 1 2 3 4 15 29 42 28 n = 5 per group Vehicle Control 5 dose groups Positive Control Pig a Pig a Pig a & PBL Comet, PBL Comet, CAb and flow MN & PBL Comet, CAb and flow MN CAb and flow MN & Tissue Comet - Save additional Comet tissue samples for possible histological evaluation if warranted - No DSA, No TK

Sample Data: Stage III Pig-a 4-NQO 4NQO @ 0, 1.25, 2.50, 3.75, 5.00 and 7.50 mg/kg/day, 29X 400 350 300 Vehicle Control - Satellite Vehicle Control 1.25 mg/kg/day 2.50 mg/kg/day 3.75 mg/kg/day 5.00 mg/kg/day g 7.50 mg/kg/day (g) 250 200 150 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Day of Study 29

Sample Data: Stage III Pig-a 4-NQO 4NQO @ 0, 1.25, 2.50, 3.75, 5.00 and 7.50 mg/kg/day, 29X CD59 NEG RETs (x10-6 +SEM) 50 p < 0.05 40 30 20 95% UCL 10 0 - - - Day - -1- - - - - - - Day - 15 - - - - - - - Day - 29 - - - Dose mg/kg/day 0.00 1.25 2.50 3.75 5.00 7.50 30

Sample Data: Stage III Pig-a 4-NQO 4NQO @ 0, 1.25, 2.50, 3.75, 5.00 and 7.50 mg/kg/day, 29X CD59 NEG RBCs (x 10-6 +SEM) 50 40 30 20 10 p < 0.05 95% UCL 8 6 4 2 0 rage No. of RETs (% +/- SEM) 0 - - - Day - -1- - - - - - - Day - 15 - - - - - - - Day - 29- - - -2 Ave Dose (mg/kg/day) 0.00 1.25 2.50 3.75 5.00 7.50 31

Sample Data: Stage III Pig-a 4-NQO 4NQO @ 0, 1.25, 2.50, 3.75, 5.00 and 7.50 mg/kg/day, 29X mn nrets (% +SD) 0.35 0.28 0.21 p = 0.094 p = 0.079 0.14 0.07 p<005 0.05 4.25 2.5 0.75-1 -2.75 Av verage No. of RETs (% +/ /- SD) 0 - - - Day - 4- - - - - Day - 15 - - - - - Day - 29 - - - -4.5 Dose (mg/kg/day) 0.00 1.25 2.50 3.75 5.00 7.50 %RETs 32

Sample Data: Stage III Pig-a 4-NQO 4NQO @ 0, 1.25, 2.50, 3.75, 5.00 and 7.50 mg/kg/day, 29X CAbs w/ /o Gaps (% +SEM) 33 7.5 6.0 4.5 30 3.0 1.5 0.0 p < 0.05 95% UCL CAb - - - - Day 4 - - - - - Day - 15 - - - - - Day - 29 - - - Dose (mg/kg/day) 0.00 1.25 2.50 3.75 5.00 7.50 3.0 1.5 0.0-1.5 15-3.0-4.5 SEM) Avera age Mitotic Index (% +/-

Sample Data: Stage III Pig-a 4-NQO 4NQO @ 0, 1.25, 2.50, 3.75, 5.00 and 7.50 mg/kg/day, 29X 3 5 Tail Intensity (Median % + SD) 2.4 1.8 1.2 0.6 95% UCL PBL 0-5 -10-15 Ave erage No. of Clouds (% +/- SD) 0 - - - Day - 4- - - - - - - Day - 15 - - - - - - - Day - 29- - - Dose (mg/kg/day) /d -20 0.00 1.25 2.50 3.75 5.00 7.50 % Clouds 34

Sample Data: Stage III Pig-a 4-NQO 4NQO @ 0, 1.25, 2.50, 3.75, 5.00 and 7.50 mg/kg/day, 29X 7.5 9 (Median % +SD) Tail Intensity 6 4.5 3 1.5 0 Mean VC - Stomach 95% UCL - Liver -Day-15 Liver - - - - Day - 29 - Liver - - - - - Day - 29 Stomach - - - - 2-5 -12-19 -26 +/-SD) Average e Number of Clouds (% Dose (mg/kg/day) 0.00 1.25 2.50 3.75 5.00 7.50 35

Sample Data: Stage IV Pig-a Urethane Vehicle control Urethane @ 25, 100 and 250 mg/kg/day, 29X Ethyl methanesulfonate (EMS) at 200 mg/kg/day Days 3, 4, 13, 14, 15, 27, 28 and 29 n = 10 (treated) 6/group analyzed for gene tox endpoints 10/group analyzed for classical tox endpoints and necropsy males only GLP-compliant 36

Sample Data: Stage IV Pig-a Urethane Pig-a High Throughput Protocol mnret (flow) PBL Comet and chromosome aberration Comet in various other tissues mnpce (manual) ~100 300 µl samples pre-dose Day 4 Day 15 Day 29 clinical chemistry 37

Urethane Stage IV: Endpoints Pig-a High Throughput Protocol mnret (flow) PBL Comet and chromosome aberration Comet in various other tissues mnpce (manual) ~100 300 µl samples pre-dose Day 4 Day 15 Day 29 clinical chemistry 38

Pig-a Scoring: High Throughput Method Wild type (WT) cells labeled with anti CD59 PE Add Anti PE particles and Counting Beads Cells plus anti PE paramagnetic particles & Counting Beads Key Anti CD59 PE positive erythrocytes (WT) Anti CD59 PE negative erythrocytes (mutant) Counting Beads Anti PE paramagnetic particles Majority towards magnetic column separation Small fraction towards nucleic acid dye staining & analyze for: %RET RBC:Bead ratio RET:Bead ratio Eluate highly depleted of wild type cells Spin step Concentrated eluate Nucleic acid dye staining Analyze for: Mutant RBC:Bead ratio Mutant RET:Bead ratio 39

40 Pig-a Scoring: High Throughput Method

Pig-a Scoring: High Throughput Method A: Instrument Calibration Standard B: ENU Treated Rat, PRE Column C: ENU Treated Rat, POST Column Nucleic Acid Dye Fluorescen nce Anti CD59 PE Fluorescence ENU 40 mg/kg/day, g 3X UL = mutant phenotype RETs UR = wt RETs LL = mutant phenotype NCEs LR = wt NCEs 41

Pig-a Scoring: High Throughput Method Old Basic Protocol 18 23 minutes/sample ~0.3 x 10 6 RETs 1 x 10 6 RBCs New High Throughput Protocol 6 7 minutes/sample 3 7 x 10 6 RET equivalents 100 x 10 6 RBC equivalents Fewer zeros for mutant RETs No zeros for mutant RBCs Significantly greater power to detect small increases Negative results are negative 42

Sample Data: Stage IV Pig-a Urethane Dosing occurs on Days 1 28 (plus Day 29 as tissue Comet is included) Day: 1 1 2 3 4 15 29 42 n = 6 per group Vehicle Control 3 dose groups Positive Control Pig a PBL Comet, CAb and flow MN Pig a & PBL Comet, CAb and flow MN - Save additional Comet tissue samples for possible histological evaluation if warranted - No DSA, No TK Pig a & PBL Comet, CAb and flow MN; Tissue Comet and BM MN 43

Sample Data: Stage IV Pig-a Urethane 35 30 0-6 RE ET CD59- x 10 25 20 15 10 5 0 Day -3/-5 Day 15 Day 29 000 0.00 25.0 100 250 PC (mg/kg/day) /d 44

Sample Data: Stage IV Pig-a Urethane 35 30 25 0-6 RB BC CD59- x 10 20 15 10 5 0 Day -3/-5 Day 15 Day 29 000 0.00 25.0 100 250 PC (mg/kg/day) /d 45

Sample Data: Stage IV Pig-a Urethane 10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 %RETs 6.0 5.0 40 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Day -3/-5 Day 15 Day 29 0.00 25.0 100 250 PC (mg/kg/day) 46

Sample Data: Stage IV Pig-a Urethane 1.2 1.0 0.8 mnret (%) 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Day 4 Day 15 Day 29 0.00 25.0 100 250 PC (mg/kg/day) 47

Sample Data: Stage IV Pig-a Urethane 0.8 0.6 mnpce (%) 0.4 0.2 0.0 Day 29 0.00 25.0 100 250 PC (mg/kg/day) 48

Sample Data: Stage IV Pig-a Urethane 30.0 25.0 Tail DNA (%) - PBL 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 E 0.0 Day 4 Day 15 Day 29 0.00 25.0 100 250 PC (mg/kg/day) 49

Sample Data: Stage IV Pig-a Urethane 50.0 40.0 Ta ail DNA (%) 30.0 20.00 10.0 E E 0.0 Liver Brain Spleen Kidney Lung 0.00 25.0 100 250 PC (mg/kg/day) 50

Sample Data: Stage IV Pig-a Urethane 51 Fold-Increase Endpoint Day 4 Day 15 Day 29 RET CD59- nd 74 24 RBC CD59- nd 4.2 8.1 mnret 66 6.6 40 4.0 53 5.3 PBL CAb - - - mnpce nd nd 5.0 Comet - PBL - E - - Liver nd nd E - Brain nd nd - - Spleen nd nd E - Kidney nd nd - - Lung nd nd - nd = not determined - = negative response E = equivocal response ( 2.0-fold increase)

Sample Data: Big Blue TRM - B(a)P and ENU 28-day subchronic study with B(a)P Dosing occurs on Days 1 28 Day: 1 2 3 4 28 31 311 n = 5 6 per group Vehicle Control B(a)P @ 50 mg/kg/day x 28 ENU @ 40 mg/kg/day x 3 Pig a & flow MN (PBL) & cii mutation (liver and bone marrow) 52

Sample Data: Big Blue ENU/B(a)P Treatment (mg/kg/day) x days Mut Freq (x10-6 ) Pig-a Mut Freq (x10-6 ) Liver cii BM cii RBC RET mnnce mnret (%) (%) Olive Oil (0.0) x 28 43.6±6.20 38.1 ±14.2 0.139±0.0419 0.106±0.131 0.327±0.0160 0.565±0.0552 BaP (50.0) x 28 213±36.3 674±75.1 14.0±5.00 65.3±16.6 0.691±0.0612 0.881±0.0725 Fold Increase 4.89 17.7 101 616 2.11 1.56 ENU(40.0) x 3 181±37.2 405±90.0 28.9±6.15 111±53.5 0.457±0.237 0.674±0.120 Fold Increase 4.15 10.6 208 1050 1.40 1.19 Significant increase (p< 0.001) 53

54 Back-up Slides

55 Sample Data - Stage III Pig-a: 4-NQO Dose Rate

56 Sample Data - Stage III Pig-a: 4-NQO Dose Rate

57 Sample Data - Stage III Pig-a: 4-NQO Dose Rate

58 Sample Data - Stage III Pig-a: 4-NQO Dose Rate

59 Sample Data - Stage III Pig-a: 4-NQO Dose Rate

Sample Data - Stage III Pig-a: 4-NQO Dose Rate Single/3X acute dose regimen Pig-a mutant t RBCs/RETs larger increases appear sooner and persist mnrets much larger increases on Day 3 PBL/Liver Comet positive 3 hours after treatment; does not persist 3X appeared to give larger responses than 1X exposure?? 60

Thank You Questions? leon.stankowski@bioreliance.com 61