Ethylene thiourea (ETU) is a common contaminant, metabolite and degradation product of the fungicide class of ethylene bisdithiocarbamates (EBDCs); as such, they present possible exposure and toxicological concerns to exposed individuals. ETU has been assayed in many different tests to assess genotoxicity activity. While a great number of negative results are found in the data base, there is evidence that demonstrates ETU is capable of inducing genotoxic endpoints. These include responses for gene mutations (e.g. Salmonella), structural chromosomal alterations (e.g. aberrations in cultured mammalian cells as well as a dominant lethal assay) and other genotoxic effects (e.g. bacterial rec assay and several yeast assays). It is important to consider the magnitude of the positive responses as well as the concentrations/doses used when assessing the genotoxicity of ETU. While ETU induces a variety of genotoxic endpoints, it does not appear to be a potent genotoxic agent. For example, it is a weak bacterial mutagen in the Salmonella assay without activation in strain TA1535 at concentrations generally above 1000 mug/plate. Weak genotoxic activity of this sort is usually observed in most of the assays with positive results. Since ETU does not appear very potent and is not extremely toxic to test cells and organisms, it is not surprising to find that ETU does not produce consistent effects in many of the assays reviewed. Consequently, in many instances, mixed results for the same assay type are reported by different investigators, but as reviewed herein, these results may be dependent upon the test conditions in each individual laboratory. A primary shortcoming with many of the reported negative results is that the concentrations or doses used are not high enough for an adequate test for ETU activity. There are also problems with many of the negative assays generally in protocol or reporting, particularly with the in vivo studies (e.g. inappropriate sample number and/or sampling times; inadequate top dose employed). Overall, while ETU does not appear to be a potent genotoxic agent, it is capable of producing genotoxic effects (e.g. gene mutations, structural chromosomal aberrations). This provides a basis for weak genotoxic activity by ETU. Furthermore, based on a suggestive dominant lethal positive result, there may be a concern for heritable effects. Due to the many problems with the conduct and assessment of the in vivo assays, it is worth repeating in vivo cytogenetic assays and a dominant lethal assay (with acceptable test procedures and data generation) to determine if these results would continue to support a heritable mutagenicity concern.
