A problem formulation framework for the application of in silico toxicology methods in chemical risk assessment.

The first step in the hazard or risk assessment of chemicals should be to formulate the problem through a systematic and iterative process aimed at identifying and defining factors critical to the assessment. However, no general agreement exists on what components an in silico toxicology problem formulation (PF) should include. The present work aims to develop a PF framework relevant to the application of in silico models for chemical toxicity prediction. We modified and applied a PF framework from the general risk assessment literature to peer reviewed papers describing PFs associated with in silico toxicology models. Important gaps between the general risk assessment literature and the analyzed PF literature associated with in silico toxicology methods were identified. While the former emphasizes the need for PFs to address higher-level conceptual questions, the latter does not. There is also little consistency in the latter regarding the PF components addressed, reinforcing the need for a PF framework that enable users of in silico toxicology models to answer the central conceptual questions aimed at defining components critical to the model application. Using the developed framework, we highlight potential areas of uncertainty manifestation in in silico toxicology PF in instances where particular components are missing or implicitly described. The framework represents the next step in standardizing in silico toxicology PF component. The framework can also be used to improve the understanding of how uncertainty is apparent in an in silico toxicology PF, thus facilitating ways to address uncertainty.

Update of the Cancer Potency Database (CPDB) to enable derivations of Thresholds of Toxicological Concern (TTC) for cancer potency.

The purpose of this study was to update the existing Cancer Potency Database (CPDB) in order to support the development of a dataset of compounds, with associated points of departure (PoDs), to enable a review and update of currently applied values for the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) for cancer endpoints. This update of the current CPDB, last reviewed in 2012, includes the addition of new data (44 compounds and 158 studies leading to additional 359 dose-response curves). Strict inclusion criteria were established and applied to select compounds and studies with relevant cancer potency data. PoDs were calculated from dose-response modeling, including the benchmark dose (BMD) and the lower 90% confidence limits (BMDL) at a specified benchmark response (BMR) of 10%. The updated full CPDB database resulted in a total of 421 chemicals which had dose-response data that could be used to calculate PoDs. This candidate dataset for cancer TTC is provided in a transparent and adaptable format for further analysis of TTC to derive cancer potency thresholds.

Analysis of health concerns not addressed by REACH for low tonnage chemicals and opportunities for new approach methodology.

In Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) the criterion for deciding the studies that must be performed is the annual tonnage of the chemical manufactured or imported into the EU. The annual tonnage may be considered as a surrogate for levels of human exposure but this does not take into account the physico-chemical properties and use patterns that determine exposure. Chemicals are classified using data from REACH under areas of health concern covering effects on the skin and eye; sensitisation; acute, repeated and prolonged systemic exposure; effects on genetic material; carcinogenicity; and reproduction and development. We analysed the mandated study lists under REACH for each annual tonnage band in terms of the information they provide on each of the areas of health concern. Using the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) REACH Registration data base of over 20,000 registered substances, we found that only 19% of registered substances have datasets on all areas of health concern. Information limited to acute exposure, sensitisation and genotoxicity was found for 62%. The analysis highlighted the shortfall of information mandated for substances in the lower tonnage bands. Deploying New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) at this lower tonnage band to assess health concerns which are currently not covered by REACH, such as repeat and extended exposure and carcinogenicity, would provide additional information and would be a way for registrants and regulators to gain experience in the use of NAMs. There are currently projects in Europe aiming to develop NAM-based assessment frameworks and they could find their first use in assessing low tonnage chemicals once confidence has been gained by their evaluation with data rich chemicals.

Exposure considerations in human safety assessment: Report from an EPAA Partners' Forum.

Understanding and estimating the exposure to a substance is one of the fundamental requirements for safe manufacture and use. Many approaches are taken to determine exposure to substances, mainly driven by potential use and regulatory need. There are many opportunities to improve and optimise the use of exposure information for chemical safety. The European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA) therefore convened a Partners' Forum (PF) to explore exposure considerations in human safety assessment of industrial products to agree key conclusions for the regulatory acceptance of exposure assessment approaches and priority areas for further research investment. The PF recognised the widescale use of exposure information across industrial sectors with the possibilities of creating synergies between different sectors. Further, the PF acknowledged that the EPAA could make a significant contribution to promote the use of exposure data in human safety assessment, with an aim to address specific regulatory needs. To achieve this, research needs, as well as synergies and areas for potential collaboration across sectors, were identified.

Guidance for good practice in the application of machine learning in development of toxicological quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSARs).

Recent years have seen a substantial growth in the adoption of machine learning approaches for the purposes of quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) development. Such a trend has coincided with desire to see a shifting in the focus of methodology employed within chemical safety assessment: away from traditional reliance upon animal-intensive in vivo protocols, and towards increased application of in silico (or computational) predictive toxicology. With QSAR central amongst techniques applied in this area, the emergence of algorithms trained through machine learning with the objective of toxicity estimation has, quite naturally, arisen. On account of the pattern-recognition capabilities of the underlying methods, the statistical power of the ensuing models is potentially considerable-appropriate for the handling even of vast, heterogeneous datasets. However, such potency comes at a price: this manifesting as the general practical deficits observed with respect to the reproducibility, interpretability and generalisability of the resulting tools. Unsurprisingly, these elements have served to hinder broader uptake (most notably within a regulatory setting). Areas of uncertainty liable to accompany (and hence detract from applicability of) toxicological QSAR have previously been highlighted, accompanied by the forwarding of suggestions for "best practice" aimed at mitigation of their influence. However, the scope of such exercises has remained limited to "classical" QSAR-that conducted through use of linear regression and related techniques, with the adoption of comparatively few features or descriptors. Accordingly, the intention of this study has been to extend the remit of best practice guidance, so as to address concerns specific to employment of machine learning within the field. In doing so, the impact of strategies aimed at enhancing the transparency (feature importance, feature reduction), generalisability (cross-validation) and predictive power (hyperparameter optimisation) of algorithms, trained upon real toxicity data through six common learning approaches, is evaluated.

G × E interactions as a basis for toxicological uncertainty.

To transfer toxicological findings from model systems, e.g. animals, to humans, standardized safety factors are applied to account for intra-species and inter-species variabilities. An alternative approach would be to measure and model the actual compound-specific uncertainties. This biological concept assumes that all observed toxicities depend not only on the exposure situation (environment = E), but also on the genetic (G) background of the model (G × E). As a quantitative discipline, toxicology needs to move beyond merely qualitative G × E concepts. Research programs are required that determine the major biological variabilities affecting toxicity and categorize their relative weights and contributions. In a complementary approach, detailed case studies need to explore the role of genetic backgrounds in the adverse effects of defined chemicals. In addition, current understanding of the selection and propagation of adverse outcome pathways (AOP) in different biological environments is very limited. To improve understanding, a particular focus is required on modulatory and counter-regulatory steps. For quantitative approaches to address uncertainties, the concept of "genetic" influence needs a more precise definition. What is usually meant by this term in the context of G × E are the protein functions encoded by the genes. Besides the gene sequence, the regulation of the gene expression and function should also be accounted for. The widened concept of past and present "gene expression" influences is summarized here as Ge. Also, the concept of "environment" needs some re-consideration in situations where exposure timing (Et) is pivotal: prolonged or repeated exposure to the insult (chemical, physical, life style) affects Ge. This implies that it changes the model system. The interaction of Ge with Et might be denoted as Ge × Et. We provide here general explanations and specific examples for this concept and show how it could be applied in the context of New Approach Methodologies (NAM).

Making in silico predictive models for toxicology FAIR.

In silico predictive models for toxicology include quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) and physiologically based kinetic (PBK) approaches to predict physico-chemical and ADME properties, toxicological effects and internal exposure. Such models are used to fill data gaps as part of chemical risk assessment. There is a growing need to ensure in silico predictive models for toxicology are available for use and that they are reproducible. This paper describes how the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) principles, developed for data sharing, have been applied to in silico predictive models. In particular, this investigation has focussed on how the FAIR principles could be applied to improved regulatory acceptance of predictions from such models. Eighteen principles have been developed that cover all aspects of FAIR. It is intended that FAIRification of in silico predictive models for toxicology will increase their use and acceptance.

Construction of an In Silico Structural Profiling Tool Facilitating Mechanistically Grounded Classification of Aquatic Toxicants.

The performance of chemical safety assessment within the domain of environmental toxicology is often impeded by a shortfall of appropriate experimental data describing potential hazards across the many compounds in regular industrial use. In silico schemes for assigning aquatic-relevant modes or mechanisms of toxic action to substances, based solely on consideration of chemical structure, have seen widespread employment─including those of Verhaar, Russom, and later Bauer (MechoA). Recently, development of a further system was reported by Sapounidou, which, in common with MechoA, seeks to ground its classifications in understanding and appreciation of molecular initiating events. Until now, this Sapounidou scheme has not seen implementation as a tool for practical screening use. Accordingly, the primary purpose of this study was to create such a resource─in the form of a computational workflow. This exercise was facilitated through the formulation of 183 structural alerts/rules describing molecular features associated with narcosis, chemical reactivity, and specific mechanisms of action. Output was subsequently compared relative to that of the three aforementioned alternative systems to identify strengths and shortcomings as regards coverage of chemical space.

Use of New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) in regulatory decisions for chemical safety: Report from an EPAA Deep Dive Workshop.

New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) are considered to include any in vitro, in silico or chemistry-based method, as well as the strategies to implement them, that may provide information that could inform chemical safety assessment. Current chemical legislation in the European Union is limited in its acceptance of the widespread use of NAMs. The European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA) therefore convened a 'Deep Dive Workshop' to explore the use of NAMs in chemical safety assessment, the aim of which was to support regulatory decisions, whilst intending to protect human health. The workshop recognised that NAMs are currently used in many industrial sectors, with some considered as fit for regulatory purpose. Moreover, the workshop identified key discussion points that can be addressed to increase the use and regulatory acceptance of NAMs. These are based on the changes needed in frameworks for regulatory requirements and the essential needs in education, training and greater stakeholder engagement as well the gaps in the scientific basis of NAMs.

A scheme to evaluate structural alerts to predict toxicity - Assessing confidence by characterising uncertainties.

Structure-activity relationships (SARs) in toxicology have enabled the formation of structural rules which, when coded as structural alerts, are essential tools in in silico toxicology. Whilst other in silico methods have approaches for their evaluation, there is no formal process to assess the confidence that may be associated with a structural alert. This investigation proposes twelve criteria to assess the uncertainty associated with structural alerts, allowing for an assessment of confidence. The criteria are based around the stated purpose, description of the chemistry, toxicology and mechanism, performance and coverage, as well as corroborating and supporting evidence of the alert. Alerts can be given a confidence assessment and score, enabling the identification of areas where more information may be beneficial. The scheme to evaluate structural alerts was placed in the context of various use cases for industrial and regulatory applications. The analysis of alerts, and consideration of the evaluation scheme, identifies the different characteristics an alert may have, such as being highly specific or generic. These characteristics may determine when an alert can be used for specific uses such as identification of analogues for read-across or hazard identification.

Evaluating Confidence in Toxicity Assessments Based on Experimental Data and In Silico Predictions.

Understanding the reliability and relevance of a toxicological assessment is important for gauging the overall confidence and communicating the degree of uncertainty related to it. The process involved in assessing reliability and relevance is well defined for experimental data. Similar criteria need to be established for in silico predictions, as they become increasingly more important to fill data gaps and need to be reasonably integrated as additional lines of evidence. Thus, in silico assessments could be communicated with greater confidence and in a more harmonized manner. The current work expands on previous definitions of reliability, relevance, and confidence and establishes a conceptional framework to apply those to in silico data. The approach is used in two case studies: 1) phthalic anhydride, where experimental data are readily available and 2) 4-hydroxy-3-propoxybenzaldehyde, a data poor case which relies predominantly on in silico methods, showing that reliability, relevance, and confidence of in silico assessments can be effectively communicated within Integrated approaches to testing and assessment (IATA).

Prediction of the Neurotoxic Potential of Chemicals Based on Modelling of Molecular Initiating Events Upstream of the Adverse Outcome Pathways of (Developmental) Neurotoxicity.

Developmental and adult/ageing neurotoxicity is an area needing alternative methods for chemical risk assessment. The formulation of a strategy to screen large numbers of chemicals is highly relevant due to potential exposure to compounds that may have long-term adverse health consequences on the nervous system, leading to neurodegeneration. Adverse Outcome Pathways (AOPs) provide information on relevant molecular initiating events (MIEs) and key events (KEs) that could inform the development of computational alternatives for these complex effects. We propose a screening method integrating multiple Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) models. The MIEs of existing AOP networks of developmental and adult/ageing neurotoxicity were modelled to predict neurotoxicity. Random Forests were used to model each MIE. Predictions returned by single models were integrated and evaluated for their capability to predict neurotoxicity. Specifically, MIE predictions were used within various types of classifiers and compared with other reference standards (chemical descriptors and structural fingerprints) to benchmark their predictive capability. Overall, classifiers based on MIE predictions returned predictive performances comparable to those based on chemical descriptors and structural fingerprints. The integrated computational approach described here will be beneficial for large-scale screening and prioritisation of chemicals as a function of their potential to cause long-term neurotoxic effects.

Towards a qAOP framework for predictive toxicology - Linking data to decisions.

The adverse outcome pathway (AOP) is a conceptual construct that facilitates organisation and interpretation of mechanistic data representing multiple biological levels and deriving from a range of methodological approaches including in silico, in vitro and in vivo assays. AOPs are playing an increasingly important role in the chemical safety assessment paradigm and quantification of AOPs is an important step towards a more reliable prediction of chemically induced adverse effects. Modelling methodologies require the identification, extraction and use of reliable data and information to support the inclusion of quantitative considerations in AOP development. An extensive and growing range of digital resources are available to support the modelling of quantitative AOPs, providing a wide range of information, but also requiring guidance for their practical application. A framework for qAOP development is proposed based on feedback from a group of experts and three qAOP case studies. The proposed framework provides a harmonised approach for both regulators and scientists working in this area.

Probabilistic modelling of developmental neurotoxicity based on a simplified adverse outcome pathway network.

In a century where toxicology and chemical risk assessment are embracing alternative methods to animal testing, there is an opportunity to understand the causal factors of neurodevelopmental disorders such as learning and memory disabilities in children, as a foundation to predict adverse effects. New testing paradigms, along with the advances in probabilistic modelling, can help with the formulation of mechanistically-driven hypotheses on how exposure to environmental chemicals could potentially lead to developmental neurotoxicity (DNT). This investigation aimed to develop a Bayesian hierarchical model of a simplified AOP network for DNT. The model predicted the probability that a compound induces each of three selected common key events (CKEs) of the simplified AOP network and the adverse outcome (AO) of DNT, taking into account correlations and causal relations informed by the key event relationships (KERs). A dataset of 88 compounds representing pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals and pesticides was compiled including physicochemical properties as well as in silico and in vitro information. The Bayesian model was able to predict DNT potential with an accuracy of 76%, classifying the compounds into low, medium or high probability classes. The modelling workflow achieved three further goals: it dealt with missing values; accommodated unbalanced and correlated data; and followed the structure of a directed acyclic graph (DAG) to simulate the simplified AOP network. Overall, the model demonstrated the utility of Bayesian hierarchical modelling for the development of quantitative AOP (qAOP) models and for informing the use of new approach methodologies (NAMs) in chemical risk assessment.

A framework for chemical safety assessment incorporating new approach methodologies within REACH.

The long-term investment in new approach methodologies (NAMs) within the EU and other parts of the world is beginning to result in an emerging consensus of how to use information from in silico, in vitro and targeted in vivo sources to assess the safety of chemicals. However, this methodology is being adopted very slowly for regulatory purposes. Here, we have developed a framework incorporating in silico, in vitro and in vivo methods designed to meet the requirements of REACH in which both hazard and exposure can be assessed using a tiered approach. The outputs from each tier are classification categories, safe doses, and risk assessments, and progress through the tiers depends on the output from previous tiers. We have exemplified the use of the framework with three examples. The outputs were the same or more conservative than parallel assessments based on conventional studies. The framework allows a transparent and phased introduction of NAMs in chemical safety assessment and enables science-based safety decisions which provide the same level of public health protection using fewer animals, taking less time, and using less financial and expert resource. Furthermore, it would also allow new methods to be incorporated as they develop through continuous selective evolution rather than periodic revolution.

A matter of trust: Learning lessons about causality will make qAOPs credible.

Toxicology in the 21st Century has seen a shift from chemical risk assessment based on traditional animal tests, identifying apical endpoints and doses that are "safe", to the prospect of Next Generation Risk Assessment based on non-animal methods. Increasingly, large and high throughput in vitro datasets are being generated and exploited to develop computational models. This is accompanied by an increased use of machine learning approaches in the model building process. A potential problem, however, is that such models, while robust and predictive, may still lack credibility from the perspective of the end-user. In this commentary, we argue that the science of causal inference and reasoning, as proposed by Judea Pearl, will facilitate the development, use and acceptance of quantitative AOP models. Our hope is that by importing established concepts of causality from outside the field of toxicology, we can be "constructively disruptive" to the current toxicological paradigm, using the "Causal Revolution" to bring about a "Toxicological Revolution" more rapidly.

The use of Bayesian methodology in the development and validation of a tiered assessment approach towards prediction of rat acute oral toxicity.

There exists consensus that the traditional means by which safety of chemicals is assessed-namely through reliance upon apical outcomes obtained following in vivo testing-is increasingly unfit for purpose. Whilst efforts in development of suitable alternatives continue, few have achieved levels of robustness required for regulatory acceptance. An array of "new approach methodologies" (NAM) for determining toxic effect, spanning in vitro and in silico spheres, have by now emerged. It has been suggested, intuitively, that combining data obtained from across these sources might serve to enhance overall confidence in derived judgment. This concept may be formalised in the "tiered assessment" approach, whereby evidence gathered through a sequential NAM testing strategy is exploited so to infer the properties of a compound of interest. Our intention has been to provide an illustration of how such a scheme might be developed and applied within a practical setting-adopting for this purpose the endpoint of rat acute oral lethality. Bayesian statistical inference is drawn upon to enable quantification of degree of confidence that a substance might ultimately belong to one of five LD50-associated toxicity categories. Informing this is evidence acquired both from existing in silico and in vitro resources, alongside a purposely-constructed random forest model and structural alert set. Results indicate that the combination of in silico methodologies provides moderately conservative estimations of hazard, conducive for application in safety assessment, and for which levels of certainty are defined. Accordingly, scope for potential extension of approach to further toxicological endpoints is demonstrated.

Principles and Procedures for Assessment of Acute Toxicity Incorporating In Silico Methods.

Acute toxicity in silico models are being used to support an increasing number of application areas including (1) product research and development, (2) product approval and registration as well as (3) the transport, storage and handling of chemicals. The adoption of such models is being hindered, in part, because of a lack of guidance describing how to perform and document an in silico analysis. To address this issue, a framework for an acute toxicity hazard assessment is proposed. This framework combines results from different sources including in silico methods and in vitro or in vivo experiments. In silico methods that can assist the prediction of in vivo outcomes (i.e., LD50) are analyzed concluding that predictions obtained using in silico approaches are now well-suited for reliably supporting assessment of LD50-based acute toxicity for the purpose of GHS classification. A general overview is provided of the endpoints from in vitro studies commonly evaluated for predicting acute toxicity (e.g., cytotoxicity/cytolethality as well as assays targeting specific mechanisms). The increased understanding of pathways and key triggering mechanisms underlying toxicity and the increased availability of in vitro data allow for a shift away from assessments solely based on endpoints such as LD50, to mechanism-based endpoints that can be accurately assessed in vitro or by using in silico prediction models. This paper also highlights the importance of an expert review of all available information using weight-of-evidence considerations and illustrates, using a series of diverse practical use cases, how in silico approaches support the assessment of acute toxicity.