In vitro to in vivo extrapolation to derive a metabolism factor for estimating the aggregate exposure to salicylic acid after dermal exposure of its esters.

As part of the safety assessment of salicylate esters in cosmetics, we developed a metabolism factor based on in vitro to in vivo extrapolation (IVIVE) to provide a better estimation of the aggregate internal exposure to the common metabolite, salicylic acid. Optimal incubation conditions using human liver S9 were identified before measuring salicylic acid formation from 31 substances. Four control substances, not defined as salicylic esters but which could be mistaken as such due to their nomenclature, did not form salicylic acid. For the remaining substances, higher in vitro intrinsic clearance (CLint, in vitro) values generally correlated with lower LogP values. A "High-Throughput Pharmacokinetic" (HTPK) model was used to extrapolate CLint, in vitro values to human in vivo clearance and half-lives. The latter were used to calculate the percentage of substance metabolised to salicylic acid in 24 h in vivo following human exposure to the ester, i.e. the "metabolism factor". The IVIVE model correctly reproduced the observed elimination rate of 3 substances using in silico or in vitro input parameters. For other substances, in silico only-based predictions generally resulted in lower metabolism factors than when in vitro values for plasma binding and liver S9 CLint, in vitro were used. Therefore, in vitro data input provides the more conservative metabolism factors compared to those derived using on in silico input. In conclusion, these results indicate that not all substances contribute equally (or at all) to the systemic exposure to salicylic acid. Therefore, we propose a realistic metabolism correction factor by which the potential contribution of salicylate esters to the aggregate consumer exposure to salicylic acid from cosmetic use can be estimated.

New clues on carcinogenicity-related substructures derived from mining two large datasets of chemical compounds.

In this study, new molecular fragments associated with genotoxic and nongenotoxic carcinogens are introduced to estimate the carcinogenic potential of compounds. Two rule-based carcinogenesis models were developed with the aid of SARpy: model R (from rodents' experimental data) and model E (from human carcinogenicity data). Structural alert extraction method of SARpy uses a completely automated and unbiased manner with statistical significance. The carcinogenicity models developed in this study are collections of carcinogenic potential fragments that were extracted from two carcinogenicity databases: the ANTARES carcinogenicity dataset with information from bioassay on rats and the combination of ISSCAN and CGX datasets, which take into accounts human-based assessment. The performance of these two models was evaluated in terms of cross-validation and external validation using a 258 compound case study dataset. Combining R and H predictions and scoring a positive or negative result when both models are concordant on a prediction, increased accuracy to 72% and specificity to 79% on the external test set. The carcinogenic fragments present in the two models were compared and analyzed from the point of view of chemical class. The results of this study show that the developed rule sets will be a useful tool to identify some new structural alerts of carcinogenicity and provide effective information on the molecular structures of carcinogenic chemicals.

Integrate mechanistic evidence from new approach methodologies (NAMs) into a read-across assessment to characterise trends in shared mode of action.

Read-across approaches often remain inconclusive as they do not provide sufficient evidence on a common mode of action across the category members. This read-across case study on thirteen, structurally similar, branched aliphatic carboxylic acids investigates the concept of using human-based new approach methods, such as in vitro and in silico models, to demonstrate biological similarity. Five out of the thirteen analogues have preclinical in vivo studies. Three out of them induced lipid accumulation or hypertrophy in preclinical studies with repeated exposure, which leads to the read-across hypothesis that the analogues can potentially induce hepatic steatosis. To confirm the selection of analogues, the expression patterns of the induced differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were analysed in a human liver model. With increasing dose, the expression pattern within the tested analogues got more similar, which serves as a first indication of a common mode of action and suggests differences in the potency of the analogues. Hepatic steatosis is a well-known adverse outcome, for which over 55 adverse outcome pathways have been identified. The resulting adverse outcome pathway (AOP) network, comprised a total 43 MIEs/KEs and enabled the design of an in vitro testing battery. From the AOP network, ten MIEs, early and late KEs were tested to systematically investigate a common mode of action among the grouped compounds. The targeted testing of AOP specific MIE/KEs shows that biological activity in the category decreases with side chain length. A similar trend was evident in measuring liver alterations in zebra fish embryos. However, activation of single MIEs or early KEs at in vivo relevant doses did not necessarily progress to the late KE "lipid accumulation". KEs not related to the read-across hypothesis, testing for example general mitochondrial stress responses in liver cells, showed no trend or biological similarity. Testing scope is a key issue in the design of in vitro test batteries. The Dempster-Shafer decision theory predicted those analogues with in vivo reference data correctly using one human liver model or the CALUX reporter assays. The case study shows that the read-across hypothesis is the key element to designing the testing strategy. In the case of a good mechanistic understanding, an AOP facilitates the selection of reliable human in vitro models to demonstrate a common mode of action. Testing DEGs, MIEs and early KEs served to show biological similarity, whereas the late KEs become important for confirmation, as progression from MIEs to AO is not always guaranteed.

Genotoxicity induced by metal oxide nanoparticles: a weight of evidence study and effect of particle surface and electronic properties.

The genetic toxicology of nanomaterials is a crucial toxicology issue and one of the least investigated topics. Substantially, the genotoxicity of metal oxide nanomaterials' data is resulting from in vitro comet assay. Current contributions to the genotoxicity data assessed by the comet assay provide a case-by-case evaluation of different types of metal oxides. The existing inconsistency in the literature regarding the genotoxicity testing data requires intelligent assessment strategies, such as weight of evidence evaluation. Two main tasks were performed in the present study. First, the genotoxicity data from comet assay for 16 noncoated metal oxide nanomaterials with different core composition were collected. An evaluation criterion was applied to establish which of these individual lines of evidence were of sufficient quality and what weight could have been given to them in inferring genotoxic results. The collected data were surveyed on (1) minimum necessary characterization points for nanomaterials and (2) principals of correct comet assay testing for nanomaterials. Second, in this study the genotoxicity effect of metal oxide nanomaterials was investigated by quantitative nanostructure-activity relationship approach. A set of quantum-chemical descriptors was developed for all investigated metal oxide nanomaterials. A classification model based on decision tree was developed for the investigated dataset. Thus, three descriptors were identified as the most responsible factors for genotoxicity effect: heat of formation, molecular weight, and surface area of the oxide cluster based on the conductor-like screening model. Conclusively, the proposed genotoxicity assessment strategy is useful to prioritize the study of the nanomaterials for further risk assessment evaluations.

Genotoxicity of metal oxide nanomaterials: review of recent data and discussion of possible mechanisms.

Nanotechnology has rapidly entered into human society, revolutionized many areas, including technology, medicine and cosmetics. This progress is due to the many valuable and unique properties that nanomaterials possess. In turn, these properties might become an issue of concern when considering potentially uncontrolled release to the environment. The rapid development of new nanomaterials thus raises questions about their impact on the environment and human health. This review focuses on the potential of nanomaterials to cause genotoxicity and summarizes recent genotoxicity studies on metal oxide/silica nanomaterials. Though the number of genotoxicity studies on metal oxide/silica nanomaterials is still limited, this endpoint has recently received more attention for nanomaterials, and the number of related publications has increased. An analysis of these peer reviewed publications over nearly two decades shows that the test most employed to evaluate the genotoxicity of these nanomaterials is the comet assay, followed by micronucleus, Ames and chromosome aberration tests. Based on the data studied, we concluded that in the majority of the publications analysed in this review, the metal oxide (or silica) nanoparticles of the same core chemical composition did not show different genotoxicity study calls (i.e. positive or negative) in the same test, although some results are inconsistent and need to be confirmed by additional experiments. Where the results are conflicting, it may be due to the following reasons: (1) variation in size of the nanoparticles; (2) variations in size distribution; (3) various purities of nanomaterials; (4) variation in surface areas for nanomaterials with the same average size; (5) differences in coatings; (6) differences in crystal structures of the same types of nanomaterials; (7) differences in size of aggregates in solution/media; (8) differences in assays; (9) different concentrations of nanomaterials in assay tests. Indeed, due to the observed inconsistencies in the recent literature and the lack of adherence to appropriate, standardized test methods, reliable genotoxicity assessment of nanomaterials is still challenging.