OECD harmonised template 201: Structuring and reporting mechanistic information to foster the integration of new approach methodologies for hazard and risk assessment of chemicals.

In the European Union, the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability (CSS) highlights the need to enhance the identification and assessment of substances of concern while reducing animal testing, thus fostering the development and use of New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) such as in silico, in vitro and in chemico. In the United States, the Tox21 strategy aims at shifting toxicological assessments away from traditional animal studies towards target-specific, mechanism-based and biological observations mainly obtained by using NAMs. Many other jurisdictions around the world are also increasing the use of NAMs. Hence, the provision of dedicated non-animal toxicological data and reporting formats as a basis for chemical risk assessment is necessary. Harmonising data reporting is crucial when aiming at re-using and sharing data for chemical risk assessment across jurisdictions. The OECD has developed a series of OECD Harmonised Templates (OHT), which are standard data formats designed for reporting information used for the risk assessment of chemicals relevant to their intrinsic properties, including effects on human health (e.g., toxicokinetics, skin sensitisation, repeated dose toxicity) and the environment (e.g., toxicity to test species and wildlife, biodegradation in soil, metabolism of residues in crops). The objective of this paper is to demonstrate the applicability of the OHT standard format for reporting information under various chemical risk assessment regimes, and to provide users with practical guidance on the use of OHT 201, in particular to report test results on intermediate effects and mechanistic information.

Current EU regulatory requirements for the assessment of chemicals and cosmetic products: challenges and opportunities for introducing new approach methodologies.

The EU Directive 2010/63/EU   on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes and other EU regulations, such as REACH and the Cosmetic Products Regulation advocate for a change in the way toxicity testing is conducted. Whilst the Cosmetic Products Regulation bans animal testing altogether, REACH aims for a progressive shift from in vivo testing towards quantitative in vitro and computational approaches. Several endpoints can already be addressed using non-animal approaches including skin corrosion and irritation, serious eye damage and irritation, skin sensitisation, and mutagenicity and genotoxicity. However, for systemic effects such as acute toxicity, repeated dose toxicity and reproductive and developmental toxicity, evaluation of chemicals under REACH still heavily relies on animal tests. Here we summarise current EU regulatory requirements for the human health assessment of chemicals under REACH and the Cosmetic Products Regulation, considering the more critical endpoints and identifying the main challenges in introducing alternative methods into regulatory testing practice. This supports a recent initiative taken by the International Cooperation on Alternative Test Methods (ICATM) to summarise current regulatory requirements specific for the assessment of chemicals and cosmetic products for several human health-related endpoints, with the aim of comparing different jurisdictions and coordinating the promotion and ultimately the implementation of non-animal approaches worldwide. Recent initiatives undertaken at European level to promote the 3Rs and the use of alternative methods in current regulatory practice are also discussed.

Strategies to improve the regulatory assessment of developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) using in vitro methods.

Currently, the identification of chemicals that have the potential to induce developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) is based on animal testing. Since at the regulatory level, systematic testing of DNT is not a standard requirement within the EU or USA chemical legislation safety assessment, DNT testing is only performed in higher tiered testing triggered based on chemical structure activity relationships or evidence of neurotoxicity in systemic acute or repeated dose toxicity studies. However, these triggers are rarely used and, in addition, do not always serve as reliable indicators of DNT, as they are generally based on observations in adult rodents. Therefore, there is a pressing need for developing alternative methodologies that can reliably support identification of DNT triggers, and more rapidly and cost-effectively support the identification and characterization of chemicals with DNT potential. We propose to incorporate mechanistic knowledge and data derived from in vitro studies to support various regulatory applications including: (a) the identification of potential DNT triggers, (b) initial chemical screening and prioritization, (c) hazard identification and characterization, (d) chemical biological grouping, and (e) assessment of exposure to chemical mixtures. Ideally, currently available cellular neuronal/glial models derived from human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) should be used as they allow evaluation of chemical impacts on key neurodevelopmental processes, by reproducing different windows of exposure during human brain development. A battery of DNT in vitro test methods derived from hiPSCs could generate valuable mechanistic data, speeding up the evaluation of thousands of compounds present in industrial, agricultural and consumer products that lack safety data on DNT potential.

Adverse outcome pathway development from protein alkylation to liver fibrosis.

In modern toxicology, substantial efforts are undertaken to develop alternative solutions for in vivo toxicity testing. The adverse outcome pathway (AOP) concept could facilitate knowledge-based safety assessment of chemicals that does not rely exclusively on in vivo toxicity testing. The construction of an AOP is based on understanding toxicological processes at different levels of biological organisation. Here, we present the developed AOP for liver fibrosis and demonstrate a linkage between hepatic injury caused by chemical protein alkylation and the formation of liver fibrosis, supported by coherent and consistent scientific data. This long-term process, in which inflammation, tissue destruction, and repair occur simultaneously, results from the complex interplay between various hepatic cell types, receptors, and signalling pathways. Due to the complexity of the process, an adequate liver fibrosis cell model for in vitro evaluation of a chemical's fibrogenic potential is not yet available. Liver fibrosis poses an important human health issue that is also relevant for regulatory purposes. An AOP described with enough mechanistic detail might support chemical risk assessment by indicating early markers for downstream events and thus facilitating the development of an in vitro testing strategy. With this work, we demonstrate how the AOP framework can support the assembly and coherent display of distributed mechanistic information from the literature to support the use of alternative approaches for prediction of toxicity. This AOP was developed according to the guidance document on developing and assessing AOPs and its supplement, the users' handbook, issued by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Adverse outcome pathways: From research to regulation scientific workshop report.

An adverse outcome pathway (AOP) helps to organize existing knowledge on chemical mode of action, starting with a molecular initiating event such as receptor binding, continuing through key events, and ending with an adverse outcome such as reproductive impairment. AOPs can help identify knowledge gaps where more research is needed to understand the underlying mechanisms, aid in chemical hazard characterization, and guide the development of new testing approaches that use fewer or no animals. A September 2014 workshop in Bethesda, Maryland considered how the AOP concept could improve regulatory assessments of chemical toxicity. Scientists from 21 countries, representing industry, academia, regulatory agencies, and special interest groups, attended the workshop, titled Adverse Outcome Pathways: From Research to Regulation. Workshop plenary presentations were followed by breakout sessions that considered regulatory acceptance of AOPs and AOP-based tools, criteria for building confidence in an AOP for regulatory use, and requirements to build quantitative AOPs and AOP networks. Discussions during the closing session emphasized a need to increase transparent and inclusive collaboration, especially with disciplines outside of toxicology. Additionally, to increase impact, working groups should be established to systematically prioritize and develop AOPs. Multiple collaborative projects and follow-up activities resulted from the workshop.

The benefits of validation of methods for toxicity testing outweigh its costs

The 4th Annual Forum on Endocrine Disrupters organized by the European Commission brought together authors of this article around the topic: "From bench to validated test guidelines: (pre)validation of test methods". Validation activities are meant to demonstrate the relevance and reliability of methods and approaches used in regulatory safety testing. These activities are essential to facilitate regulatory use, still they are largely underfunded and unattractive to the scientific community. In the last decade, there has been large amounts of funding invested in European research towards the development of approaches that can be used in regulatory decision-making, including for the identification of endocrine disrupters. There is a vast pool of candidate test methods for potential regulatory applications, but most of them will not be used due to the absence of consideration of their relevance and reliability outside the method developer's laboratory. The article explains the reasons why such a gap exists between the outputs of research projects and the uptake in a regulatory context. In parallel, there are also increasing expectations from the regulatory science community that validation becomes more efficient with respect to time and resources. This article shares some of the lessons learned and proposes paths forward for validation of new methods that are not intended as one-to-one replacements of animal studies. This includes submitting only mature methods for validation that were developed following good practices and good documentation, proposing a greater emphasis on well-documented transferability studies, and adopting a cost-sharing model between those who benefit from validated methods.

Validation activities for methods intended to be used to assess chemical safety have a cost but also bring substantial benefits when the validated methods are established as OECD Test Guidelines which results in mutual acceptance of data generated by the methods. The article discusses some of the challenges faced when method validation is underfunded and unattractive for researchers. Proposals are made to improve the current situation, gain efficiency and make validation a shared responsibility.

Report of the EPAA-ECVAM workshop on the validation of Integrated Testing Strategies (ITS).

The use of Integrated Testing Strategies (ITS) permits the combination of diverse types of chemical and toxicological data for the purposes of hazard identification and characterisation. In November 2008, the European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA), together with the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM), held a workshop on Overcoming Barriers to Validation of Non-animal Partial Replacement Methods/Integrated Testing Strategies, in Ispra, Italy, to discuss the extent to which current ECVAM approaches to validation can be used to evaluate partial replacement in vitro test methods (i.e. as potential ITS components) and ITS themselves. The main conclusions of these discussions were that formal validation was only considered necessary for regulatory purposes (e.g. the replacement of a test guideline), and that current ECVAM approaches to validation should be adapted to accommodate such test methods. With these conclusions in mind, a follow-up EPAA-ECVAM workshop was held in October 2009, to discuss the extent to which existing validation principles are applicable to the validation of ITS test methods, and to develop a draft approach for the validation of such test methods and/or overall ITS for regulatory purposes. This report summarises the workshop discussions that started with a review of the current validation methodologies and the presentation of two case studies (skin sensitisation and acute toxicity), before covering the definition of ITS and their components, including their validation and regulatory acceptance. The following main conclusions/recommendations were made: that the validation of a partial replacement test method (for application as part of a testing strategy) should be differentiated from the validation of an in vitro test method for application as a stand-alone replacement, especially with regard to its predictive capacity; that, in the former case, the predictive capacity of the whole testing strategy (rather than of the individual test methods) would be more important, especially if the individual test methods had a high biological relevance; that ITS allowing for flexible and ad hoc approaches cannot be validated, whereas the validation of clearly defined ITS would be feasible, although practically quite difficult; and that test method developers should be encouraged to develop and submit to ECVAM not only full replacement test methods, but also partial replacement methods to be placed as parts of testing strategies. The added value from the formal validation of testing strategies, and the requirements needed in view of regulatory acceptance of the data, require further informed discussion within the EPAA forum on the basis of case studies provided by industry.

Alternative (non-animal) methods for cosmetics testing: current status and future prospects-2010.

The 7th amendment to the EU Cosmetics Directive prohibits to put animal-tested cosmetics on the market in Europe after 2013. In that context, the European Commission invited stakeholder bodies (industry, non-governmental organisations, EU Member States, and the Commission's Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety) to identify scientific experts in five toxicological areas, i.e. toxicokinetics, repeated dose toxicity, carcinogenicity, skin sensitisation, and reproductive toxicity for which the Directive foresees that the 2013 deadline could be further extended in case alternative and validated methods would not be available in time. The selected experts were asked to analyse the status and prospects of alternative methods and to provide a scientifically sound estimate of the time necessary to achieve full replacement of animal testing. In summary, the experts confirmed that it will take at least another 7-9 years for the replacement of the current in vivo animal tests used for the safety assessment of cosmetic ingredients for skin sensitisation. However, the experts were also of the opinion that alternative methods may be able to give hazard information, i.e. to differentiate between sensitisers and non-sensitisers, ahead of 2017. This would, however, not provide the complete picture of what is a safe exposure because the relative potency of a sensitiser would not be known. For toxicokinetics, the timeframe was 5-7 years to develop the models still lacking to predict lung absorption and renal/biliary excretion, and even longer to integrate the methods to fully replace the animal toxicokinetic models. For the systemic toxicological endpoints of repeated dose toxicity, carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity, the time horizon for full replacement could not be estimated.

Regulatory needs and activities to address the retinoid system in the context of endocrine disruption: The European viewpoint.

Endocrine disruption continues to be a matter of high concern, and a subject of intensive activities at the public, political, regulatory and academic levels. Currently, available regulatory test guidelines (TGs) relevant to the identification of endocrine disrupters are largely limited to estrogen, androgen, thyroid and steroidogenesis (EATS) pathways. Thus, there is an increasing interest and need to develop test methods, biomarkers, and Adverse Outcome Pathways (AOPs), for identification and evaluation of endocrine disrupters in addition to the EATS pathways. An activity focusing on the retinoid system has been jointly initiated by the Swedish Chemicals Agency and the European Commission. The retinoid system is involved in fundamental life processes and has been described, in previous work at the OECD, as a system susceptible to environmental endocrine disruption, the disruption of which could contribute to the increasing incidence of certain disorders in humans and wildlife populations.

Guidance for the identification of endocrine disruptors in the context of Regulations (EU) No 528/2012 and (EC) No 1107/2009.

This Guidance describes how to perform hazard identification for endocrine-disrupting properties by following the scientific criteria which are outlined in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/2100 and Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/605 for biocidal products and plant protection products, respectively.

Adverse outcome pathway networks I: Development and applications.

Based on the results of a Horizon Scanning exercise sponsored by the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry that focused on advancing the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) framework, the development of guidance related to AOP network development was identified as a critical need. This not only included questions focusing directly on AOP networks, but also on related topics such as mixture toxicity assessment and the implementation of feedback loops within the AOP framework. A set of two articles has been developed to begin exploring these concepts. In the present article (part I), we consider the derivation of AOP networks in the context of how it differs from the development of individual AOPs. We then propose the use of filters and layers to tailor AOP networks to suit the needs of a given research question or application. We briefly introduce a number of analytical approaches that may be used to characterize the structure of AOP networks. These analytical concepts are further described in a dedicated, complementary article (part II). Finally, we present a number of case studies that illustrate concepts underlying the development, analysis, and application of AOP networks. The concepts described in the present article and in its companion article (which focuses on AOP network analytics) are intended to serve as a starting point for further development of the AOP network concept, and also to catalyze AOP network development and application by the different stakeholder communities. Environ Toxicol Chem 2018;37:1723-1733. © 2018 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of SETAC.

Adverse outcome pathway networks II: Network analytics.

Toxicological responses to stressors are more complex than the simple one-biological-perturbation to one-adverse-outcome model portrayed by individual adverse outcome pathways (AOPs). Consequently, the AOP framework was designed to facilitate de facto development of AOP networks that can aid in the understanding and prediction of pleiotropic and interactive effects more common to environmentally realistic, complex exposure scenarios. The present study introduces nascent concepts related to the qualitative analysis of AOP networks. First, graph theory-based approaches for identifying important topological features are illustrated using 2 example AOP networks derived from existing AOP descriptions. Second, considerations for identifying the most significant path(s) through an AOP network from either a biological or risk assessment perspective are described. Finally, approaches for identifying interactions among AOPs that may result in additive, synergistic, or antagonistic responses (or previously undefined emergent patterns of response) are introduced. Along with a companion article (part I), these concepts set the stage for the development of tools and case studies that will facilitate more rigorous analysis of AOP networks, and the utility of AOP network-based predictions, for use in research and regulatory decision-making. The present study addresses one of the major themes identified through a Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Horizon Scanning effort focused on advancing the AOP framework. Environ Toxicol Chem 2018;37:1734-1748. © 2018 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of SETAC. This article is a US government work and, as such, is in the public domain in the United States of America.

Advancing the adverse outcome pathway framework-An international horizon scanning approach.

Our ability to conduct whole-organism toxicity tests to understand chemical safety has been outpaced by the synthesis of new chemicals for a wide variety of commercial applications. As a result, scientists and risk assessors are turning to mechanistically based studies to increase efficiencies in chemical risk assessment and making greater use of in vitro and in silico methods to evaluate potential environmental and human health hazards. In this context, the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) framework has gained traction in regulatory science because it offers an efficient and effective means for capturing available knowledge describing the linkage between mechanistic data and the apical toxicity end points required for regulatory assessments. A number of international activities have focused on AOP development and various applications to regulatory decision-making. These initiatives have prompted dialogue between research scientists and regulatory communities to consider how best to use the AOP framework. Although expert-facilitated discussions and AOP development have been critical in moving the science of AOPs forward, it was recognized that a survey of the broader scientific and regulatory communities would aid in identifying current limitations while guiding future initiatives for the AOP framework. To that end, a global horizon scanning exercise was conducted to solicit questions concerning the challenges or limitations that must be addressed to realize the full potential of the AOP framework in research and regulatory decision-making. The questions received fell into several broad topical areas: AOP networks, quantitative AOPs, collaboration on and communication of AOP knowledge, AOP discovery and development, chemical and cross-species extrapolation, exposure/toxicokinetics considerations, and AOP applications. Expert ranking was then used to prioritize questions for each category, where 4 broad themes emerged that could help inform and guide future AOP research and regulatory initiatives. In addition, frequently asked questions were identified and addressed by experts in the field. Answers to frequently asked questions will aid in addressing common misperceptions and will allow for clarification of AOP topics. The need for this type of clarification was highlighted with surprising frequency by our question submitters, indicating that improvements are needed in communicating the AOP framework among the scientific and regulatory communities. Overall, horizon scanning engaged the global scientific community to help identify key questions surrounding the AOP framework and guide the direction of future initiatives. Environ Toxicol Chem 2017;36:1411-1421. © 2017 SETAC.

Chemical Safety Assessment Using Read-Across: Assessing the Use of Novel Testing Methods to Strengthen the Evidence Base for Decision Making.

BACKGROUND: Safety assessment for repeated dose toxicity is one of the largest challenges in the process to replace animal testing. This is also one of the proof of concept ambitions of SEURAT-1, the largest ever European Union research initiative on alternative testing, co-funded by the European Commission and Cosmetics Europe. This review is based on the discussion and outcome of a workshop organized on initiative of the SEURAT-1 consortium joined by a group of international experts with complementary knowledge to further develop traditional read-across and include new approach data. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the suggested strategy for chemical read-across is to show how a traditional read-across based on structural similarities between source and target substance can be strengthened with additional evidence from new approach data--for example, information from in vitro molecular screening, "-omics" assays and computational models--to reach regulatory acceptance. METHODS: We identified four read-across scenarios that cover typical human health assessment situations. For each such decision context, we suggested several chemical groups as examples to prove when read-across between group members is possible, considering both chemical and biological similarities. CONCLUSIONS: We agreed to carry out the complete read-across exercise for at least one chemical category per read-across scenario in the context of SEURAT-1, and the results of this exercise will be completed and presented by the end of the research initiative in December 2015.

EU risk assessment: science and policy.

The EU risk assessment programme on existing substances is governed by Council Regulation (EC) 793/93. This regulation sets out a framework for evaluating and controlling the risks posed by existing substances. The results of the EU risk assessment programme are science-based regulatory risk assessments. This paper gives an overview of some fundamental principles governing the EU existing substances risk assessment programme, focusing on where and why there may be gaps between science and policy. Examples are then given showing that EU regulatory decisions are based on science, but also illustrating how policy influences the regulatory decisions.

Adverse outcome pathway (AOP) development I: strategies and principles.

An adverse outcome pathway (AOP) is a conceptual framework that organizes existing knowledge concerning biologically plausible, and empirically supported, links between molecular-level perturbation of a biological system and an adverse outcome at a level of biological organization of regulatory relevance. Systematic organization of information into AOP frameworks has potential to improve regulatory decision-making through greater integration and more meaningful use of mechanistic data. However, for the scientific community to collectively develop a useful AOP knowledgebase that encompasses toxicological contexts of concern to human health and ecological risk assessment, it is critical that AOPs be developed in accordance with a consistent set of core principles. Based on the experiences and scientific discourse among a group of AOP practitioners, we propose a set of five fundamental principles that guide AOP development: (1) AOPs are not chemical specific; (2) AOPs are modular and composed of reusable components-notably key events (KEs) and key event relationships (KERs); (3) an individual AOP, composed of a single sequence of KEs and KERs, is a pragmatic unit of AOP development and evaluation; (4) networks composed of multiple AOPs that share common KEs and KERs are likely to be the functional unit of prediction for most real-world scenarios; and (5) AOPs are living documents that will evolve over time as new knowledge is generated. The goal of the present article was to introduce some strategies for AOP development and detail the rationale behind these 5 key principles. Consideration of these principles addresses many of the current uncertainties regarding the AOP framework and its application and is intended to foster greater consistency in AOP development.

Adverse outcome pathway development II: best practices.

Organization of existing and emerging toxicological knowledge into adverse outcome pathway (AOP) descriptions can facilitate greater application of mechanistic data, including those derived through high-throughput in vitro, high content omics and imaging, and biomarker approaches, in risk-based decision making. The previously ad hoc process of AOP development is being formalized through development of internationally harmonized guidance and principles. The goal of this article was to outline the information content desired for formal AOP description and some rules of thumb and best practices intended to facilitate reuse and connectivity of elements of an AOP description in a knowledgebase and network context. For example, key events (KEs) are measurements of change in biological state that are indicative of progression of a perturbation toward a specified adverse outcome. Best practices for KE description suggest that each KE should be defined as an independent measurement made at a particular level of biological organization. The concept of "functional equivalence" can help guide both decisions about how many KEs to include in an AOP and the specificity with which they are defined. Likewise, in describing both KEs and evidence that supports a causal linkage or statistical association between them (ie, a key event relationship; KER), best practice is to build from and contribute to existing KE or KER descriptions in the AOP knowledgebase rather than creating redundant descriptions. The best practices proposed address many of the challenges and uncertainties related to AOP development and help promote a consistent and reliable, yet flexible approach.

Low dose effects and non-monotonic dose responses for endocrine active chemicals: science to practice workshop: workshop summary.

A workshop was held in Berlin September 12-14th 2012 to assess the state of the science of the data supporting low dose effects and non-monotonic dose responses ("low dose hypothesis") for chemicals with endocrine activity (endocrine disrupting chemicals or EDCs). This workshop consisted of lectures to present the current state of the science of EDC action and also the risk assessment process. These lectures were followed by breakout sessions to integrate scientists from various backgrounds to discuss in an open and unbiased manner the data supporting the "low dose hypothesis". While no consensus was reached the robust discussions were helpful to inform both basic scientists and risk assessors on all the issues. There were a number of important ideas developed to help continue the discussion and improve communication over the next few years.