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.

In Silico Approaches In Carcinogenicity Hazard Assessment: Current Status and Future Needs.

Historically, identifying carcinogens has relied primarily on tumor studies in rodents, which require enormous resources in both money and time. In silico models have been developed for predicting rodent carcinogens but have not yet found general regulatory acceptance, in part due to the lack of a generally accepted protocol for performing such an assessment as well as limitations in predictive performance and scope. There remains a need for additional, improved in silico carcinogenicity models, especially ones that are more human-relevant, for use in research and regulatory decision-making. As part of an international effort to develop in silico toxicological protocols, a consortium of toxicologists, computational scientists, and regulatory scientists across several industries and governmental agencies evaluated the extent to which in silico models exist for each of the recently defined 10 key characteristics (KCs) of carcinogens. This position paper summarizes the current status of in silico tools for the assessment of each KC and identifies the data gaps that need to be addressed before a comprehensive in silico carcinogenicity protocol can be developed for regulatory use.

Filling Data Gaps by Read-across: A Mini Review on its Application, Developments and Challenges.

Read-across is a non-testing data gap filling technique which provides information for toxicological assessments by inferring from known toxicity data of compound(s) with a "similar" property or chemical profile. The increased usage of read-across was driven by monetary, timing and ethical costs associated with in vivo testing, as well as promoted by regulatory frameworks to minimize new animal testing (e. g., EU-REACH). Several guidance documents have been published by ECHA and OECD providing guidelines on how to perform, assess and document a read-across study. In parallel, much effort was invested by the scientific community to provide good read-across practices and structured frameworks to enhance validity of read-across justifications. Nevertheless, read-across is an evolving method with several open issues and opportunities. A brief review is here provided on key developments on the use of read-across, regulatory and scientific expectations, practical hurdles and open challenges.

Modeling ready biodegradability of fragrance materials.

In the present study, quantitative structure activity relationships were developed for predicting ready biodegradability of approximately 200 heterogeneous fragrance materials. Two classification methods, classification and regression tree (CART) and k-nearest neighbors (kNN), were applied to perform the modeling. The models were validated with multiple external prediction sets, and the structural applicability domain was verified by the leverage approach. The best models had good sensitivity (internal ≥80%; external ≥68%), specificity (internal ≥80%; external 73%), and overall accuracy (≥75%). Results from the comparison with BIOWIN global models, based on group contribution method, show that specific models developed in the present study perform better in prediction than BIOWIN6, in particular for the correct classification of not readily biodegradable fragrance materials.