Adverse outcome pathways as a tool for the design of testing strategies to support the safety assessment of emerging advanced materials at the nanoscale.

Toxicity testing and regulation of advanced materials at the nanoscale, i.e. nanosafety, is challenged by the growing number of nanomaterials and their property variants requiring assessment for potential human health impacts. The existing animal-reliant toxicity testing tools are onerous in terms of time and resources and are less and less in line with the international effort to reduce animal experiments. Thus, there is a need for faster, cheaper, sensitive and effective animal alternatives that are supported by mechanistic evidence. More importantly, there is an urgency for developing alternative testing strategies that help justify the strategic prioritization of testing or targeting the most apparent adverse outcomes, selection of specific endpoints and assays and identifying nanomaterials of high concern. The Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) framework is a systematic process that uses the available mechanistic information concerning a toxicological response and describes causal or mechanistic linkages between a molecular initiating event, a series of intermediate key events and the adverse outcome. The AOP framework provides pragmatic insights to promote the development of alternative testing strategies. This review will detail a brief overview of the AOP framework and its application to nanotoxicology, tools for developing AOPs and the role of toxicogenomics, and summarize various AOPs of relevance to inhalation toxicity of nanomaterials that are currently under various stages of development. The review also presents a network of AOPs derived from connecting all AOPs, which shows that several adverse outcomes induced by nanomaterials originate from a molecular initiating event that describes the interaction of nanomaterials with lung cells and involve similar intermediate key events. Finally, using the example of an established AOP for lung fibrosis, the review will discuss various in vitro tests available for assessing lung fibrosis and how the information can be used to support a tiered testing strategy for lung fibrosis. The AOPs and AOP network enable deeper understanding of mechanisms involved in inhalation toxicity of nanomaterials and provide a strategy for the development of alternative test methods for hazard and risk assessment of nanomaterials.

Biomarkers of oxidative damage to DNA and repair.

Oxidative-stress-induced damage to DNA includes a multitude of lesions, many of which are mutagenic and have multiple roles in cancer and aging. Many lesions have been characterized by MS-based methods after extraction and digestion of DNA. These preparation steps may cause spurious base oxidation, which is less likely to occur with methods such as the comet assay, which are based on nicking of the DNA strand at modified bases, but offer less specificity. The European Standards Committee on Oxidative DNA Damage has concluded that the true levels of the most widely studied lesion, 8-oxodG (8-oxo-7,8-dihydro-2'-deoxyguanosine), in cellular DNA is between 0.5 and 5 lesions per 10(6) dG bases. Base excision repair of oxidative damage to DNA can be assessed by nicking assays based on oligonucleotides with lesions or the comet assay, by mRNA expression levels or, in the case of, e.g., OGG1 (8-oxoguanine DNA glycosylase 1), responsible for repair of 8-oxodG, by genotyping. Products of repair in DNA or the nucleotide pool, such as 8-oxodG, excreted into the urine can be assessed by MS-based methods and generally reflects the rate of damage. Experimental and population-based studies indicate that many environmental factors, including particulate air pollution, cause oxidative damage to DNA, whereas diets rich in fruit and vegetables or antioxidant supplements may reduce the levels and enhance repair. Urinary excretion of 8-oxodG, genotype and expression of OGG1 have been associated with risk of cancer in cohort settings, whereas altered levels of damage, repair or urinary excretion in case-control settings may be a consequence rather than the cause of the disease.