| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Escher, Sylvia E., et al.
(författare)
-
Integrate mechanistic evidence from new approach methodologies (NAMs) into a read-across assessment to characterise trends in shared mode of action
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Toxicology in Vitro. - : Elsevier. - 0887-2333 .- 1879-3177. ; 79
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Leist, Marcel, et al.
(författare)
-
Adverse outcome pathways : opportunities, limitations and open questions
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Archives of Toxicology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0340-5761 .- 1432-0738. ; 91:11, s. 3477-3505
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) are a recent toxicological construct that connects, in a formalized, transparent and quality-controlled way, mechanistic information to apical endpoints for regulatory purposes. AOP links a molecular initiating event (MIE) to the adverse outcome (AO) via key events (KE), in a way specified by key event erelationships (KER). Although this approach to formalize mechanistic toxicological information only started in 2010, over 200 AOPs have already been established. At this stage, new requirements arise, such as the need for harmonization and re-assessment, for continuous updating, as well as for alerting about pitfalls, misuses and limits of applicability. In this review, the history of the AOP concept and its most prominent strengths are discussed, including the advantages of a formalized approach, the systematic collection of weight of evidence, the linkage of mechanisms to apical end points, the examination of the plausibility of epidemiological data, the identification of critical knowledge gaps and the design of mechanistic test methods. To prepare the ground for a broadened and appropriate use of AOPs, some widespread misconceptions are explained. Moreover, potential weaknesses and shortcomings of the current AOP rule set are addressed (1) to facilitate the discussion on its further evolution and (2) to better define appropriate vs. less suitable application areas. Exemplary toxicological studies are presented to discuss the linearity assumptions of AOP, the management of event modifiers and compensatory mechanisms, and whether a separation of toxicodynamics from toxicokinetics including metabolism is possible in the framework of pathway plasticity. Suggestions on how to compromise between different needs of AOP stakeholders have been added. A clear definition of open questions and limitations is provided to encourage further progress in the field.
|
|
