A systematic analysis of read-across within REACH registration dossiers

IF 3.1 Q2 TOXICOLOGY
G. Patlewicz , P. Karamertzanis , K. Paul Friedman , M. Sannicola , I. Shah
{"title":"A systematic analysis of read-across within REACH registration dossiers","authors":"G. Patlewicz ,&nbsp;P. Karamertzanis ,&nbsp;K. Paul Friedman ,&nbsp;M. Sannicola ,&nbsp;I. Shah","doi":"10.1016/j.comtox.2024.100304","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Read-across is a well-established data-gap filling technique used within analogue or category approaches. Acceptance remains an issue, mainly due to the difficulties of addressing residual uncertainties associated with a read-across prediction and because assessments are expert-driven. Frameworks to develop, assess and document read-across may help reduce variability in read-across results. Data-driven read-across approaches such as Generalised Read-Across (GenRA) include quantification of uncertainties and performance. GenRA also offers opportunities on how New Approach Method (NAM) data can be systematically incorporated to support the read-across hypothesis. Herein, a systematic investigation of differences in expert-driven read-across with data-driven approaches was pursued in terms of building scientific confidence in the use of read-across. A dataset of expert-driven read-across assessments that made use of registration data as disseminated in the public International Uniform Chemical Information Database (IUCLID) (version 6) of Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) Study Results were compiled. A dataset of ∼5000 read-across cases pertaining to repeated dose and developmental toxicity was extracted and mapped to content within EPA’s Distributed Structure Searchable Toxicity database (DSSTox) to retrieve chemical name and structural identification information. Content could be mapped to ∼3600 cases which when filtered for unique cases with curated quantitative structure–activity relationship-ready SMILES resulted in 389 target-source analogue pairs. The similarity between target and the source analogues on the basis of different contexts – from structural similarity using chemical fingerprints to metabolic similarity using predicted metabolic information was evaluated. An attempt was also made to quantify the relative contribution each similarity context played relative to the target-source analogue pairs by deriving a model which predicted known analogue pairs. Finally, point of departure values (PODs) were predicted using the GenRA approach underpinned by data extracted from the EPA’s Toxicity Values Database (ToxValDB). The GenRA predicted PODs were compared with those reported within the REACH dossiers themselves. This study offers generalisable insights on how read-across is already applied for regulatory submissions and expectations on the levels of similarity necessary to make decisions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":37651,"journal":{"name":"Computational Toxicology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computational Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468111324000069","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"TOXICOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Read-across is a well-established data-gap filling technique used within analogue or category approaches. Acceptance remains an issue, mainly due to the difficulties of addressing residual uncertainties associated with a read-across prediction and because assessments are expert-driven. Frameworks to develop, assess and document read-across may help reduce variability in read-across results. Data-driven read-across approaches such as Generalised Read-Across (GenRA) include quantification of uncertainties and performance. GenRA also offers opportunities on how New Approach Method (NAM) data can be systematically incorporated to support the read-across hypothesis. Herein, a systematic investigation of differences in expert-driven read-across with data-driven approaches was pursued in terms of building scientific confidence in the use of read-across. A dataset of expert-driven read-across assessments that made use of registration data as disseminated in the public International Uniform Chemical Information Database (IUCLID) (version 6) of Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) Study Results were compiled. A dataset of ∼5000 read-across cases pertaining to repeated dose and developmental toxicity was extracted and mapped to content within EPA’s Distributed Structure Searchable Toxicity database (DSSTox) to retrieve chemical name and structural identification information. Content could be mapped to ∼3600 cases which when filtered for unique cases with curated quantitative structure–activity relationship-ready SMILES resulted in 389 target-source analogue pairs. The similarity between target and the source analogues on the basis of different contexts – from structural similarity using chemical fingerprints to metabolic similarity using predicted metabolic information was evaluated. An attempt was also made to quantify the relative contribution each similarity context played relative to the target-source analogue pairs by deriving a model which predicted known analogue pairs. Finally, point of departure values (PODs) were predicted using the GenRA approach underpinned by data extracted from the EPA’s Toxicity Values Database (ToxValDB). The GenRA predicted PODs were compared with those reported within the REACH dossiers themselves. This study offers generalisable insights on how read-across is already applied for regulatory submissions and expectations on the levels of similarity necessary to make decisions.

对 REACH 注册档案中的交叉阅读进行系统分析
横向读数是在模拟或分类方法中使用的一种行之有效的数据缺口填补技术。接受度仍然是一个问题,主要原因是难以解决与读数交叉预测相关的残余不确定性,以及评估是由专家驱动的。开发、评估和记录读数对比的框架可能有助于减少读数对比结果的变异性。数据驱动的读数交叉方法,如广义读数交叉(GenRA),包括对不确定性和性能的量化。GenRA 还提供了如何系统地纳入新方法 (NAM) 数据以支持读数交叉假设的机会。在此,我们对专家驱动的读数交叉与数据驱动的读数交叉之间的差异进行了系统研究,以建立对使用读数交叉的科学信心。我们汇编了一个专家驱动的交叉阅读评估数据集,该数据集使用了公开的国际统一化学品信息数据库(IUCLID)(第 6 版)中发布的化学品注册、评估、许可和限制(REACH)研究结果中的注册数据。提取了 5000 个与重复剂量和发育毒性相关的交叉阅读案例数据集,并将其与美国环保署分布式结构可搜索毒性数据库 (DSSTox) 中的内容进行映射,以检索化学名称和结构识别信息。这些内容可映射到 3600 个案例,在筛选出具有可编辑的定量结构-活性关系 SMILES 的唯一案例后,得出了 389 对目标-来源类似物。根据不同的背景--从使用化学指纹的结构相似性到使用预测代谢信息的代谢相似性--对目标物和源类似物之间的相似性进行了评估。此外,还尝试通过推导预测已知类似物对的模型,量化每种相似性背景对目标-来源类似物对的相对贡献。最后,在从美国环保署毒性值数据库(ToxValDB)中提取的数据的支持下,使用 GenRA 方法对出发点值(POD)进行了预测。GenRA 预测的 POD 值与 REACH 档案中报告的 POD 值进行了比较。这项研究提供了可推广的见解,让我们了解监管呈件是如何应用 "交叉阅读 "的,以及对决策所需的相似性水平的预期。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Computational Toxicology
Computational Toxicology Computer Science-Computer Science Applications
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
53
审稿时长
56 days
期刊介绍: Computational Toxicology is an international journal publishing computational approaches that assist in the toxicological evaluation of new and existing chemical substances assisting in their safety assessment. -All effects relating to human health and environmental toxicity and fate -Prediction of toxicity, metabolism, fate and physico-chemical properties -The development of models from read-across, (Q)SARs, PBPK, QIVIVE, Multi-Scale Models -Big Data in toxicology: integration, management, analysis -Implementation of models through AOPs, IATA, TTC -Regulatory acceptance of models: evaluation, verification and validation -From metals, to small organic molecules to nanoparticles -Pharmaceuticals, pesticides, foods, cosmetics, fine chemicals -Bringing together the views of industry, regulators, academia, NGOs
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信