Advancing systemic toxicity risk assessment: Evaluation of a NAM-based toolbox approach.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 TOXICOLOGY
Sophie Cable, Maria Teresa Baltazar, Fazila Bunglawala, Paul L Carmichael, Leonardo Contreas, Matthew Philip Dent, Jade Houghton, Predrag Kukic, Sophie Malcomber, Beate Nicol, Katarzyna R Przybylak, Ans Punt, Georgia Reynolds, Joe Reynolds, Sharon Scott, Dawei Tang, Alistair M Middleton
{"title":"Advancing systemic toxicity risk assessment: Evaluation of a NAM-based toolbox approach.","authors":"Sophie Cable, Maria Teresa Baltazar, Fazila Bunglawala, Paul L Carmichael, Leonardo Contreas, Matthew Philip Dent, Jade Houghton, Predrag Kukic, Sophie Malcomber, Beate Nicol, Katarzyna R Przybylak, Ans Punt, Georgia Reynolds, Joe Reynolds, Sharon Scott, Dawei Tang, Alistair M Middleton","doi":"10.1093/toxsci/kfae159","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>For many years, a method that allowed systemic toxicity safety assessments to be conducted without generating new animal test data, seemed out of reach. However, several different research groups and regulatory authorities are beginning to use a variety of in silico, in chemico, and in vitro techniques to inform safety decisions. To manage this transition to animal-free safety assessments responsibly, it is important to ensure that the level of protection offered by a safety assessment based on new approach methodologies (NAMs), is at least as high as that provided by a safety assessment based on traditional animal studies. To this end, we have developed an evaluation strategy to assess both the level of protection and the utility offered by a NAM-based systemic safety \"toolbox.\" The toolbox comprises physiologically based kinetic models to predict internal exposures, and bioactivity NAMs designed to give broad coverage across many different toxicity modes of action. The output of the toolbox is the calculation of a bioactivity:exposure ratio (analogous to a margin of internal exposure), which can be used to inform decision-making. In this work, we have expanded upon an initial pilot study of 10 chemicals with an additional 38 chemicals and 70 consumer exposure scenarios. We found that, for the majority of these (>90%), the NAM-based workflow is protective of human health, enabling us to make animal-free safety decisions for systemic toxicity and preventing unnecessary animal use. We have also identified critical areas for improvement to further increase our confidence in the robustness of the approach.</p>","PeriodicalId":23178,"journal":{"name":"Toxicological Sciences","volume":" ","pages":"79-95"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11879040/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Toxicological Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfae159","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"TOXICOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

For many years, a method that allowed systemic toxicity safety assessments to be conducted without generating new animal test data, seemed out of reach. However, several different research groups and regulatory authorities are beginning to use a variety of in silico, in chemico, and in vitro techniques to inform safety decisions. To manage this transition to animal-free safety assessments responsibly, it is important to ensure that the level of protection offered by a safety assessment based on new approach methodologies (NAMs), is at least as high as that provided by a safety assessment based on traditional animal studies. To this end, we have developed an evaluation strategy to assess both the level of protection and the utility offered by a NAM-based systemic safety "toolbox." The toolbox comprises physiologically based kinetic models to predict internal exposures, and bioactivity NAMs designed to give broad coverage across many different toxicity modes of action. The output of the toolbox is the calculation of a bioactivity:exposure ratio (analogous to a margin of internal exposure), which can be used to inform decision-making. In this work, we have expanded upon an initial pilot study of 10 chemicals with an additional 38 chemicals and 70 consumer exposure scenarios. We found that, for the majority of these (>90%), the NAM-based workflow is protective of human health, enabling us to make animal-free safety decisions for systemic toxicity and preventing unnecessary animal use. We have also identified critical areas for improvement to further increase our confidence in the robustness of the approach.

推进系统毒性风险评估:评估基于 NAM 的工具箱方法。
多年来,在不产生新的动物试验数据的情况下进行系统性毒性安全评估的方法似乎遥不可及。然而,几个不同的研究小组和监管机构正在开始使用各种硅、化学和体外技术来为安全决策提供信息。为了负责任地管理向无动物安全评估的过渡,重要的是要确保基于新方法(NAMs)的安全评估所提供的保护水平至少与基于传统动物研究的安全评估所提供的保护水平一样高。为此,我们制定了一项评估策略,以评估基于nama的系统安全“工具箱”所提供的保护水平和效用。工具箱包括基于生理的动力学(PBK)模型,用于预测内部暴露,以及生物活性NAMs,旨在广泛覆盖许多不同的毒性作用模式。工具箱的输出是计算生物活性:暴露比(类似于内部暴露的边际),这可以用来为决策提供信息。在这项工作中,我们扩大了对10种化学品的初步试点研究,增加了38种化学品和70种消费者接触情景。我们发现,对于其中的大多数(>90%),基于nama的工作流程对人类健康有保护作用,使我们能够做出无动物安全决策,以应对系统毒性并防止不必要的动物使用。我们还确定了需要改进的关键领域,以进一步增强我们对该方法稳健性的信心。
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
Toxicological Sciences
Toxicological Sciences 医学-毒理学
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
7.90%
发文量
118
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: The mission of Toxicological Sciences, the official journal of the Society of Toxicology, is to publish a broad spectrum of impactful research in the field of toxicology. The primary focus of Toxicological Sciences is on original research articles. The journal also provides expert insight via contemporary and systematic reviews, as well as forum articles and editorial content that addresses important topics in the field. The scope of Toxicological Sciences is focused on a broad spectrum of impactful toxicological research that will advance the multidisciplinary field of toxicology ranging from basic research to model development and application, and decision making. Submissions will include diverse technologies and approaches including, but not limited to: bioinformatics and computational biology, biochemistry, exposure science, histopathology, mass spectrometry, molecular biology, population-based sciences, tissue and cell-based systems, and whole-animal studies. Integrative approaches that combine realistic exposure scenarios with impactful analyses that move the field forward are encouraged.
×
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