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.
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.