使用新的替代方法(NAMs)开发适合环境的毒性测试方法。

ALTEX Pub Date : 2019-01-01 DOI:10.14573/altex.1906261
Melvin E Andersen, Patrick D McMullen, Martin B Phillips, Miyoung Yoon, Salil N Pendse, Harvey J Clewell, Jessica K Hartman, Marjory Moreau, Richard A Becker, Rebecca A Clewell
{"title":"使用新的替代方法(NAMs)开发适合环境的毒性测试方法。","authors":"Melvin E Andersen,&nbsp;Patrick D McMullen,&nbsp;Martin B Phillips,&nbsp;Miyoung Yoon,&nbsp;Salil N Pendse,&nbsp;Harvey J Clewell,&nbsp;Jessica K Hartman,&nbsp;Marjory Moreau,&nbsp;Richard A Becker,&nbsp;Rebecca A Clewell","doi":"10.14573/altex.1906261","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In the past 10 years, the public, private, and non-profit sectors have found agreement that hazard identification and risk assessment should capitalize on the explosion of knowledge in the biological sciences, moving away from in life animal testing toward more human-relevant in vitro and in silico methods, collectively referred to as new approach methodologies (NAMs). The goals for implementation of NAMs are to efficiently identify possible chemical hazards and to gather dose-response data to inform more human-relevant safety assessment. While work proceeds to develop NAMs, there has been less emphasis on creating decision criteria or showing how risk context should guide selection and use of NAMs. Here, we outline application scenarios for NAMs in different risk contexts and place different NAMs and conventional testing approaches into four broad levels. Level 1 relies solely on computational screening; Level 2 consists of high throughput in vitro screening with human cells intended to provide broad coverage of possible responses; Level 3 focuses on fit-for-purpose assays selected based on presumptive modes of action (MOA) and designed to provide more quantitative estimates of relevant dose responses; Level 4 has a variety of more complex multi-dimensional or multi-cellular assays and might include targeted in vivo studies to further define MOA. Each level also includes decision-appropriate exposure assessment tools. Our aims here are to (1) foster discussion about context-dependent applications of NAMs in relation to risk assessment needs and (2) describe a functional roadmap to identify where NAMs are expected to be adequate for chemical safety decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":520550,"journal":{"name":"ALTEX","volume":" ","pages":"523-534"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"35","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Developing context appropriate toxicity testing approaches using new alternative methods (NAMs).\",\"authors\":\"Melvin E Andersen,&nbsp;Patrick D McMullen,&nbsp;Martin B Phillips,&nbsp;Miyoung Yoon,&nbsp;Salil N Pendse,&nbsp;Harvey J Clewell,&nbsp;Jessica K Hartman,&nbsp;Marjory Moreau,&nbsp;Richard A Becker,&nbsp;Rebecca A Clewell\",\"doi\":\"10.14573/altex.1906261\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In the past 10 years, the public, private, and non-profit sectors have found agreement that hazard identification and risk assessment should capitalize on the explosion of knowledge in the biological sciences, moving away from in life animal testing toward more human-relevant in vitro and in silico methods, collectively referred to as new approach methodologies (NAMs). The goals for implementation of NAMs are to efficiently identify possible chemical hazards and to gather dose-response data to inform more human-relevant safety assessment. While work proceeds to develop NAMs, there has been less emphasis on creating decision criteria or showing how risk context should guide selection and use of NAMs. Here, we outline application scenarios for NAMs in different risk contexts and place different NAMs and conventional testing approaches into four broad levels. Level 1 relies solely on computational screening; Level 2 consists of high throughput in vitro screening with human cells intended to provide broad coverage of possible responses; Level 3 focuses on fit-for-purpose assays selected based on presumptive modes of action (MOA) and designed to provide more quantitative estimates of relevant dose responses; Level 4 has a variety of more complex multi-dimensional or multi-cellular assays and might include targeted in vivo studies to further define MOA. Each level also includes decision-appropriate exposure assessment tools. Our aims here are to (1) foster discussion about context-dependent applications of NAMs in relation to risk assessment needs and (2) describe a functional roadmap to identify where NAMs are expected to be adequate for chemical safety decision-making.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":520550,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ALTEX\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"523-534\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"35\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ALTEX\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.1906261\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ALTEX","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.1906261","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 35

摘要

在过去的10年里,公共、私人和非营利部门已经达成共识,认为危险识别和风险评估应该利用生物科学知识的爆炸,从生命动物试验转向与人类更相关的体外和计算机方法,统称为新方法方法(NAMs)。实施NAMs的目标是有效地识别可能的化学危害并收集剂量反应数据,以便为更多与人类有关的安全评估提供信息。虽然开发NAMs的工作仍在进行,但较少强调创建决策标准或显示风险环境应如何指导NAMs的选择和使用。在这里,我们概述了NAMs在不同风险环境中的应用场景,并将不同的NAMs和传统测试方法分为四个主要级别。1级完全依赖于计算机筛选;2级包括用人类细胞进行高通量体外筛选,旨在提供广泛的可能反应覆盖;第3级侧重于根据假定作用方式(MOA)选择的适合目的的分析,旨在提供有关剂量反应的更多定量估计;4级有多种更复杂的多维或多细胞检测,可能包括靶向体内研究,以进一步定义MOA。每个级别还包括适合决策的暴露评估工具。我们在这里的目的是(1)促进关于与风险评估需求相关的NAMs的上下文依赖应用的讨论,(2)描述一个功能路线图,以确定NAMs在哪些地方有望适合化学品安全决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Developing context appropriate toxicity testing approaches using new alternative methods (NAMs).

In the past 10 years, the public, private, and non-profit sectors have found agreement that hazard identification and risk assessment should capitalize on the explosion of knowledge in the biological sciences, moving away from in life animal testing toward more human-relevant in vitro and in silico methods, collectively referred to as new approach methodologies (NAMs). The goals for implementation of NAMs are to efficiently identify possible chemical hazards and to gather dose-response data to inform more human-relevant safety assessment. While work proceeds to develop NAMs, there has been less emphasis on creating decision criteria or showing how risk context should guide selection and use of NAMs. Here, we outline application scenarios for NAMs in different risk contexts and place different NAMs and conventional testing approaches into four broad levels. Level 1 relies solely on computational screening; Level 2 consists of high throughput in vitro screening with human cells intended to provide broad coverage of possible responses; Level 3 focuses on fit-for-purpose assays selected based on presumptive modes of action (MOA) and designed to provide more quantitative estimates of relevant dose responses; Level 4 has a variety of more complex multi-dimensional or multi-cellular assays and might include targeted in vivo studies to further define MOA. Each level also includes decision-appropriate exposure assessment tools. Our aims here are to (1) foster discussion about context-dependent applications of NAMs in relation to risk assessment needs and (2) describe a functional roadmap to identify where NAMs are expected to be adequate for chemical safety decision-making.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信