在农用化学品评估和登记中使用狗的挑战和机遇。

IF 4.5 2区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation Pub Date : 2023-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-03-08 DOI:10.14573/altex.2302151
Patricia L Bishop, Susy Brescia, Rachel Brunner, Warren Casey, Kathleen Conlee-Griffin, Richard A Currie, Jeanne Domoradzki, Michelle Embry, Maria Ines Harris, Thomas Hartung, Gina M Hilton, Barry Hooberman, Brandall Ingle, Kyung-Jin Jang, Lewis Kinter, Caroline Krall, Joseph Leedale, Anna Lowit, Jyotigna Mehta, Elizabeth Mendez, Bob Mingoia, Eliana Munarriz, Lynea Murphy, Angela Myer, Antoniana Ottoni, Martina Panzarea, Monique Perron, Juan Pina, Deborah Ramsingh, Fiona Sewell, Jennifer Swanson, Yu-Mei Tan, Andrea Terron, Maria A Trainer, Marize Campos Valadares, Steven Webb, Elizabeth Webb, Catherine Willett, Douglas C Wolf
{"title":"在农用化学品评估和登记中使用狗的挑战和机遇。","authors":"Patricia L Bishop, Susy Brescia, Rachel Brunner, Warren Casey, Kathleen Conlee-Griffin, Richard A Currie, Jeanne Domoradzki, Michelle Embry, Maria Ines Harris, Thomas Hartung, Gina M Hilton, Barry Hooberman, Brandall Ingle, Kyung-Jin Jang, Lewis Kinter, Caroline Krall, Joseph Leedale, Anna Lowit, Jyotigna Mehta, Elizabeth Mendez, Bob Mingoia, Eliana Munarriz, Lynea Murphy, Angela Myer, Antoniana Ottoni, Martina Panzarea, Monique Perron, Juan Pina, Deborah Ramsingh, Fiona Sewell, Jennifer Swanson, Yu-Mei Tan, Andrea Terron, Maria A Trainer, Marize Campos Valadares, Steven Webb, Elizabeth Webb, Catherine Willett, Douglas C Wolf","doi":"10.14573/altex.2302151","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Progress in developing new tools, assays, and approaches to assess human hazard and health risk provides an opportunity to re-evaluate the necessity of dog studies for the safety evaluation of agrochemicals. A workshop was held where partic­ipants discussed the strengths and limitations of past use of dogs for pesticide evaluations and registrations. Opportunities were identified to support alternative approaches to answer human safety questions without performing the required 90-day dog study. Development of a decision tree for determining when the dog study might not be necessary to inform pesticide safety and risk assessment was proposed. Such a process will require global regulatory authority participation to lead to its acceptance. The identification of unique effects in dogs that are not identified in rodents will need further evaluation and determination of their relevance to humans. The establishment of in vitro and in silico approaches that can provide critical data on relative species sensitivity and human relevance will be an important tool to advance the decision process. Promising novel tools including in vitro comparative metabolism studies, in silico models, and high-throughput assays able to identify metabolites and mechanisms of action leading to development of adverse outcome pathways will need further development. To replace or eliminate the 90-day dog study, a collaborative, multidisciplinary, international effort that transcends organi­zations and regulatory agencies will be needed in order to develop guidance on when the study would not be necessary for human safety and risk assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":51231,"journal":{"name":"Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation","volume":"40 3","pages":"534-540"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11487581/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Challenges and opportunities for overcoming dog use in agrochemical evaluation and registration.\",\"authors\":\"Patricia L Bishop, Susy Brescia, Rachel Brunner, Warren Casey, Kathleen Conlee-Griffin, Richard A Currie, Jeanne Domoradzki, Michelle Embry, Maria Ines Harris, Thomas Hartung, Gina M Hilton, Barry Hooberman, Brandall Ingle, Kyung-Jin Jang, Lewis Kinter, Caroline Krall, Joseph Leedale, Anna Lowit, Jyotigna Mehta, Elizabeth Mendez, Bob Mingoia, Eliana Munarriz, Lynea Murphy, Angela Myer, Antoniana Ottoni, Martina Panzarea, Monique Perron, Juan Pina, Deborah Ramsingh, Fiona Sewell, Jennifer Swanson, Yu-Mei Tan, Andrea Terron, Maria A Trainer, Marize Campos Valadares, Steven Webb, Elizabeth Webb, Catherine Willett, Douglas C Wolf\",\"doi\":\"10.14573/altex.2302151\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Progress in developing new tools, assays, and approaches to assess human hazard and health risk provides an opportunity to re-evaluate the necessity of dog studies for the safety evaluation of agrochemicals. A workshop was held where partic­ipants discussed the strengths and limitations of past use of dogs for pesticide evaluations and registrations. Opportunities were identified to support alternative approaches to answer human safety questions without performing the required 90-day dog study. Development of a decision tree for determining when the dog study might not be necessary to inform pesticide safety and risk assessment was proposed. Such a process will require global regulatory authority participation to lead to its acceptance. The identification of unique effects in dogs that are not identified in rodents will need further evaluation and determination of their relevance to humans. The establishment of in vitro and in silico approaches that can provide critical data on relative species sensitivity and human relevance will be an important tool to advance the decision process. Promising novel tools including in vitro comparative metabolism studies, in silico models, and high-throughput assays able to identify metabolites and mechanisms of action leading to development of adverse outcome pathways will need further development. To replace or eliminate the 90-day dog study, a collaborative, multidisciplinary, international effort that transcends organi­zations and regulatory agencies will be needed in order to develop guidance on when the study would not be necessary for human safety and risk assessment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51231,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation\",\"volume\":\"40 3\",\"pages\":\"534-540\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11487581/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2302151\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/3/8 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2302151","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/3/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在开发评估人类危害和健康风险的新工具、新测定方法和新方法方面取得的进展,为重新评估在农用化学品安全评估中使用狗进行研究的必要性提供了机会。研讨会上,与会者讨论了过去使用狗进行农药评估和登记的优势和局限性。确定了支持替代方法的机会,以回答人类安全问题,而无需进行所需的 90 天犬研究。会议建议开发一个决策树,以确定何时不需要进行狗研究来为农药安全性和风险评估提供信息。这一过程将需要全球监管机构的参与才能被接受。在狗身上发现在啮齿动物身上没有发现的独特影响,需要进一步评估和确定其与人类的相关性。建立体外和硅学方法,提供有关相对物种敏感性和人类相关性的关键数据,将是推进决策过程的重要工具。需要进一步开发前景看好的新工具,包括体外比较代谢研究、硅学模型以及能够确定代谢物和导致不良后果发生途径的作用机制的高通量检测。要取代或取消 90 天犬研究,需要跨组织和监管机构的多学科国际合作努力,以便就人类安全和风险评估何时不需要该研究制定指南。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Challenges and opportunities for overcoming dog use in agrochemical evaluation and registration.

Progress in developing new tools, assays, and approaches to assess human hazard and health risk provides an opportunity to re-evaluate the necessity of dog studies for the safety evaluation of agrochemicals. A workshop was held where partic­ipants discussed the strengths and limitations of past use of dogs for pesticide evaluations and registrations. Opportunities were identified to support alternative approaches to answer human safety questions without performing the required 90-day dog study. Development of a decision tree for determining when the dog study might not be necessary to inform pesticide safety and risk assessment was proposed. Such a process will require global regulatory authority participation to lead to its acceptance. The identification of unique effects in dogs that are not identified in rodents will need further evaluation and determination of their relevance to humans. The establishment of in vitro and in silico approaches that can provide critical data on relative species sensitivity and human relevance will be an important tool to advance the decision process. Promising novel tools including in vitro comparative metabolism studies, in silico models, and high-throughput assays able to identify metabolites and mechanisms of action leading to development of adverse outcome pathways will need further development. To replace or eliminate the 90-day dog study, a collaborative, multidisciplinary, international effort that transcends organi­zations and regulatory agencies will be needed in order to develop guidance on when the study would not be necessary for human safety and risk assessment.

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
Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation
Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
8.90%
发文量
89
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: ALTEX publishes original articles, short communications, reviews, as well as news and comments and meeting reports. Manuscripts submitted to ALTEX are evaluated by two expert reviewers. The evaluation takes into account the scientific merit of a manuscript and its contribution to animal welfare and the 3R principle.
×
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