Exploring in vitro/in vivo correlation: Lessons learned from analyzing phase i results of the us EPA's toxcast project

Journal of Environmental Science and Health - Part C Environmental Carcinogenesis and Ecotoxicology Reviews

Volumn 28, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 272-286

  Benigni, Romualdo ^a   Bossa, Cecilia ^a   Giuliani, Alessandro ^a   Tcheremenskaia, Olga ^a  

^a ISTITUTO SUPERIORE DI SANITÀ   (Italy)

Author keywords

alternative testing; reductionism; systems biology; three Rs; ToxCast; toxicity

Indexed keywords

ALTERNATIVE TESTING; REDUCTIONISM; SYSTEMS BIOLOGY; THREE RS; TOXCAST;

BIOLOGY; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; TOXICITY;

RESEARCH;

ANIMAL TESTING REPLACEMENT; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL PHENOMENA AND FUNCTIONS CONCERNING THE ENTIRE ORGANISM; CARCINOGENICITY; IN VITRO STUDY; IN VIVO STUDY;

ANIMAL TESTING ALTERNATIVES; ANIMALS; HIGH-THROUGHPUT SCREENING ASSAYS; TOXICITY TESTS;

EID: 78249267226     PISSN: 10590501     EISSN: 15324095     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10590501.2010.525781     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Schmidt C. Testing for carcinogens: Shift from animals to automation gathers steam\slowly. JNatl CancerInst. 2009;101:910-912.
2. Pedersen F, de Brujin J, Munn SJ, Van Leeuwen K. Assessment ofadditional test-ing needs under REACH. Effects of(Q)SARs, risk based testing and voluntary industry initiatives. JRC report EUR 20863 EN. 2003, Ispra, EUR.
3. Worth AP, Bassan A, de Brujin J, Gallegos Saliner A, Netzeva TI, Pavan M et al. The role of the European Chemicals Bureau in promoting the regulatory use of(Q)SAR methods. SAR QSAR Environ Res. 2007;18:111-125
4. European Food Safety Authority. Existing approaches incorporating replacement, reduction and refinement of animal testing: Applicability in food and feed risk assess-ment. EFSA J. 2009;1052:1-57.
5. van Regenmortel MHV. The rational design ofbiological complexity: A deceptive metaphor. Proteomics. 2007;7:965-975.
6. van Regenmortel MHV. Reductionism and complexity in molecular biology. EMBO Rep. 2004;5:1016-1020.
7. Hopkins AL. Network pharmacology: The next paradigm in drug discovery. Nature Chem Biol. 2008;4:682-690.
8. MacDonald JS, Robertson RT. Toxicity testing in the 21st century: A view from the pharmaceutical industry. Toxicol Sci. 2009;110:40-46.
9. Dix DJ, Houck KA, Martin MT, Richard AM, Setzer MW, Kavlock RJ. The Tox-Cast program for prioritizing toxicity testing ofenvironmental chemicals. Toxicol Sci. 2007;95:5-12.
10. Kavlock R, Austin CP, Tice RR. Toxicity testing in the 21st century: Implications for human health risk assessment. RiskAnal. 2009;29:485-487.
11. Judson RS, Houck KA, Kavlock RJ, Knudsen TB, Martin MT, Mortensen HM et al. In vitro screening of environmental chemicals for targeted testing prioritization\The ToxCast Project. Environ Health Perspect. 2010;218:485-492.
12. Benigni R, Giuliani A. Quantitative modeling and biology: The multivariate ap-proach.Am J Physiol. 1994;266:R1697-R1704.
13. Tomatis L, Huff J, Hertz-Picciotto I, Sandler DP, Bucher J, Boffetta P et al. Avoided and avoidable risks ofcancer. Carcinogenesis. 1997;18:97-105.
14. Benigni R, Bossa C, Richard AM, Yang C. A novel approach: Chemical relational databases, and the role of the ISSCAN database on assessing chemical carcinogenicity. Ann Ist Super Sanità. 2008;44:48-56.
15. Benigni R, Bossa C. Structure alerts for carcinogenicity, and the Salmonella assay system: A novel insight through the chemical relational databases technology. Mutat ResRevs. 2008;659:248-261.
16. Benigni R, Bossa C, Jeliazkova NG, Netzeva TI, Worth AP. The Benigni/Bossa rulebase for mutagenicity and carcinogenicity\A module ofToxtree. EUR 23241 EN. 2008, Luxenbourg, Office for the Official Publications of the European Communities. EUR\Scientific and Technical Report Series.
17. Hawkins DM. The problem ofoverfitting. J Chem InfComput Sci. 2004;44:1-12.
18. Topliss JG, Edwards RP. Chance factors in studies of quantitative structure-activity relationships. J Med Chem. 1979;22:1238-1244.
19. Evans EA, Calderwood DA. Forces and bond dynamics in cell adhesion. Science. 2007;316:1143-1153.
20. Young D. Drug innovation on the decline. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2009;64:228-231.
21. Zeiger E. Identification of rodent carcinogens and noncarcinogens using ge-netic toxicity tests: Premises, promises, and performance. Regulat Pharmacol Toxicol. 1998;28:85-95.
22. Benigni R, Bossa C, Tcheremenskaia O, Giuliani A. Alternatives to the carcino-genicity bioassay: In silico methods, and the in vitro and in vivo mutagenicity assays. Exp OpinDrugMetab Toxicol. 2010;6:1-11.
23. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Detailed review paper on cell transformation assays for detection of chemical carcinogens. OECD Series on Testing and Assessment. 2007, Paris, OECD.
24. Benigni R, Netzeva TI, Benfenati E, Bossa C, Franke R, Helma C et al. The expanding role of predictive toxicology: An update on the (Q)SAR models for mu-tagens and carcinogens. J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Revs. 2007;25:53-97.