The use of integrated and intelligent testing strategies in the prediction of toxic hazard and in risk assessment

Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology

Volumn 745, Issue , 2012, Pages 221-253

  Balls, Michael ^a   Combes, Robert D ^b   Bhogal, Nirmala ^b  

^a RUSSELL AND BURCH HOUSE   (United Kingdom)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER; BIOLOGICAL PRODUCT; CARCINOGEN; CHLORPHENOTANE; COSMETIC; NANOPARTICLE; PESTICIDE; TGN 1412;

ARTICLE; CARCINOGENICITY; DRUG INDUCED DISEASE; DRUG METABOLISM; EPIGENETICS; GENOTOXICITY; HAZARD ASSESSMENT; HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING; HUMAN; IN VITRO STUDY; IN VIVO STUDY; LIVER INJURY; NEUROTOXICITY; NONHUMAN; PHARMACOGENOMICS; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; REPRODUCTIVE TOXICITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SYSTEMS BIOLOGY; TOXICITY TESTING;

ANIMALS; DRUG-INDUCED LIVER INJURY; HIGH-THROUGHPUT SCREENING ASSAYS; HUMANS; RISK ASSESSMENT; TOXICITY TESTS;

EID: 84859941409     PISSN: 00652598     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-3055-1_13     Document Type: Article

References (100)

1. ECHA. European Chemicals Agency. About the Agency. Helsinki: European Chemicals Agency, 2011: Available at: http://echa.europa.eu/home-en.asp.
2. . HSE. Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH). London: Health and Safety Executive, 2011.
3. EPA. Summary of the Toxic Substances Control Act. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, 2011: Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ regulations/laws/tsca.html.
4. Takemoto K. Practical approach in chemicals legislation - Japans experience. Tokyo: Ministry of the Environment, 2010: Available at: http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/resources/res-pdfs/csd-18/12may/launching-publication- chemicals/presentation-Japan.pdf.
5. OECD. Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4: Health Effects. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2011. Available at: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/oecd-guidelines-for-the-testing-of- chemicals-section-4-health-effects-20745788.
6. Combes RD, Gaunt I, Balls M. A scientific and animal welfare assessment of the OECD health effects test guidelines for the safety testing of chemicals under the European Union REACH system. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2004; 32(3):163-208.
7. UN. Globally harmonized systems of classification and labelling of chemicals (GHS). 3rd ed. Geneva United Nations, 2009
8. GAO. Comparison of U.S. and recently enacted European Union approaches to protect against the risks of toxic chemicals. GAO-07-825. Washington, DC: US Government Accountability Office, 2007.
9. ECHA. Proposals to identify Substances of Very High Concern: Annex XV reports for commenting by Interested Parties. Helsinki: European Chemical Agency, 2011: Available at: http://echa.europa.eu/consultations/authorisation/ svhc/svhc-cons-en.asp.
10. Knight A, Bailey J, Balcombe J. Animal carcinogenicity studies: 2. Obstacles to extrapolation of data to humans. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2006; 34(1):29-38.
11. Bremer S, Pellizzer C, Hoffmann S et al. The development of new concepts for assessing reproductive toxicity applicable to large scale toxicological programmes. Curr Pharm Des 2007; 13(29):3047-3058.
12. Hartung T. Toxicology for the twenty-first century. Nature 2009; 460(7252):208-212.
13. Bhogal N, Grindon C, Combes R et al. Toxicity testing-creating a revolution based on new technologies. Trends Biotechnol 2005; 23(6):299-307.
14. National Research Council. Toxicity testing in the 21st century: a vision and a strategy. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2007
15. MHRA. How we regulate. London: Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, 2011: Available at: http://www.mhra.gov.uk/Howweregulate/ index.htm.
16. EMA. What we do. London: European Medicines Agency, 2011: Available at: http://www.ema. europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/about-us/general/general- content-000091.jsp&mid= WC0b01ac0580028a42&jsenabled=true.
17. FDA. Protecting and promoting your health. Silver Spring: US Food and Drug Administration, 2011: Available at: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/default.htm.
18. JPMA. Pharmaceutical administration and regulations in Japan. Tokyo: Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, 2010.
19. ICH. Process of harmonisation. Geneva: International Conference on Harmonisation 2011. Available at: http://www.ich.org/about/process-of- harmonisation.html.
20. ICH Secretariat. The value and benefits of ICH to drug regulatory authorities-advancing harmonization for better health. Geneva: International Conference on Harmonisation, 2010.
21. Pollard CE, Abi-Gerges N, Bridgland-Taylor MH et al. An introduction to QT interval prolongation and nonclinical approaches to assessing and reducing risk. Br J Pharmacol 2010; 159(1):12-21.
22. Issa AM, Phillips KA, Van Bebber S et al. Drug withdrawals in the United States: a systematic review of the evidence and analysis of trends. Curr Drug Safety 2007; 2 (3):177-185.
23. FDA. Challenge and opportunity on the critical path toward new medical products. Silver Spring: US Food and Drug Administration, 2004.
24. IMI. Home page. Brussels: Innovative Medicines Initiative, 2011 Available at: http://www.imi.europa.eu/
25. Balls M, Clothier R. A FRAME Response to the European Commission Consultation on the Draft Report on Alternative (Nonanimal) Methods for Cosmetics Testing: Current Status and Future Prospects-2010. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2010; 38(5):345-353.
26. van der Zee B. Cosmetics industry criticised as EU set to admit delay in animal testing ban. London: Guardian, 2010.
27. Adler S, Basketter D, Creton S et al. Alternative (non-animal) methods for cosmetics testing: current status and future prospects-2010. Arch Toxicol 2011; 85:367-485.
28. Hudson M, Balls M. Ethics and regulation in the use of laboratory animals. In: Ballo, A, ed. Implant Dentistry Research Guide: Basic, Translational and Experimental Clinical Research. Hauppauge: Nova Science Publishers, in press.
29. Bhogal N, Combes R. TGN1412: time to change the paradigm for the testing of new pharmaceuticals. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2006; 34(2):225-239.
30. Department of Health. Interim report of the Expert Scientific Group on Phase 1 Clinical Trials. London: Department of Health, 2006.
31. Bhogal N, Seabra R. Why animal studies cannot suitably assess nanomedicines. Pharm Technol 2010; 22(1):38-41.
32. Schrand AM, Dai L, Schlager JJ et al. Toxicity testing of nanomaterials. In: Balls M, Combes R, Bhogal N, eds. New Technologies in Toxicity Testing. Austin/New York: Landes Bioscience/Springer Science + Business Media, 2011: 59-76.
33. Bhogal N, Combes R, Balls M. Preclinical drug development planning. In: Gad S, ed. Preclinical Development Handbook. Hoboken: Wiley 2007;1-63.
34. Bhogal N, Balls M. Translation of new technologies: from basic research to drug discovery and development. Curr Drug Discov Technol 2008; 5(3):250-262.
35. Balls M, Bennett, A, Kendall D. Translation of new technologies in biomedicines: shaping the road from basic research to drug development and clinical application. In: Kayser O, Warzeka H, eds. Pharmaceutical biotechnology-a comprehensive handbook. Weinheim: Wiley-VCG, in press.
36. Ekins S, Mestre J, Testa B. In silico pharmacology for drug discovery: methods for virtual ligand screening and profiling. Br J Pharmacol 2007; 152(1):9-20.
37. Ekins S, Mestre J, Testa B. In silico pharmacology for drug discovery: applications to targets and beyond. Br J Pharmacol 2007; 152(1):21-37.
38. Combes RD. In silico methods for toxicity prediction. In: Balls M, Combes R, Bhogal N eds. New Technologies in Toxicity Testing. Austin/New York: Landes Bioscience/Springer Science + Business Media, 2011: 97-118.
39. Cronin MTD, Madden JC, eds. In Silico Toxicology: Principles and Applications. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry, 2010.
40. Marx U. Trends in cell culture technology. In: Balls M, Combes R, Bhogal N, eds. New Technologies in Toxicity Testing. Austin/New York: Landes Bioscience/Springer Science + Business Media, 2011: 27-47.
41. Sbrana T, Ahluwalia A. Engineering Quasi-Vivo® in vitro organ models. In: Balls M, Combes R, Bhogal N, eds. New Technologies in Toxicity Testing. Austin/New York: Landes Bioscience/Springer Sceince + Business Media, 2011:139-154.
42. Wen Y, Zhang X, Yang ST. Medium to high throughput screening: microfabrication and chip-based toxicology. In: Balls M, Combes R, Bhogal N, eds. New Technologies in Toxicity Testing. Austin/New York: Landes Bioscience/Springer Science + Business Media, 2011: 183-212.
43. Shakesheff KM, Rose FRAJ. Tissue engineering in the development of replacement technologies. In: Balls M, Combes R, Bhogal N, eds. New Technologies in Toxicity Testing. Austin/New York: Landes Bioscience/Springer Science + Business Media, 2011:48-54.
44. Agresti JJ, Antipov E, Abate AR et al. Ultrahigh-throughput screening in drop-based microfluidics for directed evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2010; 107(9):4004-4009.
45. Stacey G. Current developments in cell culture technology. In: Balls M, Combes R, Bhogal N, eds. New Technologies in Toxicity Testing. Austin/New York: Landes Bioscience/Springer Science + Business Media, 2011:1-14.
46. Stummann TC, Bremer S. Embryonic stem cells in safety pharmacology and toxicology. In: Balls M, Combes R, Bhogal N, eds. New Technologies in Toxicity Testing. Austin/New York: Landes Bioscience/Springer Science + Business Media, 2011: 15-26.
47. Takahashi T, Tanabe K, Ohnuki M et al. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fibroblasts by defined factors. Cell 2007; 131(5):861-872.
48. Yu J, Hu K, Smuga-Otto K et al. Human induced pluripotent stem cells free of vector and transgene sequences. Science 2009; 324(5928):797-801.
49. Anson B, Nuwaysir E, Wang WB et al. Industrialised production of human iPSCV-derived cardiomyocytes for use in drug discovery and toxicity testing. Biopharm Internat 2009; 24(3):58-67.
50. Sullivan GJ, Hay DC, Park IH et al. Generation of functional human hepatic endoderm from human induced pluripotent stem cells. Hepatology 2010; 51(1):329-335.
51. Solanki A, Lee KB. A step closer to complete chemical reprogramming for generating iPS cells. Chembiochem 2010; 11(6):755-757.
52. Thomas N. High-content screening-a decade of evolution. J Biomol Screen 2010; 15(1), 1-9.
53. Taylor DL. A personal perspective on high-content screening (HCS): from the beginning. J Biomol Screen 2010; 15(7):720-725.
54. Casciano DA. The use of genomics in model in vitro systems. In: Balls M, Combes R, Bhogal N, eds. New Technologies in Toxicity Testing. Austin/New York: Landes Bioscience/Springer Science + Business Media, 2011:213-256.
55. Lipscomb JC, Haddad S, Poet T et al. Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPL) models in toxicity testing and risk assessment. In: Balls M, Combes R, Bhogal N, eds. New Technologies in Toxicity Testing. Austin/New York: Landes Bioscience/Springer Science + Business Media, 2011:77-96.
56. Thomas S. Physiologically-based simulation modelling for the reduction of animal use in the discovery of novel pharmaceuticals. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2009; 37(5):497-511.
57. Noble D. Modeling the heart-from genes to cells to the whole organ. Science 2002; 295(5560):1678-1682.
58. Holden AV. Development and application of human virtual excitable tissues and organs from premature birth to sudden cardiac death. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2010; 38(suppl. 1):87-99.
59. Kleiman M, Sagi Y, Bloch N et al. (2009) Use of virtual patient populations for rescuing discontinued drug candidates and for reducing the number of patients in clinical trials. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2009; 37(suppl. 1):39-45.
60. Vasan RS. Biomarkers of cardiovascular disease-molecular basis and practical considerations. Circulation 2006; 113(19):2335-2362.
61. Corrias A, Jie X, Romero L et al. Arrhythmic risk biomarkers for the assessment of drug cardiotoxicity: from experiments to computer simulations. Phil Trans Roy Soc A 2010; 368(1921):3001-3025.
62. Dieterle F, Sistare F, Goodsaid F et al. Renal biomarker qualification submission: a dialog between the FDA-EMEA and Predictive Safety Testing Consortium. Nat Biotechnol 2010; 28(5):455-462.
63. Anon. New developments in clinical imaging. NGP Magazine, 2008:13. Available at: http://www.ngpharma. com/article/New-Developments-in-Clinical- Imaging.
64. Benoit G. Bioinformatics. In: Cronin B, ed. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. Medford: Information Today for ASIST 2005; 39:179-218.
65. Butcher EC, Berg EL, Kunkel EJ. Systems biology in drug discovery. Nat Biotechnol 2004; 22(10):1253-1259.
66. Hoffmann S, Hartung T. Toward an evidence-based toxicology. Hum Exp Toxicol 2006; 25(9):497-513.
67. Balls M. Integrated testing strategies and the prediction of toxic hazard. In: Cronin MTD, Madden JC, eds. In Silico Toxicology: Principles and Applications. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry, 2010; 584-605.
68. Combes RD, Balls M. Integrated testing strategies for toxicity employing new and existing technologies. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2011; 39(3):213-225.
69. Grindon C, Combes R, Cronin MTD et al. Integrated testing strategies for use in the EU REACH system. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2006; 34(4):407-427.
70. Combes R, Grindon C, Cronin MTD et al. Integrated decision-tree testing strategies for acute systemic toxicity and toxicokinetics with respect to the requirements of the EU REACH legislation. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2008; 36(1):45-63.
71. Combes R, Grindon C, Cronin MTD et al. Proposed integrated decision-tree testing strategies for mutagenicity and carcinogenicity in relation to the EU REACH legislation. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2007; 35(2):267-287.
72. Grindon C, Combes R, Cronin MTD et al. Integrated decision-tree testing strategies for developmental and reproductive toxicity with respect to the requirements of the EU REACH legislation. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2008; 36(1):65-80.
73. Grindon C, Combes R, Cronin MTD et al. An integrated decision-tree testing strategy for eye irritation with respect to the requirements of the EU REACH legislation. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2008; 36(1):81-92.
74. Grindon C, Combes R, Cronin MTD et al. An integrated decision-tree testing strategy for repeat dose toxicity with respect to the requirements of the EU REACH legislation. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2008; 36(1):93-101.
75. Grindon C, Combes R, Cronin MTD et al. Integrated decision-tree testing strategies for skin corrosion and irritation with respect to the requirements of the EU REACH legislation. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2007; 35(6):673-682.
76. Grindon C, Combes R, Cronin MTD et al. An integrated decision-tree testing strategy for skin sensitisation with respect to the requirements of the EU REACH legislation.Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2007; 35(6):683-697.
77. Grindon C, Combes R, Cronin MTD et al. Integrated decision-tree testing strategies for environmental toxicity with respect to the requirements of the EU REACH legislation. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2008; 36(suppl. 1):29-42.
78. Bal-Price AK, Hogberg HT, Buzanska L et al. Relevance of in vitro neurotoxicity testing for regulatory requirements: challenges to be considered. Neurotoxicol Teratol 2010; 32(1):36-41.
79. Coecke S, Eskes C, Gartlon J et al. The value of alternative testing for neurotoxicity in the context of regulatory needs. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 2006; 21(2):153-167.
80. Combes RD, Berridge T, Connelly J et al. Early microdose drug studies in human volunteers can minimise animal testing: Proceedings of a workshop organised by Volunteers in Research and Testing. Eur J Pharm Sci 2003; 19(1):1-11.
81. Dave SR, White CC, Kavanagh TJ et al. Luminescent quantum dots for molecular toxicology. In: Balls M, Combes R, Bhogal N, eds. New Technologies in Toxicity Testing. Austin, TX, USA: Landes Bioscience 2011: 118-138.
82. BéruBé K, Aufderheide M, Breheny D et al. In vitro models of inhalation toxicity and disease. The Report of a FRAME Workshop. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2009; 37(1):89-141.
83. Combes R, Balls M. Intelligent testing strategies for chemicals testing-A case of more haste, less speed? Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2005; 33(3):289-297.
84. Kinsner-Ovaskainen A, Akkan Z, Casati S et al. Overcoming barriers to validation of non-animal partial replacement methods/integrated testing strategies: The Report of an EPAA-ECVAM Workshop. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2009; 37(4):437-444.
85. Knight DJ, Poncipe C. Use of literature and surrogate safety data for notifications, HPV chemicals and biocides. Spec Chem Mag 2002; 22(10):28-29.
86. BéruBé K. Alternatives for lung research: stuck between a rat and a hard place. Altern Lab Anim- ATLA 2011; 39(2):121-130.
87. Russmann S, Kullak-Ublick GA, Grattagliano I. Current concepts of mechanisms in drug-induced hepatotoxicity. Curr Med Chem 2009; 16:3041-3053.
88. Aithal GP. Mind the gap. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2010; 38(suppl. 1):1-4.
89. Doehmer J. The use and value of in vitro technologies in metabolism studies. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2009; 37(suppl. 1):29-32.
90. Lee WM, Senior JR. Recognising drug induced liver injury: current problems, possible solutions. Toxicol Pathol 2005; 33:155-164.
91. Marchant CA, Fisk L, Note RR et al. An expert system approach to the assessment of hepatotoxic potential. Chem Biodivers 2009; 6:2107-2114.
92. Mandenius CF, Andersson TB, Alves PM et al. Toward preclinical predictive drug testing for metabolism and hepatotoxicity by using in vitro models derived from human embryonic stem cells and human cell lines-a report on the Vitrocellomics EU-project. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2011; 39:147-171.
93. Anon. The DILI-sim initiative. Research Triangle Park: Hamner-UNC Institute for Drug Safety Sciences, 2011: Available at: http://www.thehamner. org/content/DILI-sim-WebEx-4-7-2011.pdf.
94. Anon. Drug-induced liver injury. Liverpool: MRC Centre for Drug Safety Studies, 2011: Available at: http://www.liv.ac.uk/drug-safety/research/ researchareas/liver-injury.htm.
95. Daly AK, Donaldson PT, Bhatnagar P et al. HLA-B*5701 genotype is a majordeterminant of drug-induced liver injury due to flucloxacillin. Nat Genet 2009; 41:816-819.
96. Gamazon ER, Huang RS, Cox NJ et al. Chemotherapeutic drug susceptibility associated SNPs are enriched in expression quantitative trait loci. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2010; 107:9287-9292.
97. Yang TP, Beazley C, Montgomery SB et al. Genevar: A database and Java application for the analysis and visualization of SNP-gene associations in eQTL studies. Bioinformatics 2010; 26:2474-2476.
98. Balls M. Modern alternative approaches to the problem of drug-induced liver injury. Altern Lab Anim- ATLA 2011; 39:103-107.
99. OConnell TM, Watkins PB. The application of metabonomics to predict drug-induced liver injury. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2010; 88:394-399.
100. Chen M, Vijay V, Shi Q et al. FDA-approved drug labeling for the study of drug-induced liver injury. Drug Discov Today 2011; in press.