Building on a solid foundation: SAR and QSAR as a fundamental strategy to reduce animal testing

SAR and QSAR in Environmental Research

Volumn 25, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 357-365

  Sullivan, K M ^a   Manuppello, J R ^b   Willett, C E ^c  

^a PHYSICIANS COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIBLE MEDICINE   (United States)

^b People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals   (United States)

^c Humane Society of the United States   (United States)

Author keywords

(Q)SAR; Animal testing; read across; safety assessment; visionary

Indexed keywords

ANIMALS; CHEMICAL HAZARDS; COMPUTATIONAL CHEMISTRY; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAFETY TESTING; STRUCTURE (COMPOSITION);

(Q)SAR; ANIMAL TESTING; EFFECT OF CHEMICALS; HUMAN HEALTH; READ-ACROSS; REGULATORY AGENCIES; SAFETY ASSESSMENTS; TOXICOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT; US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; VISIONARY;

BIOACTIVITY;

ANIMALIA;

ANIMAL TESTING ALTERNATIVE; CHEMICAL MODEL; COMPUTER SIMULATION; PROCEDURES; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; TOXICITY TESTING;

ANIMAL TESTING ALTERNATIVES; COMPUTER SIMULATION; MODELS, CHEMICAL; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; RISK ASSESSMENT; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; TOXICITY TESTS;

EID: 84902259948     PISSN: 1062936X     EISSN: 1029046X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/1062936X.2014.907203     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94, as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC, and 2000/21/EC.
2. D.M. Reif, M. Sypa, E.F. Lock, F.A. Wright, A. Wilson, T. Cathey, R.R. Judson, and I. Rusyn, ToxPi GUI: An interactive visualization tool for transparent integration of data from diverse sources of evidence, Bioinformatics 29 (2013), pp. 402-403.
3. OECD QSAR Toolbox 3.2. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, 2013; software available at http://www.qsartoolbox.org.
4. D. Morgott, C. Lewis, J. Bootman, and M. Banton, Disulfide oil hazard assessment using categorical analysis and a mode of action determination, Int. J. Toxicol. 33 (2013), pp. 181S-198S.
5. Ecological Structure Activity Relationships (ECOSAR) v. 1.11, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, USA, 2012; software available at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/tools/21ecosar.htm.
6. OncoLogic™ - A computer system to evaluate the carcinogenic potential of chemicals, Version 8.0, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, USA, 2013; software available at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/sf/pubs/oncologic.htm.
7. K. van Leeuwen, T.W. Schultz, T. Henry, B. Diderich, and G.D. Veith, Using chemical categories to fill data gaps in hazard assessment, SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 20 (2009), pp. 207-220.
8. C.L. Russom, S.P. Bradbury, S.J. Broderius, D.E. Hammermeister, R.A. Drummond, and L. Christine, Predicting modes of toxic action from chemical structure: Acute toxicity in the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 16 (1997), pp. 948-967.
9. P.L. Bishop, J.R. Manuppello, C.E. Willett, and J.T. Sandler, Animal use and lessons learned in the US High Production Volume Chemicals Challenge Program, Environ. Health Perspect. 120 (2012), pp. 1631-1639.
10. European Chemicals Agency, press memo: The results of ECHA's examination of testing proposals, ECHA, Helsinki, Finland, 2012. Available at http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13585/press+memo_testing_proposals_deadline_20121201_en.pdf.
11. K. van der Jagt, S. Munn, J. Tørsløv, and J. de Bruijn, Alternative approaches can reduce the use of test animals under REACH. Addendum to the report, Assessment of additional testing needs under REACH: Effects of (Q)SARS, risk-based testing and voluntary industry initiatives. European Commission Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy, 2004. Available at http://home.kpn.nl/reach/downloads/reducingtheuseoftestanimalsunderreachihcprepor.pdf.
12. G. Schaafsma, E.D. Kroese, E.L.J.P. Tielemans, J.J.M. van de Sandt, and C.J. van Leeuwen, REACH, non-testing approaches and the urgent need for a change in mind set, Regul. Toxicol. Pharm. 53 (2009), pp. 70-80.
13. H. Spielmann, U.G. Sauer, and O. Mekenyan, A critical evaluation of the 2011 ECHA reports on compliance with the REACH and CLP regulations and on the use of alternatives to testing on animals for compliance with the REACH regulation, ATLA-Altern. Lab. Anim. 39 (2011), pp. 481-493.
14. K. Taylor, W. Stengel, C. Casalegno, and D. Andrew, Experiences of the REACH testing proposals system to reduce animal testing, ALTEX-Altern. Tierexp. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.14573/altex.1311151.
15. C. Rovida, How many animals have been really used for REACH purposes? Appraisal after the second deadline. EUSAAT poster presentation, Linz, Austria, 2013.
16. J. Jaworska, S. Dimitrov, N. Nikolova, and O. Mekenyan, Probabilistic assessment of biodegradability based on metabolic pathways: CATABOL system, SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 13 (2002), pp. 307-323.
17. TIMES-SS, Laboratory of Mathematical Chemistry, Bourgas, Bulgaria; software available at http://oasis-lmc.org/products/software/times.aspx.
18. G. Patlewicz, S.D. Dimitrov, L.K. Low, P.S. Kern, G.D. Dimitrova, M.I. Comber, A.O. Aptula, R.D. Phillips, J. Niemelä, C. Madsen, E.B. Wedebye, D.W. Roberts, P.T. Bailey, and O.G. Mekenyan, TIMES-SS - A promising tool for the assessment of skin sensitization hazard: A characterization with respect to the OECD validation principles for (Q)SARs and an external evaluation for predictivity, Regul. Toxicol. Pharm. 48 (2007), pp. 225-239.
19. D.W. Roberts, G. Patlewicz, S.D. Dimitrov, L.K. Low, A.O. Aptula, P.S. Kern, G.D. Dimitrova, M.I. Comber, R.D. Phillips, J. Niemelä, C. Madsen, E.B. Wedebye, P.T. Bailey, and O.G. Mekenyan, TIMES-SS - A mechanistic evaluation of an external validation study using reaction chemistry principles, Chem. Res. Toxicol. 20 (2007), pp. 1321-1330.
20. T.W. Schultz, R.E. Carlson, M.T. Cronin, J.L. Hermens, R. Johnson, P.J. O'Brien, D.W. Roberts, A. Siraki, K.D. Wallace, and G.D. Veith, A conceptual framework for predicting the toxicity of reactive chemicals: Modeling soft electrophilicity, SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 17 (2006), pp. 413-428.
21. G.D. Veith, On the nature, evolution and future of quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR) in toxicology, SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 15 (2004), pp. 323-330.
22. National Research Council, Toxicity testing in the 21st Century: A vision and a strategy, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
23. G.D. Veith, E.P. Petkova, and K.B. Wallace, A baseline inhalation toxicity model for narcosis in mammals, SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 20 (2009), pp. 567-578.
24. P.K. Schmieder, M.A. Tappers, J.S. Denny, R.C. Kolanczyk, B.R. Sheedy, T.R. Henry, and G.D. Veith, Use of trout liver slices to enhance mechanistic interpretation of estrogen receptor binding for cost-effective prioritization of chemicals within large inventories, Environ. Sci. Technol. 38 (2004), pp. 6333-6342.
25. Effectopedia: The online encyclopedia of adverse effect pathways (Alpha), International QSAR Foundation, Two Rivers, MN, USA, 2013; software available at http://sourceforge.net/projects/effectopedia/.
26. R. Benigni, C. Bossa, C.L. Battistelli, and O. Tcheremenskaia, IARC Classes 1 and 2 carcinogens are successfully identified by an alternative strategy that detects DNA-reactivity and cell transformation ability of chemicals, Mutat. Res. 758 (2013), pp. 56-61.
27. OECD Extended Advisory Group for Molecular Screening and Toxicogenomics, 2013 Workplan, Project 1.8: The adverse outcome pathways for mutagenic modes of action for cancer. Available at http://www.oecd.org/env/ehs/testing/listsofprojectsontheaopdevelopmentprogrammeworkplan.htm.
28. Organization for Economic Coordination and Development (OECD), Environment Health and Safety Publications Series on Testing and Assessment No. 69: OECD Guidance Document on the Validation of (Quantitative) Structure-Activity Relationships, OECD, Environment Directorate, Paris, France, 2007.
29. QMRF Editor 2.0.0, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy, 2013; software available at http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/qmrf/index.php?title=Main_Page.
30. O. Mekenyan, S. Dimitrov, P. Schmieder, and G. Veith, In silico modelling of hazard endpoints: Current problems and perspectives, SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 14 (2003), pp. 361-371.
31. D.J. Dix, K.A. Houck, M.T. Martin, A.M. Richard, R.W. Setzer, and R.J. Kavlock, The ToxCast program for prioritizing toxicity testing of environmental chemicals, Tox. Sci. 95 (2007), pp. 5-12.
32. S. Bhattacharya, Q. Zhang, P.L. Carmichael, K. Boekelheide, and M.E. Andersen, Toxicity testing in the 21st century: Defining new risk assessment approaches based on perturbation of intracellular toxicity pathways, PLoS One. 6 (2011), e20887. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21701582.
33. M. Vinken, The adverse outcome pathway concept: A pragmatic tool in toxicology, Toxicology 312 (2013), pp. 158-165.
34. M. Hewitt, S.J. Enoch, J.C. Madden, K.R. Przybylak, and M.T.D. Cronin, Hepatotoxicity: A scheme for generating chemical categories for read-across, structural alerts and insights into mechanism(s) of action, Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 43 (2013), pp. 537-558.
35. E. Fioravanzano, A. Bassan, M.T.D. Cronin, S. Kovarich, and C. Manelfi, A-N. Richarz, I. Tsakovska, and A.P. Worth, Molecular modeling of LXR binding to evaluate the potential for liver steatosis, Toxicol. Lett. 221 (2013), p. S83.
36. M. Al Sharif, P. Alov, M.T.D Cronin, E. Fioravanzo, I. Tsakovska, V. Vitcheva, A. Worth, C. Yang, and I. Pajeva, Towards better understanding of liver steatosis MoA: Molecular modeling study of PPAR gamma receptor, Toxicol. Lett. 221 (2013), S85.
37. C.M. Ellison, S.J. Enoch, and M.T. Cronin, A review of the use of in silico methods to predict the chemistry of molecular initiating events related to drug toxicity, Expert Opin. Drug Met. 7 (2011), pp. 1481-1495.
38. S. Wu, K. Blackburn, J. Amburgey, J. Jaworska, and T. Federle, A framework for using structural, reactivity, metabolic and physicochemical similarity to evaluate the suitability of analogs for SAR-based toxicological assessments, Regul. Toxicol. Pharm. 56 (2010), pp. 67-81.
39. K. Blackburn, D. Bjerke, G. Daston, S. Felter, C. Mahony, J. Naciff, S. Robison, and S. Wu, Case studies to test: A framework for using structural, reactivity, metabolic and physicochemical similarity to evaluate the suitability of analogs for SAR-based toxicological assessments, Regul. Toxicol. Pharm. 60 (2011), pp. 120-135.
40. A. Sedykh, H. Zhu, H. Tang, L. Zhang, A. Richard, I. Rusyn, and A. Tropsha, Use of in vitro HTS-derived concentration-response data as biological descriptors improves the accuracy of QSAR models of in vivo toxicity, Environ. Health Perspect. 119 (2011), pp. 364-370.
41. C.L. Russom, S.P. Bradbury, S.J. Broderius, D.J. Hammermeister, R.A. Drummond, and G.D. Veith, Predicting modes of toxic action from chemical structure, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 32 (2013), pp. 1441-1442.