Gaining acceptance for the use of in vitro toxicity assays and QIVIVE in regulatory risk assessment

Toxicology

Volumn 332, Issue , 2015, Pages 112-123

  Meek, M E Bette ^a   Lipscomb, John C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^b U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

Author keywords

Dose response; Extrapolation; In vitro; Mode of action; Risk assessment; Strategy; Tiered approach

Indexed keywords

ADVERSE OUTCOME; ARTICLE; ECOTOXICOLOGY; EXPOSURE; HUMAN; IN VITRO STUDY; KNOWLEDGE; NONHUMAN; ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; TOXICITY ASSAY; TOXICOKINETICS; ANIMAL; ANIMAL TESTING ALTERNATIVE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DOSE RESPONSE; PHARMACOKINETICS; PROCEDURES; RISK FACTOR; SYSTEMS BIOLOGY; TOXICITY TESTING; TOXICOLOGY;

ANIMAL TESTING ALTERNATIVES; ANIMALS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; HUMANS; IN VITRO TECHNIQUES; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PHARMACOKINETICS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; SYSTEMS BIOLOGY; TOXICITY TESTS; TOXICOLOGY;

EID: 84930082946     PISSN: 0300483X     EISSN: 18793185     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tox.2015.01.010     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Adler S., Basketter D., Creton S., Pelkonen O., van Benthem J., Zuang V., Andersen K.E., Angers-Loustau A., Aptula A., Bal-Price A., Benfenati E., Bernauer U., Bessems J., Bois F.Y., Boobis A., Brandon, E, Bremer, S, Broschard T., Casati S., Coecke S., Corvi R., Cronin M., Daston G., Dekant W., Felter S., Grignard E., Gundert-Remy U., Heinonen T., Kimber I., Kleinjans J., Komulainen H., Kreiling R., Kreysa J., Leite S.B., Loizou G., Maxwell G., Mazzatorta P., Munn S., Pfuhler S., Phrakonkham P., Piersma A., Poth A., Prieto P., Repetto G., Rogiers V., Schoeters G., Schwarz M., Serafimova R., Tähti H., Testai E., van Delft J., van Loveren H., Vinken M., Worth A., Zaldivar J.M. Alternative (non-animal) methods for cosmetics testing: current status and future prospects - 2010. Arch. Toxicol. 2011, 85(5):367-485.
2. Ankley G.T., Bennett R.S., Erickson R.J., Hoff D.J., Hornung M.W., Johnson R.D., Mount D.R., Nichols J.W., Russom C.L., Schmieder P.K., Serrrano J.A., Tietge J.E., Villeneuve D.L. Adverse outcome pathways: a conceptual framework to support ecotoxicology research and risk assessment. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2010, 29:730-741.
3. Barton H.A., Chiu W.A., Setzer R.W., Andersen M.E., Bailer A.J., Bois F.Y., Dewoskin R.S., Hays S., Johanson G., Jones N., Loizou G., Macphail R.C., Portier C.J., Spendiff M., Tan Y.M. Characterizing uncertainty and variability in physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models: state of the science and needs for research and implementation. Toxicol. Sci. 2007, 99:395-402.
4. Bessems J.S., Loizou G., Krishnan K., Clewell H.J., Bernasconi C., Bois F., Coecke S., Collnot E., Diembeck W., Farcal L.R., Geraets L., Gundert-Remy U., Kramer N., Küsters G., Leite S.B., Pelkonen O.R., Schröder K., Testai E., Wilk-Zasadna I., Zaldívar-Comenges J. PBTK modelling platforms and parameter estimation tools to enable animal-free risk assessment. Recommendations from a joint EPAA - EURL ECVAM ADME workshop. Regul. Toxicol. Pharm. 2014, 68:119-139.
5. Blaauboer B.J. Biokinetic modeling and in vitro-in vivo exptrapolations. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health Part B 2010, 13:242-252.
6. Boobis A.R., Cohen S.M., Dellarco V., McGregor D., Meek M.E., Vickers C., Willcocks D., Farland W. IPCS framework for analyzing the relevance of a cancer mode of action for humans. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 2006, 36:781-792.
7. Boobis A.R., Doe J.E., Heinrich-Hirsch B., Meek M.E., Munn S., Ruchirawat M., Schlatter J., Seed J., Vickers C. IPCS framework for analyzing the relevance of a noncancer mode of action for humans. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 2008, 38:87-96.
8. Boobis A., Budinsky R., Crofton K., Embry M., Felter S., Mihlan G., Mumtaz M., Price P., Solomon K., Zaleski Z. Annex B. Example case study B: tier 0 - substances potentially detectable in surface water. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2011, 60:S11-S14.
9. Carmichael N., Bausen M., Boobis A.R., Cohen S.M., Embry M., Fruijtier-Pölloth C., Greim H., Lewis R., Meek M.E., Mellor H., Vickers C., Doe J. Using mode of action information to improve regulatory decision-making: an ECETOC/ILSI RF/HESI workshop overview. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 2011, 41:175-186.
10. Council of Labor Affairs, Taiwan Existing chemical substance inventory. Chemical Substance Nomination & Notification 2012, Council of Labor Affairs, Executive Yuan, Taiwan, http://csnn.cla.gov.tw/content/englishHome.aspx (accessed 28.09.12).
11. Dellarco V., Henry T., Sayre P., Seed J., Bradbury S. Meeting the common needs of a more effective and efficient testing and assessment paradigm for chemical risk management. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health B Crit. Rev. 2010, 13(2-4):347-360.
12. European Commission, 2006. Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC 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. Off. J. Eur. Union L396, 1-849. (accessed 28.09.12). http://eur-ex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do%3Furi=OJ:L:2006:396:0001:0849:EN:PDF.
13. European Commission, 2003. Technical Guidance Document on Risk Assessment in support of Commission Directive 93/67/EEC on Risk Assessment for new notified substances Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1488/94 on Risk Assessment for existing substances Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market. Part 1. European Communities. http://ihcp.jrc.ec.europa.eu/our_activities/public-health/risk_assessment_of_Biocides/doc/tgd/tgdpart1_2ed.pdf.
14. EFSA Opinion of the scientific panel on plant protection products and their residues to evaluate the suitability of existing methodologies and, if appropriate, the identification of new approaches to assess cumulative and synergistic risks from pesticides to human health with a view to set MRLs for those pesticides in the frame of regulation (EC) 396/2005. EFSA J. 2008, 704:1-84. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/scdocs/doc/705.pdf.
15. Gentry P.R., Covington T.R., Clewell H.J., Andersen M.E. Good Modeling Practices for Pharmacokinetic Models in Chemical Risk Assessment. Report Prepared under Contract to the Environmental Health Directorate of Health Canada 2004, Environmental Health Directorate of Health Canada, Ottawa.
16. Gundert-Remy U., Sonich-Mullin C. The use of toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic data in risk assessment: an international perspective. Sci. Total Environ. 2002, 288:3-11.
17. Health Canada Human health risk assessment for priority substances. Canadian Environmental Protection Act 1994, 36. Minister of Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, (Catalogue No. En40-215/41E; ISBN: 0-662-22126-5) http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/alt_formats/hecs-sesc/pdf/pubs/contaminants/approach/approach-eng.pdf.
18. Health Canada Chloroform. Priority Substances List Assessment Report. Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 2001, 118. Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, (Catalogue No. En40-215/56E; ISBN: 0-662-29247-2) http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/alt_formats/hecs-sesc/pdf/pubs/contaminants/psl2-lsp2/chloroform/chloroform-eng.pdf.
19. Health Canada 2-Buthoxyethanol. Priority Substances List Assessment Report. Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 2003, 62. Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, (Catalogue No. En40-215/66E; ISBN: 0-662-33597-X) http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/alt_formats/hecs-sesc/pdf/pubs/contaminants/psl2-lsp2/2_butoxyethanol/2_butoxyethanol-eng.pdf.
20. Hill A.B. The environment and disease: association or causation?. Proc. R. Soc. Med. 1965, 58:295-300.
21. Hughes K., Paterson J., Meek M.E. Tools for the prioritization of substances on the Domestic Substances List in Canada on the basis of hazard. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2009, 55:382-393.
22. IPCS Chemical Specific Adjustment Factors for Interspecies Differences and Human Variability: Guidance Document for Use of Data in Dose/Concentration Response Assessment. Harmonization Project Document No. 2. International Programme on Chemical Safety 2005, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2005/9241546786_eng.pdf.
23. IPCS Assessment of combined exposures to multiple chemicals: Report of a WHO/IPCS International Workshop on Aggregate/Cumulative Risk Assessment (Harmonization Project Document No. 7). International Programme on Chemical Safety 2009, World Health Organization, Geneva, http://www.who.int/ipcs/methods/harmonization/areas/workshopreportdocument7.pdf.
24. IPCS Characterization and Application of Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Models in Risk Assessment, International Programme on Chemical Safety 2010, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, http://www.who.int/ipcs/methods/harmonization/areas/pbpk_models.pdf.
25. Jarabek A.M. Inhalation RFC methodology: dosimetric adjustments and dose-response estimation of noncancer toxicity in the upper respiratory tract. Inhal. Toxicol. 1994, 6:301-325.
26. Judson R.S., Kavlock R.J., Setzer R.W., Cohen Hubal E.A., Martin M.T., Knudsen T.B., Houck K.A., Thomas R.S., Wetmore B.A., Dix D.J. Estimating toxicity-related biological pathway altering doses for high-throughput chemical risk assessment. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2011, 24:451-462.
27. Loizou G., Spendiff M., Barton H.A., Bessems J., Bois F.Y., d'Yvoire M.B., Buist H., Clewell H.J., Meek B., Gundert Remy U., Goerlitz G., Schmitt W. Development of good modeling practice for physiologically based pharmacokinetic models for use in risk assessment: the first steps. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2008, 50:400-441.
28. Lowell Center for Sustainable Production Chemicals Policy: Other Nations [Internet]. Chemicals Policy and Science Initiative, Lowell Center for Sustainable Production 2012, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, Massachusetts, http://www.chemicalspolicy.org/chemicalspolicy.othernations.php (accessed 28.09.12).
29. Meek M.E. Categorical default uncertainty factors - interspecies variation and adequacy of database. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 2001, 7:157-163.
30. Meek M.E. Recent developments in frameworks to consider human relevance of hypothesized modes of action for tumours in animals. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 2008, 49:110-116.
31. Meek M.E. Risk assessment of combined exposures to multiple chemicals: a WHO/IPCS framework appendix A. Example case study A. Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs). Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2011, 60:S7-S10.
32. Meek M.E. International experience in addressing combined exposures: increasing the efficiency of assessment. Toxicology 2013, 313:185-189.
33. Meek M.E., Armstrong V.C. The assessment and management of industrial chemicals in Canada. Risk Assessment of Chemicals 2007, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. K. van Leeuwen, T. Vermeire (Eds.).
34. Meek M.E., Barton H.A., Bessems J.G., Lipscomb J.C., Krishnan K. Case study illustrating the WHO/IPCS guidance on characterization and application of physiologically based pharmacokinetic models in risk assessment. Regul. Toxicol. Pharm. 2013, 66:116-129.
35. Meek, M.E., Berry, C., Boobis, A.R., Cohen, S.M., Hartley, M., Munn, S., Olin, S., Schlatter, V., and Vickers, C., Letter to the editor re: Guyton, K.Z., Barone, S., Jr., Brown, R.C., Euling, S. Y., Jinot, J. and Makris, S. Mode of action frameworks: a critical analysis. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health B 11, 2008, 681-685.
36. Meek M.E., Boobis A.R., Cote I., Dellarco V., Fotakis G., Munn S., Seed J., Vickers C. New developments in the evolution and application of the WHO/IPCS framework on mode of action/species concordance analysis. Appl. Toxicol. 2014, 34:1-18.
37. Meek M.E., Boobis A.R., Crofton K.R., Heinemeyer G., van Raaij C., Vickers C. Risk assessment of combined exposures to multiple chemicals: a WHO/IPCS framework. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2011, 60:S1-S7.
38. Meek M.E., Bucher J.R., Cohen S.M., Dellarco V., Hill R.N., Lehman-McKeeman L.D., Longfellow D.G., Pastoor T., Seed J., Patton D.E. A framework for human relevance analysis of information on carcinogenic modes of action. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 2003, 33:591-653.
39. Meek M.E., Klaunig J.E. Proposed mode of action of benzene-induced leukemia: interpreting available data and identifying critical data gaps for risk assessment. Chem. Biol. Interact. 2010, 184:279-285.
40. Meek M.E., Palermo C.M., Bachman A.N., North C.M., Lewis R.J. Mode of action human relevance (MOA/HR) framework - evolution of the Bradford Hill considerations and comparative analysis of weight of evidence. Appl. Toxicol. 2014, 10.1002/jat.2984.
41. Meek M.E., Renwick A., Ohanian E., Dourson M., Lake B., Naumann B.D., Vu V. Guidelines for application of chemical-specific adjustment factors in dose/concentration-response assessment. Toxicology 2002, 27:115-120.
42. Meek B., Renwick A., Ohanian E., Sonich-Mullin C. Guidance for derivation of chemical-specific adjustment factors (CSAF). Development and implementation. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 2002, 8:769.
43. National Research Council Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy 2007, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
44. National Research Council Phthalates and Cumulative Risk Assessment 2008, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
45. Renwick A.G. Data-derived safety factors for the evaluation of food additives and environmental contaminants. Food Addit. Contam. 1993, 10:275-305.
46. Rotroff D.M., Wetmore B.A., Dix D.J., Ferguson S.S., Clewell H.J., Houck K.A., Lecluyse E.L., Andersen M.E., Judson R.S., Smith C.M., Sochaski M.A., Kavlock R.J., Boellmann F., Martin M.T., Reif D.M., Wambaugh J.F., Thomas R.S. Incorporating human dosimetry and exposure into high-throughput in vitro toxicity screening. Toxicol. Sci. 2010, 117:348-358.
47. Seed J., Carney E.W., Corley R.A., Crofton K.M., DeSesso J.M., Foster P.M., Kavlock R., Kimmel G., Klaunig J., Meek M.E., Preston R.J., Slikker W., Tabacova S., Williams G.M., Wiltse J., Zoeller R.T., Fenner-Crisp P., Patton D.E. Overview: using mode of action and life stage information to evaluate the human relevance of animal toxicity data. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 2005, 35:664-672.
48. Sonich-Mullin C., Fielder R., Wiltse J., Baetcke K., Dempsey J., Fenner-Crisp P., Grant D., Hartley M., Knaap A., Kroese D., Mangelsdorf I., Meek E., Rice J.M., Younes M. International Programme on Chemical Safety, 2001. IPCS conceptual framework for evaluating a mode of action for chemical carcinogenesis. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2001, 34:146-152.
49. Thomas R.S., Black M.B., Li L., Healy E., Chu T.M., Bao W., Andersen M.E., Wolfinger R.D. A comprehensive statistical analysis of predicting in vivo hazard using high-throughput in vitro screening. Toxicol. Sci. 2012, 128:398-417.
50. Thomas R.S., Philbert M.A., Auerbach S.S., Wetmore B.A., Devito M.J., Cote I., Rowlands J.C., Whelan M.P., Hays, Sean M., Andersen M.E., Meek M.E., Reiter L.W., Lambert J.C., Clewell H.J., Stephens, Martin L., Zhao Q.J., Wesselkamper S.C., Flowers L., Carney E.W., Pastoor T.P., Petersen D.D., Yauk C.L., Nong A. Incorporating new technologies into toxicity testing and risk assessment: moving from 21st century vision to a data-driven framework. Toxicol. Sci. 2013, 136(1):4-18.
51. US EPA (Environmental Proection Agency) IRIS Summary for Boron and Compounds (CASRN 7440 42-8) 2004, IRIS, Washington, D.C, Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0410.htm (accessed 05.08.04).
52. US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment. Risk Assessment Forum, EPA/630/P-03/001F. Federal Register 70 (66) 17765-17817 2005, US EPA, Washington, D.C, http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/pdfs/CANCER_GUIDELINES_FINAL_3-25-05.PDF.
53. US EPA Approaches for the Application of Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) Models and Supporting Data in Risk Assessment. EPA/600/R 05/043A. National Center for Environmental Assessment 2006, US Environmental Protection Agency, Available online at:. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=157668.
54. US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) IRIS summary sheets for ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (EGBE). Reference Concentration for Chronic Inhalation Exposure. Integrated Risk Information System 2010, US EPA, Washington, D.C, Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0500.htm (accessed 08.08.10).
55. US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) Toxicological review of ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (EGBE) CAS No. 111-76-2. In Support of Summary Information on the IRIS System. Integrated Risk Information System 2010, US EPA, Washington, D.C, Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/toxreviews/0500tr.pdf (accessed 08.08.10).
56. US EPA Guidance for Applying Quantitative Data to Develop Data-Derived Extrapolation Factors for Interspecies and Intraspecies Extrapolation. Office of the Science Advisor, Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/R-14/002F 2014, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C, Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/raf/DDEF/.
57. Wetmore B.A., Wambaugh J.F., Ferguson S.S., Sochaski M.A., Rotroff D.M., Freeman K., Clewell H.J., 3rd, Dix D.J., Andersen M.E., Houck K.A., Allen B., Judson R.S., Singh R., Kavlock R.J., Richard A.M., Thomas R.S. Integration of dosimetry, exposure and high-throughput screening data in chemical toxicity assessment. Toxicol. Sci. 2012, 125:157-174.