The ChemScreen project to design a pragmatic alternative approach to predict reproductive toxicity of chemicals

Reproductive Toxicology

Volumn 55, Issue , 2015, Pages 114-123

  van der Burg, Bart ^a   Wedebye, Eva Bay ^b   Dietrich, Daniel R ^c   Jaworska, Joanna ^d   Mangelsdorf, Inge ^e   Paune, Eduard ^f   Schwarz, Michael ^g   Piersma, Aldert H ^h,i   Kroese, E Dinant ^j  

^a BIODETECTION SYSTEMS B V   (Netherlands)

^b TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF DENMARK   (Denmark)

^c UNIVERSITY OF KONSTANZ   (Germany)

^d PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY   (United States)

^e FRAUNHOFER INSTITUTE FOR TOXICOLOGY AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE   (Germany)

^f SIMPPLE   (Spain)

^g UNIVERSITY OF TÜBINGEN   (Germany)

^h NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT   (Netherlands)

ⁱ UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^j TNO   (Netherlands)

more..

Author keywords

Endocrine disruption; In silico; In vitro; Integrated testing; Read accross; Reproductive toxicity

Indexed keywords

ADVERSE OUTCOME; ANIMAL TESTING ALTERNATIVE; ANIMAL USE; ARTICLE; COMPUTER MODEL; HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING; NONHUMAN; PREDICTION; REPRODUCTIVE TOXICITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; TOXICITY TESTING; VALIDATION PROCESS; ANIMAL; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DRUG EFFECTS; HUMAN; REPRODUCTION;

ANIMALIA;

ANTIANDROGEN; ESTROGEN; MUTAGENIC AGENT; TERATOGENIC AGENT;

ANDROGEN ANTAGONISTS; ANIMAL TESTING ALTERNATIVES; ANIMALS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; ESTROGENS; HIGH-THROUGHPUT SCREENING ASSAYS; HUMANS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MUTAGENS; REPRODUCTIVE PHYSIOLOGICAL PHENOMENA; RISK ASSESSMENT; TERATOGENS; TOXICITY TESTS;

EID: 84937827022     PISSN: 08906238     EISSN: 18731708     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2015.01.008     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. European Commission White paper "strategy for a future chemicals policy". COM 2001, 88:2001.
2. European Commission (EC) Regulation (EC)No1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC. Off. J. Eur. Union L 2007 2007, 136:3-280.
3. Hartung T., Luechtefeld T., Maertens A., Kleensang A. Food for thought... integrated testing strategies for safety assessments. ALTEX 2013, 30(1):3-18.
4. Van der Jagt K., Munn S., Torslov J., de Bruijn J. Alternative approaches can reduce the use of test animals under REACH European Commission Report EUR 21405 2004.
5. Costanza R., Hartung T. Re-evaluation of animal numbers and costs for in vivo tests to accomplish REACH legislation requirements for chemicals-a report by the transatlantic think tank for toxicology. ALTEX 2009, 26:187-208.
6. Hurtt M.E., Cappon G.D., Browning A. Proposal for a tiered approach to developmental toxicity testing for veterinary pharmaceutical products for food-producing animals. Food Chem Toxicol 2003, 41(5):611-619.
7. Schenk B., Weimer M., Bremer S., van der Burg B., Cortvrindt R., Freyberger A., et al. The ReProTect Feasibility Study, a novel comprehensive in vitro approach to detect reproductive toxicants. Reprod Toxicol 2010, 30:200-218.
8. National Research Council (USA) Scientific frontiers in developmental toxicology and risk assessment 2000, NAS Press, Washington, DC.
9. National Research Council (USA) Toxicity testing in the twenty-first century: a vision and a strategy Committee on Toxicity and Assessment of Environmental Agents 2007, National Research Council, Washington, DC.
10. Sonneveld E., Jansen H.J., Riteco J.A.C., Brouwer A., Van der Burg B. Development of androgen- and estrogen-responsive bioassays, members of a panel of human cell line-based highly selective steroid responsive bioassays. Toxicol Sci 2005, 83:136-148.
11. Sonneveld E., Riteco J.A.C., Jansen H.J., Pieterse B., Brouwer A., Schoonen W.G., et al. Comparison of in vitro and in vivo screening models for androgenic and estrogenic activities. Toxicol Sci 2006, 89:173-187.
12. Sonneveld E., Pieterse B., Schoonen W., Van der Burg B. Validation of in vitro screening models for progestagenic activities: inter-assay comparison and correlation with in vivo activity in rabbits. Toxicol In Vitro 2011, 25:545-554.
13. Van der Burg B., Kroese E.D., Piersma A.H. Towards a pragmatic alternative testing strategy for the detection of reproductive toxicants. Reprod Toxicol 2011, 31(May (4)):558-561.
14. Wedebye E.B., Dybdahl M., Nikolov N.G., Jónsdóttir S.O., Niemelä J.R. QSAR pre-screen of 70,983 substances for genotoxic carcinogenicity, germ cell mutagenicity, developmental toxicity and endocrine activity in the ChemScreen project. Reprod Toxicol 2015, 55:64-72.
15. Bitsch A., Jacobi S., Melber C., Wahnschaffe U., Simetska N., Mangelsdorf I. REPDOSE: a database on repeated dose toxicity studies of commercial chemicals-a multifunctional tool. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2006, 46(3):202-210.
16. Schulz F., Batke M., Mangelsdorf I., Pohlenz-Michel C., Simetska N., Lewin G. Sensitivity of different generations and developmental stages in studies on reproductive toxicity. Toxicol Lett 2014, 226(Apr (2)):245-255.
17. Piersma A.H., Rorije E., Beekhuijzen M.E., Cooper R., Dix D.J., Heinrich-Hirsch B., et al. Combined retrospective analysis of 498 rat multi-generation reproductive toxicity studies: on the impact of parameters related to F1 mating and F2 offspring. Reprod Toxicol 2011, 31(May (4)):392-401.
18. Novic M., Vracko M. QSAR models for reproductive toxicity and endocrine disruption activity. Molecules 2010, 15(3):1987-1999.
19. http://edukon.biologie.uni-konstanz.de/edukon/index.php
20. Van der Burg B., Pieterse B., Buist H., Lewin G., Van der Linden S.C., Man H.Y., et al. A high throughput screening system for predicting chemically-induced endocrine disruption and sex organ deformities. Reprod Toxicol 2015, 55:95-103.
21. Sipes N.S., Martin M.T., Reif D.M., Kleinstreuer N.C., Judson R.S., Singh A.V., et al. Predictive models of prenatal developmental toxicity from ToxCast high throughput screening data. Toxicol Sci 2011, 124(Nov (1)):109-127.
22. Roelofs M.J., Piersma A.H., van den Berg M., van Duursen M.B. The relevance of chemical interactions with CYP17 enzyme activity: assessment using a novel in vitro assay. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2013, 268(May (3)):309-317.
23. Schulpen S.H., Robinson J.F., Pennings J.L., van Dartel D.A., Piersma A.H. Dose response analysis of monophthalates in the murine embryonic stem cell test assessed by cardiomyocyte differentiation and gene expression. Reprod Toxicol 2013, 35(Jan):81-88.
24. Schulpen S.H., Pennings J.L., Tonk E.C., Piersma A.H. A statistical approach towards the derivation of predictive gene sets for potency ranking of chemicals in the mouse embryonic stem cell test. Toxicol Lett 2014, 225(3):342-349.
25. Piersma A.H., Schulpen S.H.W., Uibel F., Van Vugt-Lussenburg B., Bosgra S., Hermsen S.A.B., et al. Evaluation of an alternative in vitro test battery for detecting reproductive toxicants. Reprod Toxicol 2013, 38:53-64.
26. Dix D.J., Houck K.A., Martin M.T., Richard A.M., Setzer R.W., Kavlock R.J. The ToxCast program for prioritizing toxicity testing of environmental chemicals. Toxicol Sci 2007, 95(1):5-12.
27. Van der Linden S.C., von Bergh A.R., van Vugt-Lussenburg B.M., Jonker L.R., Teunis M., Krul C.A., et al. Development of a panel of high-throughput reporter-gene assays to detect genotoxicity and oxidative stress. Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen 2014, 760:23-32.
28. Uibel F., Mühleisen A., Köhle C., Weimer M., Stummann T.C., Bremer S., et al. ReProGlo: a new stem cell-based reporter assay aimed to predict embryotoxic potential of drugs and chemicals. Reprod Toxicol 2010, 30(1):103-112.
29. Dang Z., Ru S., Wang W., Rorije E., Hakkert B., Vermeire T. Comparison of chemical-induced transcriptional activation of fish and human estrogen receptors: regulatory implications. Toxicol Lett 2011, 201(Mar (2)):152-175.
30. Wetmore B.A. Quantitative in vitro-to-in vivo extrapolation in a high-throughput environment. Toxicology 2014, pii: S0300-483X(14)00114-0. [Epub ahead of print]. 10.1016/j.tox.2014.05.012.
31. Bosgra S., Westerhout J. Interpreting in vitro developmental toxicity test battery results: the consideration of toxicokinetics. Reprod Toxicol 2015, 55:73-80.
32. Dancik Y., Troutman J.A., Jaworska J. Estimation of safe in vivo dose of dermally applied chemicals-illustration with four reproductive toxicants. Reprod Toxicol 2015, 55:50-63.
33. Seiler A.E., Spielmann H. The validated embryonic stem cell test to predict embryotoxicity in vitro. Nat Protoc 2011, 6(7):961-978.
34. OECD Test No. 236: Fish Embryo Acute Toxicity (FET) Test 2013, OECD.
35. OECD Test guideline No.455. Stably transfected human estrogen receptor-transcriptional activation assay for detection of estrogenic agonist-activity of chemicals. 2009, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.
36. ®- assay for the detection of estrogenic and antiestrogenic chemicals for inclusion in TG455/TG457 2013, OECD.
37. OECD SPSF by the European Commission: performance-based test guideline on androgen receptor transactivation assays (AR CALUX) 2013, OECD.
38. Van der Burg B., Winter R., Man H-y., Vangenechten C., Weimer M., Berckmans P., et al. Optimization and prevalidation of the in vitro AR CALUX method to test androgenic and antiandrogenic activity of compounds. Reprod Toxicol 2010, 30:18-24.
39. Van der Burg B., Winter R., Weimer M., Berckmans P., Suzuki G., Gijsbers L., et al. Optimization and prevalidation of the in vitro ERα CALUX method to test estrogenic and antiestrogenic activity of compounds. Reprod Toxicol 2010, 30:73-80.
40. Wu S., Fisher J., Nacliff J., Laufersweiler M., Lester C., Daston G., et al. Framework for identifying chemicals with structural features associated with the potential to act as developmental or reproductive toxicants. Chem Res Toxicology 2013, 26:1840-1861.
41. Lewin G., Escher S.E., Van der Burg B., Simetska N., Mangelsdorf I. Structural features of endocrine active chemicals - A comparison of in vivo and in vitro data. Reprod Toxicol 2015, 55:81-94.
42. http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/risk-assessment/theoecdqsartoolbox.htm
43. Kroese D.E., Bosgra S., Harrie E.Buist, Van der Linden S.C., Man H.Y., Piersm A.H., et al. Evaluation of an alternative in vitro test battery for detecting reproductive toxicants in a grouping context. Reprod Toxicol 2015, 55:11-19.
44. Ankley G.T., Bennett R.S., Erickson R.J., Hoff D.J., Hornung M.W., Johnson R.D., et al. Adverse outcome pathways: a conceptual framework to support ecotoxicology research and risk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 2010, 29(3):730-741.
45. Tonk E.C., Pennings J.L., Piersma A.H. An adverse outcome pathway framework for neural tube and axial defects mediated by modulation of retinoic acidhomeostasis. Reprod Toxicol 2014 Oct 16., pii: S0890-6238(14)00261-5 [Epub ahead of print] Review. 10.1016/j.reprotox.2014.10.008.
46. Deroo B.J., Korach K.S. Estrogen receptors and human disease. J Clin Invest 2006, 116(Mar):561-570.
47. Heldring N., Pike A., Andersson S., Matthews J., Cheng G., Hartman J., et al. Estrogen receptors: how do they signal and what are their targets. Physiol Rev 2007, 87(Jul):905-931.
48. Rovida C., Hartung T. Re-evaluation of animal numbers and costs for in vivo tests to accomplish REACH legislation requirements for chemicals-a report by the transatlantic think tank for toxicology (t(4)). ALTEX 2009, 26(3):187-208.
49. Panzica-Kelly J.M., Zhang C.X., Augustine-Rauch K. Zebrafish embryo developmental toxicology assay. Methods Mol Biol 2012, 889:25-50.
50. Palmer J.A., Smith A.M., Egnash L.A., Conard K.R., West P.R., Burrier R.E., et al. Establishment and assessment of a new human embryonic stem cell-based biomarker assay for developmental toxicity screening. Birth Defects Res B: Dev Reprod Toxicol 2013, 98(4):343-363.
51. Thomas R.S., Philbert M.A., Auerbach S.S., Wetmore B.A., Devito M.J., Cote I., et al. Incorporating new technologies into toxicitytesting and risk assessment: moving from 21st century vision to a data-driven framework. Toxicol Sci 2013, 136(1):4-18.