Adverse Outcome Pathways can drive non-animal approaches for safety assessment

Journal of Applied Toxicology

Volumn 35, Issue 9, 2015, Pages 971-975

  Burden, Natalie ^a   Sewell, Fiona ^a   Andersen, Melvin E ^b   Boobis, Alan ^c   Chipman, J Kevin ^d   Cronin, Mark T D ^e   Hutchinson, Thomas H ^f   Kimber, Ian ^g   Whelan, Maurice ^h  

^a National Centre for the Replacement   (United Kingdom)

^b HAMNER INSTITUTES FOR HEALTH SCIENCES   (United States)

^c IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^e LIVERPOOL JOHN MOORES UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^f UNIVERSITY OF PLYMOUTH   (United Kingdom)

^g UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^h JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE   (Italy)

Author keywords

3Rs; AOP; Chemical; Mechanism of action; Mode of action; Pathway; Risk; Safety assessment; Toxicity

Indexed keywords

ADVERSE OUTCOME PATHWAY; ANALYTIC METHOD; ANIMAL WELFARE; CHEMICAL ANALYSIS; CHEMICAL SAFETY; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING; IN VITRO STUDY; LETTER; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; ANIMAL TESTING ALTERNATIVE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DECISION MAKING; PROCEDURES; STANDARDS; TOXICITY TESTING; TRENDS;

ANIMALIA;

ANIMAL TESTING ALTERNATIVES; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DECISION MAKING; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; TOXICITY TESTS;

EID: 84937971159     PISSN: 0260437X     EISSN: 10991263     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jat.3165     Document Type: Letter

References (9)

1. Meek ME, Boobis A, Cote I, Dellarco V, Fotakis G, Munn S, Seed J, Vickers C. 2014. New developments in the evolution and application of the WHO/IPCS framework on mode of action/species concordance analysis. J. Appl. Toxicol.: JAT 34: 1-18.
2. NRC. 2007. Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy. National Academies Press: Washington, D.C.
3. OECD. 2012. The Adverse Outcome Pathway for Skin Sensitisation Initiated by Covalent Binding to Proteins. Part 1: Scientific Evidence. Series on Testing and Assessment No. 168.
4. OECD. 2013. Guidance Document on Developing and Assessing Adverse Outcome Pathways, Series on Testing and Assessment, No. 184 (ENV/JM/MONO(2013)6). www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/jm/mono%282013%296&doclanguage=en.
5. OECD. 2014. Users' Handbook Supplement to the Guidance Document for Developing and Assessing AOPs. https://aopkb.org/common/AOP_Handbook.pdf.
6. Patlewicz G, Kuseva C, Kesova A, Popova I, Zhechev T, Pavlov T, Roberts DW, Mekenyan O. 2014. Towards AOP application--implementation of an integrated approach to testing and assessment (IATA) into a pipeline tool for skin sensitization. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol.: RTP 69: 529-545.
7. Popp JA, Crouch E, McConnell EE. 2006. A Weight-of-evidence analysis of the cancer dose-response characteristics of 2, 3, 7, 8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD). Toxicol. Sci: an official journal of the Society of Toxicology 89: 361-369.
8. 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 JM, Younes M. 2001. IPCS conceptual framework for evaluating a mode of action for chemical carcinogenesis. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol.: RTP 34: 146-152.
9. Wilkinson CF, Christoph GR, Julien E, Kelley JM, Kronenberg J, McCarthy J, Reiss R. 2000. Assessing the risks of exposures to multiple chemicals with a common mechanism of toxicity: how to cumulate? Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol.: RTP 31: 30-43.