The adverse outcome pathway concept: A basis for developing regulatory Decision-making tools

ATLA Alternatives to Laboratory Animals

Volumn 44, Issue 5, 2016, Pages 417-429

  Delrue, Nathalie ^a   Sachana, Magdalini ^a   Sakuratani, Yuki ^a   Gourmelon, Anne ^a   Leinala, Eeva ^a   Diderich, Robert ^a  

^a OECD   (France)

Author keywords

Adverse outcome pathways; Chemical assessment; Iata; In vitro; Mechanism of action; Qsar; Skin sensitisation

Indexed keywords

ADVERSE OUTCOME; ARTICLE; CHEMICAL SAFETY; DECISION MAKING; DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY; GENOTOXICITY; HAZARD ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; IN VITRO STUDY; KNOWLEDGE BASE; MOLECULAR INTERACTION; NONHUMAN; ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; SKIN IRRITATION; SKIN SENSITIZATION; TOXICITY TESTING; ADVERSE DRUG REACTION; ADVERSE EFFECTS; ANIMAL; DANGEROUS GOODS; DRUG SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; POLLUTANT; STANDARDS;

DANGEROUS GOODS; POLLUTANT;

ADVERSE DRUG REACTION REPORTING SYSTEMS; ANIMALS; DECISION MAKING; DRUG-RELATED SIDE EFFECTS AND ADVERSE REACTIONS; ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTANTS; HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES; HUMANS;

EID: 84994442740     PISSN: 02611929     EISSN: 26323559     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/026119291604400504     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Diderich, R. (2007). The OECD Chemicals Pro - gramme. In Risk Assessment of Chemicals: An Introduction (ed. C.J. van Leeuwen & T.G. Vermeire), pp. 623-638. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
2. OECD (1986). Introduction to the OECD Guidelines on Genetic Toxicology Testing and Guidance on the Selection and Application of Assays. OECD Guide - lines for the Testing of Chemicals, Volume 4, 21pp. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
3. Verhaar, H.J.M., van Leeuwen, C.J. & Hermens, J.L.M. (1992). Classifying environmental pollutants. 1: Structure-Activity relationships for prediction of aquatic toxicity. Chemosphere 25, 471-491.
4. Worth, A.P., Netzeva, T.I. & Patlewicz, G. (2007). Predicting toxicological and ecotoxicological endpoints. In Risk Assessment of Chemicals: An Intro duction (ed. C.J. van Leeuwen & T.G. Ver - meire), pp. 427-465. Dordrecht, The Nether lands: Springer.
5. OECD (2016). The OECD QSAR Toolbox, Version 3.4. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/env/ehs/risk-Assessment/theoecdqsartoolbox.htm (Accessed 16.09.16).
6. 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. (2001). IPCS conceptual framework for evaluating a mode of action for chemical carcinogenesis. Regulatory Toxicology & Pharmacology 34, 146-152.
7. OECD (1981). Decision of the Council concerning the Mutual Acceptance of Data in the Assessment of Chemicals, C(81)30/FINAL. Paris, France: Org -Anisation for Economic Co-operation and Develop - ment. Available at: http://acts.oecd.org/Instruments/ShowInstrumentView.aspx?InstrumentID=263&InstrumentPID=361&Lang=en&Book=False (Accessed 16.09.16).
8. OECD (2010). Cutting Costs in Chemicals Man age - ment, 48pp. Paris, France: Organisation for Econ - omic Co-operation and Development. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/env/ehs/47813784.pdf (Acc - essed 16.09.16).
9. OECD (2014). Series on Testing and Assessment No. 194: Guidance on Grouping of Chemicals, Second Edition, ENV/JM/MONO(2014)4, 14.04.2014, 141pp. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
10. OECD (2014). Series on Testing and Assessment No. 203: New Guidance Document on an Integrated Approach on Testing and Assessment (IATA) for Skin Corrosion and Irritation, ENV/JM/MONO (2014)19, 11.07.2014, 64pp. Paris, France: Organisa -Tion for Economic Co-operation and Development.
11. OECD (2011). Series on Testing and Assessment No. 138: Report of the Workshop on Using Mechanistic Information in Forming Chemical Categories, 8-10 December 2010, Crystal City, VA, USA, ENV/JM/MONO(2011)8, 18.05.2011, 176pp Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Devel - opment.
12. OECD (2012). OECD Series on Testing and Assessment No. 168: The Adverse Outcome Pathway for Skin Sensitisation Initiated by Covalent Binding to Proteins. Part 1: Scientific Evidence ENV/JM/MONO(2012)10/PART 1, 04.05.2012, 59pp. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
13. OECD (2012). OECD Series on Testing and Ass - essment No 168: The Adverse Outcome Pathway for Skin Sensitisation Initiated by Covalent Binding to Proteins. Part 2: Use of the AOP to Develop Chemical Categories and Integrated Assessment and Testing Approaches ENV/JM/MONO(2012) 10/PART 2, 04.05.2012, 46pp. Paris, France: Organisation for Econ omic Co-operation and Development.
14. OECD (1992). OECD Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals No. 406, Skin Sensitisation, 9pp. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264070660-en (Accessed 16.09.16).
15. OECD (2010). OECD Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals No. 429. Skin Sensitisation: Local Lymph Node Assay, 20pp. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264071100-en (Acc - essed 16.09.16).
16. OECD (2010). OECD Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals No. 442A. Skin Sensitisation: Local Lymph Node Assay: DA, 16pp. Paris, France: Organ isation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264090972-en (Accessed 16.09.16).
17. OECD (2010). Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals No. 442B. Skin Sensitisation: Local Lymph Node Assay: BrdU-ELISA, 15pp. Paris, France: Org -Anisa tion for Economic Co-operation and Dev - elopment. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264090996-en (Accessed 16.09.16).
18. Anon. (2009). Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products. Official Journal of the European Union L342, 22.12.2009, 59-209.
19. OECD (2005). Series on Testing and Assessment No. 34: Guidance Document on the Validation and International Acceptance of New or Updated Test Methods for Hazard Assessment, ENV/JM/MONO(2005)14, 18.08.95, 96pp. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
20. JRC (2012). Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA) Validation Study Report, 74pp. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. Available at: https://eurl-ecvam.jrc.ec.europa.eu/eurl-ecvamrecommendations/files-dpra/DPRA%20Validation%20Study%20Report.pdf (Accessed 19.09.16).
21. UN (2013). United Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS), 5th revised edition. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations.
22. OECD (2016). Work Plan of the Test Guidelines Programme, 23pp. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/env/ehs/testing/TGP%20work%20plan-declassification-July%202015.pdf (Accessed 19.09.16).
23. van Leeuwen, K., Schultz, T.W., Henry, T., Diderich, B. & Veith, G.D. (2009). Using chemical categories to fill data gaps in hazard assessment. SAR & QSAR in Environmental Research 20, 207- 220.
24. Diderich, R. (2010). Tools for category formation and read-Across: Overview of the OECD (Q)SAR Application Toolbox. In In Silico Toxicology: Principles and Applications (ed. M.T.D. Cronin & J.C. Madden), pp. 390-412. Cambridge, UK: The Royal Society of Chemistry.
25. Dimitrov, S.D., Diderich, R., Sobanski, T., Pavlov, T.S., Chankov, G.V., Chapkanov, A.S., Karakolev, Y.H., Temelkov, S.G., Vasilev, R.A., Gerova, K.D., Kuseva, C.D., Todorova, N.D., Mehmed, A.M., Rasenberg, M. & Mekenyan, O.G. (2016). QSAR Toolbox - Workflow and major functionalities. SAR & QSAR in Environmental Research 27, 203-219.
26. ECHA (2014). Illustrative Example with the OECD QSAR Toolbox Workflow, Part 1: Introductory Note, 12pp. Helsinki, Finland: European Chemicals Agency. Available at: http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/21655633/illustrative-example-qsar-part1-en.pdf (Accessed 19.09.16).
27. ECHA (2014). Illustrative Example with the OECD QSAR Toolbox Workflow, Part 2: Case Studies, 46pp. Helsinki, Finland: European Chemicals Agency. Available at: http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/21655633/illustrative-example-qsar-part2-en.pdf (Accessed 19.09.16).
28. ECHA (2015). Illustrative Example with the OECD QSAR Toolbox Workflow, Part 2b, 23pp. Helsinki, Finland: European Chemicals Agency. Available at: http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/21655633/illustrative-example-qsar-part2b-en.pdf (Accessed 19.09.16).
29. OECD (2013). Series on Testing and Assessment No. 184: Guidance Document on Developing and Assessing Adverse Outcome Pathways, ENV/JM/MONO(2013)6, 17.04.2013, 45pp. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/displaydocument/?cote=env/jm/mono(2013)6&doclanguage=en (Accessed 19.09. 16).
30. OECD (2016). OECD Series on Adverse Outcome Pathways, No. 1: Users' Handbook Supplement to the Guidance Document for Developing and Ass - essing AOPs, 53pp. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Available at: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/5jlv1m9d1g32.pdf?expires=1474294067&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=46BA97CF3105B83F2CD98F92004798EC (Accessed 19.09.16).