Search

Read-across (RAx) translates available information from well-characterized chemicals to a substance for which there is a toxicological data gap. The OECD is working on case studies to probe general applicability of RAx, and several regulations (e.g., EU-REACH) already allow this procedure to be used to waive new in vivo tests. The decision to prepare a review on the state of the art of RAx as a tool for risk assessment for regulatory purposes was taken during a workshop with international experts in Ranco, Italy in July 2018. Three major issues were identified that need optimization to allow a higher regulatory acceptance rate of the RAx procedure: (i) the definition of similarity of source and target, (ii) the translation of biological/toxicological activity of source to target in the RAx procedure, and (iii) how to deal with issues of ADME that may differ between source and target. The use of new approach methodologies (NAM) was discussed as one of the most important innovations to improve the acceptability of RAx. At present, NAM data may be used to confirm chemical and toxicological similarity. In the future, the use of NAM may be broadened to fully characterize the hazard and toxicokinetic properties of RAx compounds. Concerning available guidance, documents on Good Read-Across Practice (GRAP) and on best practices to perform and evaluate the RAx process were identified. Here, in particular, the RAx guidance, being worked out by the European Commission's H2020 project EU-ToxRisk together with many external partners with regulatory experience, is given. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The need for reliable, sensitive (developmental) neurotoxicity testing of chemicals has steadily increased. Given the limited capacities for routine testing according to accepted regulatory guidelines, there is potential risk to human health and the environment. Most toxicity studies are based on mammalian test systems, which have been questioned for low sensitivity, limited relevance for humans, and animal welfare considerations. This increased the need for alternative models, one of which is the zebrafish (Danio rerio) embryo. This study assessed selected neonicotinoids at sub-lethal concentrations for their effects on embryonic development and behavior. The fish embryo acute toxicity test (OECD TG 236) determined the lowest observable effective concentrations, which were used as the highest test concentrations in subsequent behavioral assays. In the FET test, no severe compound-induced sublethal effects were seen at < 100 µM. In the coiling assay, exposure to ≥ 1.25 µM nicotine (positive control) affected both the burst duration and burst count per minute, whereas ≥ 50 µM thiacloprid affected the mean burst duration. Exposure to ≥ 50 µM acetamiprid and imidacloprid induced significant alterations in both mean burst duration and burst count per minute. In the swimming assay, 100 µM acetamiprid induced alterations in the frequency and extent of movements, whilst nicotine exposure only induced non-significant changes. All behavioral changes could be correlated to findings in mammalian studies. Given the quest for alternative test methods of (developmental) neurotoxicity, zebrafish embryo behavior testing could be integrated into a future tiered testing scheme.

Read-across approaches are considered key in moving away from in vivo animal testing towards addressing data-gaps using new approach methods (NAMs). Ample successful examples are still required to substantiate this strategy. Here we present and discuss the learnings from two OECD IATA endorsed read-across case studies. They involve two classes of pesticides – rotenoids and strobilurins – each having a defined mode-of-action that is assessed for its neurological hazard by means of an AOP-based testing strategy coupled to toxicokinetic simulations of human tissue concentrations. The endpoint in question is potential mitochondrial respiratory chain mediated neurotoxicity, specifically through inhibition of complex I or III. An AOP linking inhibition of mitochondrial respiratory chain complex I to the degeneration of dopaminergic neurons formed the basis for both cases but was deployed in two different regulatory contexts. The two cases also exemplify several different read-across concepts: analogue versus category approach, consolidated versus putative AOP, positive versus negative prediction (i.e., neurotoxicity versus low potential for neurotoxicity), and structural versus biological similarity. We applied a range of NAMs to explore the toxicodynamic properties of the compounds, e.g., in silico docking as well as in vitro assays and readouts – including transcriptomics – in various cell systems, all anchored to the relevant AOPs. Interestingly, although some of the data addressing certain elements of the read-across were associated with high uncertainty, their impact on the overall read-across conclusion remained limited. Coupled to the elaborate regulatory review that the two cases underwent, we propose some generic learnings of AOP-based testing strategies supporting read-across.

In this manuscript, which appeared in ALTEX 36 , 154-160 ( doi:10.14573/altex.1901031 ), the Acknowledgements should read: This work was supported by the BMBF, the DAAD, the DFG (KoRS-CB), and it has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 681002 (EU-ToxRisk).

Multiple non-animal-based test methods have never been formally validated. In order to use such new approach methods (NAMs) in a regulatory context, criteria to define their readiness are necessary. The field of developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) testing is used to exemplify the application of readiness criteria. The costs and number of untested chemicals are overwhelming for in vivo DNT testing. Thus, there is a need for inexpensive, high-throughput NAMs, to obtain initial information on potential hazards, and to allow prioritization for further testing. A background on the regulatory and scientific status of DNT testing is provided showing different types of test readiness levels, depending on the intended use of data from NAMs. Readiness criteria, compiled during a stakeholder workshop, uniting scientists from academia, industry and regulatory authorities are presented. An important step beyond the listing of criteria, was the suggestion for a preliminary scoring scheme. On this basis a (semi)-quantitative analysis process was assembled on test readiness of 17 NAMs with respect to various uses (e.g. prioritization/screening, risk assessment). The scoring results suggest that several assays are currently at high readiness levels. Therefore, suggestions are made on how DNT NAMs may be assembled into an integrated approach to testing and assessment (IATA). In parallel, the testing state in these assays was compiled for more than 1000 compounds. Finally, a vision is presented on how further NAM development may be guided by knowledge of signaling pathways necessary for brain development, DNT pathophysiology, and relevant adverse outcome pathways (AOP).