Search

The toxicological assessment of genotoxic impurities is important in the regulatory framework for pharmaceuticals. In this context, the application of promising computational methods (e.g. Quantitative Structure–Activity Relationships (QSARs), Structure–Activity Relationships (SARs) and/or expert systems) for the evaluation of genotoxicity is needed, especially when very limited information on impurities is available. To gain an overview of how computational methods are used internationally in the regulatory assessment of pharmaceutical impurities, the current regulatory documents were reviewed. The software recommended in the guidelines (e.g. MCASE, MC4PC, Derek for Windows) or used practically by various regulatory agencies (e.g. US Food and Drug Administration, US and Danish Environmental Protection Agencies), as well as other existing programs were analysed. Both statistically based and knowledge-based (expert system) tools were analysed. The overall conclusions on the available in silico tools for genotoxicity and carcinogenicity prediction are quite optimistic, and the regulatory application of QSAR methods is constantly growing. For regulatory purposes, it is recommended that predictions of genotoxicity/carcinogenicity should be based on a battery of models, combining high-sensitivity models (low rate of false negatives) with high-specificity ones (low rate of false positives) and in vitro assays in an integrated manner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment was tasked with conducting risk assessments for United States Food and Drug Administration-approved food dyes relative to neurobehavioral concerns. The purpose of this assessment was to evaluate the evidence for neurodevelopment effects based on three streams of evidence: 1) studies identified by OEHHA for consideration in a quantitative risk assessment; 2) studies relevant to understanding mechanisms of neurobehavioral effects; 3) an in silico assessment of the bioavailability of USFDA-approved food dyes. The results indicate a lack of adequate or consistent evidence of neurological effects, supported by a lack of bioavailability and brain penetration predicted by the in silico assessment. Further, the mechanistic evidence supports a lack of activity from in vitro neurotransmitter assays, and a lack of evidence to support molecular initiating events or key events in adverse outcome pathways associated with neurodevelopmental effects, supporting a lack of biological plausibility for neurobehavioral effects following food exposures to colors. These conclusions are consistent with other authoritative bodies, such as JECFA and EFSA, that have determined (i) other effects are more appropriate for estimating acceptable daily intakes and (ii) evidence from the neurobehavioral studies lack the strength to be relied upon for quantitative risk assessment. • OEHHA tasked with conducting neurological risk assessments for synthetic colors. • Current assessment conducted for evidence of neurological effects for synthetic colors. • Integration of evidence provided no adequate or consistent evidence of effects. • Lack of bioavailability/brain penetration demonstrated based on in silico results. • Results are consistent with conclusions from authoritative bodies (JECFA, EFSA). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To facilitate the practical implementation of the guidance on the residue definition for dietary risk assessment, EFSA has organized an evaluation of applicability of existing in silico models for predicting the genotoxicity of pesticides and their metabolites, including literature survey, application of QSARs and development of Read Across methodologies. This paper summarizes the main results. For the Ames test, all (Q)SAR models generated statistically significant predictions, comparable with the experimental variability of the test. The reliability of the models for other assays/endpoints appears to be still far from optimality. Two new Read Across approaches were evaluated: Read Across was largely successful for predicting the Ames test results, but less for in vitro Chromosomal Aberrations. The worse results for non-Ames endpoints may be attributable to the several revisions of experimental protocols and evaluation criteria of results, that have made the databases qualitatively non-homogeneous and poorly suitable for modeling. Last, Parent/Metabolite structural differences (besides known Structural Alerts) that may, or may not cause changes in the Ames mutagenicity were identified and catalogued. The findings from this work are suitable for being integrated into Weight-of-Evidence and Tiered evaluation schemes. Areas needing further developments are pointed out. • There is increased interest for Structure-Activity approaches by regulatory bodies, particularly QSAR and Read Across. • EFSA organized an evaluation of in silico models for predicting the genotoxicity of pesticides and their metabolites. • The project includes literature survey, application of QSARs and development of Read Across methodologies. • The methods were assessed on a new, publicly available EFSA genotoxicity database of pesticides and metabolites. • This paper summarizes the main results of the study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]