Search

In a joint effort involving scientists from academia, industry and regulatory agencies, ECETOC’s activities in Omics have led to conceptual proposals for: (1) A framework that assures data quality for reporting and inclusion of Omics data in regulatory assessments; and (2) an approach to robustly quantify these data, prior to interpretation for regulatory use. In continuation of these activities this workshop explored and identified areas of need to facilitate robust interpretation of such data in the context of deriving points of departure (POD) for risk assessment and determining an adverse change from normal variation. ECETOC was amongst the first to systematically explore the application of Omics methods, now incorporated into the group of methods known as New Approach Methodologies (NAMs), to regulatory toxicology. This support has been in the form of both projects (primarily with CEFIC/LRI) and workshops. Outputs have led to projects included in the workplan of the Extended Advisory Group on Molecular Screening and Toxicogenomics (EAGMST) group of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and to the drafting of OECD Guidance Documents for Omics data reporting, with potentially more to follow on data transformation and interpretation. The current workshop was the last in a series of technical methods development workshops, with a sub-focus on the derivation of a POD from Omics data. Workshop presentations demonstrated that Omics data developed within robust frameworks for both scientific data generation and analysis can be used to derive a POD. The issue of noise in the data was discussed as an important consideration for identifying robust Omics changes and deriving a POD. Such variability or “noise” can comprise technical or biological variation within a dataset and should clearly be distinguished from homeostatic responses. Adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) were considered a useful framework on which to assemble Omics

The predominantly animal-centric approach of chemical safety assessment has increasingly come under pressure. Society is questioning overall performance, sustainability, continued relevance for human health risk assessment and ethics of this system, demanding a change of paradigm. At the same time, the scientific toolbox used for risk assessment is continuously enriched by the development of “New Approach Methodologies” (NAMs). While this term does not define the age or the state of readiness of the innovation, it covers a wide range of methods, including quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) predictions, high-throughput screening (HTS) bioassays, omics applications, cell cultures, organoids, microphysiological systems (MPS), machine learning models and artificial intelligence (AI). In addition to promising faster and more efficient toxicity testing, NAMs have the potential to fundamentally transform today’s regulatory work by allowing more human-relevant decision-making in terms of both hazard and exposure assessment. Yet, several obstacles hamper a broader application of NAMs in current regulatory risk assessment. Constraints in addressing repeated-dose toxicity, with particular reference to the chronic toxicity, and hesitance from relevant stakeholders, are major challenges for the implementation of NAMs in a broader context. Moreover, issues regarding predictivity, reproducibility and quantification need to be addressed and regulatory and legislative frameworks need to be adapted to NAMs. The conceptual perspective presented here has its focus on hazard assessment and is grounded on the main findings and conclusions from a symposium and workshop held in Berlin in November 2021. It intends to provide further insights into how NAMs can be gradually integrated into chemical risk assessment aimed at protection of human health, until eventually the current paradigm is replaced by an animal-free “Next Generation Risk Assessment” (NGRA).