The use of integrated and intelligent testing strategies in the prediction of toxic hazard and in risk assessment

Alternative Testing Strategies for Nanomaterials: State of the Science and Considerations for Risk Analysis

The rapid growth of the nanotechnology industry has warranted equal progress in the nanotoxicology and risk assessment fields. In vivo models have traditionally been used to determine human and environmental risk for chemicals; however, the use of these tests has limitations, and there are global appeals to develop reliable alternatives to animal testing. Many have investigated the use of alternative (nonanimal) testing methods and strategies have quickly developed and resulted in the generation of large toxicological data sets for numerous nanomaterials (NMs). Due to the novel physicochemical properties of NMs that are related to surface characteristics, the approach toward toxicity test development has distinct considerations from traditional chemicals, bringing new requirements for adapting these approaches for NMs. The methodical development of strategies that combine multiple alternative tests can be useful for predictive NM risk assessment and help screening-level decision making. This article provides an overview of the main developments in alternative methods and strategies for reducing uncertainty in NM risk assessment, including advantages and disadvantages of in vitro, ex vivo, and in silico methods, and examples of existing comprehensive strategies. In addition, knowledge gaps are identified toward improvements for experimental and strategy design, specifically highlighting the need to represent realistic exposure scenarios and to consider NM-specific concerns such as characterization, assay interferences, and standardization. Overall, this article aims to improve the reliability and utility of alternative testing methods and strategies for risk assessment of manufactured NMs.

Validation of Alternative In Vitro Methods to Animal Testing: Concepts, Challenges, Processes and Tools

This chapter explores the concepts, processes, tools and challenges relating to the validation of alternative methods for toxicity and safety testing. In general terms, validation is the process of assessing the appropriateness and usefulness of a tool for its intended purpose. Validation is routinely used in various contexts in science, technology, the manufacturing and services sectors. It serves to assess the fitness-for-purpose of devices, systems, software up to entire methodologies. In the area of toxicity testing, validation plays an indispensable role: "alternative approaches" are increasingly replacing animal models as predictive tools and it needs to be demonstrated that these novel methods are fit for purpose. Alternative approaches include in vitro test methods, non-testing approaches such as predictive computer models up to entire testing and assessment strategies composed of method suites, data sources and decision-aiding tools. Data generated with alternative approaches are ultimately used for decision-making on public health and the protection of the environment. It is therefore essential that the underlying methods and methodologies are thoroughly characterised, assessed and transparently documented through validation studies involving impartial actors. Importantly, validation serves as a filter to ensure that only test methods able to produce data that help to address legislative requirements (e.g. EU's REACH legislation) are accepted as official testing tools and, owing to the globalisation of markets, recognised on international level (e.g. through inclusion in OECD test guidelines). Since validation creates a credible and transparent evidence base on test methods, it provides a quality stamp, supporting companies developing and marketing alternative methods and creating considerable business opportunities. Validation of alternative methods is conducted through scientific studies assessing two key hypotheses, reliability and relevance of the test method for a given purpose. Relevance encapsulates the scientific basis of the test method, its capacity to predict adverse effects in the "target system" (i.e. human health or the environment) as well as its applicability for the intended purpose. In this chapter we focus on the validation of non-animal in vitro alternative testing methods and review the concepts, challenges, processes and tools fundamental to the validation of in vitro methods intended for hazard testing of chemicals. We explore major challenges and peculiarities of validation in this area. Based on the notion that validation per se is a scientific endeavour that needs to adhere to key scientific principles, namely objectivity and appropriate choice of methodology, we examine basic aspects of study design and management, and provide illustrations of statistical approaches to describe predictive performance of validated test methods as well as their reliability.

Adverse Outcome Pathways and Drug-Induced Liver Injury Testing

Drug-induced liver injury is a prominent reason for premarketing and postmarketing drug withdrawal and can be manifested in a number of ways, such as cholestasis, steatosis, and fibrosis. The mechanisms driving these toxicological processes have been well characterized and have been emdedded in adverse outcome pathway frameworks in recent years. This review evaluates these constructs and simultaneously illustrates their use in the preclinical testing of drug-induced liver injury.

Evaluation of an alternative in vitro test battery for detecting reproductive toxicants

The application of alternative methods in developmental and reproductive toxicology is challenging in view of the complexity of mechanisms involved. A battery of complementary test systems may provide a better prediction of developmental and reproductive toxicity than single assays. We tested twelve compounds with varying mechanisms of toxic action in an assay battery including 24 CALUX transcriptional activation assays, mouse cardiac embryonic stem cell test, ReProGlo assay, zebrafish embryotoxicity assay, and two CYP17 and two CYP19 activity assays. The battery correctly detected 11/12 compounds tested, with one false negative occurring, which could be explained by the absence of the specific mechanism of action of this compound in the battery. Toxicokinetic modeling revealed that toxic concentrations were in the range expected from in vivo reproductive toxicity data. This study illustrates added value of combining assays that contain complementary biological processes and mechanisms, increasing predictive value of the battery over individual assays.