Application of in silico modelling to estimate toxicity of migrating substances from food packaging

Value and limitation of structure-based profilers to characterize developmental and reproductive toxicity potential

The uncertainty regarding the safety of chemicals leaching from food packaging triggers attention. In silico models provide solutions for screening of these chemicals, since many are toxicologically uncharacterized. For hazard assessment, information on developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART) is needed. The possibility to apply in silico toxicology to identify and quantify DART alerts was investigated. Open-source models and profilers were applied to 195 packaging chemicals and analogues. An approach based on DART and estrogen receptor (ER) binding profilers and molecular docking was able to identify all except for one chemical with documented DART properties. Twenty percent of the chemicals in the database known to be negative in experimental studies were classified as positive. The scheme was then applied to 121 untested chemicals. Alerts were identified for sixteen of them, five being packaging substances, the others structural analogues. Read-across was then developed to translate alerts into quantitative toxicological values. They can be used to calculate margins of exposure (MoE), the size of which reflects safety concern. The application of this approach appears valuable for hazard characterization of toxicologically untested packaging migrants. It is an alternative to the use of default uncertainty factor (UF) applied to animal chronic toxicity value to handle absence of DART data in hazard characterization.

Integrating in silico models and read-across methods for predicting toxicity of chemicals: A step-wise strategy

In silico methods and models are increasingly used for predicting properties of chemicals for hazard identification and hazard characterisation in the absence of experimental toxicity data. Many in silico models are available and can be used individually or in an integrated fashion. Whilst such models offer major benefits to toxicologists, risk assessors and the global scientific community, the lack of a consistent framework for the integration of in silico results can lead to uncertainty and even contradictions across models and users, even for the same chemicals. In this context, a range of methods for integrating in silico results have been proposed on a statistical or case-specific basis. Read-across constitutes another strategy for deriving reference points or points of departure for hazard characterisation of untested chemicals, from the available experimental data for structurally-similar compounds, mostly using expert judgment. Recently a number of software systems have been developed to support experts in this task providing a formalised and structured procedure. Such a procedure could also facilitate further integration of the results generated from in silico models and read-across. This article discusses a framework on weight of evidence published by EFSA to identify the stepwise approach for systematic integration of results or values obtained from these "non-testing methods". Key criteria and best practices for selecting and evaluating individual in silico models are also described, together with the means to combining the results, taking into account any limitations, and identifying strategies that are likely to provide consistent results.

Chemistry-Wide Association Studies (CWAS): A Novel Framework for Identifying and Interpreting Structure-Activity Relationships

Quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR) models are often seen as a "black box" because they are considered difficult to interpret. Meanwhile, qualitative approaches, e.g., structural alerts (SA) or read-across, provide mechanistic insight, which is preferred for regulatory purposes, but predictive accuracy of such approaches is often low. Herein, we introduce the chemistry-wide association study (CWAS) approach, a novel framework that both addresses such deficiencies and combines advantages of statistical QSAR and alert-based approaches. The CWAS framework consists of the following steps: (i) QSAR model building for an end point of interest, (ii) identification of key chemical features, (iii) determination of communities of such features disproportionately co-occurring more frequently in the active than in the inactive class, and (iv) assembling these communities to form larger (and not necessarily chemically connected) novel structural alerts with high specificity. As a proof-of-concept, we have applied CWAS to model Ames mutagenicity and Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (SJS). For the well-studied Ames mutagenicity data set, we identified 76 important individual fragments and assembled co-occurring fragments into SA both replicative of known as well as representing novel mutagenicity alerts. For the SJS data set, we identified 29 important fragments and assembled co-occurring communities into SA including both known and novel alerts. In summary, we demonstrate that CWAS provides a new framework to interpret predictive QSAR models and derive refined structural alerts for more effective design and safety assessment of drugs and drug candidates.

Alarms about structural alerts

Structural alerts are widely accepted in chemical toxicology and regulatory decision support as a simple and transparent means to flag potential chemical hazards or group compounds into categories for read-across. However, there has been a growing concern that alerts disproportionally flag too many chemicals as toxic, which questions their reliability as toxicity markers. Conversely, the rigorously developed and properly validated statistical QSAR models can accurately and reliably predict the toxicity of a chemical; however, their use in regulatory toxicology has been hampered by the lack of transparency and interpretability. We demonstrate that contrary to the common perception of QSAR models as "black boxes" they can be used to identify statistically significant chemical substructures (QSAR-based alerts) that influence toxicity. We show through several case studies, however, that the mere presence of structural alerts in a chemical, irrespective of the derivation method (expert-based or QSAR-based), should be perceived only as hypotheses of possible toxicological effect. We propose a new approach that synergistically integrates structural alerts and rigorously validated QSAR models for a more transparent and accurate safety assessment of new chemicals.

Integrating QSAR and read-across for environmental assessment

Read-across and QSAR have different traditions and drawbacks. We address here two main questions: (1) How do we solve the issue of the subjectivity in the evaluation of data and results, which may be particularly critical for read-across, but may have a role also for the QSAR assessment? (2) How do we take advantage of the results of both approaches to support each other? The QSAR model starts from the training set. The presence of similar chemicals with property values close to that predicted can support the result. The approach in read-across is the opposite. The assessment is focused on the few substances similar to the target. The data quality of the similar chemicals is fundamental. A risk is poor standardization in the definition of 'similarity', because different approaches may be applied. Inspired by the principles of high transparency and reproducibility, a new program for read-across, called ToxRead, has been developed and made freely available ( www.toxgate.eu ). The output of ToxRead can be compared and integrated with the output of QSAR, within a weight-of-evidence strategy. We discuss the evaluation and integration of ToxRead and QSAR with examples of the assessment of bioconcentration factors of chemicals.