Cited by 394Animal testing and alternativesAgricultural safety and regulationsCarcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment

Adverse outcome pathways: opportunities, limitations and open questions

Open access
Leist, Marcel, Ghallab, Ahmed, Graepel, Rabea, Marchan, Rosemarie, Hassan, Reham, Bennekou, Susanne Hougaard, Limonciel, Alice, Vinken, Mathieu +45 more·2017·Archives of Toxicology

Abstract

Adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) are a recent toxicological construct that connects, in a formalized, transparent and quality-controlled way, mechanistic information to apical endpoints for regulatory purposes. AOP links a molecular initiating event (MIE) to the adverse outcome (AO) via key events (KE), in a way specified by key event relationships (KER). Although this approach to formalize mechanistic toxicological information only started in 2010, over 200 AOPs have already been established. At this stage, new requirements arise, such as the need for harmonization and re-assessment, for continuous updating, as well as for alerting about pitfalls, misuses and limits of applicability. In this review, the history of the AOP concept and its most prominent strengths are discussed, including the advantages of a formalized approach, the systematic collection of weight of evidence, the linkage of mechanisms to apical end points, the examination of the plausibility of epidemiological data, the identification of critical knowledge gaps and the design of mechanistic test methods. To prepare the ground for a broadened and appropriate use of AOPs, some widespread misconceptions are explained. Moreover, potential weaknesses and shortcomings of the current AOP rule set are addressed (1) to facilitate the discussion on its further evolution and (2) to better define appropriate vs. less suitable application areas. Exemplary toxicological studies are presented to discuss the linearity assumptions of AOP, the management of event modifiers and compensatory mechanisms, and whether a separation of toxicodynamics from toxicokinetics including metabolism is possible in the framework of pathway plasticity. Suggestions on how to compromise between different needs of AOP stakeholders have been added. A clear definition of open questions and limitations is provided to encourage further progress in the field.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00204-017-2045-3

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The AOP concept fosters development or selection of assays allowing quantitative detection of individual key events, thereby enabling definition of threshold levels.

    “The AOP concept fosters the development or selection of assays allowing a quantitative detection of individual KEs, thereby enabling the definition of threshold levels (Leist et al., 2017; Terron et al., 2018).”

    From In Vitro research Reproducibility: Keeping up High Standards (2019) · cites this paper as Leist et al., 2017

    The “Characteristics of AOP” section says AOPs can guide development of assays anchored to key events, and “Perspectives and outlook” describes studying individual key events in a concentration-dependent manner. But “Quantification of KEs/KERs; threshold setting” says that defining appropriate thresholds remains difficult even where key-event tests have been validated and quantitative work has been done. The claim overstates the extent to which such assays enable threshold definition. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. Bolt HM, Foth H, Hengstler JG, Degen GH (2004) Carcinogenicity categorization of chemicals-new aspects to be considered in a European perspective. Toxicol Lett 151(1):29-41
  2. Carbonell P, Lopez O, Amberg A, Pastor M, Sanz F (2017) Hepato- toxicity prediction by systems biology modeling of disturbed metabolic pathways using gene expression data. ALTEX 34(2):219-234
  3. Depledge MH (1994) The rational basis for the use of biomarkers as ecotoxicological tools. In: Fossi MC, Leonzio C (ed.) Nonde- structive biomarkers in vertebrates, pp. 271-295
  4. Edwards SW, Tan YM, Villeneuve DL et al (2016) Adverse outcome pathways-organizing toxicological information to improve decision making. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 356(1):170-181
  5. Fischer FC et al (2017) Modeling exposure in the Tox21 in vitro bioassays. Chem Res Toxicol 30(5):1197-1208
  6. Gerhardt E, Kügler S, Leist M et al (2001) Cascade of caspase activa- tion in potassium-deprived cerebellar granule neurons: targets for treatment with peptide and protein inhibitors of apoptosis. Mol Cell Neurosci 17:717-731 (PubMed PMID: 11312607)
  7. Grinberg M, Stöber RM, Edlund K et al (2014) Toxicogenomics directory of chemically exposed human hepatocytes. Arch Toxicol 88(12):2261-2287 Guidance document on developing and assessing adverse outcome pathways (2017) Environment directorate joint meeting of the chemicals committee and the working party on chemicals, pes- ticides and biotechnology; Series on Testing and Assessment No. 184. http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdispla ydocumentpdf/?cote=env/jm/mono(2013)6&doclanguage=en. Accessed 4 Sept 2017
  8. Hoffmann S, de Vries RBM, Stephens ML et al (2017) A primer on systematic reviews in toxicology. Arch Toxicol 91(7):2551-2575
  9. Jalan R, Moreau R, Kamath PS, Arroyo V (2016) Acute-on-chronic liver failure: a distinct clinical condition. Semin Liver Dis 36(2):107-108
  10. Jansen PL, Ghallab A, Vartak N et al (2017) The ascending pathophysi- ology of cholestatic liver disease. Hepatology 65(2):722-738
  11. Kuegler PB, Zimmer B, Waldmann T et al (2010) Markers of murine embryonic and neural stem cells, neurons and astrocytes: refer- ence points for developmental neurotoxicitiy testing-a review by the Transatlantic Think Tank for toxicology (t4). ALTEX 27:17-42
  12. Matozzo V, Gagné F, Marin MG, Ricciardi F, Blaise C (2008) Vitel- logenin as a biomarker of exposure to estrogenic compounds in aquatic invertebrates: a review. Environ Int 34:531-545
  13. McCarty JF, Shugart LR (1990) Biomarkers of environmental contami- nation. Lewis Publishers, CRC Press, Boca Raton, p 457
  14. Nicotera P, Leist M, Manzo L (1999) Neuronal cell death: a demise with different shapes. Trends Pharmacol Sci 20(2):46-51
  15. Oesch F, Herrero ME, Hengstler JG, Lohmann M, Arand M (2000) Metabolic detoxification: implications for thresholds. Toxicol Pathol 28(3):382-387
  16. Oki NO, Edwards SW (2016) An integrative data mining approach to identifying adverse outcome pathway signatures. Toxicology 28(350-352):49-61
  17. Paparella M, Colacci A, Jacobs MN (2017) Uncertainties of testing methods: what do we (want to) know about carcinogenicity? ALTEX 34(2):235-252
  18. Pelkonen O, Terron A, Hernandez AF et al (2017) Chemical expo- sure and infant leukaemia: development of an adverse outcome pathway (AOP) for aetiology and risk assessment research. Arch Toxicol 91(8):2763-2780
  19. Polasek TM, Patel F, Jensen BP, Sorich MJ, Wiese MD, Doogue MP (2013) Predicted metabolic drug clearance with increasing adult age. Br J Clin Pharmacol 75(4):1019-1028
  20. Samuel GO, Hoffmann S, Wright R et al (2016) Guidance on assess- ing the methodological and reporting quality of toxicologically relevant studies: a scoping review. Environ Int 92-93:630-646
  21. Stephens ML, Betts K, Beck NB et al (2016) The emergence of system- atic review in toxicology. Toxicol Sci 152:10-16
  22. Tian Z, Chen Y, Gao B (2013) Natural killer cells in liver disease. Hepatology 57:1654-1662. doi:10.1002/hep.26115 · DOI
  23. Trevan JW (1927) The error of determination of toxicity. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 101(712):483-514
  24. Tsaioun K, Blaauboer BJ, Hartung T (2016) Evidence-based absorp- tion, distribution, metabolism, excretion (ADME) and its inter- play with alternative toxicity methods. ALTEX 33:343-358 Users' handbook supplement to the guidance document for develop- ing and assessing AOPs (2017) http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/ environment/users-handbook-supplement-to-the-guidance- document-for-developing-and-assessing-adverse-outcome- pathways_5jlv1m9d1g32-en. Accessed 4 Sept 2017

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Leist, M., Ghallab, A., Graepel, R., Marchan, R., Hassan, R., Bennekou, S. H., Limonciel, A., Vinken, M., Schildknecht, S., Waldmann, T., Danen, E., van Ravenzwaay, B., Kamp, H., Gardner, I., Godoy, P., Bois, F. Y., Braeuning, A., Reif, R., Oesch, F., Drasdo, D., Höhme, S., Schwarz, M., Hartung, T., Braunbeck, T., Beltman, J., Vrieling, H., Sanz, F., Forsby, A., Gadaleta, D., Fisher, C., Kelm, J., Fluri, D., Ecker, G., Zdrazil, B., Terron, A., Jennings, P., van der Burg, B., Dooley, S., Meijer, A. H., Willighagen, E., Martens, M., Evelo, C., Mombelli, E., Taboureau, O., Mantovani, A., Hardy, B., Koch, B., Escher, S., van Thriel, C., Cadenas, C., Kroese, D., van de Water, B., & Hengstler, J. G.
Affiliations
  • University of Konstanz (DE)
  • South Valley University (EG)
  • Leiden University (NL)
  • TU Dortmund University (DE)
  • Environmental Protection Agency (DK)
  • Innsbruck Medical University (AT)
  • Vrije Universiteit Brussel (BE)
  • BASF (Germany) (DE)
  • Simcyp (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) (DE)
  • Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • Leipzig University (DE)
  • University of Tübingen (DE)
  • Heidelberg University (DE)
  • Leiden University Medical Center (NL)
  • Stockholm University (SE)
  • Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research (IT)
  • University of Vienna (AT)
  • European Food Safety Authority (IT)
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
  • Maastricht University (NL)
  • Institut national de l'environnement industriel et des risques (FR)
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • Istituto Superiore di Sanità (IT)
  • Edelweiss Connect (Switzerland) (CH)
  • Fraunhofer Institute for Toxicology and Experimental Medicine (DE)
  • Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (NL)
Corresponding author
  • Leist, Marcel
  • Hengstler, Jan G.
Venue
Archives of Toxicology
Published
2017-10-19
Volume
91
Issue
11
Pages
3477-3505
ISSN
  • 0340-5761 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-0738
OpenAlex
W2765128648
Cited by
394
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 50 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 50 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 54 · 2019: 53 · 2018: 45 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 1
FWCI
9.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • Archives of Toxicology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • KOPS (University of Konstanz) (submittedVersion)
  • TNO Repository (submittedVersion)
  • Fraunhofer-Publica (Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft) (submittedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
  • Repository hosted by TU Delft Library (TU Delft) (submittedVersion)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
  • OpenAgrar (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • European Commission (HORIZON2020, 681002)
  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Agricultural safety and regulations
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Carcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
Keywords
adverse outcome pathways, key event relationships, molecular initiating events, mechanistic toxicology, weight of evidence, linearity assumption, compensatory mechanisms, toxicodynamics, toxicokinetics, metabolism
MeSH terms
Adverse Outcome Pathways, Animals, Humans, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Quality Control, Vinyl Compounds, Risk Assessment, Systems Biology, History, 21st Century, Ecotoxicology, Toxicokinetics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review