Cited by 127Animal testing and alternativesCarcinogens and Genotoxicity AssessmentAgricultural safety and regulations

Implementing Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century (TT21C): making safety decisions using toxicity pathways, and progress in a prototype risk assessment

Open access
Adeleye, Yeyejide, Andersen, Melvin, Clewell, Rebecca, Davies, Michael, Dent, Matthew, Edwards, Sue, Fowler, Paul, Malcomber, Sophie +8 more·2015·Toxicology

Abstract

Risk assessment methodologies in toxicology have remained largely unchanged for decades. The default approach uses high dose animal studies, together with human exposure estimates, and conservative assessment (uncertainty) factors or linear extrapolations to determine whether a specific chemical exposure is 'safe' or 'unsafe'. Although some incremental changes have appeared over the years, results from all new approaches are still judged against this process of extrapolating high-dose effects in animals to low-dose exposures in humans. The US National Research Council blueprint for change, entitled Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and Strategy called for a transformation of toxicity testing from a system based on high-dose studies in laboratory animals to one founded primarily on in vitro methods that evaluate changes in normal cellular signalling pathways using human-relevant cells or tissues. More recently, this concept of pathways-based approaches to risk assessment has been expanded by the description of 'Adverse Outcome Pathways' (AOPs). The question, however, has been how to translate this AOP/TT21C vision into the practical tools that will be useful to those expected to make safety decisions. We have sought to provide a practical example of how the TT21C vision can be implemented to facilitate a safety assessment for a commercial chemical without the use of animal testing. To this end, the key elements of the TT21C vision have been broken down to a set of actions that can be brought together to achieve such a safety assessment. Such components of a pathways-based risk assessment have been widely discussed, however to-date, no worked examples of the entire risk assessment process exist. In order to begin to test the process, we have taken the approach of examining a prototype toxicity pathway (DNA damage responses mediated by the p53 network) and constructing a strategy for the development of a pathway based risk assessment for a specific chemical in a case study mode. This contribution represents a 'work-in-progress' and is meant to both highlight concepts that are well-developed and identify aspects of the overall process which require additional development. To guide our understanding of what a pathways-based risk assessment could look like in practice, we chose to work on a case study chemical (quercetin) with a defined human exposure and to bring a multidisciplinary team of chemists, biologists, modellers and risk assessors to work together towards a safety assessment. Our goal was to see if the in vitro dose response for quercetin could be sufficiently understood to construct a TT21C risk assessment without recourse to rodent carcinogenicity study data. The data presented include high throughput pathway biomarkers (p-H2AX, p-ATM, p-ATR, p-Chk2, p53, p-p53, MDM2 and Wip1) and markers of cell-cycle, apoptosis and micronuclei formation, plus gene transcription in HT1080 cells. Eighteen point dose response curves were generated using flow cytometry and imaging to determine the concentrations that resulted in significant perturbation. NOELs and BMDs were compared to the output from biokinetic modelling and the potential for in vitro to in vivo extrapolation explored. A first tier risk assessment was performed comparing the total quercetin concentration in the in vitro systems with the predicted total quercetin concentration in plasma and tissues. The shortcomings of this approach and recommendations for improvement are described. This paper therefore describes the current progress in an ongoing research effort aimed at providing a pathways-based, proof-of-concept in vitro-only safety assessment for a consumer use product.

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 · 10.1016/j.tox.2014.02.007

Cites

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?

  • A key element in the NRC strategy is quantitative detection of perturbations of defined molecular events, cellular stress pathways, and marker signatures predictive for a specific outcome.

    “A key element in the NRC’s strategy is its distinct focus on the quantitative detection of perturbations of defined molecular events [Key Events, (KE)], cellular stress pathways, and marker signatures that are predictive for a specific outcome (Adeleye et al., 2015).”

    From In Vitro research Reproducibility: Keeping up High Standards (2019) · cites this paper as Adeleye et al., 2015

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Bhattacharya, S., Zhang, Q., Carmichael, P., Boekelheide, K., Andersen, M., 2011. Tox- icity testing in the 21st century: defining new risk assessment approaches based on pertubation of intracellular toxicity pathways. PLoS ONE 6 (6), e20887.
  2. Boekelheide, K., Andersen, M.E., 2010. A mechanistic redefinition of adverse effects -a key step in the toxicity testing paradigm shift. ALTEX 27 (4), 243-252.
  3. Groothuis, F.A., Heringa, M.B., Nicol, B., Hermens, J.L., Blaauboer, B.J., Kramer, N.I., 2013. Dose metric considerations in in vitro assays to improve quantitative in vitro-in vivo dose extrapolations. Toxicology, http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2013.08.012 (Epub ahead of print). · DOI
  4. Harwood, M., Danielewska-Nikiel, B., Borzelleca, J.F., Flamm, G.W., Williams, G.M., Lines, T.C., 2007. A critical review of the data related to the safety of quercetin and lack of evidence of in vivo toxicity, including lack of genotoxic/carcinogenic properties. Food Chem. Toxicol. 45, 2179-2205.
  5. Krewski, D., Acosta Jr., D., Andersen, M., Anderson, H., Bailar 3rd, J.C., Boekelheide, K., Brent, R., Charnley, G., Cheung, V.G., Green Jr., S., Kelsey, K.T., Kerkvliet, N.I., Li, A.A., McCray, L., Meyer, O., Patterson, R.D., Pennie, W., Scala, R.A., Solomon, G.M., Stephens, M., Yager, J., Zeise, L., 2010. Toxicity testing in the 21st cen- tury: a vision and a strategy. Toxicol. Environ. Health B: Crit. Rev. 13 (2-4), 51-138.
  6. Neumaier, T., Swenson, J., Pham, C., Polyzos, A., Lo, A.T., Yang, P., Dyball, J., Asaithamby, A., Chen, D.J., Bissell, M.J., Thalhammer, S., Costes, S.V., 2012. Evi- dence for formation of DNA repair centers and dose-response nonlinearity in human cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 109, 443-448.
  7. NRC, 2007. Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
  8. OECD, 2011. Report of the Workshop on Using Mechanistic Information in Forming Chemical Categories. OECD Environment, Health and Safety Publications Series on Testing and Assessment No. 138. ENV/JM/MONO., pp.
  9. Sokhansanj, B.A., 2005. DNA base excision repair nanosystem engineering: model development. Conf. Proc. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. 7, 7588-7590.
  10. Yang, L., Allen, B.C., Thomas, R.S., 2007. BMDExpress: a software tool for the bench- mark dose analyses of genomic data. BMC Genomics 25 (8), 387.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Adeleye, Y., Andersen, M., Clewell, R., Davies, M., Dent, M., Edwards, S., Fowler, P., Malcomber, S., Nicol, B., Scott, A., Scott, S., Sun, B., Westmoreland, C., White, A., Zhang, Q., & Carmichael, P. L.
Affiliations
  • The Hamner Institutes for Health Sciences (US)
  • Unilever (United Kingdom) (GB)
Corresponding author
Carmichael, Paul L.
Venue
Toxicology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-06
Volume
332
Pages
102-111
ISSN
0300-483X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2017890053
Cited by
127
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 6
FWCI
30.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Toxicology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Carcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Agricultural safety and regulations
Keywords
adverse outcome pathways, quercetin, rodent carcinogenicity, chemical safety assessment, alternatives to animal testing, uncertainty factors
MeSH terms
Animals, Animal Testing Alternatives, Computer Simulation, Consumer Product Safety, DNA Damage, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Humans, Models, Biological, Quercetin, Risk Factors, Toxicology, Signal Transduction, Tumor Suppressor Protein p53, Risk Assessment, Toxicity Tests, No-Observed-Adverse-Effect Level, Cell Line, Tumor, Systems Biology, High-Throughput Screening Assays, In Vitro Techniques

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