Cited by 114Animal testing and alternativesImmunotoxicology and immune responsesCarcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment

Putative adverse outcome pathways relevant to neurotoxicity

Open access
Bal-Price, Anna, Crofton, Kevin M., Sachana, Magdalini, Shafer, Timothy J., Behl, Mamta, Forsby, Anna, Hargreaves, Alan, Landesmann, Brigitte +10 more·2015·Critical Reviews in Toxicology

Abstract

The Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) framework provides a template that facilitates understanding of complex biological systems and the pathways of toxicity that result in adverse outcomes (AOs). The AOP starts with an molecular initiating event (MIE) in which a chemical interacts with a biological target(s), followed by a sequential series of KEs, which are cellular, anatomical, and/or functional changes in biological processes, that ultimately result in an AO manifest in individual organisms and populations. It has been developed as a tool for a knowledge-based safety assessment that relies on understanding mechanisms of toxicity, rather than simply observing its adverse outcome. A large number of cellular and molecular processes are known to be crucial to proper development and function of the central (CNS) and peripheral nervous systems (PNS). However, there are relatively few examples of well-documented pathways that include causally linked MIEs and KEs that result in adverse outcomes in the CNS or PNS. As a first step in applying the AOP framework to adverse health outcomes associated with exposure to exogenous neurotoxic substances, the EU Reference Laboratory for Alternatives to Animal Testing (EURL ECVAM) organized a workshop (March 2013, Ispra, Italy) to identify potential AOPs relevant to neurotoxic and developmental neurotoxic outcomes. Although the AOPs outlined during the workshop are not fully described, they could serve as a basis for further, more detailed AOP development and evaluation that could be useful to support human health risk assessment in a variety of ways.

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 · 10.3109/10408444.2014.981331

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?

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 68 · Cited by 114

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Bloom B Cohen RA Freeman G 2010 Summary health statistics for U.S. children: National Health Interview Survey, 2009 Vital Health Stat 247 1 82 21563639

Authors
Bal-Price, A., Crofton, K. M., Sachana, M., Shafer, T. J., Behl, M., Forsby, A., Hargreaves, A., Landesmann, B., Lein, P. J., Louisse, J., Monnet-Tschudi, F., Paini, A., Rolaki, A., Schrattenholz, A., Suñol, C., van Thriel, C., Whelan, M., & Fritsche, E.
Affiliations
  • Environmental Protection Agency (US)
  • Joint Research Centre (IT)
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (US)
  • Stockholm University (SE)
  • Nottingham Trent University (GB)
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • ProteoSys (Germany) (DE)
  • Leibniz Institute of Environmental Medicine (DE)
Venue
Critical Reviews in Toxicology
Published
2015-01-02
Volume
45
Issue
1
Pages
83-91
ISSN
  • 0045-6446 (ISSN-L)
  • 1040-8444
  • 1547-6898
OpenAlex
W2097471815
Cited by
114
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 1
FWCI
4.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Critical Reviews in Toxicology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) (submittedVersion)
  • IRIS (submittedVersion)
  • Joint Research Centre (European Commission) (submittedVersion)
  • SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
  • European Commission
  • Joint Research Centre
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (R01ES014901)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immunotoxicology and immune responses
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Carcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
Keywords
adverse outcome pathways, neurotoxicity, developmental neurotoxicity, molecular initiating events, key events, central nervous system, peripheral nervous system, alternative toxicology, human health risk assessment, toxicity mechanisms
MeSH terms
Animals, Environmental Exposure, Humans, Risk Assessment, Neurotoxicity Syndromes

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