Putative adverse outcome pathways relevant to neurotoxicity
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
Data from experimental models suggest that PCB developmental neurotoxicity is mediated predominantly by NDL PCBs.
“This is of significant concern because data from experimental models suggest that PCB developmental neurotoxicity is mediated predominantly by NDL PCBs [ 27 , 104 ].”
From DNA methylation: a mechanism linking environmental chemical exposures to risk of autism spectrum disorders? (2016) · cites this paper as [104]
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
- 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)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Critical Reviews in Toxicology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2015-01-02
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 83-91
- ISSN
- 0045-6446 (ISSN-L)
- 1040-8444
- 1547-6898
- PMC
- PMC5072123
- 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
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- 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