Ewan D. Booth

Read-across approaches--misconceptions, promises and challenges ahead.

Read-across is a data gap filling technique used within category and analogue approaches. It has been utilized as an alternative approach to address information requirements under various past and present regulatory programs such as the OECD High Production Volume Programme as well as the EUs Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and restriction of CHemicals (REACH) regulation. Although read-across raises a number of expectations, many misconceptions still remain around what it truly represents; how to address its associated justification in a robust and scientifically credible manner; what challenges/issues exist in terms of its application and acceptance; and what future efforts are needed to resolve them. In terms of future enhancements, read-across is likely to embrace more biologically-orientated approaches consistent with the Toxicity in the 21st Century vision (Tox-21c). This Food for Thought article, which is notably not a consensus report, aims to discuss a number of these aspects and, in doing so, to raise awareness of the ongoing efforts and activities to enhance read-across. It also intends to set the agenda for a CAAT read-across initiative in 2014-2015 to facilitate the proper use of this technique.

Toward good read-across practice (GRAP) guidance

Summary Grouping of substances and utilizing read-across of data within those groups represents an important data gap filling technique for chemical safety assessments. Categories/analogue groups are typically developed based on structural similarity and, increasingly often, also on mechanistic (biological) similarity. While read-across can play a key role in complying with legislation such as the European REACH regulation, the lack of consensus regarding the extent and type of evidence necessary to support it often hampers its successful application and acceptance by regulatory authorities. Despite a potentially broad user community, expertise is still concentrated across a handful of organizations and individuals. In order to facilitate the effective use of read-across, this document presents the state of the art, summarizes insights learned from reviewing ECHA published decisions regarding the relative successes/pitfalls surrounding read-across under REACH, and compiles the relevant activities and guidance documents. Special emphasis is given to the available existing tools and approaches, an analysis of ECHAs published final decisions associated with all levels of compliance checks and testing proposals, the consideration and expression of uncertainty, the use of biological support data, and the impact of the ECHA Read-Across Assessment Framework (RAAF) published in 2015.

Food for Thought … Read-Across Approaches - Misconceptions, Promises and Challenges Ahead

Read-across is a data gap filling technique used within category and analogue approaches. It has been utilized as an alternative approach to address information requirements under various past and present regulatory programs such as the OECD High Production Volume Programme as well as the EUs Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and restriction of CHemicals (REACH) regulation. Although read-across raises a number of expectations, many misconceptions still remain around what it truly represents; how to address its associated justification in a robust and scientifically credible manner; what challenges/issues exist in terms of its application and acceptance; and what future efforts are needed to resolve them. In terms of future enhancements, read-across is likely to embrace more biologically-orientated approaches consistent with the Toxicity in the 21st Century vision (Tox-21c). This Food for Thought article, which is notably not a consensus report, aims to discuss a number of these aspects and, in doing so, to raise awareness of the ongoing efforts and activities to enhance read-across. It also intends to set the agenda for a CAAT read-across initiative in 2014-2015 to facilitate the proper use of this technique.

Read-across approaches - Misconceptions, promises and challenges ahead

Read-across is a data gap filling technique used within category and analogue approaches. It has been utilized as an alternative approach to address information requirements under various past and present regulatory programs such as the OECD High Production Volume Programme as well as the EUs Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and restriction of CHemicals (REACH) regulation. Although read-across raises a number of expectations, many misconceptions still remain around what it truly represents; how to address its associated justification in a robust and scientifically credible manner; what challenges/issues exist in terms of its application and acceptance; and what future efforts are needed to resolve them. In terms of future enhancements, read-across is likely to embrace more biologically-orientated approaches consistent with the Toxicity in the 21st Century vision (Tox-21c). This Food for Thought article, which is notably not a consensus report, aims to discuss a number of these aspects and, in doing so, to raise awareness of the ongoing efforts and activities to enhance read-across. It also intends to set the agenda for a CAAT read-across initiative in 2014-2015 to facilitate the proper use of this technique.

Where will genetic toxicology testing be in 30 years’ time? Summary report of the 25th Industrial Genotoxicity Group Meeting, Royal Society of Medicine, London, November 9, 2011

A number of influences including legislation, industry and academia have encouraged advances in computational toxicology and high-throughput testing to probe more broadly putative toxicity pathways. The aim of the 25th United Kingdom Mutagen Society (UKEMS) Industrial Genotoxicity Group Annual Meeting 2011 was to explore current and upcoming research tools that may provide new cancer risk estimation approaches and discuss the genotoxicity testing paradigm of the future. The meeting considered whether computer modelling, molecular biology systems and/or adverse outcome pathway approaches can provide more accurate toxicity predictions and whether high-content study data, pluripotent stem cells or new scientific disciplines, such as epigenetics and adductomics, could be integrated into the risk assessment process. With close collaboration between industry, academia and regulators next generation predictive models and high-content tools have the potential to transform genetic toxicology testing in the 21st century.

Re‐evaluation of the big blue® mouse assay of propiconazole suggests lack of mutagenicity

Propiconazole (PPZ) is a conazole fungicide that is not mutagenic, clastogenic, or DNA damaging in standard in vitro and in vivo genetic toxicity tests for gene mutations, chromosome aberrations, DNA damage, and cell transformation. However, it was demonstrated to be a male mouse liver carcinogen when administered in food for 24 months only at a concentration of 2,500 ppm that exceeded the maximum tolerated dose based on increased mortality, decreased body weight gain, and the presence of liver necrosis. PPZ was subsequently tested for mutagenicity in the Big Blue® transgenic mouse assay at the 2,500 ppm dose, and the result was reported as positive by Ross et al. ([2009]: Mutagenesis 24:149‐152). Subsets of the mutants from the control and PPZ‐exposed groups were sequenced to determine the mutation spectra and a multivariate clustering analysis method purportedly substantiated the increase in mutant frequency with PPZ (Ross and Leavitt. [2010]: Mutagenesis 25:231‐234). However, as reported here, the results of the analysis of the mutation spectra using a conventional method indicated no treatment‐related differences in the spectra. In this article, we re‐examine the Big Blue® mouse findings with PPZ and conclude that the compound does not act as a mutagen in vivo.

In silico toxicology protocols

The present publication surveys several applications of in silico (i.e., computational) toxicology approaches across different industries and institutions. It highlights the need to develop standardized protocols when conducting toxicity-related predictions. This contribution articulates the information needed for protocols to support in silico predictions for major toxicological endpoints of concern (e.g., genetic toxicity, carcinogenicity, acute toxicity, reproductive toxicity, developmental toxicity) across several industries and regulatory bodies. Such novel in silico toxicology (IST) protocols, when fully developed and implemented, will ensure in silico toxicological assessments are performed and evaluated in a consistent, reproducible, and well-documented manner across industries and regulatory bodies to support wider uptake and acceptance of the approaches. The development of IST protocols is an initiative developed through a collaboration among an international consortium to reflect the state-of-the-art in in silico toxicology for hazard identification and characterization. A general outline for describing the development of such protocols is included and it is based on in silico predictions and/or available experimental data for a defined series of relevant toxicological effects or mechanisms. The publication presents a novel approach for determining the reliability of in silico predictions alongside experimental data. In addition, we discuss how to determine the level of confidence in the assessment based on the relevance and reliability of the information.

Metabolic distribution of radioactivity in Sprague–Dawley rats and B6C3F1 mice exposed to 1,3-[2,3-14C]–butadiene by whole body exposure

The uptake of 1,3-[2,3-(14)C]-butadiene and its disposition, measured as radioactivity in urine, faeces, exhaled volatiles and CO(2) during and following 6 h whole body exposure to 20 ppm butadiene has been investigated in male Sprague-Dawley rats and B6C3F1 mice. Whilst there were similarities between the two species, the uptake and metabolic distribution of butadiene were somewhat different for rats and mice. The major differences observed were in the urinary excretion of radioactivity and in the exhalation of 14C-CO(2). After 42 h from the start of exposure, 51.1% of radioactivity was eliminated in rat urine compared with 39.5% for mouse urine. 34.9% of the recovered radioactivity was exhaled by rats as 14C-CO(2), compared with 48.7% by mice. Excretion of radioactivity in faeces was similar for both species (3.8% for rats and 3.4% for mice). The tissue concentrations of 14C-butadiene equivalents measured in liver, testes, lung and blood of exposed mice were 0.493, 0460, 0.457, and 1.626 nmol/g tissue, respectively. The values for the corresponding rat tissues were 0.869, 0.329, 0.457, and 1.626 nmol butadiene equivalents/g tissue, respectively. For rats, 6.2% of recovered radioactivity (0.288 nmol butadiene equivalents/g tissue) was retained in carcasses whereas for mice the amount was 3.6% (0.334 nmol butadiene equivalents/g tissue). There were also some significant differences between the metabolic conversion of 1,3-[2,3-(14)C]-butadiene and excretion by mice following the 20 ppm whole body exposure compared to previously reported data for nose-only exposure to 200 ppm butadiene [Richardson et al., Toxicol. Sci. 49 (1999) 186]. The main difference between the high- and low-exposure studies was in the exhalation of 14C-CO(2). At the 200 ppm exposure, 40% of the radioactivity was exhaled as 14C-CO(2) by rats whereas 6% was measured by this route for mice. The proportional conversion of butadiene to CO(2) by mice was significantly greater at the low exposure concentration compared with that reported for the higher concentration. This shift was not observed for rats. The difference between species could be caused by a saturation of metabolism in mice between 20 and 200 ppm for the pathways leading to CO(2). Restraint or error in collection of CO(2) in the 200 ppm study could also be factors.

Regulatory requirements for genotoxicity assessment of plant protection product active ingredients, impurities, and metabolites: Genotoxicity Assessment of Plant Protection Products

Active ingredients in plant protection products are subject to rigorous safety assessment during their development, including assessment of genotoxicity. Plant protection products are used for agriculture in multiple regions and for the registration of active ingredients it is necessary to satisfy the data requirements of these different regions. There are no overarching global agreements on which genotoxicity studies need to be conducted to satisfy the majority of regulatory authorities. The implementation of new OECD guidelines for the in vitro micronucleus, transgenic rodent somatic and germ cell gene mutation and in vivo comet assays, as well as the revision of a number of other OECD test guidelines has resulted in some changes to data requirements. This review describes the genotoxicity data requirements for chemical active ingredients as well as biologicals, microbials, ground water metabolites, metabolites, and impurities in a number of regions. Similarities and differences are highlighted. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 58:325–344, 2017.